THE ED SHOW with ED SCHULTZ
February 6, 2013
Guests: Gerry Connolly, Audrey Humes, Antonio Villaraigosa, Col. Jack Jacobs, Michelle Goldberg, Sam Stein, Adam Green
ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Good evening, Americans. And welcome to THE ED
SHOW, from New York.
Well, once again, it`s our friends the Republicans. They are one step
closer to destroying an American institution. Tonight, I`m going to tell
you the real story behind the Post Office and how we can save it.
This is THE ED SHOW -- let`s get to work.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PATRICK DONAHOE, CEO & POSTMASTER GEN., USPS: Mail delivery will
occur Monday through Friday. We will not deliver nor collect mail on
Saturday.
SCHULTZ (voice-over): Saturday mail service is over. The United
States Post Office is on life support, and no one is telling the full
story.
Tonight, inside the Republican plan to crush an American institution.
The Republican point man on immigration reform will give the response
to the president`s State of the Union address. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa joins me on Marco Rubio`s big shot.
The controversy over the targeted killing of American citizens is
heating up in Congress. Democrats are stepping up to challenge the
president and we`ll join the debate.
Plus, Karl Rove launches an assault on Ashley Judd to protect his pal
Mitch McConnell.
AD NARRATOR: Her own grandmother says she is a Hollywood liberal.
SCHULTZ: We`ll show you why old Turd Blossom is so desperate.
And Dick Morris may be gone, but FOX News will always have Doocy.
STEVE DOOCY, FOX NEWS: Face-lift perhaps?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us, folks. Thanks for watching.
This opening story tonight, I`m telling you, I`m going to try to
maintain my poise here. This should be a day of celebration for
conservatives as they continue to chip away at the backbone of America.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONAHOE: We`re announcing that we are moving forward with a change to
our national delivery schedule. The Postal Service delivery schedule will
consist of six days of package delivery and five days of mail delivery.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: This story is everything I don`t like about Republicans.
The slow death of the United States Post Office, folks, it`s under
way. And Americans just seem to sit back and -- well, let`s accept it.
That`s the way it is.
This once proud American institution will no longer deliver first
class mail on Saturday starting this summer. Aren`t we proud? Moving
forward now.
And I hate to be the one to tell you, folks, but this is only the
beginning. And I told you that this was going to happen. You see, the
Republicans have this real tricky strategy. The laws they passed don`t
hurt you right away, but they hit you hard down the road. And this is a
classic example.
Most Americans don`t seem to notice what is going on here. So check
this number out. Seven out of 10 Americans, they were asked, we`re OK with
cutting Saturday delivery. That`s all right. You can`t really blame them.
They don`t have the right information.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that it`s a wonderful cost-saving measure
for the United States Postal Service to take.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The economy, the computer systems, e-mail,
everything is changing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Honestly, with e-mails and stuff like that. But
packages? Probably UPS, you know, Federal Express maybe.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They need to make cost-cutting measures. I
mean, they`ve been running in the deficit for quite a while.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
SCHULTZ: You know, those folks look like just hard-working
knowledgeable Americans that care about the country. But they`re so wrong.
It`s not about e-mails and it`s not about e-commerce. It`s about the
Republican Party destroying the middle class in this country.
And I wonder how many of those folks right there who don`t rely on the
Post Office, how they`re going to feel when their Netflix deliveries are
delayed. What? They`re not here for Saturday night family movies? That`s
right.
People definitely take the Post Office for granted. Most everything
Americans know about the Post Office is absolutely wrong. They haven`t
paid attention to the story.
And into the mainstream media, here we go. This morning, "The
Washington Post" is telling people that the Post Office suffered tens of
billions of dollars in losses in recent years with the advent of the
Internet and e-commerce. Really?
Plenty of other media outlets -- well, they are taking their
information directly from the Republican talking points on this story.
Well, thank God for the journalists over at Think Progress. They have
the story correct, and they have a correct understanding of what has
unfolded. Think Progress, they led with this very important detail.
Congress has for years forced the United States Postal Service to
prefund 75 years worth of pensions for its employees, a requirement not
made of any other public or private institution. This is without a doubt
the root of the problem. No doubt about it.
Postmaster General Pat Donahoe finally put the blame where it`s
supposed to be.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONAHOE: And of the $15.9 billion loss, $11.1 billion was due to the
amount that we are obligated to pay the Treasury to prefund retiree health
benefits. We had to default on those payments because we did not have the
funds.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Hell of a business model, isn`t it? It`s about time the
public hears this directly from the postmaster general.
You see, the lame duck law, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement
Act, was passed by the Republicans in 2006. It has completely crippled the
ability of the Post Office to function and be innovative in their services.
But this isn`t the only thing the public doesn`t get when it comes to
the Post Office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONAHOE: We generate all of our revenue from the sale of postage. We
take no tax dollars. We do not want tax dollars.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Zero. Zero tax dollars. In other words, you`re not getting
shafted.
Now, let`s just make sure that we`re all clear on this issue. The
Post Office receives, again -- as I said -- zero tax dollars for
operations. It`s run as an independent agency. Postal employees are civil
servants. It`s the only institution in America that has been forced to
prefund for 75 years a pension plan in a 10-year window.
It would have a $1.5 billion surplus in 2012 without this pension
requirement. Do we get that, folks? This is government intervention by
the Republicans before they handed the gavel to Nancy Pelosi. And this is
what they stuck the workers with. They want to destroy the Post Office
because they want to privatize everything.
Today, I guess you can say, is chapter one, where is the banner,
mission accomplished for the Republican destruction of the middle class in
this country.
Now, Congressman Darrell Issa, ooh, he just loves the news. He called
it common sense-sense reform.
Of course, it`s common sense to Darrell Issa. He has already proposed
a bill to put more government regulations on the Post Office. Issa wants
to restructure the Postal Service by capping the growth of the workforce
and cutting benefits and services. Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut your
way into a profit.
Issa has no problem leading the charge here, folks, because he`s got a
lot of money from one of the Postal Service`s main competitors, you got it,
UPS. FedEx has got a hand in this too, by the way. They`re also a big
contributor to the cause. They gave almost twice as much to Republicans
than Democrats last year in the Congress.
Now, everything is going as planned for House Speaker John Boehner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), HOUSE SPEAKER: I know that Chairman Issa is
interested in moving the postal reform bill. I know that they`re having
bipartisan conversations about how to do this. And I would hope that the
Congress would act in a timely fashion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Really? So, in other words, Mr. Boehner, you`re willing to
step forward and get rid of this line item in the budget that is strangling
the Post Office?
Here is the reality. There is some bipartisan movement here on the
Post Office. Democrats and Republicans, they want to stop this service
reduction.
Democratic Congressman Gerry Connolly and Republican Sam Graves --
well, they sent a letter to the postmaster general to keep Saturday
service.
Well, hold it, folks, what is he going to do? He can`t do it. His
hands are strapped. It`s the Congress. The Congress has to move on this.
South Dakota congresswoman and Tea Party favorite Kristi Noem, who has
been asked to be on this program, uh-oh, she fell off the bandwagon. She`s
also trying to stop it. She says, "I understand that serious changes need
to take place to make the United States Postal Service financially viable.
But I do not support eliminating Saturday delivery. Coming from a rural
state, our rural Post Office is critical to the way families and businesses
operate."
You know, Kristi, Congresswoman, I`ve never met you. You`re probably
really a nice person, and you`re probably going to get thrown out of the
Republican Party for saying that. But, you know, if you have an issue on
this, you know, you really need to take it up with your Tea Party crowd,
and you need to take it up with the Republican Party. Because Republicans
want to destroy middle class voting block and drive this whole thing into
privatization.
Then what are you going to tell your small towns in South Dakota?
This is an attack on rural America. Does anybody care?
These, my friends, are middle class jobs. These are the workers who
fought to get the progressive agenda up and running in 2012.
And hold it right there -- President Obama, these are your people.
These are your minority workers out there, veterans. You know the Post
Office hires more veterans than any other employer in the country? I
thought we supported our veterans.
It`s also unnecessary. This is an unnecessary move. And I don`t see
the collective outrage that I`d like to see on this, particularly from
Democrats.
This affects workers. This affects rural and elderly Americans. This
is politically motivated. And it is morally wrong.
It is unnecessary. We don`t need to do this.
Now, I want Darrell Issa to come on this program and tell me that he
thinks every business model in this country because of health care and
pensions should be funded 75 years in advance in a ten-year window. You
won`t find one Republican in the House to stand up and say that this is the
business model that we`ve got to have for America.
They`re a bunch of liars and cheats is what they are, and they`re
screwing the American worker here! This is the destruction of the middle
class in this country. This has been going on.
See, they passed this law in 2006, and now, boom, here we are. Now,
the Post Office is cutting services. Now, it`s going to hurt small
businesses.
And we sit back here as Democrats and progressives and say, OK.
I can`t. I just can`t. I know what these people are all about. And
I`m asking the Congress to rescind this law, to take it off the books and
start over and give these fighting Americans a chance.
Get your cell phones out. I want to know what you think.
Tonight`s question: will Republicans succeed in killing the Post
Office? Text A for yes, text B for now. We`ve got a new number there for
you, folks. It`s 67622.
You can always go to our blog at Ed.MSNBC.com. We`ll bring you the
results later on in the show.
I am joined by Congressman Gerald Connolly of Virginia.
And Audrey Humes joins us tonight. She is a letter carrier and former
president of the Missouri Rural Letter Carriers.
Great to have both of you with us tonight.
Congressman --
REP. GERALD CONNOLLY (D), VIRGINIA: Thank you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Congressman, I know you have worked hard on this. Will the
service reduction actually happen, or can you reverse it?
CONNOLLY: I believe we can reverse it, and on two grounds, Ed. You
want outrage? I`ll give you outrage. There are a lot of outraged.
The postmaster general does not have the constitutional or the
statutory authority to make this decision. And we`re going to see that he
is challenged on constitutional grounds.
I`ve written to him today demanding an explanation legally for on what
grounds he cites he has this authority. Remember that the Postal Service
is the only service actually stipulated by the Constitution of the United
States. This isn`t just any service or any line of business.
Secondly, I want to see the analysis that shows the net savings by
this action. The postmaster general and lots of other conventional wisdom
thinkers in this town love to cite -- well, it will save $2 billion. But
what is the cost of lost revenue, lost business that will follow from this
decision?
SCHULTZ: Sure.
CONNOLLY: They did their own study last year and they deep-sixed it
because it showed inconveniently that a 7 percent reduction in first class
volume leads to a $5 billion loss in revenue.
So I`m not sure this will actually save any money, and will further
accelerate the decline of the Postal Service.
SCHULTZ: Audrey, who is this going to hurt rural America? How is it
going to hurt customers?
AUDREY HUMES, USPS LETTER CARRIER: Well, most of our American
families and especially our rural communities rely on Saturday delivery.
Many rural communities get their prescription medications, their financial
papers and other transactions in the mail.
Our businesses rely on Saturday pickup to get their invoices and their
materials out in the mail. Our rural community.
SCHULTZ: Audrey, has Washington ignored the calls of the workers
here?
HUMES: Oh, yes, indeed. I agree wholeheartedly with Representative
Connolly.
Our union has again to Capitol Hill and we have talked to our
representatives and told them just how much this is going to affect the
American working class people. As he said, we have many veterans. We have
families that depend on the Postal Service, you know. There is also many
other items other than just delivering the mail.
SCHULTZ: No doubt.
HUMES: There is many businesses that rely on the mail also.
SCHULTZ: Congressman, where is the effort to just erase this law and
start over?
CONNOLLY: Well, I think that the Senate passed a bipartisan bill that
went in some direction to do just that. You mentioned Darrell Issa. On
our committee, Darrell Issa prevented every single Democratic amendment
that was designed to try to address the issues you correctly raised --
SCHULTZ: Sure.
CONNOLLY: -- in the 2006 legislation.
What`s so monstrous about this, Ed, and you got it is they created
this crisis in that lame duck legislation of the Republican Congress in
2006, and now they say, well, there is a crisis we created, and there is no
choice but these horrible decisions that will further kill a viable and
vibrant Postal Service.
SCHULTZ: And, Audrey, if Congress doesn`t reverse this, there could
be a day when it could be two or three days a week delivery, and then no
delivery. I mean, that`s where this is going. This is -- the Republicans
are trying to starve the United States Postal Service. Or is that a bridge
too far?
What do you think?
HUMES: Oh, no, most certainly I agree with you. You know, this
should be the time hen the Postal Service should be expanding their
business to reach out to the middle class and to small businesses to make
their business succeed. You know, this standard of service is an American
tradition that so many American families especially our rural communities
rely on.
SCHULTZ: It is in the Constitution. There is no doubt about that.
HUMES: And also it is in the Constitution, correct. Correct.
SCHULTZ: Congressman Gerald Connolly and Audrey Humes, I appreciate
you`re time tonight.
CONNOLLY: A great pleasure, Ed.
SCHULTZ: We`re going to hear more on this.
Next week, I`ll be down in Washington on the State of the Union
address. I`ll talk to some folks about it. Who knows where it`s going to
go? They need to change this law.
Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the
screen, share your thoughts with us on Twitter @EdShow and Facebook. We
always want to though what you think.
Marco Rubio, senator from Florida, has been tapped to give the State
of the Union`s response as conservatives are desperately trying to create a
permanent underclass of 11 million potential new Americans. The mayor of
Los Angeles joins us tonight.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Coming up, liberals have serious questions about the Obama
administration`s legal justification for targeting killing of Americans.
The White House has responded tonight. Our big panel tackles the issue,
and we`ll have the latest.
Karl Rove is running cover for Mitch McConnell by going after Ashley
Judd in a new commercial? Tonight, we have Ashley Judd`s response to Turd
Blossom.
And a brand-new sexist attack on to former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton from our friends across the street. It will make your jaw drop,
folks.
You can listen to my radio show on Sirius XM Radio channel 127, Monday
through Friday, noon to 3:00 p.m.
Share your thoughts with us on Facebook and on Twitter using #EdShow.
We are coming right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. Thanks for staying with us
tonight.
Florida Senator Marco Rubio has been picked by Republicans to deliver
the Republican response to the president`s State of the Union address next
Tuesday. For Rubio, being selected to give the speech is the only
endorsement he has gotten from the Republican friends lately.
You could say Senator Rubio is the unofficial immigration czar for the
Republican Party. As we`ve told you, Rubio joins some of the nation`s most
powerful senators last week to outline an immigration reform plan. Senator
Rubio is making the media rounds. He even did this interview at a bar in
Washington, D.C. last night. He sipped water instead of beer, and lowered
expectations for reform.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: I know there is a lot of optimism
about the announcement last week of some principles. But I think reality
has begun to set in as to how difficult it`s going to be to accomplish
this, not just in the House, but potentially in the Senate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Rubio could be wrong about the Senate. His fellow
Republicans in the House could make reform a lot more difficult. Remember,
Rubio helped present the reform plan last week. It`s not even a bill.
It`s just an outline.
But House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and House Speaker John Boehner
refused to endorse the plan, even when they were asked directly about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOEHNER: I want to do everything I can to foster this continuing
conversation in a bipartisan fashion to deal with what is a very difficult
issue in our country. But, you know, it`s certainly worthy of
conversation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Really? It`s nice to hear John Boehner call immigration
reform worthy of consideration. Maybe Boehner and Cantor don`t want to
pick sides in the debate over citizenship. But exit polling showed
immigration was a key issue for voters. The Latino vote helped President
Obama win reelection.
And today, a new "Washington Post"/ABC News poll shows 55 percent of
Americans support legislation that creates some kind of path to
citizenship.
Americans are ready for reform. It looks like Republicans led by
Marco Rubio are still playing games.
Joining me tonight, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. He is
with us this evening on THE ED SHOW.
Mayor, great to have you with us. I appreciate your time.
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA (D), LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: Great to be
with you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Is Marco Rubio is a good leader for the Republicans on
immigration reform in your opinion?
VILLARAIGOSA: Well, let me say that I`m heartened that over time,
he`s said that he agrees that we need a comprehensive approach to
immigration reform and not just a piecemeal approach. I`m also heartened
that they haven`t -- that Speaker Boehner and Mr. Cantor haven`t rejected
it out of hand. I`m not surprised by that.
I do believe there is momentum in the Senate, and I think there will
be support in the House to move comprehensive immigration reform ahead.
I have said, and many of us believe that it has to include a pathway
for citizenship for the 11 million undocumented, not just for the DREAMers,
that it has to be earned, of course. You have to get at the end of the
line and have a criminal background check, learn English, pay back your
taxes.
But it can`t be unattainable.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
VILLARAIGOSA: It can`t be so long that it`s unattainable.
SCHULTZ: Well, Mayor, Senator Rubio is proposing a path that I
actually think creates a new class system of workers in this country.
Rubio`s plan would let businesses hire lower skilled undocumented workers
if Americans can`t fill the job openings. That`s very conditional in my
opinion. It`s a loophole in the immigration law. It means lower skilled
immigrants get a different kind of status.
Do you agree this plan? Is this the correct path to take?
VILLARAIGOSA: Well, as I said, I believe that there needs to be a
path to earn legalization, to earn citizenship for the 11 million people
who are here. We don`t want to divide --
SCHULTZ: Regardless of their skills, correct?
VILLARAIGOSA: Right. We don`t want to divide the parents from the
kids. We don`t want to deport the parents and leave the kids here.
Remember, those 11 million undocumented have 5 million citizen children and
a couple of million DREAMers.
So I think that there is momentum in the Senate and increasingly in
the House. We`ve got a lot of work to do. It`s going to be an arduous
path ahead.
But this piecemeal approach, I agree with you, it`s unacceptable.
Second class citizenship is not acceptable in the United States of America.
Some say -- you know, less than status will not be acceptable.
There will probably be an ag jobs component to it. This has to be a
compromise in the end. We`ve got to have smart, not just tough border
enforcement.
Let me say something about that, because I`ve heard a lot of talk that
we got to toughen the border. According to the Migration Policy Institute,
we have a net minus and flow backwards, not to the United States. So the
idea that we have to increase the budget for border enforcement when we
already spend 20 percent more than the entire budget for the FBI, the DEA,
and the ATF really kind of misses the point here.
We got a net migration flow the other way.
SCHULTZ: Mayor, great to have you with us tonight. You`re a great
resource on this story, no question about it. And I appreciate your time
here on THE ED SHOW. Thank you so much.
The chattering class thinks this guy is a serious player when it comes
to the budget. Tonight, I`ll go to the big wall and show you a progressive
budget which puts Paul Ryan`s to shame.
Americans are being killed by unmanned aerial weapons. President
Obama`s drone program goes under the spotlight on Capitol Hill tomorrow,
and there is breaking news out of the White House tonight. The big panel
responds.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOEHNER: At some point, Washington has to deal with its spending
problem. I`ve watched them kick this can down the road for 22 years that
I`ve been here. I`ve had enough of it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.
With the sequester deadline looming, Speaker John Boehner is refusing
to accept new revenue to avoid spending cuts. Well, Republicans, you see,
they just want to trade cuts for cuts.
Here is a chart of the spending cuts. The Democrats and Republicans
agreed to during the 2011 debt ceiling disaster, and it is $1.7 trillion in
cuts. There is not a dime of new revenue there.
Here is the chart when you add the $737 billion in new revenue agreed
to during the fiscal cliff deal. Republicans are winning the battle,
wouldn`t you say, when it comes to balancing? Over two-thirds of deficit
reduction has come from cuts to domestic programs. And it`s not exactly
fair.
But now the House Progressive Caucus has come out with what they call
the Balancing Act. It`s a common-sense plan to reduce the deficit by
closing tax loopholes and cutting wasteful defense spending. Here is the
chart of the plan. There is 1.7 trillion dollars in new revenue. But the
1.7 trillion in spending cuts is still there.
This looks like a lot more fairer chart than the current system, don`t
you think? And it`s estimated to reduce the deficit by 3.3 trillion
dollars. Remember, we`re trying to hit four trillion. So we`re getting
closer.
The plan ends tax loopholes for yachts and for jets. It reduces the
corporate meal and entertainment deduction to 25 percent. You can`t write
off the whole dinner anymore. It ends fossil fuel subsidies for oil
companies that are raking in massive profits.
Exxonmobil, you know what their profit was? Forty four billion
dollars in 2012. The last thing they need right now is your tax dollars as
subsidy. So the Balancing Act also closes a number of other pointless
loopholes the rich take advantage of.
Now we should point out Mitt Romney ran on a similar tax plan. His
former running mate, Paul Ryan, should love the Balancing Act because it
reduces the deficit. Everyone inside the Beltway considers Mr. Ryan just a
very serious person. But here is how Paul Ryan wants to reduce the
deficit, with nothing but cuts. And here is the balanced approach from the
Progressive Caucus.
You know, when we need budget advice in the future, I think we should
kind of push Paul Ryan off to the side, like we did in the election. And
for now, we should turn to the House Progressive Caucus for advice because
they are very serious people.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is hard to imagine a tool that can better
minimize the risk to civilians.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Senate Democrats are demanding answers about the targeted
killing of American citizens. Colonel Jack Jacobs, Sam Stein of "the
Huffington Post," and the "Daily Beast`s" Michelle Goldberg on today`s big
drone developments.
Karl Rove launches a sneak attack on Democrats in Kentucky.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ashley Judd, an Obama-following radical Hollywood
liberal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: I`ll tell you how actress Ashley Judd is responding to Karl
Rove and Mitch McConnell tonight.
And Fox News is scrambling to explain their latest cheap shot on
Hillary Clinton --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE DOOCY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Showing off this glamorous new face.
Face-lift perhaps?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: You don`t want to miss Doocy`s lame excuse.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Good to have you back with us tonight. The fallout
continues over a Department of Justice memo obtained by NBC News. The memo
outlines the Obama administration`s justification for the targeted killing
of American citizens overseas by drone strikes, if those citizens are
considered to be high-level al Qaeda operatives plotting against the United
States. Progressives want answers.
Tonight an administration official tells NBC News that President Obama
has directed the Justice Department to provide Congressional Intelligence
Committees access to classified information providing the legal rationale
for these drone strikes. This comes after the White House faced a second
day of questioning on the subject.
Spokesman Jay Carney says President Obama is not troubled by the memo
being made public.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: He thinks that it is legitimate to
ask questions about how we prosecute the war against al Qaeda.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Senator Ron Wyden, a member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, has been a critic of the drone program for years. "Every
American has the right to know when their government believes it is allowed
to kill them." He tells NBC News, "the memo doesn`t answer the central
questions. When does the government have the legal right to kill an
American?"
Wyden will get the opportunity to question the administration`s
decisions tomorrow at the Senate confirmation hearings for CIA director
nominee John Brennan. Brennan, a champion of the drone program, has served
as the president anti-terrorism adviser. Wyden says the inability to get
answers makes a mockery of the oversight process.
Yet Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intel Committee and a
Republican disagrees. He says he was kept in the loop about the strike
that killed an American-born al Qaeda leader.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE ROGERS (R), MICHIGAN: We do have oversight into it. I knew
about those operations, the targeting sets, all of that leading up to it,
including very shortly thereafter. And I review all of the air strikes
that we use under this title of the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Let`s turn to our panel tonight, MSNBC military analyst and
Medal of Honor recipient Colonel Jack Jacobs, Michelle Goldberg of
"Newsweek" and "Daily Beast" and Sam Stein of the "Huffington Post." Great
to have all of you with us tonight.
SAM STEIN, "THE HUFFINGTON POST": Thank you.
SCHULTZ: Michelle, you first. What do you make of the White House`s
response tonight that they are providing the memos that those on the Intel
Committee wanted?
MICHELLE GOLDBERG, "THE DAILY BEAST": Well, they obviously should
have provided them a long time ago. It was always ludicrous, not only that
these weren`t made public, but that they weren`t even allowed to the people
who are charged with overseeing our intelligence agencies. And what
they`re asking for is basically the rationale that the government uses to
decide when it can kill an American citizen.
I mean, nothing can kind of be more fundamental to the government`s
ability -- or to the Senate`s ability to rein in CIA and -- to rein in CIA
excesses.
SCHULTZ: Colonel, this is warfare that Americans aren`t used to. And
they ask questions about what are our Constitutional -- what is our leeway
here? What is fair game and what is not? And how are these decisions
being made? Is this just the new wave of warfare that we have to get used
to?
COL. JACK JACOBS, MSNBC MILITARY ANALYST: It is, because we have the
technology now to do things we haven`t done before. But the argument that
Congress ought to be involved in supervising this is an important one. And
we should not ignore it.
The Congress has a responsibility, not just the authority, but the
responsibility to supervise the activities of the executive branch. And in
particular, the Intelligence Committee, which takes a look at all the black
programs and is kept in the loop on everything, certainly has the
capability of making an evaluation of what is the right thing to do and is
the wrong thing to do, and needs to weigh in.
To the extent it doesn`t do that, then it`s abrogated its
responsibilities.
SCHULTZ: Sam, what is your take on what the hearings are going to be
like tomorrow for Mr. Brennan. This should be questions right out of the
chute, shouldn`t it?
STEIN: Yes, of course. This is a major component of the president`s
war on terror. It`s a major component of his foreign policy. And listen,
there is a difference between operational oversight, which is what
Congressman Rogers was stressing in the interview with Andrea Mitchell, and
legal oversight. And up until this point, we really haven`t seen any legal
justification that the administration has presented for why it can target
American civilians abroad if it has determined an imminent threat to the
homeland.
SCHULTZ: Well, it was written today in the "New Yorker" that the
justification that they`re using is a comparison to military troops going
into Cambodia in Vietnam. That`s how the Nixon administration -- they`re
making that comparison. I don`t know how that`s going to set with a lot of
people.
So I`m anxious to hear what Mr. Brennan does for justification
tomorrow. Sam?
STEIN: Let me add one point to that, which is that they -- the other
thing that the administration has done is said, well, we`ve been talking
about this process. Attorney General Eric Holder has been talking about
this process. John Brennan has been talking about this process publicly.
So we have outlined our legal justification. You should trust.
That is not a primary source, though. The primary source is the
Office of Legal Council memo. And I think there is a role for Congress to
play, and I would add even for the American public to play, to a certain
extent, in judging what kind of legal justifications the administration is
using.
Now I understand the administration doesn`t want to set a bad
precedent here, but these are weighty matters.
SCHULTZ: Colonel, what kind of intel are we getting on the ground? I
mean, we have to be sure that we`re not killing innocent people here.
JACOBS: Well, I`ve got to say that having spent a lot of time in
combat, I can tell you any time that we have any combat operation, you`re
going to have innocent people killed. There is always going to be
collateral damage. And indeed in the Second World War, we went out of our
way to kill civilians. That`s how we won the war.
I`m not suggesting that we ought to do this now. But to think that
even with these technological capabilities we have now, of being as precise
as we can be, that we`re going to avoid killing civilians, that`s not going
to happen. There is always going to be collateral damage.
SCHULTZ: Michelle?
GOLDBERG: This isn`t actually even about the drone program per se.
This is about when the government can decide that an American citizen is
part of a terrorist organization and have them essentially assassinated.
And if you read the memo, it goes kind of much further than any of the
public statements by Holder that they`ve basically said has already kind of
outlined their legal justification, so there is no need to release all this
other information.
It`s so incredibly broad, and it really redefines words like
imminent, when they talk about an imminent threat. It redefines words like
infeasible when they say it would be infeasible to capture someone.
SCHULTZ: Colonel, in military terms, the broadness of it?
JACOBS: I don`t mind there being a broad application of the use of
this technology to destroy the enemies of mine who would kill me. But I do
believe very strongly that the Congress, particularly the Intelligence
Committees, have to do a better job of oversight.
SCHULTZ: Lindsey Graham says he agrees with President Obama.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSAY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I think the president`s on
solid legal ground. I think he is doing the right thing. I applaud his
administration. When Jay Carney said it was legal, ethical and wise, he
was right in my opinion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: On the Hill, are there more people with the president on
this, Sam?
STEIN: Maybe. I think I want to see how the Brennan hearings play
out before we make a judgment on that. But, you know, listen, the drone --
the use of drones is popular in the sense that it makes war more abstract.
We don`t have to see our soldiers actually carry out some of the messy
applications of war.
And for that reason, there is people, including Chuck Hagel, who are
supportive of drone technology, because it minimizes U.S. risk. But that -
- that is a separate conversation. The operation conversation is separate
from the legal one.
And I think there is more information that is needed to figure out
just exactly how we determine who is an imminent threat, who is an al Qaeda
operative. How do we make those determinations? Who is involved in making
the determinations before we launch those drone strikes? I think those are
very weighty questions that deserve more of a public hearing.
SCHULTZ: Well, the number of strikes versus the Bush administration,
colonel, very different. Obviously, this is how the Obama team wants to
execute the war on terror. And the broad range, you`re OK with it. But
what do you tell innocent folks that get killed or an American that might
be hit by a strike inadvertently?
JACOBS: Well, there is nothing you can say about that. War is a
messy business, even technologically precise war like this. You raise an
interesting point about this president. The first month he was in office,
he authorized more strikes of this type than President Bush had done during
his entire term in office.
And of course, we`ve increased those for precisely the reasons that
were suggested here. It`s a good way to keep Americans out of harm`s way,
and so that we can launch -- we can fight war at a great distance and
completely -- leaving us completely immune.
SCHULTZ: And Michelle, can we keep the moral high ground throughout
all of this?
GOLDBERG: Of course not. I mean, I think that, again, this is
separate from whether or not you think the use of drones is justified. The
question is whether you think the government can put people on a kill list,
and without revealing the rationale for why they`re there in the first
place.
SCHULTZ: Colonel Jack Jacobs, Michelle Goldberg and Sam Stein, great
to have you with us tonight. Thanks so much.
Steve Doocy lies about a sexist shot he took at Hillary Clinton today.
That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. I don`t expect much from the
kids on the curvy couch over at "Fox and Friends," but this morning they
hit a real new low. Hillary Clinton`s newly unveiled website has most
people speculating about a possible presidential bid in 2016. But Steve
Doocy, well, he took a different approach.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOOCY: Is this the face of presidential ambition? Days after
retiring as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton -- somebody has launched a
new website for her, showing off this glamorous new face. Face-lift
perhaps? Well, that`s fueling rumors about a run for president in 2016.
But her aides say it`s simply a way for fans and the media to reach her.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: What? It`s very clear what he said and what he meant. But
when he was called out for sexist comment, Doocy, well, he took to Twitter
to do damage control. "Saw some lefty blogs thought I said Hillary had a
face-lift. Nope. I was saying the Hillary website had a new pic and a
face-lift for site."
Really? See, the folks over at Fox News, they can`t even get their
facts straight when they`re pretending to apologize. If he was really
talking about the website, what`s the point of the side by side
photographs? It`s shameful. Well, what do you expect, it`s Fox.
The bar has been set pretty low, don`t you think?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Women like also to have their little space,
whether it`s big or small, to kind of get their house in order or their
work in order or their kids in order or whatever their job happens to be.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But didn`t men give you the kitchen?
Thirteen million vehicles were registered in this TrueCar.com. And
they figured out that babes, chicks, what do you call them, Steve, skirts?
BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: You see, when you give birth -- and
you may some day know this -- you can`t go out and work the next day. OK?
And you should be watching the kid anyway. So there`s got to be somebody
else giving you money.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I agree.
O`REILLY: Besides the government.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who is running the White House now? You get
Sebelius. You got Valerie Jarrett. You got Michele. The Oval Office is
becoming "The View." What is next? They`re going to have Lamaze classes
there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: You be the judge. Tonight in our survey, I asked you will
Republicans succeed in killing the Post Office. Fifty three percent of you
say yes; 47 percent of you say no.
Coming up, Ashley Judd responds to Karl Rove`s latest slimy attack.
That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And in the Big Finish tonight, the so-called mastermind of
the Republican party, Karl Rove, is alarmed by the possibility of Ashley
Judd running for the Senate against Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
Rove`s Super PAC America Crossroads is running this ad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know what this country really needs? An
independent voice for Obama.
ASHLEY JUDD, ACTRESS: I am committed to President Obama and Vice
President Biden. I think he is a brilliant man. He is now able to flower
more as the president I knew he could be.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A leader who knows how to follow.
JUDD: I will go wherever the president wants me to go.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Someone who will never forget where she came from.
JUDD: And it just clicked. Tennessee is home.
And it just clicked.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Kentucky --
JUDD: -- is home.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Someone who knows what is good for us.
JUDD: Obamacare has done so much for us right here in Tennessee.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Ashley Judd has responded. "Ashley thanks Senator
McConnell, Karl Rove and their negative allies for all the attention as she
considers her future political plans, although a decision hasn`t been made
yet."
The Kentucky Senate race is obviously high profile. With Republican
leader up for reelection, Rove`s ad is meant to be a preemptive strike. If
Democrats are able to topple Senator McConnell, they would be taking a page
out of a Republican playbook. History tells us. 2004, Republicans
targeted then Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle and they won. 2010,
Republicans, well, they couldn`t wait to take out Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid. But of course Reid survived the challenge from Tea Partier
Sharron Angle.
Let`s remember, Senator McConnell said his number one priority was to
make President Obama a one-term president. Let`s turn to Adam Green
tonight, co-founder of the PCCC whose organization has taken out an ad
against Mitch McConnell.
This ad, Adam -- good to have you with us tonight. This slick ad from
American Crossroads, doesn`t it show how seriously Republicans are taking
Judd as a possible candidate? Your thoughts?
ADAM GREEN, CO-FOUNDER, PCCC: It definitely shows that. And after
Karl Rove`s one percent win record in 2012, if I were Ashley Judd, I would
be feeling pretty good right now. The law of probability says if Karl Rove
spends money attacking you in ads, you`re probably going to win.
SCHULTZ: How significant would a McConnell loss to be? Your
organization has taken out an ad. And if you look at the poll numbers of
Mitch McConnell in Kentucky right now, done by one of the local newspapers,
only 17 percent say they`re going to vote for McConnell, and 34 percent say
they plan to vote against him. And 44 say they want to see the opponent.
What do you make of these numbers? And is he vulnerable?
GREEN: He is absolutely vulnerable. You mention that we took out an
ad. It features an actual gun owner from his state, and folks can watch it
at GunOwnersForReform.com. He squealed. He has reacted to it, because he
doesn`t like the face of accountability. The reason that Mitch McConnell`s
numbers are so low is that on pretty much every single issue of the day,
including guns, he consistently sides with his big corporate campaign
donors as opposed to everyday Kentucky families.
And the only thing missing from the debate up until now, the only
reason that Mitch McConnell and other Republicans have been able to get
away with these absurd positions, is a lack of real accountability back
home. So that`s why we took out this ad. And we`re going to be airing it
all week long in his home state.
SCHULTZ: What do we know about Ashley Judd? Can she win?
GREEN: I think there is a lot of candidates who can win. She is from
Kentucky. She obviously has broad national appeal, which would be nice to
help her infuse Kentucky with a lot of resources. But honestly, I think
that there are many good candidates who can win. There is also a
progressive attorney general named Jack Conway and some others.
So we`ll be watching. But I think it`s very important for all
progressives and Democrats to take this very seriously right now and to
make sure that we`re constantly holding Mitch McConnell accountable back
home.
SCHULTZ: Do you think Kentuckians get his obstruction?
GREEN: More and more, they`re finding out about it. And again, we
can`t wait until the final eight weeks of the election to make sure that
there is accountability back home. We need to make sure that on every
single issue, Kentuckians are figuring out that Mitch McConnell is not
advocating for their interest.
And one other thing, as progressives in this gunfight, we need to make
sure that we have President Obama`s back. He has given us pretty much
everything we have asked for, a really bold plan. He has taken his message
to the public. And we need to show him that progressives will get his back
on this fight, in hopes that it creates an incentive system where he is
bold on every other fight, Wall Street, the environment, you have it.
So we`re going to be there getting his back every step of the way on
the gun issue.
SCHULTZ: Adam Green of the PCCC, good to have you with us tonight.
Thanks so much.
That`s THE ED SHOW. I`m Ed Schultz. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts
right now. Good evening, Rachel.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END
Copyright 2013 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 Ed Show for Wednesday, February 6th, 2013
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show