The Rachel Maddow Show, Transcript 06/11/15

Larry Hall, Joseph McQuaid

CHRIS HAYES, “ALL IN” HOST: That is “ALL IN” for this evening.

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thanks, man.

HAYES: You bet.

MADDOW: And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.

Bear with me here for a second – there is an important point to this,
and it is kind of a funny, important point. But you have to bear with me.

Most cities around the country that have gay pride parades hold their
gay pride parades in late June, and that is for specific reason. It`s
because the Stonewall riots in New York City happened in late June 1969.
And the first pride parades ever were started as a commemoration for those
riots. So they happened on the anniversary of those riots.

So, in most cities, late June is when your local pride parade happens.

There are a few places, though, in the United States that do their
pride parades at different times. Where I live in western Massachusetts,
the city of Northampton, Northampton is so unbelievably awesomely lefty up
there, that we peg our gay pride parade not to the anniversary of the
Stonewall riots, but to May Day, because yes, sure, those were riots, but
it`s International Workers` Day, comrade.

And there`s also the city of Miami Beach in south Florida. They hold
theirs not in June, they hold theirs in April. They hold theirs earlier
than everybody else.

And I don`t think in Miami Beach that it`s for any specific political
reason. In Miami Beach, they just do theirs in April because it`s nice
there in April. And, of course, it is traditional to show off a little of
what you`ve got at a pride parade. It`s traditional to be a little
ostentatiously shameless at a pride parade, shamelessness and pride being
two sides of the same sequined Speedo.

So, Miami Beach may be the one place in America where you can
guarantee that in April, it will probably be warm enough outside to do
your, you know, slinky topless leather hose and thing or wherever else
you`re going to be celebrating your pride and there won`t be any risk of
you being chilly, even though it`s April.

So, the Miami Beach parade stands out for its timing. It`s earlier
than everyone else`s. And it stands out for its Miami fabulousness.

But it also stands out for its role in one of the most hilariously
satisfying news stories of this summer so far. On last night`s show, we
made a little bit of fun of the evangelist Franklin Graham. Franklin
Graham is the inheritor of the rich evangelism empire built by his father,
the late Reverend Billy Graham. And this empire is a big one. He`s got
lots and lots and lots of money.

And when Franklin Graham saw this advertisement running on TV
recently, it`s an ad run by Wells Fargo for the last couple of months, it
shows a same-sex couple, two women learning sign language, they`re trying
to learn sign language, they`re taking online courses, they`re taking in
person classes, they`re being very earnest about it, and then at the end of
the ad, you learn the reason they are teaching themselves sign language is
because they`re about to adopt a deaf daughter who is deaf, and they wanted
to be able to communicate with her from day one.

A total tear jerker of an ad, right? Even if it is from some freaking

But Franklin Graham saw that ad and was enraged. He was so offended
by that ad that he decided to pull all his Franklin Graham evangelism money
out of Wells Fargo Bank. And he wrote this Facebook post explaining why he
was doing it.

“Have you ever asked yourself how can we fight the tide of moral decay
that`s being crammed down our throats? Every day, it is something else.
Wells Fargo Bank is using a same-sex couple in their advertising. Let`s
just stop doing business with those who promote sin and stand against
Almighty God`s laws and His standards. Maybe if enough of us do this, it
will get their attention. Share this if you agree.”

So, Franklin Graham shared. He moved his money out of Wells Fargo
Bank and he moved his money instead to a different place. He moved it away
from the godless, nice ladies learning sign language for their new adopted
deaf child, and he decided instead to put this money in a bank called BB&T.

And the reason this is a funny story is because BB&T is maybe even a
gayer bank than Wells Fargo is. BB&T recently built a makeshift chapel
inside one of their branches to host a same-sex marriage wedding reception.
BB&T is the lead corporate sponsor of a program called legacy couple which
specifically celebrates gay and lesbian couples who have been together
longer than ten years. B&T is also, as a bank, a platinum level sponsor of
– the Miami Beach gay pride parade.

So, it`s funny, right? This guy being motivated by anti-gay animus
and puts his money in the bank that sponsors the gay pride bank in Miami.
It is funny. It`s delicious. It`s de-lovely.

But Franklin Graham today has published an op-ed in “USA Today” saying
that this is not funny at all. In fact, this is exactly what he meant to
do. He argues today that his objection is not to some bank sponsoring a
gay pride parade. His objection is to a bank using that terrible nice ad
to promote homosexuality.

Quoting Franklin Graham`s op-ed today, “Why did we move from one bank
to another? Because in our view, Wells Fargo went beyond being gay
friendly to being a public advocate. We simply chose not to continue doing
business with a bank that is promoting something that violates our
conscience and beliefs.”

But the new bank he just moved his money to sponsors literally a
public parade of gay people who are proud of being gay and are promoting
acceptance of themselves as such.

I mean, if you`re worried about people publicly advocating support for
the homosexual lifestyle, a gay pride is literally that, out loud, in
heels, in public, blocking traffic in full view of everybody. I mean, it`s
possible somebody told him that maybe – maybe somebody said your new bank
supports Miami Beach gay pride, so he thought they were doing like private
self-esteem classes or something, and he was OK with that.

I would like to be the person who tells him what they support with his
money now is a parade. But my guess is that somebody already shared the
news with him today after his amazing op-ed was published.

I don`t want to promote homosexuality. I`m OK with the promote
homosexuality parade, though. Will it be on TV? I saw the other one on
TV. My TV.

When it comes to the anti-gay side of the argument right now, trying
to follow the logic of their argumentation is not, I think, the best way to
understand what it is they are doing and how well they are doing.

I don`t mean to say that they`re dumb or that they`re inherently
illogical. It`s just that they are not now counting on making great
arguments in order to get their way. And that is true around the hilarious
story of Franklin Graham and his money who very soon will be stuffing his
millions into a mattress that he`s personally verified as a super anti-gay

But it`s also true in a lot of the litigation that`s happening right
now around gay rights, there`s a civil trial going on in New Jersey, an
actual trial, you know, with witnesses and experts and everything – a
trial on the issue of conversion therapy to try to turn kids from gay
people into straight people.

One of the dramatic turns in that case is that the judge, in a case
like this, has to rule on the credentials and the coherence and
intellectual rigor of experts on both sides to qualify them as expert
witnesses, and the judge in this case dismissed every one of the would-be
experts on the anti-gay side because the judge said none of them were
actually qualified experts in any field that would justify them testifying
in a court of law. All of their experts got thrown out because none of
them were actually expert in anything.

In the big famous case on marriage in California, the Prop 8 case,
they have the same problem. They had a really hard time finding anybody
who would stand up to scrutiny as a legitimate legal expert witness on the
anti-gay side. One of the guys they did get on the stand in that case who
did testify in the anti-gay side in that case, he later recanted everything
he said and said actually he`s for gay marriage now.

So, they`re having a hard time making good arguments now.
Particularly arguments that stand up to, you know, a strong other side, an
adversarial process, right? But just the fact that they`re making not
great arguments doesn`t mean that they`re losing their fight.

I mean, even as the logic keeps getting fuzzier and fuzzier and
fuzzier on the anti-gay side, the political victories on the anti-gay side
keep piling up, including two really big ones, two really radical ones that
happened today.

The first one was in Michigan, which was a little out of the blue.
People knew this was on the docket in Michigan. I don`t think anybody
expected it to pass as quickly as it did. Certainly, nobody expected
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder to sign it into law less than a day after it
passed. But today, Rick Snyder signed into law this new thing in Michigan
which will let Michigan adoption agencies deny adoption services to anyone
on the basis of any religious claim or prejudice.

And there`s no protection for any groups, any couples under this law.
And the religious objection can be to anything as long as you say it`s from
your religion. So, as of now, you can be the right to adopt in Michigan if
you or your partner was ever divorced or if you and your partner are of
different religions or if you and your partner are you`re both Jews and the
person you`re dealing with at the adoption agency doesn`t like Jews.

Some people have raised religious exceptions to interracial couples.
Michigan adoption agencies can now say that they will refuse an adoption to
a couple on the basis of that couple being an interracial couple, if they
claim that racial prejudice is rooted in their religious faith.

In Michigan, the law sponsors made clear that the couples they were
aiming to discriminate against with this bill are same-sex couples. But
any couple in Michigan could be denied now on the basis of anything as long
as somebody said they had a religious reason for making that objection.

So, that happened today in Michigan. And in terms of the logic for
explaining this one, check this out, this is amazing. This is Rick
Snyder`s statement on signing this law today. This is how the governor
explains why he signed this law today, which makes it legal to tell
families this they are not allowed to adopt because of their race or their
religion or because they`re gay or anything else that somebody says has
some basis in religious doctrine.

This is how he explains it today when he signed this thing. Look,
quote, “Governor Rick Snyder signed legislation ensuring Michigan children
up for adoption have the greatest opportunity to be placed in loving

Wait, what?

Here`s the quote from Rick Snyder, “We are focused on ensuring that as
many children are adopted to as many loving families as possible,
regardless of their makeup.”

So, the way we`re going to do that is with this new law that ensures
that loving families will not be allowed to adopt Michigan kids because of
the makeup of those families on the basis of the religious beliefs of the
people who run the adoption agencies. That`s Michigan. That happened

And something similar happened today as well in North Carolina. This
one we`ve been watching for a few days. When it finally happened today, it
was described as a legislative ambush in North Carolina. This has been
sort of circling. We`ve been wondering what`s going to happen with this
for a few days.

But today when it finally happened, North Carolina Republicans brought
it up without warning and they allowed zero debate on it. But what they
passed in North Carolina today is a bill that says local public officials
in that state do not have to give you a marriage license if that public
official has some religious objection to you getting married, any

And that is not just a theoretical possibility or theoretical concern
in North Carolina. When it became clear that North Carolina Republicans
were really going to try to pass this thing, Carol Ann Person, North
Carolina resident, wrote an op-ed in “The Raleigh News and Observer” in
North Carolina about she and her now husband, she`s white and he`s black,
they had gone in 1976 to their local courthouse in North Carolina to get a
marriage license.

Quote, “People always say your wedding day is supposed to be one of
the happiest days of your life, and I was expecting mine to be exactly
that. But when we walked into that government office together, we were
told that the magistrate on duty wouldn`t give us a marriage license, I was

We had planned everything, we had all our paperwork, we were legally
eligible to get married. So, why wouldn`t he marry us? The reason it
turned out was because Thomas is African-American and I am white. The
magistrate told us that marrying an interracial couple was against his
religious beliefs.

I was so surprised that a government official was using his own
personal religious beliefs to deny us a civil marriage license that I
didn`t know what to say. There was a second magistrate on duty, but he,
too, said he would not marry us, because doing so would violate his
religious beliefs.

One of them took out a Bible and began to lecture us about their
religious views and why Thomas and I should not be together. We eventually
went down the street to the local legal aide office and returned with a
lawyer, but the magistrate still refused.”

And it`s true. I mean, for generations, people have cited the Bible,
right? People have cited specific Bible verses as the reason they are
religiously opposed to interracial marriages.

When George Wallace gave his inaugural address as governor of Alabama
and he said, famously, “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow,
segregation forever,” he followed it with this conciliatory explanation
that he thought segregation could be good to black people and should be
viewed as good for black people, because after all, it comes from the
Bible. It`s in his religion.


FORMER GOV. GEORGE WALLACE, ALABAMA: We invite the Negro citizens of
Alabama to work with us from a separate racial station, as we will work
with him to develop, to grow an individual freedom and enrichment. This is
the basic heritage of my religion, for which I make full practice, for we
are all the handiwork of God.


MADDOW: The handiwork of God. But God made separate handy works.

Franklin Graham says he`s got nothing against gay people, just that
God told him to take his money out of Wells Fargo and put it this that
other bank. God has not yet explained what a parade is, but presumably
that`s next Sunday`s lesson.

Michigan Republicans want foster kids to not be placed in otherwise
loving suitable homes because God might tell some adoption agency employee
that a Muslim family in Dearborn, Michigan, is inherently unsuited to raise
children because they have not recognized the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And now in North Carolina, what was aimed to be an anti-gay bill to
stop gay couples from getting married in North Carolina has gone into law
today. It`s in effect today because it was an override of a veto, and the
law in North Carolina now says, as of today, you no longer have, as a North
Carolina resident, you no longer have any legal right to pick up your
marriage license and get married in North Carolina without being subjected
to a religious test by whatever public employee happens to be on duty that
day, looking you up and down deciding what their god thinks of your life.

Joining us is Larry Hall, Democratic leader of the North Carolina
House of Representatives.

Representative Hall, thanks very much for joining us this evening.
It`s nice to have you here.

Thanks for having us, Rachel.

MADDOW: So is this a done deal? I mean, it`s my understanding that
this is law now, because it`s the overriding of a veto. But am I right
that there`s also some procedural concerns as to how this happened today?

HALL: Well, yes, Rachel, and certainly, it is the law now. We did
override the governor`s veto, the Republicans did, and it will certainly
head to court, and we`ll spend a lot of the citizens money to get a court
decision that says what we knew was illegal, what we knew was
unconstitutional, but what we did anyway has no legal effect.

MADDOW: On substances, I understand it, this bill allows magistrates
and registers of deeds to recuse themselves from marriages, to deny people
marriage licenses, to say I will not do that for you based on their own
sincerely held religious beliefs. Is there – is there language in the
bill that defines that, that defines the scope of what religious beliefs
might be grounds for recusal? Are there things that are out of bounds?

HALL: No, Rachel, there`s no description of what a religious belief
would be and there`s no description of what you have to do to prove it
other than just say it. And you don`t have to say it in advance. You can
say it as soon as someone presents themselves or whenever you feel it`s
necessary as an individual.

MADDOW: So, from the perspective of a couple in North Carolina
turning up to get their license, for them they have no idea if it`s going
to turn into the sort of humiliating standoff where somebody tells them no,
my God judges you unworthy of marriage and you can`t get your license from
me, we`re going to start a process by which you can get it from somebody

Nobody actually knows that`s going to happen to them until they get to
the office and their local county or whatever?

HALL: That`s correct. As a matter of fact, Rachel, they don`t know
if they`ll get the license and even if they get the marriage license,
they`ll go through the same test or decision when it`s time for them to get
married by a magistrate. So, it`s a two-step process and they can be
discriminated against at both instances.

MADDOW: Just to be clear now, in terms of how this moved forward, do
you think the next stop for this, now this is law and it`s in effect in
North Carolina, do you think the next stop for this is the courts, that
this will just become a big legal issue for the state?

HALL: Almost surely, Rachel, it will go to court. We`ve had
precedent already established that moving a bill forward and a veto in this
manner is unconstitutional and the last case that we had, the precedent we
have right now says that. And the content of the bill itself is

So, again, this will be about the 14th time that this legislature has
passed a law that we know is unconstitutional, that they admit they know is
unconstitutional. And an unconstitutional manner, and to spend the money
just to have the courts slap it back down.

MADDOW: Wow, Representative Larry Hall, Democratic leader of the
North Carolina House of Representative, you guys have been through the
ringer over the last few year. Just been a radical transformation in your
state – thanks for helping us understand this later chapter. Appreciate
it, sir.

HALL: Thank you.

MADDOW: All right. I have an important correction I mean sincerely.
Near the start of the show, I referred to the late Reverend Billy Graham.
That was wrong. And I`m very sorry.

Reverend Billy Graham is very much alive and kicking. He`s 96 years
old. I`m sorry about the mistake. I don`t even know how I made it.

All right. Much more ahead. We`ll be right back.


MADDOW: So this time last night, we were reporting as the news was
breaking basically that the Republican Party`s 2016 debate plan was
descending into chaos. FOX News announcing in a hurry last night that they
would add a whole new separate event, a whole new sort of debate to the
Republican primary debate schedule, a separate debate before the first
national scheduled debate on August 6th.

They`re adding this event so there would be some venue that day that
would include all the candidates who didn`t make the cut for the main event
on FOX that night. FOX News had to rush that announcement last night
because of what a New Hampshire newspaper did to challenge them as put them
on the spot.

This little New Hampshire newspaper challenged FOX News. FOX News
last night folded. But this fight is not over. And the publisher of that
newspaper is going to join us here live in just a moment. It`s very


MADDOW: It`s day six now. This is officially the longest jailbreak
in New York state history.

The two prisoners who cut holes in their cell walls and shimmied out
of maximum security prison in Dannemora in New York this weekend have still
not been found. Yesterday`s news was that the search for them had
broadened to include not just New York but also Vermont. Since the prison
is near Lake Champlain, which is New York on one side, and Vermont on the

But then today`s news brought the search back in tight to the prison,
with authorities setting up a new perimeter immediately adjacent to the
prison, and stretching to the southeast toward a nearby town called
Cadyville. This is very, very close to the prison.

If the escapees are there, it would mean that they have not gotten far
at all over these last six days. The new tight focus on this area
immediately next to the prison was apparently sparked by more than one
police bloodhound catching what`s described as a strong scent of these two
escapees in that immediate area near the prison. The search has been going
on all week now, but today was the first day schools were actually closed
in Dannemora to give law enforcement more room to maneuver.

History says these guys will be caught. But history also said these
guys would have been caught by now and they haven`t been. Day six, manhunt

We`ll be right back.


MADDOW: Running for president is really hard. Just ask Republican
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Senator Cruz was the first Republican to
officially announce that he`s running for president in 2016. He announced
on March 23rd in a speech at Liberty University.

Since then, approximately one gazillion other people have entered the
race alongside Ted Cruz. But Ted Cruz would like you to remember that he`s
been campaigning for a very long time and he`s very tired.

Quote, “Dear insert name here, I`m about to ask you to make a
sacrifice in the next 48 hours. But before I do, I want you to know, I
wouldn`t ask you if I hadn`t already done it myself. You see, running for
president of the United States is a significant sacrifice, and I must share
with you, I`m committed to sacrificing a great deal for our campaign.

Time with my family, health and sleep. I`m sacrificing even more
sleep with long nights and constant trouble, and the pizza diet is a staple
on the campaign trail.

Finances. The cost of campaigning back and forth across the country
for president is increasingly expensive.

Personal time. You think of this the least, but as a candidate, my
days are no longer my own. Days start before dawn and many times don`t end
until early the next morning. There`s almost no personal time when you run
for president.”

This was a fund-raising e-mail sent by the Ted Cruz for president
campaign today, telling people how much he really freaking hates this
running for president thing, and so, won`t you please donate to his

Ted Cruz`s warnings about how terrible it is to run for president and
eat pizza all the time, those warnings are apparently not deterring anyone
else from joining him in that same terrible sacrifice.

On Monday, Jeb Bush will announce his candidacy, followed by Donald
Trump on Tuesday.

Hillary Clinton is already in, but she`ll give her campaign kickoff
the public speech this weekend on Saturday in New York.

But the Democratic dynamic this time is obviously really different
than the dynamic on the Republican side, if only because there are so many
Republican candidates, potentially viable Republican candidates in the

As you know, FOX News announced a few weeks ago that only Republican
candidates who placed in the top ten in an average of national polls would
be invited to participate in the first debate of the 2016 race, which will
be on August 6th.

For most voters and potential voters, their most extensive exposure to
the candidates, the way they decide between them is those debates, right?
Excluding candidates from the debates, especially from the first debate in
a very real way, basically takes those candidates out of contention for the

But FOX says no matter the size of the field, they`re only going to
take ten, based on national polls. Which national polls? Who knows? How
are they going to calculate? Who knows?

But this decision to basically ignore a big swath of Republican
candidates so early on in the race has a lot of people mad inside the
Republican Party, understandably. And it all basically came to a head
yesterday, and specifically last night because of New Hampshire, because
live free or die, because New Hampshire doesn`t take stuff like this lying

Yesterday, 56 New Hampshire Republicans and conservative activists
sent a letter to FOX News asking them to change the criteria so more
candidates would have a chance to participate in the debates. And that
started a very interesting ball rolling, because a few hours later, “The
New Hampshire Union Leader”, the largest newspaper in New Hampshire decided
to do more than just complain about that FOX debate, they decided to blow
it up.

“The Union Leader” announcing yesterday at the exact same date on the
same night, as the FOX debate, they would hold their own event, their own
candidate forum also on August 6th, that night, in direct protest of the
FOX News event that night.

The publisher of “The Union Leader” saying, quote, “What FOX is
attempting to do, and is actually bragging about doing, is a real threat to
the first-in-the-nation primary. FOX boasts that it will winnow that field
of candidates before New Hampshire gets to do so. That isn`t just bad for
New Hampshire, it`s bad for the presidential selection process, by limiting
the field to only the best-known few with the biggest bankrolls. Why the
RNC would defend this and be a party to it is baffling.”

And the gauntlet was thrown. So, Republican candidates for president
now have to decide if they want to do this FOX News debate where only ten
of them are invite when there are like 20 major candidates, or if they want
to do this event with the biggest and most influential newspaper in the
all-important state of New Hampshire. Can`t do both. They`re at the same
time in different places.

What are you going to do?

And, by the way, the RNC says if any candidate chooses to participate
in a non-RNC sanctioned debate, that candidate will be kicked out of all of
the remaining RNC sanctioned debates for the duration of the primary. So,
the stakes are high, right?

One RNC official from New Hampshire tried to tamp that down and told
“The National Journal” maybe there wouldn`t be a conflict. He said, as far
as he understood it, participating in the New Hampshire event wouldn`t
break the RNC rules about unsanctioned debates because that one wouldn`t
really be a debate. The candidates would only be allowed on the stage one
at a time.

OK, so maybe standoff defused? No! No, not at all.

Check this out. The publisher of “The Union Leader” newspaper told
“The National Journal”, your report about our newspaper having only one
candidate at a time is false. Whoever fed you that is, and I quote
directly, “full of B.S.”

Asked to clarify whether his forum would have multiple candidates on
stage at the same time, he simply replied, “Yes.”

Yes. Yes. Yes, New Hampshire`s biggest and most influential paper
really is throwing a grenade into the Republican Party`s screwed up
presidential primary plans. I mean, this is the choice for the candidates
now. They can screw over New Hampshire and make the RNC happy, even if the
RNC lets a cable news network decide who`s allowed to compete for the
nomination and who isn`t.

Or they can go to New Hampshire instead of doing this flawed FOX
debate, and thereby face getting excluded from all the other potentially
similarly flawed official RNC debates for the rest of the whole year.

The publisher of “The Union Leader” newspaper, Joseph McQuaid, is a
revered figure in New Hampshire conservative politics. For years, his
newspaper regularly referred to George W. Bush as Junior Bush. In 2011, he
called Rick Perry a big disappointment. He said Rick Santorum has been out
of office too long. He said Michele Bachmann is nowhere. He minces no

Every four years, as Republicans vie for an endorsement from New
Hampshire`s largest newspaper, Joseph McQuaid, Mr. No Mincing Words, he`s
the guy they court to get that endorsement. And now, he is flexing his
muscles, in an effort to maintain that power against Goliath, right?
Against the whole Republican Party and not to mention FOX News.

Just a few hours after announcing his forum last night, FOX News
announced that they too also have a new idea. They say they`ll host a kind
of kid`s table forum just for the candidates who don`t make their top ten
cut for the real debate. They`ll host that in the afternoon before the
adult debate on August 6th.

Is that going to defuse this crisis? I don`t know.

Right now, there is a very real tug of war going on between the stakes
that have played a crucial role in the primary process on one side,
particularly New Hampshire, and FOX News and the National Republican Party
on the other. A big fight over how the primary process should go.

I have no idea who is going to win. But Joseph McQuaid, the publisher
of “The Union Leader” joins us next.



at 4 percent at the national polls, and I won the Iowa caucuses. I don`t
know if I was last in the polls, but I was pretty close to last. So, the
idea that the national poll has any relationship as to the viability of the
candidate, ask Rudy Giuliani about it. Ask Phil Gramm about it.


MADDOW: Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum speaking last
month. He placed second overall in the 2012 primary.

If the first debate of 2016 were held now, Rick Santorum would not
even be invited on the stage, which would take him out of contention in the
primaries all together.

Well; yesterday, the largest newspaper in New Hampshire offered a new
more inclusive opportunity for candidates seeking the presidency. One
that`s already caused some serious drama within the highest ranks of the
Republican Party.

Joining us now for the interview is Joseph McQuaid. He`s publisher of
“The New Hampshire Union Leader”, who yesterday announced that his paper
will host a competing event for candidates, the same evening as the FOX
News debate on August 6th.

Mr. McQuaid, it`s really great to have you here tonight. Thanks for
being here.

new hero. I watched your program last night and I thought you really
grasped what is important about the New Hampshire primary with your
examples of McCain and Clinton who didn`t have a shot, and wouldn`t be on
this debate either. But they came to New Hampshire, met people and turned
it around.

MADDOW: Thank you for saying that. I feel like it`s not a liberal or
conservative thing, it`s not a Republican or Democratic thing. It`s
something that we`ve learned about the early states and the values of how
New Hampshire and Iowa in particular take their responsibility seriously as
early states that try to usurp that is something we at least ought to have
a fight about.

We shouldn`t just hand it over to a cable news network to do the
winnowing on their own, instead of letting the voters do it.

MCQUAID: Exactly right. And it doesn`t matter, conservative or

I think to be – try to be fair to the RNC and the networks, I don`t
think anybody had any idea a year ago that this Republican field was going
to be as big as all those elephants you had behind you last night.


MCQUAID: But it is, and there is no clear front-runner. No anointed
one. Jeb Bush isn`t the front-runner. Scott Walker isn`t the front-
runner. And you can go on and on with the names.

I don`t know if your statistic of a gazillion is exactly right, but I
think it`s three quarters of a gazillion. But there are some serious

This is supposed to be held in Cleveland, Ohio. Why, I`m not sure.
But I think you and others have pointed out that the governor of Cleveland,
Ohio, who may get into this thing, and has some street cred as a governor
and congressman, may not make the threshold to be in the debate in his own

MADDOW: It is – it is remark – I mean, you can imagine how mad John
Kasich feels about that when he looks at that prospect. I wonder if the
anger of individual candidates about this, particularly guys like John
Kasich and Rick Santorum and Carly Fiorina and some of the other people who
have a real claim why they should be on the stage – is it they`re upset
about the debates that motivated you in part to say that “The Union Leader”
ought to do your own event, that you ought to compete essentially with FOX
that night?

MCQUAID: Not really, although I`ve asked several about it. And I`ve
– it was more – two things yesterday. One was the letter from the 56
people in New Hampshire who made a very valid point and they`re all
Republicans. They`re taking on their own party on this. And, secondly, I
read some things on the Internet concerning statements that FOX people had
made about and you`ve used the quote, that they were going to winnow the
field before New Hampshire.

Well, who the hell are they?

MADDOW: Is the RNC lobbying you about this stuff? Do they want you -
- have they talked to you about your announced forum here? Are they trying
to get you not to do this?

MCQUAID: They`ve talked to my editor a couple of times, who used to
work for this TV station. They have not talked to me.

I understand tomorrow I`m supposed to tape a program for another
network and the guy who is the lead guy for them in this matter is supposed
to be on at the same time and I`ll be interested to make his acquaintance,
because either he or somebody else who is spreading those tales that we
were going to play nice and abide by the Republican national rules
regarding a forum. I`m not sure what the Republican national rules are
regarding a forum. I like to see them.

When FOX made its announcement last night, hey, we`re going to have a
forum too, what kind of forum are they going to have? Are they going to
have the same kind of forum that the Republicans agreed on? Which you said
is one at a time on stage. That`s like watching paint dry. I think it
would be better to have some interaction.

MADDOW: Have you heard from candidates yet who have committed to
coming to your event? Has anybody told you they`ll do it for sure?

MCQUAID: One, who is a real long shot, who says to say hi to you. He
used to be the governor of Virginia.

MADDOW: Jim Gilmore, tell him I said hi back.

MCQUAID: He seemed to be serious. He`s a guy who was the governor of
a big commonwealth when 9/11 happened. He ran a 9/11 commission. He`s a
military guy.

And the only way that he`s got any shot in hell at this is coming to
New Hampshire and meeting voters, which he`s done quite a bit of. And, you
know, lightning can happen in a bottle, although I`ve been distressed in
recent year that even with New Hampshire and Iowa, there`s so much
influence by the national parties and so much money involved that we used
to be the starting point for the primary process and the election process.

Now, we`re close to the end point. I`m speaking of the New Hampshire
primary and South Carolina. And I don`t think that`s a good thing.

So, I would be very happy, Rachel, if FOX came up with a new scheme
much like that suggested by the New Hampshire Republicans, and mix up the
group, throw polling out, get credible candidates in, and if it takes you
over two nights, I would think the people would watch that nationwide to do
it. Otherwise, we`re going to have to go with my buddy Roger Simon`s idea
of a big Hollywood Squares box, 27 candidates, and you take them – you
take them from city to city for the whole campaign season.

MADDOW: And they all compete to see who can be Bruce Vilanch. I love

Joseph McQuaid, publisher –

MCQUAID: Well, I`m –

MADDOW: Go ahead, sir.

MCQUAID: No, no, I`m older than you. For me, it`s Paul Lynde in
center square.

MADDOW: That`s fair enough. Mr. McQuaid, publisher of “The New
Hampshire Union Leader”, honestly, I could talk to you all night. I hope
you`ll come back and talk to us again. I think this is a fascinating fight
that you picked and I think you`re going to win it, sir. Thanks for being
with us tonight.

MCQUAID: Well, thank you very much. Thanks for the invite.

MADDOW: I appreciate it.

That`s great. I love it. I love – A, I love New Hampshire. B, I
love New Hampshire politics. And, C, I love the way they will not take
anything from anybody. I love it. I just absolutely love it. There`s no
way the RNC and FOX are going to win this, not against New Hampshire. No

We`ll be right back.


MADDOW: Some words are not all that translatable. For example, the
word Cwtch. Cwtch rhymes with butch, thank you very much. Cwtch comes
from Wales, and the Welsch love this untranslatable word that they`re happy
to try to explain it for outsiders so other people might start using the
untranslatable word, too.

Cwitch, as close as I can explain it, basically means hug, or cuddle
or snuggle. Cwtch is hard to define exactly but when you need one, you
know it.

Today in Wales a timely cwtch got handed out and it was on tape. It
makes everything make sense and that tape, that story is ahead. Please
stay tuned for that. It is truly amazing.

Stay with us.


MADDOW: Tamir Rice was killed the week before Thanksgiving last year.
He was 12 years old and had been playing with pellet gun in a Cleveland
park on a snowy day when police rolled up and shot him in a blink in less
than three seconds.

And in a nearly seven months since that shooting, there has been no
decision on whether or not to charge those officers and Tamir Rice`s death.
But this week, eight people, eight regular people, civilians in Cleveland
took the matter directly to a local judge.

Ohio law allows ordinary citizens to petition a drug for an arrest
warrant. It`s a rarely used thing but you can do it. And these local
citizens in Cleveland asked the judge to ask whether the evidence in the
Tamir Rice case justified bringing serious charges in this case.

They did that on Tuesday. This afternoon, that Cleveland City judge
issued his ruling. He said he was, quote, “thunderstruck” by how quickly
this event turned deadly. He also said, crucially, that he believes there
is probable cause to charge the shooting officer with murder and both
officers on the scene with negligent homicide and dereliction of duty. He
said prosecutors should file criminal complaints and that he would tell
them so.

Now, it`s important to note these officers haven`t been charged. The
judge`s opinion is not binding on the prosecutors. But obviously, this
does crank up the pressure for prosecutors to reach a resolution in this

The county prosecutor`s office tonight said they will bring this case
to a grand jury, as they do with all cases involving police use of force.
They told us the case will need more investigation. They said they are not
setting timetables.

But with this judge`s opinion today, saying charges should be brought
and probable cause exists, the stakes got yet higher in the case of 12-
year-old Tamir Rice.

Watch this space.


MADDOW: Macy, meet the queen. Queen, meet Macy.

Macy is 6-year-old girl in Wales. Today on a royal visit, Queen
Elizabeth and Macy met.

Macy was waiting for the queen in a lovely traditional Welsh dress so
she could give the queen a bouquet of flowers. Macy got up really, really
early. She got dressed all nice. She had to wait for the queen to show

And at the right moment, she has to hand over the flowers and remember
to curtsy properly. It`s a very high stress thing, but she does it. She
does it perfectly. She does it great.

And then something comes out of left field.


MADDOW: Oh, god. She did so well. She was just a little too close
to that soldier.

Local press reports the soldier turned around and apologized profusely
as soon as he was allowed to, but apparently you cannot just stop saluting
the queen in the middle of it even if you hit a girl in the face on the
upswing of your salute.

Macy`s family`s reaction is priceless, right? One of them is shocked.
The other completely loses it. It turns out Macy is fine. She went to her
aunt for a cwtch which in Welsh means she got a cuddly hug that made her
feel safe.

And, yes, I would want one of those too because sometimes the cost of
misjudging the tiniest thing can be very, very high.

All right. Ready for the metaphor? Today in the U.S. House of
Representatives, Speaker John Boehner began the tight rope walk that he
hopes will result in a giant 12-nation Pacific trade deal moving ahead.

House Democrats generally hate this thing. But even Republicans
generally like it, they can`t get all their troops in line to pass it
because President Obama likes it too – ew, cooties. So, the Republicans
have to get some Democrats onboard.

But as John Boehner tries to cobble together enough votes, he has a
considerable opposite force working against him. Senator Elizabeth Warren
has been leading the fight against the trade deal for months. She almost
derailed it in the Senate. And today, as John Boehner is painstakingly
constructing this fragile deal in the House, Elizabeth Warren sent out a
call asking everyone to call their member of Congress and urge them to vote

This whole thing is so precarious, a flood of calls from Senator
Warren`s wing of the party on the big eve of the big vote could be enough
to upset Speaker Boehner`s apple cart. They need Democrats. Nobody knows
if the voters are there for this trade deal. It really just takes one
small thing to make everything to wrong. The tiniest misjudgment, just a
couple of inches either way, and whap!

House Republicans need 217 votes on this series of bill that they`re
going to move this trade deal forward. Speaker Boehner called the first of
these many votes this afternoon. He needed 217, he got 217. They made it
but boy, is it close. They can`t afford to lose a single vote.

Nobody knows if this is going to go down in flames in the House when
the real show starts tomorrow. The tiniest thing could make the difference
and if it does, somebody is seriously going to need a cwtch.

That does it for us tonight. We`ll see you again tomorrow.

Now, it`s time for “THE LAST WORD”. Ari Melber is sitting in for
Lawrence tonight.

Good evening, Ari.


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.>