The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, Transcript 04/21/15

Brandon Scott, Neill Franklin, Corby Kummer, Howard Dean, Richard Wolffe, David Frum

O`Donnell and it`s time for THE LAST WORD.

On “Hardball” tonight, it was President Obama versus Senator Elizabeth
Warren with Chris Matthews playing the part of Elizabeth Warren, sort of.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Breaking news out of Baltimore where hundreds are
gathering in protest.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They will tell you that they simply don`t trust the

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Outrage over the death of a man who suffered a spinal
injury while in police custody.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Justice Department has announced it`s opening its
own investigation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To determine whether any prosecutable civil rights
violation occurred.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Vote to confirm Loretta Lynch this week.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In a new Senate compromise over President Obama`s
stalled nominee for attorney general.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Drop the delays, drop the excuses.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As soon as we finish the trafficking bill –

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where campaign is not what American people expect in
the media.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The longest delay ever for an attorney general

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put this embarrassing episode for your party behind

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stay tuned, Hillary Clinton`s New Hampshire tour.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Connecting with everyday Americans.

middleclass mean something again.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jeb Bush continues his aggressive fund-raising.

with everyday billionaires.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The “New York Times” reports that the Koch Brothers
have a favorite in the GOP race and Governor Scott Walker is the chosen

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: During his speech, Walker told the crowd that Hillary
Clinton has probably never been to a Kohl`s.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If your best attack on Hillary Clinton is her wardrobe
is too fancy, I don`t love your chances.



O`DONNELL: Tonight on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews, President Obama made
his case for an international trade deal called the Trans-Pacific
Partnership in the most forceful terms he has used yet.


framework for trade we have ever had.

This requires us to have binding labor agreements on the environment, we`re
actually negotiating with countries that almost have no environmental
standards, that suddenly they have to pay attention to excessive logging.

They have to pay attention to excessive fishing. They have to pay
attention to how they`re protecting their oceans. They`ve got to pay
attention to wildlife trafficking.

I mean, we`re embodying in this deal all the stuff that the environmental
community and the labor community for years has been talking about as a
requirement for them approving trade deals.

This is better than the Colombian free trade agreement, the Panama free
trade agreement and the Korea free trade agreement that we just passed a
couple of years ago.


O`DONNELL: President Obama`s fight to pass this trade deal is not with
Republicans, it is with Democrats led by Senator Elizabeth Warren.


OBAMA: I love Elizabeth, we`re allies on a whole host of issues, but she
is wrong on this.


O`DONNELL: Here is what Hillary Clinton said about the Trans-Pacific
Partnership today.


CLINTON: Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase
prosperity and protect our security. And we have to do our part in making
sure we have the capabilities and the skills to be competitive.

So it`s got to be really a partnership between our business, our
government, our workforce.


O`DONNELL: She was a little more specific about TPP when she was secretary
of state. She said, “our economies are entwined and we need to keep upping
our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through
agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP.

This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free,
transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law
and a level playing field.

And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world`s
total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the

Joining us now, Joy Reid, Richard Wolffe, Howard Dean and David Frum.
Howard Dean, is the president right? Is this the most progressive framework
for trade we have ever had?

HOWARD DEAN, FORMER VERMONT GOVERNOR: Well, that`s actually the problem,
we don`t know. And so, I think we`re going to need to see a lot more
before we can possibly say that.

The two things that worry me the most in this trade deal, are what is the -
- what are the rights of corporations to override sovereignty decisions by
states, for example, in environmental protection?

We`ve seen that abused in the past. The other is that it reduces – is to
my understanding, it reduces intellectual property protection for certain
industries below what it is in the United States, and I think that`s the

So the solution to this is transparency. And if there`s transparency in
what`s being negotiated, then we can make those judgments for ourselves.

But right now, everybody has to go on what they think is in there or what
WikiLeaks gets in the paper and that`s a tough way to do business.

O`DONNELL: Joy Reid, there is Hillary Clinton saying in the softest terms
possible, something pretty neutral about –


O`DONNELL: This noncommittal. And she was sounding like a senator who
hasn`t decided how she is going to vote on it. When she was secretary of
state, it was – when we say, the gold standard –


REID: Yes, indeed. And I guess you could argue that when she was
secretary of state, that may not have been her position, it may have been
the administration`s position.

And she as – you know, a member of the administration had to voice it.
I`m glad she actually answered the question. It`s very difficult to get
Hillary Clinton to answer a lot of questions on this listening tour she`s

Because there`s a very quick scrum after she does her events, and then
she`s out of there. So I`m glad that she got – we got any answer at all.

And the challenge I think really for the Obama administration is that we`re
arguing about something that ends – Governor Dean just said we don`t know
a lot of specifics about.

There`s not a lot of information about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but
what American workers, particularly unionized workers understand is that in
an international leveling of wages, free trade tends to bring up the wages
of our trading partners and bring down the wages of American workers.

Because we can never compete and win in a race to the bottom for the cost
of doing business.

O`DONNELL: Well, the framework that`s been released by the Senate Finance
Committee at this stage, Richard, is more details than I`ve ever seen
released before –


O`DONNELL: In negotiating these trade agreements, which have always been
done on fast track.


O`DONNELL: Nothing unusual in this one. In fact, if you really compare it
to the other ones procedurally, the only unusual thing is that it`s more
open than the way –

WOLFFE: Right –

O`DONNELL: This has been done in the past.

WOLFFE: Right, look, there are labor and environmental provisions written
in here in other side of the agreement.

But the fundamental disagreement for people on the left is not really about
the details, it`s not about transparency.

It`s about whether you believe in free trade deals at all. And if you
believe in a global economy, if you think that a more prosperous world will
lead to more demand for American goods and services, then you`re going to
support it.

And if you fundamentally don`t buy into it and you think every trade deal
has driven down American wages, then you`re not going to support it.

And there`s not much the President can do about it. The majority of public
opinion though, I think, believes generally in free trade.

They like the idea of free trade, even if these deals are on. As you know,
Lawrence, they`re not actually free, they`re highly regulated.

We`re swapping one form of regulation for another, and it`s more free, but
it`s not actually free. There are – every single industry has lobbied one
way or another.

In this case, labor and environmental groups are also at the table with
their provisions too. So is it the best deal? No. Is it better than what
we`ve seen before? Almost certainly, yes.

O`DONNELL: David Frum, where are the Republican presidential candidates on

DAVID FRUM, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: They`re all going to be for it. They
will have some reservations about some elements, but I don`t think there is
a protectionist Republican in the race.

And what is even more missing – I`m going to ask where are the Democrats?
Because one, there is a dream that United States subscribe to – for the
30, 40 years after World War II, which is global free trade.

Multilateral arrangements, the general agreement on trade and tariffs, and
that has become impossible. It`s become impossible partly because of the
United States, partly because of China.

And so you have these section by section, region by region agreements. And
the hope is somehow that, out of these regional agreements, you can build
your way toward a more global structure.

But that hasn`t been what`s been happening. And so we have ever more free
trade agreements, but trade becomes ever more restricted and we have
jettisoned the idea of one planet that trades freely with itself under a
common set of international rules.

O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what President Obama said about NAFTA tonight,
because NAFTA is the thing that the Democratic opponents hold up against
this deal.

Let`s listen to what he said about it.


OBAMA: I think that NAFTA did a couple of things that were important. It
integrated the North American economy, Mexico and Canada are important
trading partners –


OBAMA: For us. We sell a lot of stuff to them, they sell a lot of stuff
to us. The problem with NAFTA that I identified when I was running for
Senate, long before I was in the Oval Office, was the labor agreements and
the environmental agreements were in a side letter.

They weren`t enforceable the same way –


OBAMA: That the business provisions were in the document and you could
actually penalize somebody if they violated them. That`s fixed in the
trade deal that we`re looking at here.


O`DONNELL: Howard Dean, the NAFTA controversy just bedevils this Congress
as they look at this thing, and President Obama, when he says that he
identified problems with NAFTA when he was running for Senate.

When he was running for president and Hillary Clinton, they both said this,
they both said, if they were elected, they would reopen NAFTA.

And of course, 90 days after the President was –

DEAN: Right –

O`DONNELL: Elected president, very quietly put that away. They didn`t
touch NAFTA, and I didn`t believe either one of them at the time would.

In fact, remember Austin Goods got in –

DEAN: Oh –

O`DONNELL: Trouble because –


O`DONNELL: He communicated with the Canadians – don`t worry, he doesn`t
mean it, we won`t touch NAFTA.

And so, the interesting thing here is that basically, the Washington
governing consensus that brought us NAFTA and brought us some trade deals
that people don`t like in retrospect is saying in effect, trust us this
time, we figured it out, we got it right.

DEAN: Well, actually, interesting, I was very supportive of NAFTA at the
time and the reason I was supportive is because I believe that it would
raise the family incomes of Mexicans and emancipate Mexican women.

And there`s a fair amount of that actually happened. Mexico is now the
20th strongest economy in the world. It`s a good thing for America to have
two strong economies on either side of it.

So, I actually – I supported NAFTA at the time under President Clinton and
I`m not sorry I did. What I worry about, as I said before, in this – in
this agreement which we haven`t seen in a TPP is I worry about the powers
that have been given to multinational corporations.

Which have not – behavior in a particularly responsible way in the last
ten or fifteen years. So, I think the solution is, in fact, transparency
and that`s what we`re going to have to – happen.

That`s because what`s going to be required to get this thing through

O`DONNELL: All right, we`re going to take a quick break here, when we come
back, Scott Walker is now trying some tough new talk on immigration and
Mitch McConnell has finally agreed to bring Loretta Lynch`s nomination for
attorney general to a vote.

Can you believe that, Joy?

REID: Shocking –

O`DONNELL: There`s going to be a vote.

REID: Fine.


O`DONNELL: After failing to make any sense in a Congressional hearing
about DEA agents having sex parties with prostitutes paid for by drug
cartels, the head of the DEA has not, surprisingly, announced her

Michele Leonhart has led the agency since 2007, after Leonhart testified
before members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last
Tuesday, members released a statement saying they had “no confidence in

Up next, Loretta Lynch will finally get a vote on her nomination for U.S.
Attorney General.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you believe the only way to finish the trafficking
bill was to tie it to Loretta Lynch`s nomination and you looking back, are
you – are you happy with the way that strategy worked out?

I`m happy with it.

I said from the beginning to the end that we`d take up the Attorney General
nominee just as soon as we finish trafficking.


O`DONNELL: So Joy Reid, they have a deal on how to proceed on this so-
called sex trafficking bill, which is what Mitch McConnell said it had to
be done first and then the nomination, so we`re going to get to the

REID: Yes, I mean the problem for Mitch McConnell that no one is going to
remember anything about that trafficking bill. All that people are going
to remember is the agony over getting Loretta Lynch in place.

And it still begs the question from me, whether there was some substantive
objection to her that could have been litigated in an actual hearing or
whether this really was just petulance on the part of the Republican party?

I think it`s smart that they`re finally ending this. Get it over with
before something catastrophic happens. Like for instance, she gives up and
what draws is that, that could have been horrific for the GOP.

So, I think good for them for finally ending their own self-inflicted

O`DONNELL: David Frum, there`s some talk that some Republicans might
filibuster the nomination. That –

FRUM: Yes –

O`DONNELL: Filibuster could be overcome. There`s enough force to overcome
it obviously.

FRUM: Well, I think this point in the cycle is the point where the parties
need to conclude a treaty. That presidents should be served by the people
the President wants.

Barring incompetence, barring some scandal, barring something extreme.
That the President should have his or her cabinet.

And when you`re this far from the election, we don`t know who is going to
win, we just need to re-establish that as a norm of American politics.

And whether it`s President Clinton or President Walker or President Bush,
that it should be understood, barring something extreme, they get the
attorney general they want, they get the secretary of defense they want,
these are their people, they should be served by the people they want.

O`DONNELL: Howard Dean, would you make that deal if you were a Senate

DEAN: I don`t know what`s in the deal.

O`DONNELL: Well, the –

DEAN: I might certainly –

O`DONNELL: The deal that each party just says, look, when the – when the
President picks his nominees for cabinet positions, we`re just going to let
you have that vote.

DEAN: In general, yes. Again, there have been some people who have been
extraordinarily extreme that have been chosen, and who I would resist.

But in general, I do think, especially something –

O`DONNELL: But why –

DEAN: This case is –

O`DONNELL: Wouldn`t you even – why wouldn`t you be satisfied, Howard,
with just voting against that person?

DEAN: Well, because some of the – some of the people who have been
proposed obviously not talk about Loretta Lynch, but have been so extreme
as to endanger the country.

I mean, you would – you know, I don`t want to litigate all some of the
past things that have gone on, but there have been people who had to
withdraw because of their credentials, we`re just so far below part that
they shouldn`t be on –

FRUM: Or because of some silly gotcha statement, that somebody found
something –

DEAN: Right –

FRUM: That they didn`t say that they said something foolish 15 years
before and they hadn`t paid some parking tickets.

And look, the heat is on the President, if the President chooses somebody
who is extreme or out there, the President will pay a political price if
that person doesn`t function in office.

And a lot of the people who we attack as extreme, I remember John
Ashcroft`s transition from being liberal boogey man to liberal hero.

President should be served by the people they want. Barring –

DEAN: Well, the Attorney General –

FRUM: Ethical controversy or demonstrated incompetence.

DEAN: I think in general, you`re right. But the positions like the
Attorney General, well, they have a huge effect on what goes on and can
demonstrate significant independence for the President, is for example, an
area that you really have to look at.

But this case is not that case. Loretta Lynch has already been approved by
the judiciary committee which is much already Republicans.

So this is pure petulant politics.

O`DONNELL: Richard Wolffe, there`s a term now, in seeming term by Scott
Walker on immigration policy –


O`DONNELL: He wants to sound really tough because he didn`t sound tough
enough before, he thinks.

Let`s listen to what he said to Glenn Beck about this.


GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: In terms of legal immigration, what we
need to approach there going forward is saying we will make adjustments to
the next president and the next Congress needs to make decisions about a
legal immigration system.

That`s based on first and foremost protecting American workers and American
wages. Because that – the more I talk this up, I talked to Senator
Sessions and others out there.

But it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected position today is,
what it`s just doing not only to American workers looking for jobs, but
what is it doing to the wages and we need to have that be at the forefront
of our discussion going forward.


O`DONNELL: Richard Wolffe, it just sounds like a glide into the tough guy
zone and that subject for the presidential –


O`DONNELL: Primaries –

WOLFFE: Minute, he is against religious freedom and the next against legal
immigration which is carelessly close to self deportation.

So I don`t know which side Scott Walker is coming in from here.

O`DONNELL: Would you say he is against legal immigration? He seems to be
saying, he wants to somehow tighten it up in a way that he doesn`t specify.

WOLFFE: He sounds quite pretty much against it. I mean, you know, – it`s
– obviously, there is a sort of working vote that he is trying to
articulate here.

Clearly, he is going to lose the business interest as well for the
Republican party. I mean there`s a nice parallel here with watching
Hillary Clinton try to thread the needle on the free movement of capital.

You know, Republicans don`t want a free movement of labor, I guess there`s
a parallel there, but the politics of this one, it`s going to be very
difficult for Scott Walker.

I think, honestly, if this is the dynamic in the Republican primary,
they`re going to be outdoing each other to be tougher and tougher and
tougher on immigration that`s bad for the Republican party in general.

O`DONNELL: Joy Reid, a few Republican senators jumped out on this
immediately, because they heard what Richard heard, Orrin Hatch saying
that`s poppycock, that`s classic from Orrin Hatch of course.

And he said you can always point to some negatives, but the positives are
that we need an awful lot more STEM people, science, technology,
engineering, mathematics from these – John McCain, saying I think most
statistics show that they fill part of the workforce that are much needed.

We have (INAUDIBLE) example of, the aging population. We need these people
in the workforce legally. So they don`t want to see Scott Walker getting
carried away in that direction.

REID: Yes, absolutely and for two reasons. So first of all, the business
interest that are very – obviously, very important in the Republican

Actual, we want to somewhat increase the number of those specialized visas
that do bring science and technology experts and keep people who go to
school here, who go to graduate school here and give them an incentive to

But the second part is, no matter what you`re actually saying and how
you`re parsing it, this kind of rhetoric does come across as anti-immigrant
in an ethnic way that is bad for the Republican party.

It turns off Hispanic voters, whether or not you`re specifically talking
about them. And then even within the black voting cohort as the daughter
of immigrants, I will tell you that there is a part of the black cohort
that is Caribbean-based, that is African-based that hears that and hears
you talking about them.

Because –

O`DONNELL: I am going to –

REID: You have a lot of Caribbean and African immigrants who come to this
country to go to school, my parents came to go to engineering school, to go
to graduate school and doctorate, and worked here and paid taxes here.

That hurts Republicans with the one piece of the black electorate who
wouldn`t even entertain talking to them.


O`DONNELL: David Frum –

FRUM: Lawrence –

O`DONNELL: Go ahead –

FRUM: I`m going to pull authenticity points on Joy. It isn`t my parents
who migrated to the United States, it`s me. I was born in Canada.

And I have to say, I think Scott Walker is on to something profoundly
important and right. We – the United States is about to pass the highest
level of foreign-born in the population in American history, higher than in

Immigration flows are at historically unprecedented levels. It is – we
are not talking about a small change in American life, we are talking about
a dramatic change that is ongoing and accelerating.

And a lot of people have concerns about it. And one wouldn`t want to say
it`s the only cause of the stagnation in American wages over the past 40
years that have coincided with the era of new mass immigration, but it
certainly not unrelated to it.

And Scott Walker is pointing his finger on to – it`s – the problem is not
just the illegality of the immigration.

Problem is how many immigrants does an advanced industrial society need and
if wages are the indication of the supply of labor, supply and demand, that
the stagnation of wages tells us that labor is not in short supply in the
United States.

Except, by the way, the huge gap between the wages of the – of ordinary
workers and CEOs suggest, maybe what you need is free unlimited immigration
of CEOs.

Because obviously, if their wages are an indication, they are in terribly
short supply, but mid level workers, no shortage of them, they`re under
enormous wage pressure.

O`DONNELL: The foreign-born Richard Wolffe needs to get an extra –



O`DONNELL: Quick last word here before we go –

WOLFFE: One immigrant to another. Why would we compete for international
business stars, but we`re not going to compete for high skilled workers?

I mean we train people up at the finest institutions, educational
institutions around the world, and then you want to let them go?

That`s not what we`re trying to build in this economy.

O`DONNELL: I`m so sorry we are out of time on this subject right now.
We`ll all – you`ll all be back, Richard Wolffe, Howard Dean, David Frum,
thank you all for joining me tonight, appreciate it.


DEAN: Thanks Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: Coming up, a California woman says she plans to sue after a
deputy U.S. marshal snatched her cell phone, destroyed her property.

The whole incident caught on video.



horrible and shocking.

And what I saw were different agencies on this block and several people in
front of that lawn that were on their stomachs, held with their hands
behind their back and officers of all types pointing guns to their heads.


O`DONNELL: Sources tell “Nbc News” that what Beatriz Paez was seeing
Sunday were officers from multiple agencies responding to a report of a
biker gang meeting in Los Angeles County.

Beatriz Paez says she decided to pull out her cell phone camera and record
what she was seeing. What happens next with one deputy U.S. Marshal is why
her attorney says she is now filing a lawsuit.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You need to stay away from the –


PAEZ: The police.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh. Don`t do that (bleep).

PAEZ: (Bleep) (bleep).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you record that.


O`DONNELL: So, the lesson is, if you`re going to video the police, make
sure someone is videoing you. The U.S. Marshal Service and the Los Angeles
County Sheriff`s Department are now revealing that video you just saw.

Up next, protesters –


– take the streets in Baltimore tonight after another controversial death
at the hands of police.



The Justice Department announced today that it has opened an investigation
to the death of 25-year-old, Freddie Gray, –


– who was taken to the hospital with severed spinal cord some 45 minutes
after the moment of his arrest by Baltimore Police. The Department of
Justice will investigate possible civil rights violations by the officers
involved in Freddie Grays arrest.

Freddie Gray died after a week in a coma.


Also, today, the Baltimore Police Department released the names of six
officers who were suspended because of their involvement in the death of
Freddie Gray.

The City of Baltimore has paid out nearly $6 million in judgments and
settlements involving cases of police`s excessive use of force and civil
rights violations in the last four years.


And for the fourth day, hundreds of peaceful protesters gathered in front
of a local police station.



Joining us now is Neill Franklin, a former training commander for the
Baltimore Police Force. Also joining us, Brandon Scott, Vice Chairman of
the Baltimore City Council.

Councilor Scott, we have the names – I`m just going to read them – of the
people who have been suspended. It`s Lieutenant Brian Rice, Officer Caesar
Goodson, Sergeant Alicia White, Officer William Porter, –


– Officer Garrett Miller, Officer Edward Nero. We don`t have any idea at
this stage who exactly did what in –


– that arrest. But what are you hoping for as the next round of public
revelation. What should we look for as the next source of information that
brings us closer to what happened there.

that, in Maryland, we have a police officer`s Bill of Rights that precluded
information being shared from particular times. So, we were hoping, as
this case moves forward, as our state attorney gets this case, as the
Justice Department –


– gets this case, and the police department is able to share more
information, the dots and the blank spots are cleared in.

And that`s what we`re hoping to see – what happened. When did this
individual request medical attention. When did the police department
actually called.

And where are the gaps. And that`s what we`re hoping to see moving
forward, so that we can have – start to get this family some closure and
get our community some closure, so that we can hear out the facts from this
incident and start to repair stuff that we know is broken in our city.

O`DONNELL: You know, Franklin, I always want to talk with police officers
about this and former police officers when we see something like this on
video, because you`re always seeing something, seeing things that we don`t.

With all your experience, especially in Baltimore, what are you seeing on
that video. What do you think you`re seeing.

on the video, there`s really not much to analyze. I mean, you see that
after the arrest has been made, cops have been placed on Mr. Gray, and then
he`s transported to the van.

I mean, I see that he`s definitely in pain. I see that his legs don`t –
his legs don`t appear to be working properly.

On the video, I didn`t see any impropriety. But my question lies with the
reason for stopping him in the first place, for apprehending him in the
first place.

Because I think we have some Constitutional issues here. And that`s a
training issue. That`s a supervision issue as well.

Just running, unprovoked running by itself, from the police is not a stand-
alone reason for reasonable suspicion or probable cause and making that

So, that`s where my question lies.

O`DONNELL: And, Joy, Reid, there is, of course, the question of exactly at
what point was his neck fractured this way. And when you see how immobile
he is, it is entirely possible that it has already happened before they`re
putting him in that van.

I mean, I`m not sure what he`d be capable of orally, what sounds, what that
would do to the throat. I mean, I just don`t know.

But that`s going to be, ultimately, the big legal question, is when and how
did that happen.


REID: When and how did it happen. Because we also do know that if he had
some sort of spinal injury while he was on the ground, the worst thing you
can do to somebody who`s had a back injury is –


– to lift them up and to force them to be vertical and to move them around
in that way. Normally, what we see people – we see people immobilized and
put onto a stretcher and really immobilized and left on the ground.

So, just the lack of the basic sense of either medical training or concern,
and the fact that he was dragged to his feet and put into the van –
yesterday, you guys were asking the question about what happened in the
van. I think it`s much more important what happened on the ground.

And whether that injury happened before –


REID: – he was placed in the van, the manner in which he was moved could
have injured him even more.

And I think that the callousness with which he was treated is what`s so
shocking on that video. But I do think that fundamental question as well -
- why can`t we be told what it is that he was being pursued for and
arrested for that it`s so important.

Because if it was just because he looked funny to the officers and ran
away, well, then, I think we definitely have some serious Constitutional

FRANKLIN: I think it`s obvious, first of all, that he was injured when he
was being taken to the van. And if you do have a spinal cord injury, it is
going to progress during the ride in one of these vans.

And we, as police, have a duty of care for someone who`s in our custody.
We`re trained to deal with that. We`re trained to seek attention,
immediate attention for them.


And we know there`s this huge gap in time, you know, when he finally did
get the attention that he needed. But it was too late by then.

SCOTT: And just to – just to add in, I think that, also, we have to
realize that we`re dealing with the State of Maryland, where there was a
huge push even from our mayor and other folks throughout our state,
community organizers, to change the police officers` Bill of Rights in

But none of that legislation was passed this year. So, we have to realize

And, also, for me, having the police department and the deputy
commissioners before me earlier today, talking about this incident and also
about why –


– we don`t have cameras in our van. This is the City of Baltimore, where
we`re going to have police body cameras but we also, as a city, where, a
few months ago, we were told they were going to get new vans because of
safety issues.

Have we done that. Have we begun that process. But, also, as we`re doing
that process, do we need to also have vans inside those cameras.

So, now we can see, without a doubt, what is happening when persons are
being placed in there.

O`DONNELL: Great point, Joy Reid, but Brandon –

FRANKLIN: You know – you know, I think –

O`DONNELL: Go ahead. Go ahead, Neill.


FRANKLIN: I think those cameras are important. But, I think, the key here
is to first prevent these things from happening, you know.

So, that`s training. That`s first-line supervision, you know. That`s
courageous leadership, you know, and making sure all these things take

But when we get to the point of cameras – don`t get me wrong, I think
they`re needed – but when we get to that point, it`s too late.

O`DONNELL: Brandon Scott, Neill Franklin and Joy Reid, thank you all very
much for joining me tonight.

REID: Thank you.

SCOTT: Thank you.

FRANKLIN: Thanks for having me, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: Joy, before you go, when did you first hear the term, “African-
American.” When do you think it came into our usage.

REID: You know what, that`s a great question. Because it was “black” when
I was a kid, right.


REID: And “African-American” feels like it happened sometime in either of
the, maybe late `80s, early `90s.

O`DONNELL: That`s exactly what it feels like to me. And that`s wrong. By
about 200 years.


O`DONNELL: We discovered today. And that`s what we`re going to talk about

REID: All right.

O`DONNELL: That`s coming up next.


Portugal began the African Slave Trade in Europe about 50 years before
Columbus arrived in the Americas. The Portuguese called their slaves
“negroes,” the Portuguese word for black.

When African slaves where first brought to the Americas, they called
themselves Africans but the slavemasters called them “negroes.” That was
the official name.

And that held for three centuries, eventually yielding some space for the
use of the word, “colored.”

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was
established in 1909. The United Negro College Fund was established in

Then came the Civil Rights Movement, and those words – “negro” and
“colored” would no longer do.


In the mid-1960s, white America was hearing for the first time the proud
declaration, “Black is beautiful.” And with the right to vote finally
secured, it was time for black power.

“Negro” and “colored” were rewritten to simply “black.” “Negro” and
“colored” –


– remained in the names of the some of older organizations but they
otherwise disappeared from the written or spoken word in America. After 20
years of –


– “black,” Jesse Jackson and some leading scholars decided in the late
1980s that it was time for the final name change to “African-American.”

At a news conference, Jesse Jackson called to announce a campaign with the
goal of establishing the term, “African-American,” as the proper
descriptive term.

He said, “Just as we`re called `colored,` but we`re not that, and then
`negro,` but we`re not that, to be called `black` is just as baseless.”

“`Black` tells you about skin color and what side of town you live on.
`African-American` evokes discussion of the world.”

Jesse Jackson went on to say that day, “Every ethnic group in this country
has a reference to some land base, some historical, cultural base.”

Roger Wilkins, 10 years older than Jesse Jackson and the leader of the
Civil Rights Movement – one of the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement,
embraced the change to “African-American.”

In 1989, he told Isabelle Wilkerson for “New York Times” report –
“Whenever I go to Africa, I feel like a person with a legitimate place to
stand on this earth. This is the name for all the feelings I`ve had all
these years.”


And so, it is understandable that people like me, people like Joy Reid, who
you just heard, who lived through some of those name changes, think of
“African-American” as being coined sometime in the 1980s.

We now know that that`s wrong, by about 200 years.


Thanks to a report by Jennifer Schuessler in today`s “New York Times,” we
now know that the first recorded uses of the term, “African-American” was


It was found recently by Fred Shapiro, an associate director at the Yale
Law School Library, who discovered an advertisement in the –


– “Pennsylvania Journal” on May 15th, 1782, announcing the sale of printed
copies of two sermons written by the “African-American,” one on the capture
of Lord Cornwallis.


Mr. Shapiro enlisted the help of George Thompson, a retired NYU librarian,
to find a copy of those sermons. They found one of the sermons, the sermon
on the capture of Lord Cornwallis at Houghton Library at Harvard


Here is the cover page, “Sermon on the Capture of the Lord Cornwallis,” by
an African-American, Philadelphia, printed in the month of April, 1782.

Such are the treasures residing at Harvard`s Houghton Library. Many of
them, still patiently for a scholar to discover their historical


We don`t know if this was the first printed use of the phrase, “African-
American,” but it is now the first one we know about. And we know nothing,
nothing about the African-American.


Through “The New York Times,” Mr. Shapiro says, “Was it a free man. Was it
a slave.” We don`t know. We don`t really –


– know if the African-American was actually a man. But he probably was.
And when the author refers to himself in the third person, he uses the
word, “he.”

On the first page of the sermon, the author mentions, quote, “not having
the benefit of a liberal education.” That`s all we know about the author.

But I think we know that the author must have heard every term that
Americans used to describe him, including the most demeaning and the most
hateful terms.

But, in defiance of all that, and in defiance of that Portuguese word,
“negro,” that was the most polite word anyone ever used to describe the

He chose – he chose how to describe himself without the benefit of a
liberal education, without the benefit of a Civil Rights movement, without
the benefit of a black power movement or a consciousness-raising movement,
or the thoughtful cultural coaching of Jesse Jackson and others.

Without the benefit of all of that, –


– the author chose, 233 years ago, to call himself, proudly, an “African-



Ferguson, Missouri`s City Council made history tonight, officially tripling
its number of African-American members.


Ella Jones and Wesley Bell were sworn in tonight. Wesley Bell is on the
far right in this tweeted photo. He`s a professor and a local magistrate.

He was on this program during the unrest in Ferguson, following the killing
of Michael Brown. Half of the six-member city council is now African-
American, a first in the council`s hundred and twenty-year history.


Up next, how fake meat – this is true – could help save the planet.



being wasted are much smaller. The use represented by that waste of meat
and dairy products is far greater.

You use vastly more land and other resources to produce meat and dairy
products than you do your vegetable garden.

last night, I was at a barbecue and there were all these extra hamburgers.

For each one of those hamburgers, the water that went into producing it is
equivalent to taking a 90-minute shower.


O`DONNELL: That was a clip from a documentary, “Just Eat It,” –


– a food waste story, which premieres tomorrow night on MSNBC at this


The biggest contributor of methane into our atmosphere in the United States
is our cow population. And, virtually, –


– every policy proposal for limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the
United States are cows, truly are sacred. They are rarely included as part
of the problem. And, tonight, –


– President Obama said, he`s hoping to increase our cow population.


anybody else does. And other countries want it.

But, in order for us to be able to sell our beef in Japan, we`ve got to be
able to pry open those markets.


O`DONNELL: Meat production uses a hugely disproportionate share of
resources – 6.7 pounds –


– of grain and 52.8 gallons of water go into just one quarter pound
hamburger. That is why, –


– billionaire tech moguls like Bill Gates, and the inventors of Twitter,
are all investing in companies that are trying to invent fake meat. In an
article –


– for the “MIT Technology Review” called “The Problem with Fake Meat,”
food critic, Corby Kummer, writes, “It`s hard, in fact, to find a tech
billionaire who hasn`t invested in a protein alternative that aims to stamp
out factory farming.”

“They all recognize the realities of the market. Everybody buys burgers.”

Joining us now is award-winning food writer, –


– Corby Kummer. He`s also a senior editor of “The Atlantic.” Corby, you
were telling me about this when you were writing the piece. The title now,
“The Problem with Fake Meat.” Is the problem the taste.

CORBY KUMMER, SENIOR EDITOR, “THE ATLANTIC”: I think the problem is that
you`re trying to do it all. So, the question is, why would you give up
meat. Do you want something else.

But the fact is, people really want beef.


They`re going to eat burgers whatever you do. That`s why Bill Gates, he
posted something just today. I`m so glad mentioned Bill Gates.

Today, on his own Web site, Bill Gates said, “Should we eat meat.” The
answer is, in this country, probably no. In Africa where it does a lot of
work, probably yes because it`s going to help build strong bodies, 12 ways.

But not if you have the choice, not if you can make the choice.

So, there are lots of companies that are trying, including in Los Angeles,
Beyond Meat, the company I wrote about, and that Bill Gates and Evan
Williams and the Twitter founders have invested in.

O`DONNELL: So, as you know, I was a vegetarian for decades. And so, –


– Bill Gates is now telling me to go back. Is Bill Gates going to come
back to vegetarianism with me.

KUMMER: Bill Gates is not saying. I think we`re going to have to ask Bill


KUMMER: He decorously doesn`t mention in the post, but he does talk about
the environmental destruction.

He does talk elsewhere about the ridiculously inefficient method of raising
cows, which, you know, the President says. Of course, we do want access to


– other markets, but it`s a very inefficient way of producing.

O`DONNELL: I mean, when I heard him say that tonight, you know, knowing
that we were going to talk about this, we`re producing more meat than we
really need in our diets in this country.

And what we`re going to see tomorrow in this hour, in this documentary, is
we`re wasting – I mean, when you`re wasting the amount of food that we
waste in this country, that`s the proof right there, in your waste, of how
much excessive production you already have here.

KUMMER: Thirty-eight to 40 percent of the food produced.

O`DONNELL: And, now, we want to ship out more beef to Japan –


– and elsewhere around the world.

KUMMER: Well, I think that it`s hugely inefficient. It`s sort of wrong to
try to keep eating beef.

I think what is right to do is try to support alternate sources of protein.
What I`d like to do is to see it taste a little better. So, –

O`DONNELL: Well, that`s the challenge, right. In that industry, that`s
the magic formula. You`re going to have to come up with something that
someone eats and says, “Oh, my God. That`s better or is good as my
favorite burger.”

KUMMER: And what we`ve got now is something that`s as good as most

O`DONNELL: That`s where we are, “as good as?”

KUMMER: Yes, so when –

O`DONNELL: Got that.


KUMMER: So, when I was in Los Angeles and I asked the makers of “Beyond
Meat,” they were really –


O`DONNELL: “Beyond Meat.”

KUMMER: I said – “Beyond Meat.” I said, “In your beef burger, I`m happy
to taste it but it`s not going to make sense to me unless you give it to me
next to supermarket ground beef.”

So, I had the plain supermarket ground beef and I thought, “My goodness,
how debased out palate is. This stuff tastes like nothing. This tastes
just terrible.”

So, the idea is, if they`re trying to match supermarket ground beef, I`d
say they`re doing a pretty good job.

O`DONNELL: OK. So, but how about, you know, the best burgers out there.
Are they still way ahead of the synthetic.


KUMMER: They`re not really way ahead. The best beef out there –

O`DONNELL: In taste, in taste, we`re talking about.

KUMMER: No, not even in taste. So, I went to a very fancy restaurant in
Los Angeles, where I had this fantastic porterhouse steak.

It`s going to take years and decades and, maybe, a century to come up with
a synthesized protein that`s as good as that. But, then, they served these
Kobe Sliders.

So, these really fancy burgers that are homemade, brioche bun, everything
was, you know, fantastic and perfect. The burger, scraped everything away
because I wanted to just –

O`DONNELL: So, your bet is, Bill Gates is going to get a return on his
investments on fake meat down the road here, that it`s going to work.



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.>