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

The Rachel Maddow Show, Transcript 12/08/14

Guests: Eric Adams, Jonathan Landay

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thanks, my friend. CHRIS HAYES, "ALL IN" HOST: You bet. MADDOW: And thanks to you at home for joining us this morning. Last year, a reporter named Charlie Savage at "The New York Times," he got the results of a Freedom of Information Act request that he had filed a long time before. It was a freedom of information act request he filed with the FBI. FBI agents are sort of mega cops, right? They work for the federal government, not for any local jurisdiction. They investigate violations of federal law. They track down people who are suspected of breaking federal law. They investigate. They do intelligence work. They do counterintelligence work, which means they try to catch other countries` spies who are operating in the United States. A big part of what they do is to go after public corruption. They try to bust crooked politicians. FBI agents do a lot of different things. But a lot of what they do is a variant of policing. And as such, they are legally authorized to use force in carrying out their duties. FBI agents are issued guns by the FBI. But when in the course of their duties, an FBI agent uses his or her gun to kill someone, there`s this interesting question about who investigates that kind of shooting? I mean, theoretically, any time someone gets shot and killed somewhere in America, the local prosecutor, wherever that happened, can and should investigate that killing. But when it is a federal law enforcement officer who did the killing, local prosecutors don`t go there. I mean, there`s, you know, rare once in a blue moon exception to that. If you get rid of that rounding error, basically, the answer is no. The local authorities don`t investigate when an agent from the FBI kills someone in the line of duty. Instead, the FBI, this federal agency, investigates itself when one of its own agents uses deadly force. And the Freedom of Information Act request that Charlie Savage finally got fulfilled last summer was about the results of those investigations of themselves that the FBI did when one of its agents killed someone. It turns out between 1993 and 2011, there were 80 incidents in which FBI agents shot and wounded someone. Over the same time period, there were 70 incidents when FBI agents shot and killed someone. So, from 1993 to 2011, it`s a period of 18 years, there were 150 incidents in which FBI agents shot and killed or shot and wounded someone. And the FBI investigated every single one of those shootings and those killings through its own internal rigorous, self-review process. And through that internal rigorous self-review process, the FBI shooting incident review board determined that every single one of those 150 shootings was a good shoot. Every single one of them was justified. So, that`s the feds. That`s the FBI. There`s a lot of concern around the country right now that local prosecutors let local police officers get away with killing people way too frequently and way too easily. And when there`s upset and worry about local policing going wrong, local policing being unaccountable, the political instinct that kicks in is to bring in a higher authority, right? To try to supersede whatever patterns and prejudices and baggage might exist at the local level and instead ask the federal government to try to come in and fix whatever is wrong at the local level. Well, in the case of law enforcement officers killing people with impunity, with impunity that is uncanny if it isn`t systematic. Well if that`s the problem, the feds maybe aren`t the solution to that. The feds don`t offer a reassuring example of how to do that better when comes to their own federal law enforcement experience. This summer, this summer, as the FBI declared itself faultless in yet another high-profile shooting, this summer, a year after Charlie Savage first published that devastating data about the FBI clearing itself in 100 percent of cases that it reviewed, this past summer, we also reported on another agency that`s also a federal agency which has 50 percent more armed agents than the FBI does. It`s an agency that has doubled in size in the past decade. It`s the Border Patrol, a huge fast-growing agency with lots of armed officers, who are entitled to use force as part of their duties. So, these guys are also federal. But Border Patrol takes it a step further than even the FBI in the case of shootings on the job. Border Patrol not only investigates themselves, when one of their officers kills someone or shoots someone. They also just don`t tell anybody when it happens. They don`t report it publicly when their officers shoot and kill someone. There`s no public data about that. So, you can, you know, try to piece it together from complaints you might be able to find or maybe there`s a news report every once in a while about a Border Patrol officer shoot shooting somebody or killing somebody but there`s no systematic public information about those officers killing anyone. The agency just doesn`t release that data. Those are the feds. If they are supposed to be the gold standard that local police should look up to in terms of accountability for hurting people and killing people, if they are supposed the gold standard, then we need a new gold standard. Protests continued throughout this past weekend about police killing people, particularly police killing African-Americans basically with impunity. Protests are continuing also tonight. Protesters in New York City tonight, quite a lot of them actually staged a rather big die-in and protest outside the Barclays Center in Brooklyn tonight. Inside the Barclays Center tonight, Prince William and Duchess Kate Middleton were in attendance to watch the Brooklyn Nets play the Cleveland Cavaliers. Before the game started tonight, the Cavaliers star player, basically the king of the NBA, LeBron James, brought the outside protesters message on to the court tonight. He wore an "I can`t breathe" t-shirt during warm- ups. Several other players on the Cavaliers also wore similar shirts tonight. This past weekend, Chicago Bulls point guard Derrick Rose also wore an "I can`t breathe" t-shirt during pre-game warm-ups, as did Detroit Lions running back Reggie Bush. His sort of home made. It`s written there with a marker on the front of his blue shirt. Protests are under way right now in Washington, D.C. Some D.C. protesters staged another die-in tonight. Other D.C. protesters tonight marched through the streets, chanting, "We`re young, we`re strong, we`re marching all night long" -- as you can see, blocking traffic in downtown D.C. tonight. Protests also underway tonight again in Berkeley and in Oakland, in Northern California. In Berkeley and Oakland this weekend, protests did turn violent. There was not just rowdy protests but some violence and looting -- both among protesters and between protesters and police both Saturday and Sunday night in the Bay Area. In the midst of these continuing protests, today, "The New York Daily News" published this. The "New York Daily News" published their own report, their own statistics about police killing people in New York City specifically, starting 15 years ago, started with the killing of Amadou Diallo, who was innocent and unarmed but police shot at him 41 times and killed him while they were looking for someone else. Since that high- profile police killing 15 years ago in 1999, according to the "New York Daily News" today by their tabulation, New York City police officers have killed at least 179 people over 15 years. This is only people killed by on-duty police officers. And certainly a lot of these killings are unimpeachable circumstances from the point of view of the cops. Like that case in October when this apparently crazed man wielding a hatchet launched a completely unprovoked attack on four rookie police officers who are just standing on a street corner in New York. You remember that story. That assailant with the ax was killed by those police officers who he attacked but not before he grievously wounded a couple of them. That man is among the 179 deaths attributed to police actions over the past 15 years. So, some of these circumstances obviously are very different than others. But in more than a quarter of the killings by police in America`s largest city over the past 15 years, in more than a quarter of them, the assailant was unarmed, like Amadou Diallo. Like an army veteran named Shem Walker who told a man to get off his grandma`s stoop in the tough neighborhood that he lived in, in Brooklyn. The man he told to get off the stoop said no. They argued. It turned into a fist fight and the man who had been sitting on the stoop pulled out a gun and shot Shem Walker three times and killed him. The guy who wouldn`t get off the stoop turns out was an undercover police officer. Shem Walker is dead. Nobody was ever prosecuted in that case. What this "Daily News" investigation has found is that basically no one is ever prosecuted in these cases, almost never. Over 15 years, 179 people killed by police officers in just one city, out of 179 people killed, a grand total of three of those killings resulted in an indictment by local prosecutors. And precisely one case was there a conviction of a police officer for killing somebody in the line of duty. And in that one case where there was a conviction, the officer served no jail time. The conviction was for negligent homicide in that case. The sentence was probation and a few hundred hours of community service. So, in 15 years, 179 killings, one successful prosecution by local prosecutors, zero jail time. So, yes, people are upset. Of those 179 people killed by police in the cases where the race of the person killed is known, 86 percent were reportedly black or Hispanic, 86 percent, one conviction over 179 deaths. Zero jail time. Today in Cleveland, the mother of 12-year-old Tamir Rice who was killed by police while he played with an air soft pellet gun at a local rec center, the whole interaction between the boy and the police who shot him was less than three seconds. Less than three seconds between when the police pulled up and when that boy was dead. Today in Cleveland, his mother spoke publicly for the first time since her son was killed on November 22nd. Now, for context here in terms of understanding what she says, the family, mother who is speaking here, she lived just across the street from the park where her son was killed. He had been at the park she says, along with his 14-year-old sister. Remember the boy who was killed was 12 years old. He`d been at the park with his 14-year-old sister. His mother ran to the park as soon as she heard what happened. Listen to her explain. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SAMARIA RICE, SHOOTING VICTIM TAMIR RICE`S MOTHER: My name is Samaria Rice, and on November 22nd, about 3:30 p.m., reminding you that I stay right across the street from the recreation center, two little boys came and knocked on my door and said the police just shot your son twice in the stomach. As I was trying to get through to my son, the police told me to calm down or they will put me in the back of the police car. I noticed the police are just standing around and they wasn`t doing anything. And again, I arrived the same time the ambulance did. So again, I just noticed them. They wasn`t doing anything. My daughter was screaming for me and my son, I really couldn`t get to him because he was a little bit across the walkway. So, after I couldn`t get to him and they told me to calm down, they gave me an ultimatum of whether I stay with the 14-year-old or do I go with the 12-year-old. This is what they told me. So, of course, I went with the 12-year-old and they made me sit in the front of the ambulance truck like I was a passenger. REPORTER: Mr. Rice, what would you consider a just outcome of the case on behalf of your son? RICE: To answer your question, I`m actually looking for a conviction. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: "I`m actually looking for a conviction," she says. That would be a very rare occurrence in this country if it happens. I would love to tell you exactly how rare it is, but as a country, we don`t count killings by police in any systematic way. Some police departments do keep those numbers themselves. Some departments keep them and report them to the FBI. Some do neither. I mean, when the "New York Daily News" compiled their data today about police killings over the past 15 years, they had to couch all their reporting in terms of it being at least that many killed and as best as they can tell in terms of what happened, because even the biggest police department in the country, the NYPD, will not release its internal statistics about how many people their officers kill. And they don`t report it to the feds either. The police killing people in this country is not really defined as a problem in this country. So, we don`t bother to collect or release any data that might show how big a problem it is, or whether it`s a worse problem in some parts of the country than in others. When 12-year-old Tamir Rice was shot in Cleveland, the Justice Department announced soon after an agree to partially take over that local police department to install federal monitors in Cleveland for a police department so broken that they once sent 62 police vehicles to chase one speeding car and then fired 179 bullets into that car to kill the two unarmed people who were inside it. Speeding in Cleveland. This is the same police department that hired the officer who killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice within three seconds of first encountering him despite the fact that he was fired from his previous job at a suburban police department for being inherently unsuited to police work and according to his previous supervisors, basically unable to control himself, specifically around firearms. Cleveland hired a guy whose personnel record said that because they had no policy of reading previous personnel files for anyone they were considering hiring to be a Cleveland cop. They didn`t have a policy of looking at that kind of stuff. And so, yes, the federal government will step in and intervene in the administration of Cleveland`s police force. They`ll do it for the second time in a decade. And maybe that will help. But there`s no reason to think that federal intervention is magic. Ask anybody who has ever been shot by an FBI agent. Today, the attorney general of New York state proposed something that would be a significant change. It would be at least a systemic kind of change. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman today proposed that when police officers kill an unarmed civilian in New York, such a case should not be handled by local prosecutors. Incidents like that should be treated basically as special circumstances for prosecution. They should be handed up as a matter of course to the state to investigate and prosecute. Cases like that should go to his office, to the office of the state attorney general. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think this would do -- go a long way towards restoring public confidence which right now is shot. The public and this crosses racial lines, ideological lines, public confidence in our system of investigating and prosecuting police misconduct, particularly when unarmed civilians are killed by the police. It must be addressed. It`s not that I don`t believe my colleagues, the district attorneys, are completely committed to integrity of the process. This is something to restore public confidence because, again, the appearance of justice has to be restored. A sense of equal justice under the law and disinterested prosecutor. I would be very disappointed with all of the energy of the protests we come away with nothing in way of reforming. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman talking to Ronan Farrow today explaining this request he`s made to New York state`s governor, request for an executive order that would put his office, his attorney general`s office in charge at the state level whenever an unarmed civilian is killed by police in the state of New York. Is that the right reform? Wisconsin has just started trying something kind of like this as a landmark new state law. But no state has done exactly this. Would it work? Would be it a real change? Is this smart? Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MADDOW: At this time last week, there was essentially a mass conservative freak out when five members of the St. Louis Rams football team entered the stadium for their game last week with their hands up. Hands up in the air -- making the "hands up, don`t shoot" gesture that we`ve seen so commonly at the protests in and about Ferguson, Missouri. That was last Sunday. Will there be a similar freak out starting right about now because this was the scene just a short time ago tonight at the Brooklyn Nets basketball game? That is the king of the NBA, LeBron James, warming up for tonight`s game against the Nets, in an "I can`t breathe" t-shirt, a reference to the final words of Eric Garner who died as a result of a police chokehold in Staten Island. Will we now get conservative freak out round two over this or is LeBron James too big to pick on? We`ll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MADDOW: For yet another night, protests continue around the country against the police killing of citizens, in part with immunity, right? Earlier this evening in Brooklyn, New York, protesters staged a die- in outside the Barclays Center in Brooklyn where tonight, Prince William and Duchess Kate Middleton were among those watching the Brooklyn-Nets game. We`ve seen demonstrations today and tonight in Washington, D.C., Oakland, California, even Anchorage, Alaska. Protests don`t seem to be wrapping up anytime soon. This is an aerial shot of what appears to be large-scale protests in the streets of Berkeley, California, where there was some violence both in terms of looting and between protesters and between protesters and police this weekend. Joining us now is Eric Adams. He retired as a captain in the NYPD after serving 22 years on the force. He`s co-founder of 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, former state senator in New York. This year, Eric Adams became the top elected official in Brooklyn. He`s the borough president. Mr. Adams, thanks for being here tonight. ERIC ADAMS, BROOKLYN, NY BOROUGH PRESIDENT: Thank you so much. MADDOW: Looking at those protesters in the streets of Brooklyn tonight outside the Barclays Center and what appears to be a real sustained effort here to keep this fight going on in the streets, as well as in the discussion, do you feel like it`s leading toward anything constructive? ADAMS: I`m extremely excited. You know, my entire career in the police department, I pushed for this. I was demonized for talking about we need systemic changes. And now, this is my life labor I`m seeing materialize and the diversity. These are the grandchildren of the civil rights movement. Black, white, different ethnicities, difficult cultures that are saying they want change. They aren`t fighting against the police department. They are fighting against the past. They want the future to be a brighter future. MADDOW: Can you talk about what you wrote about recently in a national op-ed? You wrote about your decision to become a police officer despite, or maybe because of circumstances that you happened to you when you were a teenager. You were arrested and were treated very badly by police, abused by police and that was part of your decision to join the police force. ADAMS: Yes, it`s about reconciliation. You know, you reconcile with people but also have to reconcile with yourself and people saw that, why did I seem like a man possessed around, you know, abuse in law enforcement. Because the demon was within me and I had to deal with that demon of how I was treated as a 15-year-old child. You look at law enforcement to be this symbol of strength in America and then to be brutalized in such a manner. You walk away with -- you know, have to be part of the change. MADDOW: We heard the announcements there, at least the request today from New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. He`s written to Governor Cuomo and said that at least as a temporary measure, at least until the law can be changed, he`d like an executive order from Governor Cuomo that would let the state attorney general`s office become the investigating agency, instead of local prosecutors, whenever police kill an unarmed civilian. Do you support that? Do you think it`s smart? ADAMS: Excellent idea because elected officials will always tell you what they`re going to do because we`re hoping to kick the can down the road. Eric Schneiderman is saying before we talk about what we`re going to do and more powers we need, let`s utilize the powers that we have now. The governor can do this instantly. That`s been done before. This is a great opportunity to say to the local district attorneys, listen, this is not an indictment on you. This is not an indictment on the people who serve on the grand jury. But we`re clear, there`s a problem on when it`s time to look after a beat cop that went rogue. We know you can do it with the average citizen robs a store, but you`re having a problem across the country when it times to deal with an officer and his actions. MADDOW: Do you think that New York is likely to go that direction? Do you feel the desire for change and reform in New York is strong enough and being stressed constructively enough that you think something will happen? Are you optimistic? ADAMS: This is unbelievable what we`re seeing right now. Particularly for those of us who were always tempted to move this issue forward. When you have men on the basketball court doing this, you are going to have judges on the Supreme Court finally looking at, we can do better. We`re better at a country than what we`re seeing now, and I`m optimistic. We have been living in this drunkenness of police abuse. Now is the time to take the steps toward sobriety. One step at a time. MADDOW: Brooklyn borough president, co-founder of the 100 Blacks on Law Enforcement Who Care, former NYPD captain, Eric Adams -- thank you so much for being here. ADAMS: Thank you. MADDOW: Thanks. Great to have you here. All right. We got lots more ahead, including a milestone in American politics that seemed laugh-out-loud impossible about 50 years ago. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MADDOW: Tonight, the head of the ACLU, the head of the national ACLU has just published this op-ed in "The New York Times." It`s going to be in tomorrow morning`s paper. It calls for president -- we have a picture of the op-ed there? I can hold it up if we don`t have a picture of it. This op-ed, there we go. The op-ed calls for President Obama to issue a pardon to former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials for overseeing torture as a U.S. policy for years. Quote, "The spectacle of the president`s granting pardons to torturers still makes my stomach turn", he said, "but doing so may be the only way to ensure that the American government never tortures again. Pardons would make clear that crimes were committed." Again, this is the head of the national UCLA calling tonight for President George W. Bush to be pardoned by President Obama over the issue of torture. That`s provocative. We`ve got more on that story ahead. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MADDOW: So, hey, the war in Afghanistan ended today. What you are looking at is a ceremony held in an airfield in Kabul. U.S. and NATO troops folded the coalition flags in a small choreographed ceremony and that marked the formal end of the U.S. and NATO combat mission in Afghanistan after more than 13 years. America`s longest ever war is now over. By which I mean, it`s going to continue for a bunch more years. This is one of those days where something that would otherwise be a huge freaking deal, right? The formal end of a giant war was essentially greeted with, eh, because the headline didn`t at all match the fine print. Even though the U.S. combat mission technically ended today and this ceremony was proof of that, the current U.S. plan is for more than 10,000 American troops to stay in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, for another decade or even longer, according to the security agreement we have signed. There were going to be 9,800 left indefinitely. Now they say it will be more than 10,000. The troops were going to have no further combat missions on the ground, but now they still may engage in combat missions and there`s no date for them to come home. So, yes. Basically, they are changing the name from "Operation Enduring Freedom" to then new one, "Operation Resolute Support." But there`s a reason why even though the U.S. marked the formal end of that long part of the long war today, it didn`t warrant a passing mention an the White House Web site today. Today was the day in the news where the presidency of Barack Obama was clearly the one that had to take the baton from the previous presidency of George W. Bash. America`s longest war in Afghanistan started in year one of the George W. Bush administration. Yes, today it got a new name but it`s still going strong. There was also this headline today about the slow progress of finding countries to accept prisoners who were taken by the last administration with no real plan for what to do with them. They were never charged. They were just stuffed into warehousing in Cuba. Six prisoners just got sent to Uruguay. They`d all been at Guantanamo since 2002. None of them had ever been charged. They were recommended for release by the U.S. government way back in 2009. It has taken another five years to jump through all the bureaucratic hoops necessary to actually move them out. It`s gone under the radar but the Obama administration in the last few weeks has quietly picked up the pace in terms of transferring guys out of Guantanamo. At the beginning of last month, one prisoner was transferred to Kuwait. A few weeks later, four Yemenis and a Tunisian were transferred to Georgia and Slovakia. A few days after that, another prisoner was transferred to Saudi Arabia. And now today, we have the six prisoners who have been sent to Uruguay. And this, of course, is a scandal to the extent that people are paying attention even though the Bush administration transferred hundreds of prisoners out of Guantanamo. But this is also something the president has been working on since literally the first day of his presidency, when he signed that executive order that called for the closure of Guantanamo. Guantanamo is still open, of course. It`s slowly emptying out handful by handful. But it`s dragging on forever. And if you need one more piece of today`s news, continuing to be the cleanup of the more poorly thought out aspects of the George W. Bush administration, there`s also this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS: Good evening. U.S. embassies and facilities around the world are preparing for possible violence within the next 24 hours, because of the intentional release of a report detailing the torture of terrorism suspects by the CIA under the banner of the war on terror and in the wake of 9/11. This is not a leak. This is a prepared document, 600 pages in length, released by the Democrats who still control the Senate Intelligence Committee, who believe that once this evidence is out for the world to see, the U.S. will never again use torture as a means of interrogation. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Tomorrow, after months of wrangling between the Senate and the CIA, the U.S. Senate is going to officially released big portions of their exhaustive into torture carried out by the CIA during the George W. Bush administration. Torture authorized as policy in Washington, executed in the field by CIA officers and contractors. The Senate Intelligence Committee spent years investigating this issue, and they put together a 6,000-page report that we are told will lay out a disturbing detail what sort of techniques were used an American-held prisoners. It will also reportedly conclude that these methods were not effective at gaining usable intelligence. It will also reportedly conclude that some intelligence officials lied to or misled the White House and Congress for years about what the agency did. There`s been some question as to whether the Obama administration would let this report be released, President Obama himself, though, earlier this year sort of cut to the chase there, endorsed releasing the report and explained why he thinks the report needs to come out. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. When we engaged in some of these enhanced interrogation techniques, techniques that I believe and I think any fair-minded person would believe were torture, we crossed a line. And that needs to be -- that needs to be understood and accepted. And we have to, as a country, take responsibility for that so that hopefully we don`t do it again in the future. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: We tortured some folks. Again, we`re told to expect a 600-page summary of this multi-thousand page report to be released tomorrow afternoon. This is a big deal. The U.S. military has put thousands of U.S. Marines on alert throughout the Middle East to prepare for possible repercussions. Joining us now is Jonathan Landay, national security correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers. Mr. Landay, thanks very much fore being here. It`s a pleasure to have you here. JONATHAN LANDAY, MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: My pleasure to be here. MADDOW: So, this -- the release of this report has been debated for not months, years. Lots of arguments around redactions, about whether or not the report should exist and what should be made public. What new information are we likely to learn tomorrow when this 600-page summary is released? LANDAY: We know what the main conclusions are. You yourself have cited them. But I think what is going to come out in this executive summary that we`re going to hopefully see tomorrow are some of the more gritty, disturbing details of the procedures that were used on scores of detainees at secret black sites overseas. MADDOW: Will there be names of individuals who did these things, names of policymakers who signed off on them? LANDAY: No. In fact, some of the fight over the redactions were about redacting pseudonyms of pseudonyms. In other words, there were fake names of -- used to cover up fake names of people, but according to the administration and the intelligence community, if you took one of these fake names and you used the information surrounding it throughout the report, you could or somebody could detect the real identity of CIA covert officers who were involved in the program. Of course, the other part of the battle over in redactions was the administration and the intelligence community`s contentions that there was information in this report that would anger and jeopardize foreign governments who were also -- who cooperated in the program. MADDOW: In terms of the expected fallout here, I have to say, I don`t know if this is an answerable question, but I`ll put to you anyway -- it seems it is not a secret, at least it`s not a secret to the president of the United States speaking publicly that some of what the United States did after 9/11 was torture. That`s a known fact. It`s been described. We`ve actually had a lot of pretty hairy details described by various means over the years. That isn`t a secret. If there isn`t any identifying information about who done it, let alone some legal strategy to bring people to justice for having done this illegal thing, arguably illegal thing, why is there an expectation or why is the fear being raised that this report is going to land like such a shot heard around the world? LANDAY: Well, we`re going to have to wait and see. You know, it`s speculation, obviously. There are some people who believe that the concerns that are being voiced about possible violent repercussions are overreacting and, of course, you have former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, current and former CIA officials and others who are contending that the committee got it wrong. That the most important key conclusions of the report that the use of these procedures did not produce significant intelligence, did not win the cooperation of those who were subjected to these procedures, that the CIA misled various parts of the government, including the White House and Congress, is all wrong. That in fact, these procedures produced intelligence that was significant and led to the thwarting of plots against the United States, terrorist plots against the United States, and led the CIA to the arrest of some pretty significant players and al Qaeda. MADDOW: Jonathan Landay, national security correspondent from McClatchy Newspapers -- thanks very much for helping us understand what to expect for tomorrow, John. I appreciate it. LANDAY: My pleasure, my pleasure. MADDOW: The argument over this, this has been going on for years in terms of people arguing about whether this could come out. This is not about trying anybody for torture. This is not about bringing -- you know, naming and shaming people. This is not about exposing people who did this so that the world can take their revenge or something. Everybody involved in this study, everybody involved in this policy, everybody who was exposed in this report will continue to be anonymous as they are now. But the right is telling us to freak out about this report that comes out tomorrow. We`ll see when it comes out. It should be about 600 pages. We`ll keep you posted. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MADDOW: Key factor in the most important story in Washington right now. Key factor, I swear. It`s not supposed to bounce. I`ve been working on this all day. I still suck. It`s important, though, I swear. Damn it. Oh, that`s better with the green ones. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MADDOW: OK, check this out. 1930, the political map of darn near everything in the American South. Blue, blue, blue. Not liberal. But with complete Democratic control. The governors, the U.S. senators, statehouses. That`s the American South in 1930. OK. Give me 1940. Right. Blue. Still blue. Completely blue. The entire thing from Texas to North Carolina. 1950, please? Thank you very much. The whole thing again. Every governorship, statehouse. Democrats had a lock on the South. Here we have 1960. Yes, copper blue, Selsun blue, blue velvet. You can have any color you want as long as it`s blue, because Democrats controlled the South, the solid South, solidly. Then came 1964, when President Lyndon Johnson, a Southern Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act even though he knew at the time it would cost his Democratic Party their hold on the Old Confederacy. He predicted that in 1964 and he was correct. Nate Cohen at "The New York Times" charted this the other day. The flat line here at 100 percent shows Democratic control in the South. The governorships, the U.S. Senate seats, both the statehouses, democrats had them all until the 1960s. Then in the mid-1960s, when President Johnson passed the civil rights act, Democrats started losing ground. Little at first then a little more and then a lot more. Somewhere right around here. This November, last month, Democrat Kay Hagan lost her Senate seat in North Carolina. Mark Pryor lost his in Arkansas, and that left one Southern Democrat -- and that one Democratic holder of a big statewide office anywhere in the U.S. South. That one last southern Democrat was Mary Landrieu. The year Mary Landrieu got that seat in the first place, Southern Democrats could still win elections. Bill Clinton won his second term that year. He`d come up as a Democratic governor. His Vice President Al Gore followed his dad into government from the state of Tennessee. Mary Landrieu got elected in those years and then held on through eight years of George W. Bash, through Republican waves and Democratic waves. The south voted against Barack Obama twice. But Louisiana still picked Mary Landrieu. Mary Landrieu won in 2008 by six points, even as Barack Obama lost her state by 19 points that year. If you look back at exit polling from her various races over the years, you could see that Mary Landrieu would get most of the African- American vote, a huge proportion of the African-American vote and about a third of the white vote. That`s how Mary Landrieu won. That`s how she managed to stay ahead of this really trend line for Democrats in the South. Get most of the black vote and get a third of the white vote. Now, Louisiana does a lot of things differently from the rest of the country. They have parishes instead of counties, right? They have drive- through daiquiri shops, which everybody should have, but nobody does, but them. Louisiana does things differently. One of the quirks of Louisiana politics is they have an all in, everybody against everybody election in the first round instead of party primaries. They call it a jungle primary. And in the jungle primary this November, that gave us an x-ray as to how Mary Landrieu was doing before this weekend`s runoff. Turns out her support among white voters had disappeared. She was used to getting a third of the white vote but in November that was down to -- look -- 18 percent. She had become basically just another Democrat who couldn`t win in the South. You know, we can debate why this is. Should Mary Landrieu have run more on the Obama record? Did she waste her time on the Keystone pipeline, touting herself as a supporter of that and calling for a vote on her opponent`s bill to approve it? Right? Was there no good way for her to run this year with Democrats in exile across the Southern states? Did national Democrats let her down? Has the Democratic ground game in the South turned to dust? What could Mary Landrieu do in trying to remain the last southern Democrat in the United States? And whenever that would cost Democrats in terms of principle or treasure to try to keep her as the last one blue dot in the South, would it have been worth it? Whatever the answers are, the results on Saturday, the result this weekend is that Mary Landrieu got skunked in her runoff election. She lost her Senate seat by 12 points. The state that gave her three terms in a row picked a Republican this time instead. Bill Cassidy will now become the first Republican to hold that Louisiana Senate seat in 132 years. The old solid South Democratic version is gone. The new solid South is totally, solidly Republican. And in Louisiana this weekend, it was all over, but the shouts of victory and just the briefest pause for the reflection on defeat. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D), LOUISIANA: If you want to spend your life in a worthy cause, choose something that takes longer than your life to achieve, and then you know it`s worth fighting for. SEN.-ELECT BILL CASSIDY (D), LOUISIANA: God bless you, God bless Louisiana, God bless the United States of America. Thank you once again. Boom! (END VIDEO CLIPS) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MADDOW: If you`re interested in getting in touch with your member of Congress, there are a few straightforward methods to choose from. You could give their office a call. You can shoot them an e-mail. You can send them a letter. If you`re old school or if you`re the pope, you could send a fax. Members of Congress are occasionally responsive to a tweet and are pretty used to hearing from people by online petition. If you`re feeling pushy, you could show up in person as part of a protest or sit in. But there`s one surefire way of getting noticed without leaving the comfort of home -- sending your member of Congress purposely awkward objects in large numbers. About years ago, conservative activists had a campaign of sending tea bags to Congress, to demonstrate Tea Party sympathies. The influx of tea bags into the mail system was a strange enough phenomenon to cause some upset and some logistical difficulties in the congressional offices that were so inundated. Couple years ago, some activists decided to send certain conservative congressmen little knitted or crocheted uteruses. As in, here`s a uterus for you, now stay out of mine. So, this is the last week before this Congress packs up for the holidays and for the year and for good. And if they don`t pass a spending bill before they go on Thursday, the U.S. government will shut down. Republican leadership says they don`t want a shut down, but the Republican base of the Republican Party really wants one. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: The Democrats have been shellacked, and the Republicans are running around like a fool (ph), saying American people are not going to like them if they shut down the government, is absurd. Barack Obama`s approvals in the `30s. This isn`t about a government shutdown. This is about two elections in which the people of this country are begging the Republican people to stop this man. CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: The point is that (INAUDIBLE) won in spite of the shutdown not because of the shutdown? LIMBAUGH: What does it matter? They won. The point is, this is a trick. I think the shutdown, you know what? Here`s what it really means, Chris. The Republicans want what Obama wants on immigration. And they are using the government shutdown as an excuse to not stop him because the truth of the matter is, they agree with it. Romney agrees with it. Jeb Bush agrees with it. Chamber of Commerce agrees with it. Obviously, the Republican establishment doesn`t want to stop President Obama on comprehensive immigration reform. WALLACE: Do you think John Boehner and Mitch McConnell agree with that? LIMBAUGH: And very conveniently, here`s this government shutdown. Oh, we can`t act, we can`t, because they`ll blame us for shutting down the government. They`re going to be mad us for shutting down the government. I think it`s absurd. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: The base of the Republican Party really wants a government shutdown. And they think the leadership, the establishment leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, they are Obama lovers if they don`t have the stones to go ahead and shut it down like the people demand. So, now, talk radio and specifically conservative blogs are asking angry conservatives to please mail to John Boehner`s office, some balls, maybe racquetballs, balls in a can. This is the specific balls that the "Red State" blog has linked to for people to click through to arrange their balls` delivery to Speaker Boehner`s office. The most recent product review from Bob says, "I just sent a pair and a spare to John Boehner`s office." That said, Bob`s review is right next to one that doesn`t seem promising in terms of its political impact. The next one says, "My dog eats the fur off the yellow tennis balls, but these are so much better." So, in terms of whether or not angry conservatives sending balls through the mail to John Boehner, whether they`re going to succeed at stopping the Republicans in the House from funding the government, we don`t yet know. We did reach out to John Boehner`s office in Springfield, Ohio, today, as well as to the speaker`s spokesperson in D.C. to find out, we`ve yet to hear back. We will update you as soon as we know whether Speaker Boehner has received the balls, and if so, how many? But tick-tock in terms of keeping the lights on. House Republicans still have to figure what they want to vote on. Their earliest plan for when to vote is Wednesday. Government funding runs out on Thursday. The Senate would still need to pass it after the House. If the Senate is up against the wall, we all know that just one senator who won`t stop talking can gum up the whole works and in this case, shut down the whole government again. So, tick-tock. It`s racquetball stunt-o`clock in Washington, and the shut down happens on Thursday unless the Republicans have to figure out how to shut up their own conservative base again. Watch this space. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL". Good evening, Lawrence. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 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.