the rachel maddow show, transcript 05/08/13 - white gold necklace and earring set

by:JINGLIXIN     2019-07-29
the rachel maddow show, transcript 05/08/13  -  white gold necklace and earring set
Host Rachel Cherry: I'll be back in an hour.
I have to get ready.
Thanks Chris.
Thank you for joining us this hour at home.
We will try to breathe fresh air or at least for the next hour. All right.
Just this time last night, we reported that the Dow Jones industrial average had reached its highest point ever.
Yesterday was the first time the Dow had closed more than 15,000 points in history, a remarkable achievement for the collection of this number.
It has never been so high.
What is more remarkable, however, is that it turns out that this may not be accidental, or at least not accidental --
Because the Dow Jones index rose further today and remained above 15,000, we have not only reached the 15,000 milestone, but we have remained above.
Whether you care about the stock market or think it is an important economic indicator to measure the overall or overall economic behavior of the stock market, it is undeniable that this is a new height, a milestone achievement.
On the day the stock market reached such a high level, this landmark achievement, the Conservatives who found themselves on the mailing list of group Citizens-yes, the same group of people from the Supreme Court case-Conservatives who signed up for Citizen United e-commerce
Received this email
The mail in their inbox yesterday
"Obama's recent missteps could lead to impeachment. ” Impeachment? Click, open.
"Dear readers of concern: for fear of the worst, the country's super-rich are selling stocks at an alarming rate.
The super-rich are selling shares because Obama destroyed the stock market.
So, on the day of the stock market breaking through 15,000 for the first time, subscribers to the U. S. citizen's joint communications list received allegations of President Obama and how he destroyed the market.
You see what this communist, socialist, Marxist president has done in the market.
You must impeach him now.
He did it on purpose.
People who believe that progress is the time to notice the time to issue an appeal to this email
Mailing list, but the timing irony of this list is really just an exclamation point about the truth of these things, which is their resistance to the confrontation of facts, right?
Clearly, there is a right-wing conspiracy theory that President Obama deliberately destroys the stock market to destroy capitalism.
Against this conspiracy theory, the stock market under President Obama has achieved record results, which is not an obstacle to the proposition.
There is no fact, no birth certificate, no birth announcement in the local newspaper, and it will never be possible to prove to them that the birth of the president was forged, which is a self-evident conspiracy.
Friends from our conspiracy theory Exchange Center at the World Web daily, Rick Santorum is working there right now.
He was second in the Republican presidential primary and now works for the World Network Daily.
In the World Network Daily, there is nothing to prove to them that the plot they have uncovered is to cover up the fact that President Obama is not only a secret gay, but that President Obama is a secret gay marriage, even before everyone knew about gay marriage, he killed all his gay boyfriends. So, sure.
For you, the facts may appear on President Obama in other ways, but on the World Network Daily, they prove it with photos and other things, and there are pictures of things
Is this something crazy?
Yes, it's crazy, of course, but it feels great, isn't it?
Ideologically speaking, it is gratifying to wrap yourself in this kind of thing.
Because of it, there is a market for this kind of thing, and the market for this kind of thing will not stop at the edge.
Looking at this edge into the mainstream of Republican politics is one of the most important ideological symbols of the Obama era.
In this spirit, I want to take a moment here to give some No.
Laura Ingraham is a conservative talk radio host, but I think she did a very good job, and last week she was on her show Senator James Inhofe, oakrama.
He has pushed one of the recent conservative conspiracy theories that the Obama administration is buying as much ammunition as possible so that the rest of us don't have the rest.
Look, that's how they can disarm us by taking all the bullets, and then the Obama administration can launch an unopposed violent war against the unarmed American population.
Open your eyes, shipur!
But while receiving Senator Inhoff, talk show host Laura Ingraham actually made useful suggestions to the senator
Ask questions and try to get him to explain exactly how the plot works. Listen. (
Start audio clips)SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R)
Oklaoma: What would they do if they wanted to violate our Second Amendment rights and do it with ammunition.
Radio host Laura Ingraham: Can you explain it to me?
What do they need it to do?
Well, they don't.
This is the point.
But it was bought by the federal government before Obama.
No, it's not these numbers now, Laura.
Not these numbers.
The best evidence is to see what's going on with the supply.
There is no supply, where did they go, and of course, some people know-Ingram: bought it.
-We have a president who wants to take it.
Yes, they bought it, but it did not reach that proportion.
Now, I know it's a fact because I know the people who care about this, so-so, if I'm wrong on this, there's no harm. (END AUDIO CLIP)
MADDOW: The last part, I feel like I want to save it in Lucite and make a plaque with it as a reward for people.
He said, I know it's true because I know people care about it, so, you know, there's no harm if I'm wrong. It`s perfect.
But it's not just the idea of coming from Senator James "mountain" inhove of Oklahoma City.
Although he occasionally confuses the host, what he says on the conservative talk radio is not just to get people excited.
Senator Inhofe introduced legislation based on this conspiracy theory.
It is referred to as the more accessible act on Ammunition Management in 2013.
It will, among other things, prohibit the federal government from purchasing or owning at any time more than the monthly average rounds of ammunition purchased by the covered agencies during January 1, 2001, ending in December 31, 2009.
In other words, from now on, the Obama administration will be banned from buying more ammunition than the Bush administration.
If the first black president bought more bullets than the former white president, how terrible would it be?
America, we have to stop this happening.
Today, another Republican senator, Senator Tom Coburn, from the state of okhara, withdrew his proposed legislation at the last minute, which is also based on the Obama administration's plot to buy all its ammunition.
Senator Coburn's legislation will establish a federal registry for federal-owned firearms and ammunition.
It's a federal registry, but it only registers guns and ammunition owned by the federal government.
When Senator Coburn began to be asked why he wanted to start tracking guns and ammunition, Senator Coburn withdrew the legislation today, saying it was a "manifestation of goodwill ".
"Now, whenever a big thing happens in this country, even if it looks like a political event entirely, the political reaction on the right, you can see it at work, the question about whether this could be a conspiracy by the Obama administration was quickly resolved.
It has just arrived in the territory these days.
It's woven in the right way, even a dayto-day news.
So, like when the Boston Marathon bombings happened, the story of the right wing and some Republican lawmakers was not the Boston Marathon bombings, but the real story there, the real story we should be talking about there is the plot and scandal of the Boston Marathon bombings.
Three days after the Boston bombings, before the suspect was captured, and a few days after the bombings, before Boston was blocked, Homeland Security Minister Janet Napolitano was on the House Committee Homeland Security Committee.
It should be a hearing on departmental budgets.
But because of what happened in Boston and across the country, and concerns about Boston, the secretary finally answered questions about the explosion investigation, or, when she tried to understand them, this proved difficult in the case of South Carolina Republican Congressman Jeff Duncan.
Congressman Duncan seems to be trying to prove that the Obama administration has expelled people who shouldn't-well, the reason is at least meaningless for Janet Napolitano. (
Start Video Editing)REP. JEFF DUNCAN (R)
South Carolina: we have this guy there and we know he's there.
He was arrested in the hospital with blood on his body.
He's on the scene, but we're going to expel him. (CROSSTALK)
Department of Homeland Security Minister Janet natantano: If possible, representative, I do not know of anyone who has been deported for national security issues related to Boston.
I don't know where that rumor is-Duncan: I'm not saying it has something to do with Boston, but he was deported.
Natantano: Like I said, I don't even think he's technically an interested person or a suspect. That was awash.
Duncan: Don't you agree with me? As the United States government, it is said that the expulsion of the person at the scene of the explosion was negligent. we will expel him and we can no longer question him.
Isn't this negligence?
I am not going to answer this question.
It is so full of misconceptions and misconceptions that it is not worth answering. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Obviously, what is she hiding, right?
To be clear, let's first talk about where members of Congress got this conspiracy theory from.
Let's go to Glen Baker. (
Start Video Editing)
Radio host Glenn Baker: Yesterday was asked about Janet Napolitano's situation regarding Saudi nationals and their imminent deportation.
She refused to answer.
Why would the president meet informally with a Saudi official earlier this week?
According to Saudi media, who is this Saudi man in the hospital, he gave a new international mobile phone and apologized to who, I want to know who he is?
Why would someone be deported?
Let me say this to those of you who know the highest level of government in the labeling system.
They know all the events, not the files and events.
Let me convey this message very clearly, and we know who this Saudi national is.
It's Monday.
We know who this person is.
Listen to me carefully. in your little world of events, we know that he is a very bad, bad person.
I know it doesn't make any sense to you, but Monday, it will. (END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: that's Friday, April 19.
The Monday after that has passed, does it not make much sense? That`s OK.
I can tell you something that obviously involves Michelle Obama and going to the hospital to visit someone, maybe he's from Saudi Arabia, maybe he's a real bomber, maybe it's a huge cover --
Who is responsible for the explosion, Michelle Obama personally protected the man, because maybe the White House arranged the marathon explosion for political purposes, which is obviously obvious and does not have to be understood.
If so, Glen Baker, you have to wait until Monday and then everything will be exposed.
Remember the reaction of the right to unemployment below 8% just before the election?
Obviously, the answer can't be, yes, the unemployment rate is going down, and it can't be, yes, it might be good for the country, but we see on the right, it's politically bad for us, it just doesn't make the president look so bad.
This is a normal political reaction.
In today's right, the response is that the Obama administration must manipulate unemployment for political purposes.
The same congressman, Jeff Duncan, asked Janet Napolitano about the hard-to-understand questions about the real bomber and the cover of the Boston bombing conspiracy scandal --
At the same time, the member of Congress has now launched a legislation aimed at reducing unemployment.
It will effectively eliminate the unemployment rate and any measure of economic growth or economic scale by banning the Census Bureau from collecting information including unemployment, because, hey, besides that, who needs to do this, this leaves them less manipulated for political purposes.
In Congress today, an attack on a diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, killed four Americans.
The Republican position in Congress today is that this should not be seen as an attack, it should be seen as a conspiracy and a scandal.
The investigation could be the most organized concerted effort by House Republicans to do anything in Congress since taking control of the house.
They have voted 39 times to repeal Obamacare.
They have just announced that they will vote 40 times next week.
Why not?
But in terms of their own ideas, the Benghazi hearing is basically the case.
This is the most ambitious thing they do, and the idea here is that this is not an attack on the United StatesS.
What happened in Benghazi should be seen as a political conspiracy planned by the Obama administration, perhaps hoping to be planned by Hillary Clinton, but perhaps only if she is running for president.
Yes, the attack in Benghazi was planned by the government because it was good for them.
So if President Obama isn't going to be impeached for falling stocks, he will certainly be impeached for Benghazi.
Or, actually, he could-you know?
Because he resigned in Benghazi.
It will be perfect. (
Start audio clips)
Fox News Mike Huckabee: With the beginning of information and facts, people will become very obvious, deliberately misleading the country and the people, lying to Congress and you, and I believe before everything is over, the president will not finish his entire term. (END AUDIO CLIP)
MADDOW: I can't explain exactly how it happened, but I'm pretty sure it happens.
If you say Benghazi is amazing enough, and if you teach enough people to type Benghazi with a hat lock key on Twitter only, "H" is really hard, in the end, President Obama will be impeached or resigned, and then we will get all the ammunition back and finally meet his gay husband.
Now joining us is Frank Ritchie, whose latest column is "whitewash", and the writers of "New York Magazine" look at Republicans trying to change their image while issuing restrictive new voting rights.
Thank you very much for coming, Frank.
Frank Ritchie, New York Magazine: As usual, it's great to be here.
I look forward to seeing the secret gay husband. RICH: I know.
Do you think we have seen him before?
I was wondering if he was filming a sitcom in Hollywood. (LAUGHTER)
Benghazi conspiracy theory is a theory that I can't reverse engineering.
I can't follow the conclusions of its plaintiffs to figure out why the Obama administration faked their response to the attack in the way they did it before the election, giving them better political consequences.
RICH: it doesn't make any sense-the charge doesn't make any political sense at all, and it's not clear why Republicans continue to beat it.
It was supposed to win Romney's election, right?
He should have made a big fuss about Benghazi during the debate. That backfired.
Then, Hillary Clinton is actually a Democrat and is now popular among Republicans and no longer in office.
So they kept beating her and she was clearly responsible for the mistakes that had happened there.
So I don't know-I 've always wanted them to go back on another 9/11 track and what Bush did in Texas when he got intelligence reports that al Qaeda was going to hit the United States in the summer of 2001.
MADDOW: Well, one of the big cigarette guns that Republicans have been waving this week is the damn assertion of former Vice President Dick Cheney, because it's the anniversary of September 11, attacks should not occur anywhere because they should be able to stop attacks anywhere in the world, because everyone in the world should be so vigilant.
'We will be very vigilant on every 9/11 anniversary, 'he said.
Rich: Yes, except for the original 9/11. MADDOW: Right.
Anniversary is a very important modifier here.
Rich: the idea can be written from history that Cheney and Bush's watches had the biggest domestic attack of our lives, and somehow it wasn't on the books, it's ridiculous that we're going to start accounting in September 12, 2011, and in normal public discourse, they're a bit getting away with it, and that's great.
You know, you saw a little bit during the launch of the Bush library.
No one really appeals to them enough.
MADDOW: you think it's because on these things, on the ammo they hoard, we have to get the real Boston bomber, you know, Benghazi is a scandal, not just an attack on the United States, an attack on all these things, because we have a different media world in which Republicans are watching the Republican media, they are seriously reporting everything, so no one takes it seriously, and these stories have no news interaction, will they get away with what they won't get away?
They have, but actually only at their base.
I mean, they should now be aware of all the shocks in Benghazi, including those in the mountains, and have not actually penetrated into their media space, the Fox news space.
Well, they thought it was a fait accompli, but they couldn't explain it.
RICH: they can't explain, they just didn't win anyone who converted to their position, but I think some of them are dangerous even though it's isolated.
Go back to the two senators who are talking about the government's purchase of ammunition.
This is exactly the plot that led to Timothy McVey, who, for God's sake, had ammunition.
After the Second Amendment, they will have concentration camps, black helicopters to follow you.
It's kind of like playing with fire.
I mean, some crazy right wing militia is still there, these people don't even see the irony, and two Republican senators from Homer, the atrocities that took place there aroused these flames.
Frank Rich, the big writer of New York magazine.
Can you stay with us for a while?
We're going to have another story about what you're currently writing and I want you to know something about it.
Rich: I'm very happy.
We will be back soon. (
Business break)
Former South Carolina Republican Governor Mark Sandford, the man who made the Appalachian Trail more famous than anyone on a hike, is on his way to Congress today, he won the first Congress in South Carolina last night.
The seat became vacant earlier this year, when Tim Scott, a former member of parliament, and the man on the left, was promoted to the Senate by Governor Nikki Haley.
She chose Tim Scott to fill the Senate seat vacated by Republican Senator Jim Dement on the right.
Jim Dement resigned from his Senate seat at the end of last year because he got a better offer and he found a job managing the Heritage Foundation.
The traditional Foundation is a conservative think tank.
From a right-wing point of view, this should be the font for serious policy analysis and research.
It's a bit strange for the traditional foundation, not because Jim Dement is not a famous person, but because he is not a capable person.
But Jim Dement is not the slimmest U. S. senator.
He used to own an advertising company.
Once he enters the Senate, his legislative agenda is like sponsoring the commemorative coin reform bill.
This will force senators to pay for the printing of commemorative resolutions.
Jim Dement is not known in the Senate for changing the policy of the Earth.
Jim Deming is considered an activist.
He is a man who is trying to get other super-conservative Republicans elected.
He supports candidates like Sharron Angle in Nevada, and remember Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, I'm not a witch.
These movements burn so brightly and brilliantly that they can still be seen in another galaxy today.
But the Heritage Foundation is in today's news because, under the leadership of Jim Dement, as a think tank, it's trying to kill the prospect of immigration reform and they want to kill it.
But the traditional foundation should not be a campaign.
They should be a think tank.
They should be the institutions that deal with policies, facts, numbers and complex data sets in August.
They just seem to have killed immigrants and just straight. up politics.
They have to try to kill immigration reform with something that looks like research, something that looks like some kind of research.
This is a new study by the Heritage Foundation on immigration reform, a study on immigration.
It looks serious and the name and everything else is boring.
Financial costs of illegal immigrants and amnesty for the United StatesS. taxpayer.
Looking at the conclusion of the report, we see that immigrants always enjoy benefits and they just accept, accept.
The achievement of immigrants is very low, and uneducated immigrants will never contribute to the economy in any meaningful way, because they all have serious problems with the poor.
Based on these conclusions and vague mathematics, the Heritage Foundation assigns a random number to the cost of immigration reform.
Guess what, they came up with $6 trillion.
Their basic argument is that immigrants are parasites and their children are parasites.
Wait, more.
One of the two authors of the report is a man named Jason Richwine.
Not the villain of billionaire bond. he's a doctor. Mr.
Richwine holds a doctorate from Harvard University.
Of course, in order to find the doctor a few years ago, he had to write a paper.
His paper is called "IQ and immigration policy ".
"Washington post" "Wonkblog" reported today that the paper is a wealth --
A lot of ideas from the eugenics era.
Quoting this sentence, "the average IQ of American immigrants is much lower than that of the white native population, and this difference may last for generations.
Quoting this sentence, "No one knows if Hispanic Americans will reach the same level as White IQ, but it is difficult to refute the prediction that the IQ of new Hispanic immigrants is low.
"The solution he came up with is an immigration system based on IQ choices, but he said don't call it that way.
This is not politically decent.
Instead, it should be called skill
Based on immigration.
If we call it skill, people will not be afraid --
Based on the selection process.
This is an academic study on immigration and a corresponding policy conclusion he reached in 2009.
Basically, foreigners who immigrate to the United States lack the intellectual ability to properly contribute to the white American society. It`s innate.
They were not educated.
They are always uneducated.
According to these conclusions he made in 2009, so will their children.
It is not difficult to see where the basic idea of new research from the Heritage Foundation comes from.
When asked about the author of their new immigration report and about his past involvement in eugenics, the Heritage Foundation issued a statement today citing "Dr.
Richwine did not shape methods or policy proposals in heritage documents.
He provided quantitative support to the lead author.
Don't worry, our report is still completely legal.
He just did the counting part.
He just did the quantitative part.
So, Mark Sandford, welcome to Washington, where you don't have the most terrible past.
With enemy immigration reforms like this, I think you might be fine.
Frank Ritchie, author of New York magazine, is back with us now.
Frank, thank you for supporting us all the time.
Rich: I'm glad to do that, of course.
MADDOW: It's not surprising that the traditional foundation works here more as a political operation than as a think tank.
Of course, Ritchie.
MADDOW: does the author of this report have a racial relationship with the current politics, wouldn't these be a big deal, or is it still a power of shock?
Ritchie: it still has a shocking force, because, first of all, we are in an environment where, after the election, the Republicans, who claim to have a lot of influence over minorities, they support immigration reform.
Marco Rubio and Deming once met on the hips. MADDOW: Right.
Rich: but this is going on.
Remember that in the 1990 s, Charles Murray-sorry, another scholar-basically did the same research for a version, just about Africa --Americans.
The Bell Curve was sponsored by the conservative Foundation.
It turns out that basically they are trying to downplay this, black people will never have the same IQ as white people, and so will the approval of affirmative action.
So, the same history is repeating itself. this is a fascinating battle within the so-called reformist Republican. these clowns are examples. if I can use this word, that word.
What do they do?
How do they square this circle?
They claim that welcoming Latinos is actually insulting their intelligence, even the intelligence of children who have not yet been born, or even grandchildren who have not yet been born.
They have been called mental weaknesses.
No, yes, that's right.
Not only can I regard your racial inferiority as a class, but I can tell you that this inferiority will continue and will therefore be very expensive.
I think my opinion on how the Republicans can move this forward is where the self-regulation mechanism is.
So, it's easy to be a liberal on MSNBC, to be scared of that information, to be shocked by that information, and to talk about it on that basis, the basic knowledge argument presented by the heritage here.
Can Republicans oppose racism in the republican context?
Rich: I don't think they can.
I mean, a couple of words are a good game, but, you know, it's pre-assumed that there's a republican institution, and somehow it's going to be that kind of regulatory mechanism, they will be the ones who stand up, but they are really afraid of the base.
I think what we're seeing right now is the chaos within the Republican Party, different groups and traditions are just one of them, fighting for power, and everyone is a bit far away from the others, no-the center is not.
No-no brain management.
In fact, the IQ problem may be at the heart or core of the Republican Party because it does not exist at all.
MADDOW: one of the things you 've been writing, Frank, is that the calculations here may be that they decide that they need to pay more attention to the policy,, they don't actually need to digitally attract minority groups that they don't have an appeal right now to win the election they think they need to win.
Rich: I think it's always been a game.
When I wrote this, I came across a quote from Reagan pollsters in the 1980 s saying that the Reagan administration was working on policies that we didn't actually have to beat Africa --
American voters, black voters, we just have to see if we want to win them with the spin.
This is what is happening now.
You know, you have the head of RNC-it's hard to believe that this era is still happening and he's going to skydive to Brooklyn, go to a black church and meet 20 real Africans.
That is outreach, and it should replace policy or any substantive change in reality.
MADDOW: look at what's going on with this legacy report and see if it's just done in a strategic policy or, I think, does that really cause condemnation, it will be very interesting.
Rich: I don't think so, but we will.
Frank Ritchie, the big writer of New York magazine-Frank, it's always great to have you here.
Rich: Thank you for inviting me.
MADDOW: Thanks. All right.
Republicans in Congress are unlikely to give more power to Democratic President Barack Obama.
The story is coming soon. Stay with us. (
Business break)
Two things I want to tell you.
First of all, I'm on Jimmy Fallon tonight.
If you want to know why I woke up this morning at the New York City fire department or wanted to make an old-fashioned Rye cocktail, that's your cup --
Stop Shopping tonight
"Late Night with Jimmy Fallon," I will be there in this jacket at 12: 35 Eastern time.
This is one thing.
The other thing I have to tell you is, robbery.
Robbery, there's an amazing robbery story in today's news that doesn't end as anyone thinks, but we now know how it's going to end. It`s amazing.
Robbery is coming soon. (
Business break)
MADDOW: The White House today announced nominations for several people you have never heard of, who may never have heard of serving in court.
That's no problem.
It is only a matter of management.
But now, for the record, we know that President Obama wants these two people to sit in the US Tax Court.
There is no slander against the tax tribunal or these very accomplished nominees, but one criterion to measure that these people are not the most notable nominees in the world is, in the title of the White House press release announcing these nominations today, they misspelled the guy's name.
The other person's name is spelled correctly, but if you search around and find out who he is, he is vague enough, even before anything else about this nomination, google has a good picture of the 2006 California winery band playing music.
If that's why you're competing for Google search results with your own name, and you're losing competition for the California winery Music Festival seven years ago, you may be a very respected potential tax court judge, but you are not a high profile person and your nomination is not a high profile thing either.
But even if nominations like this are relatively insignificant or even relatively vague on a larger scale of governance, the president still needs permission to continue such recruitment.
He can't just pick the one he wants.
He can only nominate.
The president must ask the Senate to give these people these jobs.
The power of the president, even the very ordinary management work, has been greatly restricted in many areas.
However, starting a war since 9/11 is not one of these areas.
Three days after the 9/11 attack, Congress passed a very brief legislation authorizing the President of the United States to use all necessary and appropriate force against those who plan, authorize, commit, or help with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Three days after 9/11, President Bush was authorized.
Within a few weeks, we invaded Afghanistan today.
But 12 years later, the president's 9/11 mandate to respond by force is still valid.
This remains the basic permission of President Bush and the president for many different types of military operations around the world.
We are now 12 years away from the decision of Congress.
Washington is still operating today, provided that the president still has the right to wage his own war anywhere in the world without the consent of anyone, and if he just clicks on the heel three times, and say "9/11" when doing it ".
This fact gives Congress a new idea they just announced this week.
Next week, the Senate Military Committee will hear testimony about what we have authorized the president to do after 9/11, and whether we should turn this issue into a permanent one now, now we're 12 years out of 9/11.
Every war around the world is considered to be still around 9/11, isn't that a farce?
Hawks in Congress are now proposing that we take only 9/11 out of it.
As long as the president authorizes the use of force anywhere in the world and does not require anyone, hawks in Congress simply propose to perpetuate force, making this a new definition of what the president of the United States is and what can be done.
What may be the problem?
Rosa Brooks is having an interview with us tonight.
She is a national security law professor at Georgetown University and a columnist for Foreign Policy.
She spent four years at the Obama administration's Pentagon with Michelle Flournoy.
Next week, she will testify at the Armed Forces Commission on the power of the president to wage war.
Rosa, it's great to have you.
Thank you for coming.
Rosa Brooks, Georgetown University: nice to be here, Rachel.
MADDOW: I think it raises very big questions about what kind of country we are and what kind of constitution we have.
Wouldn't that change the fundamental balance of power in the Constitution about how we can start a war?
Brooks: You know, I think Congress thinks they have so much more to do, and they 'd rather delegate the entire war decision entirely to the president.
Interestingly, yes, the Constitution gives Congress the power to wage war and set rules that regulate the Army and Navy, etc, but to some extent, we may be given an expanded mandate to use force, this is an eternal quality of war for us, and it does look like Congress says we can't be bothered. President.
MADDOW: From a practical point of view, does that mean we're a bit-I mean, it sounds dramatic again, though-we're just declaring a state of war that's permanent, the president can open and close as much as he wants, so we will never really know when our war will start or end again?
Brooks: Anyway, I'm not sure if we found this these days.
I mean, in some ways I really think the whole issue of authorizing the use of force is a bit dangerous here because I don't actually think there is-even if the AUMF is abolished tomorrow, this is what I think should happen.
But even if it is completely gone, there is no doubt that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use military power to prevent some sort of imminent attack on the United States, and no doubt, if there is an attack on the United States, even if it is close to 9/11, it will take about five seconds for Congress to pass a new mandate to use force if needed.
So, I think it's kind of like a red herring.
I mean, I think you're right, the real problem here is that we seem to be completely different from the AUMF problem and what happened to it, it's just a state of permanent uncertainty conflict with an equally uncertain enemy, which has all sorts of problems.
MADDOW: if we're going to have a hearing next week and if it's on the roster, it's going to be a massive, serious hearing on this issue, do you think we're going to talk about those core issues?
We know the fact that the permanent authorization of the use of force is on the table, which makes me feel very light on the direction in which it all goes, but you are right --
I mean, I wrote a book about our drifting, which I call "drifting ".
"I think these issues are big and need a debate and maybe even a big party debate, and at least that will be intense to get some attention.
I think that's right.
I mean, I actually think in some ways, it's shocking that it took us 12 years to start this debate in a meaningful way.
But maybe we're ready now, and that's a good sign.
I mean, I don't think you can even ask this question for a long time after 9/11-oh my God, it's an eternal war, the law of war is the right way to think about the threat of terrorism, because you will get it immediately-what, do you think this is a common crime?
Obviously, it's not enough, you fool.
Why do you like terrorists? BROOKS: Yes.
Why would you like it-I think we 've gone through it, and I hope, in this debate, we're going to say, oh, you know, the threat of global terrorism today is something like war in some ways, something like crime in others, and maybe we need to overcome these problems and find out, realistically, effective strategies to deal with them
Relying on the use of sledgehammer and military forces, we have underestimated our very effective tools to combat terrorists and disrupt terrorist finance, for example, to disrupt terrorist communications.
I am therefore cautiously optimistic about these hearings, which does represent a renewed willingness to take a serious issue seriously.
I mean, I hope I'm not wrong, but I'm willing to think so.
MADDOW: You are optimistic about it, you make me feel more optimistic about it.
I think I should have felt this way because you agreed to speak at the hearing, but it still scares me. We shall see.
Rosa Brooks, national security law professor at Georgetown, former lawyer at Pentagon Michelle Flournoy-thank you for coming here.
It's always great to see you.
Thanks, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks. All right.
Directly, the coolest action movie robbery/caper story in Belgium, you'll hear it in a week, or at least throughout the day.
This is coming. (
Business break)
MADDOW: I live in Massachusetts most of the time, which means I'm a bit fascinated by the art robbery that happened there in 1990, just like everyone who lives in Massachusetts.
Thieves dressed like Boston police stole 13 pieces of art from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston.
Works of art worth half a billion dollars.
The FBI thinks these people are responsible.
On last February, a so-called Connecticut mob was arrested on weapons and drug charges when the FBI thought he might be involved in robbery.
He did not get up.
He searched his house and found no stolen art.
But this year, during the march, the FBI came out and said they had new clues in the case.
They provided a $5 million reward for the return of the art.
Meanwhile, the mob in Connecticut is scheduled to be sentenced tomorrow for other charges unrelated to art theft, but every time he appears in public, some hope this time he can say what happened to the $0. 5 billion worth of art stolen from Boston.
The obsession with art robbery is interesting.
Every once in a while, when you're obsessed with some pre-
The existing robberies, or even the more serious ones to distract you, have actually been resolved.
It's coming. (
Business break)
MADDOW: more than 80% of the world's diamonds pass through Belgium, especially through the city of Antwerp, Belgium.
About ten years ago, in February 2003, the diamond vault in the diamond center in Antwerp, Belgium was robbed by Italian jewelry thieves.
They come in first from the back of the main building in some way, and once in, they have to beat the combination lock, key lock, heat detector, motion detector, light detector and all the other detectors known to human beings, but they did.
The theft was so seamless and so professional that when the security guard came the next morning to open the main insurance counter, he found it had been opened, with jewels left by thieves everywhere.
Ten years ago, they robbed about $100 million worth of diamonds and other jewelry.
The five gang of thieves who carried out the robbery were led by the most famous people in the robbery.
His name is Leonardo? Mr.
Notarbartolo was not caught in the end.
But what was stolen during that robbery was never found-$100 million worth of diamonds, gold, jewelry and other loot.
Even after his arrest
Notarbartolo denied for a long time that he was involved in the crime.
But in 2009, he made a report.
Everything from Wired magazine, including the details of how he cracked the vault.
All of this is in the article of Wired, which is linked tonight on the "Maddow Blog" or you are just waiting for the movie, the upcoming movie will be made by JJ Abrams, and possibly directed by him, he made lost, Star Trek, and impossible mission: Ghost deal.
That's great, right?
This is the most amazing robbery ever, until the next time.
The same thing happened in the same place, and this is the surprising robbery that happened in today's news.
On February, the helicopter carrier aircraft was ready to take off on the tarmac in Brussels.
Brussels is about 25 miles from the diamond capital Antwerp.
Passengers on the plane are settling down and flight attendants are carrying out final security checks.
Outside the plane, Brink Security completed a valuable load of cut and uncut diamonds worth $50 million.
When they loaded the diamonds from the armored vehicles onto the plane, they suddenly came out of nowhere. two cars that looked like police cars roared past the plane and the lights flashed, eight armed men in police uniforms left the vehicle, the first sign that they were not actually police officers, as their faces were covered by ballabas
They opened the door of the plane.
They took 120 packs of diamonds.
They dragged the diamonds back to the car. They sped away.
They cut a hole in the airport fence and went straight through the fence.
Authorities later found a van they believed to be used as an escape car and found it burned and abandoned on the side of the road.
The robbery lasted five minutes from the tip to the end.
It's like punching in.
No one got hurt.
No one was caught.
Basically it ended at the beginning.
In fact, the passengers on the plane saw nothing and it took off so smoothly.
They didn't know what was going on until someone got on the bus. A.
Told them the flight was canceled.
I'm going to be late.
My flight was canceled because I was part of a $50 million diamond robbery planned by Gene Hackman in a very good film later in his 70 s.
It was February.
For the three months since then, it's nothing, and it looks like these very organized thieves have escaped it.
But now, after three months of silence from the police, today, we ended unexpectedly.
Police in Belgium, France and Switzerland, without warning, in three countries, hundreds of police raided suspects at the same time.
At least 31 suspects were arrested.
This is true in Belgium, Switzerland and France.
Police say they have recovered a lot of money, luxury vehicles and some diamonds.
But they did say they got the people who did it.
Even if they don't get all the diamonds, they get enough of them so much that their value is still too big to add up.
Since Steven Soderberg has not yet auctioned the film copyright for this robbery, someone should text him tonight and Antwerp is spelled-N-T-W-E-R-
This is an obvious robbery! Heist!
Now, it's time to say the last word to Lawrence O'Donnell.
Have a good evening.
This is a report card in a hurry.
This copy may not be in final form and may be updated.
Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc.
All materials herein are protected by US copyright law and may not be copied, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call.
You may not change or delete any trademark, copyright or other notice in a copy of the content.
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Chat Online inputting...