tv The Dylan Ratigan Show MSNBC November 14, 2011 1:00pm-2:00pm PST
dyl dylan? >> let me be very clear. if one guy wins, iran will have a nuclear weapon, but if the other guy wins, they will not? >> that is the analysis of mitt romney. >> that makes the decision making easier. >> yeah, right! >> thank you, martin. the show starts right now. well, good monday afternoon to you. i am dylan ratigan. today's top story here, penn state and the growing investigation into the child sexual assault allegations at the university. if you thought this story ended with head coach joe paterno and the university president, graham spanier, being fired, think again. the news today, the man at the center of the charges, former assistant coach, jerry sandusky, is still receiving a hefty pension from penn state, about $60,000 a year. he's now out on what many say is a cut-rate bail.
and as for the judge who set it at $100,000, it's due only if he doesn't show in court. it turns out the judge, who set the bail, was a volunteer at sandusky's charity. one that some say was a front for sandusky's alleged recruitment of young boys. by the way, the head of that charity, the second mile, resigned today. and according to a harrisburg patriot news special report, only one state trooper was assigned to this case for the duration of the first 15 months of the investigation going back to 2008. and then there's this from the president of the united states. >> it's been said that evil can thrive in the world just by good people standing by and doing nothing. and, you know, all of us, i think, have occasion where we
see something that's wrong, you know, we've got to make sure we step up. >> and the pennsylvania governor over the weekend said for those like suspended assistant coach mike mcqueary who knew and didn't do enough to protect the kids, that they have showed a failure of morality. >> he met the minimum obligation of reporting it up, but did not, in my opinion, meet a moral obligation that all of us would have. >> and first up, delaware attorney, general beau biden, whose state has some of the toughest mandatory reporting standards when it comes to suspected child abuse. beau, i presume the reason you have mandatory reporting is because this is a very uncomfortable thing, it's a very shameful thing, it's a thing that comes with a lot of guilt and a lot of incentive to not talk about it. how important are laws like the mandatory reporting in your state to making sure that these crimes get addressed? >> they're critical. they're critical. look, you know the statistics, dylan.
one out of four girls is sexually assaulted before they're 18. one out of six boys. only one in ten ever report it, because nine out of the ten perpetrators know the victim or say they love the victim they victimize. we need to find ways to embolden and empower victims to speak up and speak out. these aren't just statistics, these are my friends, people i within t went to high school with. they're people you know, i bet. we have to find ways to require and mandate by law that when you come across this, whether it's the thing that mcqueary witnessed in that shower, watching a 60-year-old sodomize a 10-year-old boy, or whether you think that a bruise on a child in a supermarket is child abuse, under a delaware law, you have a mandatory law to report. it's essential that states have this kind of reporting requirement. >> and look at the statistics. keep this graphic up for a second. 73%, three quarters, don't report for a year, when it comes to child sex abuse victims. 45% don't report for five years. and some never tell.
give me a sense of what would have happened to coach mcqueary, for instance, in the event he witness what had he witnessed in the context of delaware's mandatory reporting requirements. >> well, he would have been violating our mandatory reporting requirement under amendment 16. it reports anyone in the state to report any sign of child abuse. you would have run afoul of other reporting requirements we have in terms of reporting a crime that you see, endangering the welfare of a child, along with several other charges that might be applicable in this case. the reality is, though, one of the things to be focused on is that coming out of this, you know, i'm not sure if there'll ever be anything good coming out of this for the survivors that should be our focus right now. but one thing that america should know is that institutions, organizations, anyone who is in charge with taking care of a child, you should make sure as a parent that there's never an instance where a child is alone with an adult. even these great adults that take care of these childrens in camps, whether it's for disadvantaged youth or otherwise, there should never be
a situation where a child is alone with an adult. this should never happen. and if we do that, we'll go a long way to eradicating these terrible numbers i said in your siting today. >> and contextualize delaware law for mandatory reporting of child abuse, which you've laid out very nicely for us. a lot of focus probably didn't even though such a thing existed. how does that compare to other state law? >> well, we're doing a little bit of kind of a check here nationally, but there's 17 other states that have very similar laws to ours. we're checking the rest of the states. i'm charged with enforcingd's laws. our staff is looking at what with other states have. the reality is that i don't think the reporting requirements, whether even we had them are well known enough by citizens of any given state. we're taught as a society, sometimes, to mind our own business. you know, good walls make good neighbors, or good fences make good neighbors. you know, that snapshot is -- you know, but for the grace of god, go i.
you're not sure what's happening in that family when you see that awful scene in a supermarket or a parking lot in terms of abuse. but the reality is, from my perspective, we need to intervene. this is somewhere where we stick our nose into. follow your instincts. if you see a child who is acting out or not acting a like a child, call the authorities. call the authorities. don't call your supervisor, call the authorities. >> at the end of the day, there's basically two cultures. one in which the elders and those with power, collectively, assume responsibility for the young, whether they are their own children or the children of people they do not know, and then there's another version in which you mind your own business, and it sounds like you are advocating, and i certainly agree with it, that we take on a little bit more of the mentality that says that if you have power and you are an adult in this society, the welfare of all the young people of this country is all of our interests. >> i'm not being solicitous, dylan, you said it better than i could. look, this is an adult responsibility. it is not a child's
responsibility. adults need to intervene, follow their instincts, as messy and ugly as it can get. these are very difficult cases to make. people don't want to believe it happens. mothers sometimes don't want to believe it happens when their children come to them. that's a sad -- juries sometimes in cases we present in the case don't want to believe the facts we present. we need to empower children and empower parents to stand up and speak up about this. i can't tell you enough how proud i am and the courage it takes for these people that came forward in the pennsylvania -- penn state case, as well as millions of survivors of what is pedophilia. this is child rape. it's pedophilia. and it's much more prevalent than anyone ever thinks is possible. people don't want to think about it. >> attorney general biden, we must, obviously, think about it. and we appreciate your -- not only your advocacy of the laws, but your engagement conversation. we'll talk to you soon. >> may i give one website? >> sure. >> darkne nesnesdarkness2light.
the several organizations dedicated to teaching and educating people about how to spot the signs of abuse and neglect and do something about it before someone is hurt. they're an incredible organization, there are others out there like them, but i encourage people to go to the website. >> sensational. we'll put that up on all of our properties so everybody gets a chance to look at that as well. thank you, sir. beau biden. >> thank you, dylan. >> to the ncaa itself, however, those are the people who rule college sports, where are they on all of this? the powerhouse organization is still deferring to the cops for any statement. but think of it this way. a football program that violates recruiting rules is punished. the whole football program. but what about a program that does nothing to stop the alleged rape of young boys?
we bring in dave zirin, sports editor at "the nation." dave, some have called for the death penalty for penn state's football team. we have certainly watched innocent teaming were or seemingly innocent teams throughout the history of the ncaa and college football or basketball have entire dream seasons annihilated because one player or a few players took some money. so there's certainly precedent for collateral damage if the ethics have been breached when it comes to taking money. where's the ncaa on the ethics for child rape? >> well, the ncaa is nowhere on the ethics of anything. it is not an ethical organization. it's an organization where the president, mark elmert, makes $2 million a year and has 14 vice presidents, each of whom make $400,000 a year, and it's all built on the basis of revenue-producing sports, particularly basketball and football. it's a violation to serve bagels to recruits and have cream cheese.
if you don't have cream cheese, it's not a violation, if you do have cream cheese, it is. yet there's silence on this. and it speaks to an issue, dylan, you've been discussing on your show for several years with regards to wall street and the banks. penn state and joe paterno became too big to fail. too many people had a vested interest in his legend. and that meant cover-up. that meant, at all costs, the fiction of joe paterno's penn state had to survive and allegations of horrible, horrible child abuse had to be hidden. at the same time, in this instance, the ncaa is the custodial body in which all players play. if you want to play football, not just at penn state, but at any of these schools, you have to comply with ncaa rules. at the same time, those rule makers appear to have no voice, at least at this point, on an
issue that is one of the most disturbing, i think, that any of us have witnessed in recent history. >> that's because they have no more authority. and you see this when mark emmeret, when he gets interviewed, he tends to wither in the face of the questions, like, how is it the players are in violation if they trade their own jackets to be able to get some money so they can go home to see a parent? shouldn't there be some sort of ethics about players get some kind of money if nike or reebok is paying the school hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, and players don't see a cent? and you see emmeret's face redden and wither in the face of this, because it's essentially not a moral argument. if you -- this is what i imagine a true rule enforcement body would look like for college sports. imagine a room of like 40 lawyers, each of them make
$40,000 a year, they're trying to ferret out violations, they're trying to enforce a moral code. that's one vision. but instead you have the vision i described for, people who make six and seven-digit salaries and making it on the basis of unpaid labor. all of it goes to the very structure that underpins the very scandal that you saw at penn state. and i think that's what scares us at penn state. we see things like money under the table, maybe players traded their championship rings for tatt tatt tattoos. then you ask the question, how far would a school really go? where is the moral line? and at penn state, you see what we thought was the moral basement actually does not exist. and it's much even further below than we think. and that's going to happen when you have a school like penn state that produces over 60% of the revenue, the football program does, for the entire institution. >> yeah. and that is the sad and very harsh reality. the beautiful thing, and i'll wrap this up, dave, that we are
encouraged, i think, but the fact that we can begin to have this conversation and start a path towards resolution, not only of the banks that are too big to fail, but also of the ncaa, which maybe in our metaphor will be the federal reserve, perpetuating the large institutions. dave, we'll talk to you next time. coming up here on "the d.r. show," the report everybody's talking about that proves what we talk about here all the time. politicians profiting from inside information they get as lawmakers. plus, enough's enough. the president talking tough on china, but will he actually bring out the big stick? and jihad jane. she was branded a terrorist and lost everything, including her citizenship. now she's trying to clear her name and reclaim her life. nada proudy is our guest in the moments to come. a little at a time...d y but actually we do -- and my kids would be like, "awesome, mom!"
oh! i did not see that. [ male announcer ] layaway's back for christmas in our toys, electronics, and jewelry departments. [ female announcer ] we never forget the nearly 12 million cancer survivors in america today... and the countless lives lost. we owe it to them to protect funding for cancer research, prevention and access to care. congress, make cancer a priority and give millions of americans what they need most.
we've spent a lot of time on this show examining the abuse of access and power by wall street. well, now a new report is blowing the lid off congressional insider trading, politicians using nonpublic information to make trades. it was illegal, for instance, as somebody like myself as a financial reporter, but apparently if you're a congressperson, it's all legal. >> insider trading on the stock market. if you're a member of congress, those laws are deemed not to apply. >> why does congress get a pass on this? >> it's really the way the rules have been defined. and the people who make the rules are the political class in washington, and they've conveniently written them in such a way that they don't apply
to themselves. >> ah, laugh, otherwise, you'll cry. like congressman spencer bachus, ranking member on the house financial conservative committee, at the time of the '08 financial crisis, he got himself in a nice short position in the days leading up to the collapse. now to the monday mega panel, imogen lloyd webber, tim carney from the "washington examiner," the and the host of the majority reports, sam seder. great to see the three of you. a great news day, very i inspiring. i'm feeling great about the world. tim, we argue on the set, big government, small government, you always say, a smaller government has less power, less of an incentive to try to manipulate it. how do you interpret this through our dispute, which yours is being large government/small government, mine being bought government/not bought government. >> i don't think we're going to have very much disagreement here. first of all, i'm for regulating
the heck out of our government officials, including our politicians. if we were to mandate that every congressmen had to have only a blind trust, i would support that. but also, yes, the more that government is getting involved in the day-to-day -- >> rule making. >> the more that they are picking winners and losers, the more they're picking which industries are happening, the more ability they have to game this sort of system. >> but isn't there a bigger -- this is a moral issue. this goes to our soul and our -- so we can talk all day. we can say, whether it goes back to bill clinton and what is is and all the -- wmd, and all the things that we've been through. at some point, there's no set of rules in the world, sam, that's going to stop a bunch of soulle soulless, self-interested scum baggs from selling their interests. >> there aren't, but there are some. i think that's a great rule. >> the blind trust. >> we've got to all be in a blind trust. at that point, we don't have to pick and choose where government
involves themselves in the economy or society. we can say this is a blanket rule for all -- but, in fact, isn't there really an entire industry built up on this? a lot of those people who go down from "k" street are there to find out what's going to happen, so they can go -- >> some of my best sources, when i used to work at bloomberg, were the people that were -- anyway. go ahead. >> maybe we know why half of congress are the members of the 1%. it's all becoming very clear. >> works well. >> i went and found an appropriate quote from mark twain. "it could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native american criminal class except congress." this country is in trouble, needs to start working again, and congress isn't working. so fundamentally, change has to come. money has to be got out of congress. whether it be through all of these inside dodgy trading, all of it. >> we all know this. and speaking of get money out, the petition's going fantastic.
almost 250,000 folks. a lot of folks want to do that, and we'll mobile that later on this week. i want to talk a little bit about a pesk issue being trade. the president actually upping his rhetoric. >> the problem is is that you've got a bunch of export producers in china who like the system as it is. and, you know, making changes are difficult for them politically. i get it. but the united states and other countries, i think, understandably, feel that enough's enough. >> interestingly, the export producers in china tend to be u.s. multi-nationals who invested in china, who are exporting, and then are lobbying our own congress saying to president obama and the rest of them, you better not change these rules, because you're going to screw up ge, walmart, or whatever it might be. >> and i have friends who work in intelligence who have said to me, they said, look, i know that basically boeing lobbyists are largely china lobbyists. that china can come and directly
lobby us in the way that, say, boeing can. so china says, all right, boeing, you want us to give us this contract, go ahead and push for rule x, y, or z. i would like obama to get a lot more specific, though. in these talks, he's very general. if he went after specifically tariffs that china's putting up against our goods, i would be happier. >> it's your word, rhetoric. it's all about that. it's all about next year. i keep trying to get my head around it, because i'm this outsider. everybody, republican, democrat, all they are thinking about is 2012. so obama is sort of on the bandwagon now that we have the gop debates on saturday night, shout-out to jon huntsman who actually knew what he was talking about china, no one else seemed to. and everyone's jumping on obama. >> and at the end of the day, there is something that could be done. at the end of the year, they have the opportunity to classify china as a currency manipulator. and if they were to evoke that classification, it would open
the day for our legislators, because china would be in motion. and whether it was george bush's treasury secretary or whether it's president obama's treasury secretary every time it comes up, never happens. >> i think to a larger extent, i don't think they'd want it to happen, the legislators. then they wouldn't be able to sort of talk about it. they'd actually have to do something about it. >> and they wouldn't be able to take the campaign contributions. >> it didn't hurt donald trump, at all. i think donald trump brought this into the mix as sort of a powerful weapon in terms of rhetoric. so that's what we're seeing now. >> the thing with this rhetoric, it's easy to check, because every year the treasury gets the chance to classify china as a currency manipulator, and every year the treasury department says, oh, no, it's fine. >> the chinese own, what, 16% of american debt? so, yeah, there's that on the other side. >> but people use that as a bogeyman.
china has screwed themselves so colossally by lending america trillions of dollars by which america can then purchase a bunch of chinese crap. as much as america as an issue, china doesn't have as much -- >> i think i see a lot of political demagoguery. there are a lot of big manufacturers, who do want some crackdown -- >> so dow chemical -- you attack china rhetorically, and not doing anything, it's a great move. >> a great move. a great move. as is insider trading. >> if you're on the inside. >> yeah, that's the only way. listen -- anyway, they're yelling at me. because there's a limited amount of time for a tv show. next, on the heels of this weekend's debate, sizing up the republican field with the forgotten candidate, former governor, gary johnson, our specialist, after this. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about fees.
tdd# 1-800-345-2550 there are atm fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 account service fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and the most dreaded fees of all, hidden fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 at charles schwab, you won't pay fees on top of fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no monthly account service fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no hidden fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and we rebate every atm fee. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 so talk to chuck tdd# 1-800-345-2550 because when it comes to talking, there is no fee. ch sng we'renvor of. t ickeay
free gold ! we call that hertz gold plus rewards. you earn free days, free weeks and more fast. that's a plus. upgrade your ride. that's a plus. rewards with no blackout dates so you can redeem anytime. and it's easy to redeem your points online. already a gold member ? just select gold plus rewards in your profile and start rewarding yourself now. just go to hertzgoldplusrewards.com to join. hertz gold plus rewards. journey on.
wooerl here tonight talking to the american people about why every single one of us is better than barack obama. >> it's time for us as a country to say no to foreign aid to countries that don't support the united states of america. >> look, one thing you can know. and that is if we re-elect barack obama, iran will have a nuclear weapon. and if we elect mitt romney, if you elect me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon. >> see the thing is, facts like that make it easy to decide. one, nuclear weapon, the other, no nuclear weapon. i don't have to debate! that from this the weekend's gop debate, where foreign policy, as you can see, was among the lead issues. also taking the lead, newt gingrich, who laid into moderator scott pelly over rule of law as it pertains to american terrorists. and he appears to be the latest non-mitt favorite, surging to
22% in cnn's most recent poll, just two percentage points behind mitt romney. of course, that's among the voices these debates actually allow us to hear. our specialist today is former new mexico governor, gary johnson, who you could call the forgotten presidential candidate, since he was shut out from the last two debates. we'll ask you hear, governor, your thoughts on the front-runners, and specifically your thoughts on the quality of the debate as it pertains to the sense of game rigging and corruption in american policy making and process. >> so, five cnn polls ago, i'm at 2% of the national vote, which ties me for cain -- ties me with cain, puts me ahead of santorum, puts me ahead of huntsman. the subsequent four cnn polls, i'm left all the polls, i'm not on the polls, and that's who determines is in the debate or not. i think by my measurement, that is not fair. >> i think at the end of the day, it also speaks to the
national media's ability, or willingness, to make a determination as to who they see as a viable presidential candidate, with really no qualifications that i can tell that the national media has to make that determination, whatsoever. and it seems completely counter to dish mean, as much as we go about money and speech, it would seem that the media and politics is as corrupting to the democratic debate as media and politics. >> i think you have it right on. i think i speak on behalf of a majority of republicans, whichly describe as classical liberal. classical liberals are those that believe in less government. classical liberals are those that believe that the best thing government can do for you and i is to empower you and i to make choices. the majority of republicans, for example, are pro-choice. now, those are registered republicans. that's something that really people don't acknowledge. the overwhelming majority of republican activists are pro-life.
and i respect the social -- i respect a social conservative, absolutely. but who's being represented when everyone on stage, for the republican debate, for example, is a social conservative? >> anybody? go ahead. >> i want to ask on that question, because you describe yourself, at times, as a libertarian, and most of my friends in washington -- many of my friends in washington are libertarians. but ron paul, who's the most libertarian member of congress, he is pro-life. he has delivered lots of babies. and one of the things he will say is, the most basic function of government is to protect the vulnerable from violence. so isn't protecting the unborn from abortion, does that clash in any way with a libertarian or limited government mind-set? >> well, first of all, somebody that holds that position, i absolutely respect that position. bottom line, i support a woman's right to choose. just absolutely, bottom line. the libertarian position, and i'm running as a republican here for the republican nomination,
but the actual libertarian position, the libertarian party position is to leave that choice to the woman. >> i'm curious as to where all of these small government libertarians were during the eight years of george bush and the mostly controlled over those eight years republican house and senate. i mean, were those people really upset? >> well, you know, let's put credit where credit is due. i mean, i support repealing president obama's health care plan, because very simply, we can't afford it. all republicans chime out on that. but when they control both houses of congress and the presidency, what did they do? they passed a prescription health care benefit, which at that time was the largest entitlement program ever passed, and they ran up record deficits. i mean, really, give me a break. >> but what's your answer to sam's question? you just validated sam's assertion. >> i did, i'm validating. where were they?
>> where were the republican voters at this time? we didn't really have a huge rebellion in the party. >> i think -- i think the majority of republicans were going -- whoo! >> go ahead, imogen. i think you're probably right. >> i believe you've met with some of the occupy wall street protesters. >> yes, yes. >> i just wonder what what you make of some of how the other republican candidates are handling the occupy wall street movement. >> well, i'm offering a different view on this. and that is that i share in the outrage of the occupy wall street movement. and that is that this country doles it out unfairly. i just think the root of all evil are politicians that accept money, and when they accept money, they dole out favors to individuals, groups, corporations that pay for those favors, and that's what the country, i think the majority of americans, are outraged over. this is not a country that's about a level playing field, and that's what government should be doing, is doing everything they can to ensure an equal
opportunity for everybody. >> and that's why that 94% number, where 94% of the time the candidate who raises the most money wins, is the most damning, because it's evidence of the auction of the process, not of the debate or of the election. >> i wonder if you're getting any positive feedback from the left on issues regarding, saying war, where the president hasn't lived up to his promise, and guantanamo. >> sure, sure. that and legalizing marijuana. >> where obama's more of a drug warrior than bush was, right? >> and going back on a promise to not putting any government resources in shutting down medical marijuana facilities in a state that would have voted to implement those facilities -- i'm speaking now of california. >> how are we on time? when we're -- we're trying to work with the governor to figure out how phenomenally outraged we can all make each other in the smallest amount of time. are we you have to time, brian? we have time. so what do you recommend, whether it's tim carney who sits
at home, making himself insane, churning around the issues that we debate on this table or sam seder with a different perspective or myself or imogen, or quite honestly, countless other americans, many of whom whose frustration you channel as a candidate for the presidency. many of whom look to you and other candidates to simply be different than all the other candidates we've been subjected to. what is your advice to the disenfranchised in the country who look at the president and the democratic leadership and the republican debate as more or less a lost cause? >> all i've got is my resume. that's all i've got. and i will tell you, in serving two terms for government, good government is easy. it wasn't hard, it isn't up for sale. and it is currently up for sale. and the root of all evil, our politicians are going to save us from the terrorist threat, they're going to save us from the illegal alien, they're going to save us from drugs, they're going to make sure we don't die on the street from lack of health care. elect me and i will make sure
that happens and that is the predicament that's -- that is the reality of the predicament that we're in today. >> yeah. that is it, governor. i think we all agree to that. and i really appreciate your continued voice in this conversation here. >> dylan, that you think for having me on. >> i would actually watch the debates if they would let you in. otherwise, i end up watching reruns or something. >> well, you know, the debate right now, okay, build a wall across the border, candidate number two, build a second wall going along with that, candidate number three, put a mote in between that. candidate number four, put barbed wire on top. candidate number five, electrify the fence. candidate number six, and run drones over the top! as opposed to don't build the fence. >> you forgot the sharks. >> make it as easy as possible to get a work visa for somebody who wants to come into this country. and the others, when they talk about border violence, they want to add guns to the equation in lieu of looking at the problem in the first place, which is the prohibition of drugs, legalize marijuana and arguably 75% of
that border violence goes away. take the guns out of this. >> that's it. listen, we have tried this before. it's shocking that when you make things illegal that -- anyway, it's going to get crazy, governor. thank you, sam. thank you, tim. thank you, imogen. governor, i look forward to seeing you. gary johnson. next up here, finally, a bit of comfort for anyone who's ever been stuck on a plane without booze or food, and a baby crying in that seat next to you, making plane operators pay.
♪ sen♪ co-signed her credit card - "buy books, not beer!" ♪ ♪ut the second at she shut the door ♪ ♪ girl started blowing up their credit score ♪ ♪ she bought a pizza party for the whole dorm floor ♪ ♪ hundred pounds of makeup at the makeup store ♪ ♪ and a ticket down to spring break in mexico ♪ ♪ but her folks didn't know 'cause her folks didn't go ♪ ♪ to free-credit-score-dot-com hard times for daddy and mom. ♪
v.o.: offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com luck? i don't trade on luck. i trade on fundamentals. analysis. information. i trade on tradearchitect. this is web-based trading, re-visualized. streaming, real-time quotes. earnings analysis. probability analysis: that's what opportunity looks like. it's all visual. intuitive. and it's available free, wherever the web is. this is how trade strategies are built. tradearchitect. only from td ameritrade. welcome to better trade commission free for 60 days when you open an account.
well, with the holiday travel season right around the corner, a warning to airlines to shape up or pay up. it's a first of its kind fine. the department of transportation has slapped american airlines regional carrier, american eagle, with a $900,000 -- that's 900,000 smackers -- as a penalty for leaving hundreds of passengers stuck tonight tarmac last may.
now, the delays at chicago's o'hare lasted more than three hours on 15 separate flights and affected more than 600 passengers. american eagle blamed a slow-moving weather system. this is the first time an airline has been fined since the department of transportation created new rules in 2010 following several high-profile incidents where passengers were kept on planes for more than ten hours. and in one instance, overnight. it can now cost airlines as much as $27,500 per passenger for violations. in the american eagle case, the airline apologized and offered customers vouchers or frequent flyer miles. but instead of some miles, points, and another trip to see grandma, i know what really says i'm sorry -- a cut of the 900 grand! after this, jihad jane, one on one with the former cia agent labeled a traitor and left with nothing. her life four years later. [ female announcer ] from the moment we arrive...
we don't want anything to slow us down so it's surprising that most women aren't getting enough calcium. with over 25 flavors, yoplait original gives you 50% of the daily value of calcium in every cup. that stays even after i treat... [ male announcer ] truth is, most sinus formulas don't treat a cough. really? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus sinus liquid gels fights sinus symptoms plus cough. you're good. [ male announcer ] thanks. that's the cold truth!
we are now printing on the back sides of used paper and we switched to fedex cause a lot of their packaging contains recycled materials. tell them what else fedex does. well we're now using more electric trucks and lower emission planes. we even offer a reusable envelope. now, can't we at least print on the back sides of used paper? what's the executive compensation list...? [ male announcer ] sustainable solutions. fedex. solutions that matter.
since ameriprise financial was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times. good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future. ♪
and a traitor, and even dubbed jihad jane by the "new york post" for allegedly passing intelligence to hezbollah. all of these accusations about a woman who before her arrest had risked her life fighting terrorists as an fbi agent and cia officer. nada prouty eventually pled guilty to immigration fraud and unauthorized use of an fbi computer. she lost her job and was stripped of her u.s. citizenship. she joins us now about her new book, "uncompromised: the rise, fall, and redemption of an arab american patriot in the cia." nada, you were found not guilty of -- i shouldn't even say not guilty. the cia investigation said explicitly the agency did not identify any information that miss prouty cooperated or
engaged in a foreign intelligence service or or terrorist organization. that was the most damning of the accusations. i looked at your resume, you were very active with the pan am flight 73, 2002, arrested za cowie. what happened? >> i think this was a mix of political and racist motivations. prosecutors up in detroit were looking for statistics and personal gain, and also, there were some political angle to this case. as you now know, the investigation was not completed when i was prosecuted. and i detail in the book the reasons that led to me pleading guilty to the charges you just stated. but after the completion of the investigation and after the cia examined the facts, both the cia
and a federal judge cleared me of these accusations, which were mainly made in the court of public opinion, and a judge was very explicit in what he said, and also exonerated me of these false accusations. >> at the same time -- actually, before we go beyond that, you say the motivations were political and racist. will you elaborate a little bit on both of those? >> sure. i detail more in the book, but i'll elaborate for you. i believe that the u.s. attorney who was running for -- who wanted to be appointed as a federal judge was looking for some national security credentials, and he had twice failed. and based on my case, which he had contributes, he was successful in being appointed as a federal judge in michigan. and as far as the racist comments, i take that very seriously and had not -- an assistant united states attorney told me to my face, aren't all
shia supporters of hezbollah? i wouldn't have ever mentioned racism. but given these facts and the vulnerability that national security workers face, because the information that exonerates me is with the u.s. government, i don't have access to that information. so these three factors all played in the role that led me to my prosecution. >> and what do you say to people who still believe you're a spy? >> you know, my record of service is clear and the one thing that i want to point out is just recently, this past december, the attorney general, the department of homeland security secretary, and the -- both or all and the director of the cia, they all signed a memo to grant me back my u.s. persons status. i mean, actions speak louder than words, and this is -- if this doesn't convince people, i don't think anything will. and i've -- fortunately, or unfortunately, i've sat across
the room from al qaeda operatives who wanted to do nothing but kill us. and then when you have these discussions with them about trying to use logic, why would you want to kill innocent people, like the attacks on september 11, they are true believers. they don't see it that way. maybe there are some people who are like that. but when i was on the front line, fighting for our freedom, i was fighting for everybody. everybody's right to express their own opinion. i respect their opinion, whether it's based on fact or not. i do respect it, and you know, i am comfortable with people saying negative things. >> and what is your point of view as we go into january of 2012, we'll start to approach the one-year anniversary, obviously, of tahrir square and the arab spring. what is your overall view of the trajectory, stability, threat, or lack thereof in the context of america's relationship with the middle east and the terrorist community's relationship with the west? >> right now, as you see the
arab spring, all the countries are getting rid of their dictatorsh dictatorship, and they're heading in a good path. hopefully we can help set up these governments to have their democracy and to be able to free vote. i know people just recent did that and i think our government is doing a good job in thats a%. and as far as the terrorists, i am very pleased with our recent successes, continued successes, and i'm talking specifically about the operation against osama bin laden. and i think al qaeda right now is the debilitated. and with these strong foreign policy decisions, i think we're heading in the right direction. >> and if you were to offer lessons learned, through what must have been an extraordinary experience for those who may find themselves, perhaps with lower stakes, perhaps with a less exotic narrative, without
the cia and the fbi and all this, but find themselves in the context of that type of both potential judgment and railroading and all the various biases that can come into power structures when people are fearful, particularly people in the community or people at the top of the community, what would you say? >> i do believe that we need to have some government accounting. for people who have -- like you said, the judge and the jury, we do need to have some government accountability in that sense. but at the same time, i am also an example of someone who believes in the justice system, because after going in this round circle, i was able to be exonerated. i am here today, able to tell my story. >> and that is evidence in and of itself. nada prouty, a pleasure to make the acquaintance by way of tv,
"uncompromised" is the book. that's an interesting story. we take a break. coming up on "hardball," the neutron bomb. will the rise of newt gingrich destroy the republican party? chris matthews with all the day's big political stories. but next, keli goff with a daily rant inspired by this kanye west number. ♪ [ female announcer ] that's the all-natural sugar she puts on her grapefruit. but is she eating sugar this week? maybe she wants the all natural, zero calorie stuff. but if you're wrong, you're insinuating she's fat. save yourself. it's only natural. riding the dog like it's a small horse is frowned upon in this establishment! luckily though, ya know, i conceal this bad boy underneath my blanket just so i can get on e-trade. check my investment portfolio, research stocks... wait, why are you taking... oh, i see...solitary. just a man and his thoughts. and a smartphone... with an e-trade app.
while there were plenty of lyrics that made the feminist in me cringe, there was one that did not. kanye west's "gold digger." before my fellow feminists turn on me, let my me say for the record, i know that not every woman is a gold digger. i just wish so many women out there would stop perpetuating the stereotype that most of us are. i would reminded of this when the media became obsessed with justin bieber's accuser. she follows a long line of women that not only use their sexuality to get ahead, but their wombs. from mick jagger to jude law, countless pa tenor cases have helped perpetuate the idea that there's another idea besides appearing on a reality show for those who don't want to work for a living. shows like "basketball wives" sends a message to girls everywhere, why bottom spending money on a college degree when if you play your cards right and don't use a condom, you can be financially set for life. for the record, i'm not letting men off the hook. if a man doesn't want to be a
father, he should take the precautions necessary to not become one. but a woman will always have more responsibility to a child than a man. because in america, at least, ultimately, it will always be our choice as women whether or not a baby ends up in this world. we thought long and hard to defend the mantra, my body, my choice. but if we want to protect the legal right for it to remain our choice and ours alone, we can't turn around and blame someone else for the stupid choice we make with our bodies, such as having unprotected sex for financial gain. we can't have it both ways, lady. i believe feminism is about a woman's right to choose, but i also believe that feminism is about taking responsibility for the choices we make. having unprotected sex with a wealthy stranger so you can use a child as your retirement package is not a brand of feminism in my book. so the next time you hear the song "gold digger," ladies, try to reserve your outrage for those that deserve it. not kanye west, but whatever woman inspired the song. dylan? >> do you think that the act of the -- the aspiration to procreate with a rich man is any
more prevalent today than it was in the middle ages or a thousand years before that? >> that's a good question, which i can't really give a fair answer to that. but what i will say is i think technology has actually made a lot more things more likely and accessible, right? it's easier to sort of get in touch or track down people. some of the stories i've heard from my friends who have either worked with high-profile entertainers or high-profile athletes would knock your socks off, just in terms of the lengths that people would go to in terms of researching how to find someone at their hotel, et cetera, et cetera. >> the other thing that sort of strikes me. it's interesting. whether it's the congress and their insider trading or is this type of thing, there seems to be a misguided view that acquiring money by any means necessary will in some way make you happier than you currently are. >> and that it's acceptable, by any means necessary is acceptable, you know? short of killing someone, right? >> yes. >> that's kind of where we're at, i think. >> which means we can only go up from here.