>> i'm monica malpass on "inside story." is it time for the frank rizzo statue in philadelphia to go? let's get the inside story. ♪ good morning. welcome to "inside story." let's meet our insiders this week. they are nia meeks, communications executive. good morning. welcome back to you. ed turzanski, foreign policy analyst. good morning, ed. always good to have you. jim eisenhower, attorney. good morning, sir. >> good morning, monica. >> thanks for being with us. and larry platt, journalist. always great to have you as well. let's talk about a dark chapter for many people in philadelphia history, but others would disagree and say frank rizzo is an iconic figure who was, obviously, the police chief and the mayor and was very popular. so can it be both, or is this time, the time that we're living in now, has it changed enough that this polarizing figure really should be given, you know, a pass and the statue should stay near city hall?

yes or no? >> well, you know, monica, i was a college student during the rizzo years, and i think, you know, i always thought it interesting that he was one of the few mayors, if not the only mayor, that has such a prominent statue, just given how divisive he was. whether you come down on him being the greatest mayor in the history of the city or the worst, usually someone that divisive you don't give such a prominent position. and, in fact, maybe the only one -- dilworth has his plaza -- full disclosure -- member of that law firm. but no statue. and probably a more transformative mayor than frank rizzo. so, yeah. i think mayor kenney has this right. i think the arts commission needs to make a decision, and i expect that that statue will be moved. >> well, nia, is this a reminder to people of the very violent chapter in philadelphia history that he was at the forefront of? he may not have known about every instance of violence, but he certainly was at the forefront, of being a police commissioner, and allowed violent acts to occur, mostly against minorities.

so is it a dark reminder that people think we should just move on past? >> you know, it's interesting because when we think about public statues, we're really thinking about lionizing someone and all their values and saying this is someone we look up to, we aspire. we don't always look at them for their flaws. and to jim's point, there aren't too many other statues of mayors. we have schools, we have plazas, but we don't have statues. and even the formation of this statue and its erection came at a really emotional time, not too long after rizzo's passing. i would think that the mayor and the historical commission will give due deference to a lot of thoughts and opinions on this. yes, there are references to a period of time where, if you are a person of color, particularly a young man of color, you were always a suspect. but there's also a time of people that said, "hey, there was law and order, and, you know, the communities were safe and blah, blah, blah." when you get down to the type of divisiveness that this singular figure poses, it doesn't portend for unity for the city of philadelphia. if you said, "let's move the statue to south philadelphia," if you said, "let's move the

statue toward a museum," or something along those lines, that makes sense just because how you balance that out with all of our historical precedent when we think about mayors. we don't see a mayor in waiting for rendell, for street, for mcmichael, or any of these other past mayors. so, that's a question. and i think now's a good time to have the conversation, if it's rational. >> i mean, can we get to a point where we just accept human beings are flawed, nobody's gonna be perfect, and if you're gonna have any statue, you could probably find something wrong with some of them? >> well, i think that's that slippery-slope argument. i think -- there is no question that frank rizzo was a divisive, controversial character. but i also think that moving a statue, or tearing it down, is not gonna help -- as mayor kenney says, it's not gonna help the life of one person in philadelphia. and i'm tired of arguments over symbolisms. i'm more interested in practical ways that we make people's lives better. >> we can't have both? >> well, i think -- look, the

smart way to handle this, i think, in any of these instances, is, first of all, to not morally equivocate. frank rizzo was not philadelphia's robert e. lee. that's number one. number two is, if you answer offensive speech with your own speech. so, there's a plan for next month to have a statue erected at city hall of octavius catto, a tremendous civil-rights icon in philadelphia. put that statue next to rizzo's, and there you have debate. >> how is this different than the debate down south, though, ed? because a lot of people would say, "look, in a climate like we have, with the new president, sometimes people do go to a statue and have, you know, a protest. and it is a rallying point for good or for bad." >> oh, i don't know. if you're going to lionize figures who waged war against the united states and engaged in treason, i don't think you can compare them with frank rizzo. i think that's larry's point. so, if we take a step back,

i think -- and i think we're all saying the same thing -- the whole notion of how we treat public places is now going to get a very vigorous discussion, and it ought to have one. because it's a representation -- when you have a statue in a public place, it speaks to the ethos of the world view of the community at large. and over time, that changes. so i think you have to first of all have a reason process by which it happens. it can't be the mob. it can't have the mob's veto. and i think larry's spot-on to say the best way to deal with speech you don't like is to have more speech. so to take rizzo's statue and -- i mean, we can have very different views on rizzo, but then to put a catto statue right next to him, or some other figure next to him, it's an appropriate thing. i'll predict this much --

we're gonna be much more careful about whose statue gets placed where only because of the polarized notion of our politics right now. >> as well we should. and then let's think about the costs. i mean, we're talking about public dollars. it costs money to maintain statues all around the city or what have you. and so when we're thinking about these figures, it makes sense if we're thinking way back in historical terms of someone that says, "these are their clear contributions," but when we're even thinking more modern times, that's a harder view and a harder sell to make. so, to your point, i think it works if we are able to institute conversation, a dialogue. but the biggest point of the day -- we have far more important issues that are going on when it comes to divisiveness, when it comes to equality issues, when it comes to violence issues. and, yes, there's symbolism behind this. no, rizzo is not robert e. lee. he was not someone who petitioned for treason. he was not someone who petitioned for an institution of forced raped and other aspects of slavery. that's understood. however, when we think about all of this, it is a good point of conversation and history.

i mean, we should have some historical markers, we should have some additional conversation points. that should be built in. because there's a lot of people that come to philadelphia, a lot of young folks, who don't even understand what this whole hoo-ha is about. and they're just sort of jumping into these sides and this fray, or, "oh, no, we should keep it" or "no, we should tear it down," and not even understanding why. many of the people who had the most amount of issues with rizzo are no longer even here. you know, those people who were affected are graying and aging. and not to say that they're hurt doesn't matter anymore, but the fact is, we have taken this conversation up to here without even bringing the appropriate context to the conversation. >> all right. and let's talk about widening it out a little bit. because back in 2011, a candidate, an independent candidate for mayor, actually spray-painted the words "black power" on the rizzo statue. that takes us over to coatesville and valley township, where anti-semitic and racist comments were sprayed. a suspect has been arrested. but clearly, racism is a problem throughout our country. and how do we get past it when there are some people who just may not even need a reminder like a statue, but just have

attitudes of hate? is it engendered and fostered by the political climate we're in now? >> well, one thing i think you can do is prosecute hate crimes. i started my career as a prosecutor at the justice department doing that. i think people who do acts like that -- deface cemeteries, burn crosses, commit violence... >> spray-paint cars. an african-american woman had just moved her family there. >> that's not free speech. that's not first amendment covered. that's hate speech. and they need to know that it's not gonna be tolerated and they'll be prosecuted. that's one good way to start, i think. and of course, everything that flows from that, which is education -- don't raise your children to hate other people. that'd be a good start. not have the president speak kindly about white nationalists and nazis. that'd be another good start. >> what did you make of the comments, that fluctuated within one week's time, ed, from the president where he says it was just, you know, not "spin" was his word, but take -- he was

saying different things just in a little bit different context, he said about charlottesville. what did you make of what he said last week? >> well, i think the main transgression, in terms of all of the words that have been spoken on his part, was when he said that at the rallies in charlottesville, you had people of goodwill and conscience on both sides. look, i think there is an argument to be made about not whitewashing, or clearing away, the markers that southern states have on a complex issues. when it comes to the whole question of whether you call it the "civil war" or the "war of northern aggression," which is what they call it, there's a difference of opinion. but no one of goodwill marches with the klan or with neo-nazis.

if he had said that much, and i really -- look, he's a -- >> is it a lack of knowledge of american history? >> no, i think it's a very in-- i think he's very inartful in his speech. i think he tends to be very bombastic, and he uses broad brushstrokes. so, he'll talk about people who rightly say that there's a double standard when it comes to this issue. but he winds up lumping them in with a crowd that he ought to have no contact with. >> nothing to do with. >> and actually does say, "i'm against david duke, i'm against the nazis, i'm against the klan," but the problem is, we're paying attention because you're the president. and if you speak inartfully, people are gonna draw conclusions. >> larry's gonna chime in here. >> i was with you until the argument that it's inartful speech. i think, if you go -- this wasn't isolated, right? if you go back to the campaign,

donald trump has unleashed a sense of anger and indecency in the culture. and i think it's more than just inartful speech. i think he has proven to be -- and this is not ideological -- but proven to be morally unfit to lead. when we look to our president to strike -- to appeal to the better angels of our nature, he comes up short every time. >> mm-hmm. >> and do you think that people should give him allegiance and give him a little pass because he's new in the office, he'll grow in the office, make it like a country-and-flag loyalty, patriotism? no? it's too late? >> when you talk about nazism, and, i mean -- my grandfather fought in world war ii, okay? he fought against nazis. and he still had to come home and deal with racism. he had to deal with racism in the navy. but the fact of the matter is, we fought against nazis. we fought against people who had an ideology that was so foul that it had nothing to do with

american values. you cannot be the president of the united states and not, first and foremost, reassure us that american values trump everything when i comes to the situation. first and foremost. >> meantime, one other point -- there is a pennsylvania senate bill that's at least being written, number 754, that would make protestors who protest things like these topics pay for the cost, if they get arrested, of police protection. if there is a large enough crowd and they are needed, if police are called upon to organize, or at least to keep the streets moving when there is a large demonstration like the one you're seeing right here. so, 50,000 people, by the way, gathered for the women's march, back during the inaugural time, in january. 2,000 went for another march. 5,000 for a march against the immigration executive order by president trump. these things cost money, when we have police overtime, and, you know, streets department issues as well. should they have to pay? >> there's a difference between peaceful protest and protest that results in violence. there's a difference between a protest that has a permit and complies with the rules and ones

that do not. and the ones that do not comply with those rules can be fined. but i think to go beyond that does have a chilling effect on free speech. and just one quick comment on this nazi thing. as a distant relative of dwight eisenhower, i saw a great thing on facebook last week, and it said, "the first protest against nazis," and it was the d-day landing. >> how about that? i mean, when you think about this law, it's dubious in its nature because it still leaves too much leeway. i mean, how do you decide a misdemeanor? i mean, a misdemeanor, it could be anything. and, i mean, regardless of what side or what's being protested, i think we do have enough laws on the books when it comes to -- if someone acts up, they get arrested. but then to say arrest and then you're gonna be fined? i mean, how do you define that? >> but how do cities pay for all this extra police -- >> well, and let's also -- we're taking a pretty hard brick back to donald trump, and he deserves some of it. not all of it. because every once in a while, i'll see someone say, "there were protests against donald trump tonight," and what i see on television is a riot.

antifa at the inauguration was burning cars, throwing gasoline bombs into stores, breaking windows. that's not a protest. that is a riot. and this antifa movement -- he's got a point here about what they have been doing. and in large part, they've been beating up on his supporters at his rallies. and when the story's told, it was a counter-protest. that's not a counter-protest. >> all right, let's hear from larry. >> i do think -- i think -- you're making the point i made earlier. i think hate or indecency or whatever you want to call it breeds hate or indecency. and i keep coming back to what i think his rhetoric has unleashed cumulatively. and then the other thing -- to your question, monica, about do you give them a pass on this? i think nia's right. you can't give them a pass on moral leadership. i give him a pass on working with congress. maybe he'll -- i doubt it -- but maybe he'll learn how to not

beat up mitch mcconnell because he wants to get his agenda passed. maybe he'll learn. but not on moral leadership. that's -- that's -- that's the -- that's a given. >> all right. we're gonna take a break. "inside story" continues right after this. >> "inside story" is presented by temple university. remarkable change isn't easy, but for those who take charge, it comes naturally. explore temple's impact. visit temple.edu/impact.

♪

>> welcome back to "inside story." a jury has now been picked in the corruption trial of new jersey senator bob menendez. an interesting quandary, if you will, in this case because his side, menendez' attorney, asked the judge to either delay the trial or allow them occasional days off, if you will, for senator menendez to go down to washington and vote on legislation, because obviously in this climate, every vote is needed on some issues. the judge declined on both those requests. so the trial will go forward. and either senator menendez won't be there a few days for his own trial so he can make these votes or he will be there and miss the votes. the point is, number one, the trial itself -- corruption -- alleges that he took bribes and got favored pay-to-play type treatment. so that's an interesting case in and of itself. but the climate of washington, d.c., needing every vote, no matter if you're on trial or not. what do you make of it? larry? >> i've been concerned. and look, i've railed about corruption in politics.

but it does seem to me that lately, there's a trend of criminalizing politics. the -- the case with virginia, the governor of virginia, where the supreme court had to overturn a conviction, and the sort of deal-making of politics is becoming criminal. i'd be interested in what jim says about this, because it feels like that there is a trend among overzealous prosecutors to just prosecute -- >> but it's not new because tom delay, ted stevens suffered very similar fates. >> hmm. that's interesting. >> so, you don't believe on the face of it -- i mean, certainly we're not in the courtroom. it doesn't sound like it's such a big deal? >> it sounded to me -- what i've read about it, it looks really icky and it looks like the typical deal-making and sausage-making of politics. i didn't see anything in what i've read that leads to the quid pro quo... >> right. >> ...illegality. >> well, the supreme court has made it very difficult for prosecutors, federal

prosecutors, to bring these kinds of corruption cases. the last couple opinions, including the mcdonnell opinion, the virginia governor you referenced, blew out that conviction with some facts that were pretty bad. it made the governor look pretty bad, but the supreme court said, "but not criminal." and we've seen some backlash in some of these cases. senator farnese, tried last year here in our district, acquitted by a jury in a case that seemed to a lot of us to be marginal. >> and the point is, there has to be an official act, an act of the office... >> quid pro quo. >> ...as opposed to a favor. >> a smoking gun of sorts. but, you know, the other thing is, when we're talking about public officials, they have a responsibility to their constituents. in this case, his constituents may well be harmed if he cannot be in two places at one time. and clearly, he cannot be. the other aspect is that you do harm to your own caucus. regardless of what party you're in, your responsibility, your comportment as an elected official is such that you shouldn't have to have a guideline to say, "okay, you can

do this, but don't do." but if that's what's needed, then perhaps our caucus leaders need to issue that for everyone. >> yeah, let's keep in mind article 1 section 5 of the constitution. each house gets to make its own rules. >> mm-hmm. >> what if, and we're not saying that he will or should be convicted, but what if he's convicted? it takes 2/3 of the senate... >> mm-hmm. >> ...to kick out a member. the democrats are in a position -- do we vote to kick him out knowing that chris christie, a republican, will appoint his replacement? >> sure. and that could start to tip the balance in congress, right. >> and to your point, monica, about you need every vote? don't forget, john mccain is going through a very serious health challenge. >> indeed. >> what may happen is they may try to work out deals, and mccain would probably go for this, where he absents himself on days when menendez is not there. >> and offset that. >> mccain's a guy who might go

for that. >> but an interesting point about how the outcome of the trial, whatever it is, will impact, possibly, the balance of power in washington, d.c. and now we have a republican governor who will be replaced at some point, in november of -- in theory -- and could be replaced by a democrat who's leading in many of the polls. so, it could very well. >> the democrats will pray that the trial would go out until january, if that's the case. >> these trials can be very sticky, with federal officials. there's a part of the constitution called the speech and debate clause. and it precludes the government from prosecuting an elected official for things said during speech and debate -- in other words, their official actions. the lawyer for senator menendez is an excellent lawyer. and he's already appealed twice on that -- before the trial has even started -- on those grounds to have the case thrown out. and then once you get into the trial, you've got all kinds of sticky problems for the government. so, conviction here is by no means preordained. and it's gonna be a tough battle for the government i think to win the case. >> all right. before we wrap up, let's talk quickly about the soda tax

update. many folks say that in fact the money raised has done exactly what the city had hoped. not quite the exactly number, but very close. they have been able to get $40 million so far and set up several preschool and kindergarten classrooms that were not there. you can take an argument on either side. some people say, "look, the very people that should be drinking less soda and aren't buying it in the philadelphia area run into the suburbs and they're getting the benefit, if you will, of the taxes." others would say, "look, these classrooms aren't so perfect. they've got a few little issues going, some paperwork and some clientele problems, if you will, that the mayor's having to put a stop to." so, is it a perfect system, or are you happy with the outcome? >> no, i think it's been a mess. and kudos to channel 6's investigative team. chad pradelli had a brilliant investigative report about how a quarter of the new pre-k classrooms haven't filed their fbi or state child-abuse protection forms. and the mayor sloughed it off as just paperwork, but not if

you're the parents of those kids. and four of them owe back taxes. so this gets to the issue of just competence, governmental competence. and i think they've got a lot of work to do. >> and it's not a soda tax, it's a beverage tax. >> right. we'll leave it at that. inside stories coming your way right after this. ♪

>>"inside story" is presented by temple university. remarkable change isn't easy, but for those who take charge, it comes naturally. explore temple's impact. visit temple.edu/impact. >> time for inside stories of the week. and let's start with jim. >> monica, insiders are talking about last week's crash at the 69th street terminal in upper darby. over 40 people injured. and it's not the first time that's happened. there's been another crash within the last year. congressman brady and others are really pushing hard for the ntsb to start moving on this, issue a report, and get the situation fixed. >> all right. ed. >> monica, following up on that. we've had four major mishaps

with u.s. navy ships in the pacific and a number of near misses in the baltic, and now they suspect that the russians may be hacking into the navigation systems of those ships. if they can hack into a naval vessel, they can get into a plane, a train, or those pilotless cars that they're talking about. this is a major issue. >> mm. nia. >> another possible mishap on the horizon right now is with the u.s. census bureau. this is the time, we're moving into 2018, that we should be having a lot of test runs and other things happening. due to budget constriction and whatnot, we're not gonna have three test runs, but only one. and that means a lot of changes when it comes to possible monies coming to cities like philadelphia and elsewhere. the census is a critical situation, and it's dire right now. we have to get on top of it. >> all right. larry. >> monica, i hung out last week with the irrepressible charles barkley, who next week will unveil his wine, cb wine, in partnership with a palo alto

winery. it's very good. all the proceeds go to charity. he gives away $1 million a year, underwriting minority scholarships. and i said to him, like, "who knew you were so cultured and such a sophisticated guy?" and he didn't answer, 'cause he was busy drinking. >> okay, well, there you go. all right, that's "inside story" for this week. thanks to our insiders for being here. we appreciate that. and thanks so much to you for watching. have a great week, and we'll see you right back here next sunday morning. >> i'm gray hall coming up next only "action news," rescue efforts are underway as tropical storm harvey continues to washout parts of texas. a ambulance on its way to the hospital in west philadelphia, ended up with a bullet hole. 60-mile journey to raise money for breast cancer research is about to come to an end at the navy yard. the details on the 3 day walk. those stories and the exclusive accuweather seven-day forecast

and much more next on "action news."

>> it is sunday august 27 i'm gray hall. nydia han has the day off. here's a look at the stories we're working on on "action news," southeast texas is underwater as tropical storm