All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 04/24/15

Eleanor Holmes Norton, Cecelia Kang, Robert Costa, Sabrina Siddiqui, Ezra Klein, Debbie Wasserman Schultz

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Good evening from Washington, D.C. I`m
Chris Hayes.

Lots to get to tonight, including the farewell to Eric Holder and the
challenges facing his successor.

Plus, the unexpectedly sudden collapse of the deal to create the
biggest cable company in America.

And from attending a reception hosted by two gay hoteliers, to
proposing two anti-gay marriage bills, how Ted Cruz is trying to have it

But we begin tonight with Eric Holder, the nation`s top law
enforcement official, the first black man to serve as attorney general,
bringing his tenure in that office to a close today.

On the very day Holder bid farewell to his colleagues, protest
continues just 40 miles north, in Baltimore, Maryland, as police revealed
that 25-year-old Freddie Gray who died after suffering a the fatal spine
injury in police custody was not properly buckled while in the police
transport van.


buckled in the transportation wagon as he should have been. No excuses for
that, period. We know our police employees failed to get him medical
attention in a timely manner multiple times.


HAYES: And in Palm Beach, Florida, there is outrage over newly
released dash cam video from 2013, showing a police officer firing at an
unarmed man paralyzing him from the waist down, appearing to shoot as he

While in Dallas, Texas, a grand jury decided not to indict two police
officers in the fatal shooting of a 39-year-old schizophrenic man after his
mother called the police.

Those three stories just a snapshot of one single day in the
continuing crisis around racial justice and policing in this country.

And there`s been arguably no more prominent national figure actively
engaged in a debate than Attorney General Eric Holder. In August of last
year, after more than a week of protests following the shooting death of
unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Holder himself traveled to
the city to speak with law enforcement and community leaders. Months
later, he spoke passionately about the need to confront the often
challenging relationship between African-American communities and police.


ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The struggle goes on. And it`s not
only Ferguson. There are other communities around our country where we are
dealing with relationships that are not what they should be, be they
official communities that they are supposed to serve or whether it`s kind
of a more personal level. There is enduring legacy that Emmitt Till has
left with us that we have to still confront as a nation.


HAYES: And this year, Holder followed those remarks of what he called
a searing Department of Justice report that found a pattern of abuse in
Ferguson`s police and courts that disproportionately harmed African-

His department also opened a civil rights investigation into the death
of Eric Garner, the unarmed African-American man killed while being taken
into custody by the NYPD in 2014. Most recently, they also opened
investigation into the death of one Freddie Gray, who died in Baltimore
police custody over the weekend.

The final year of Eric Holder`s tenure, the death of African-American
men during interactions with police have become a source of national
outrage and calls for reform, as well as backlash and a new a social
movement organized around the phrase “black lives matter.” The question
now is, how his successor Loretta Lynch will respond to that same movement?

Early reports are that Lynch aims to set a new tone for the
department, including, quote, “improving police morale and the finding
common ground between law enforcement and minority communities.”

Joining me now, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, delegate
representing Washington, D.C.

Congresswoman, you actually introduced Eric Holder at his confirmation
hearing. He, of course, served in Washington D.C., was a Washington D.C.
resident. You vouched for him from day one, and your reaction to his
tenure ending today against the backdrop of what`s happening just 40 miles
north of where we`re sitting.

truly vindicated because of his entire record. I think that with these
police matters, he has set Loretta Lynch who just got confirmed up and just
the right way. Loretta Lynch like Eric Holder was a U.S. attorney. And
she developed a relationship with police that gives her a lot of
credibility to take these police matters and reconcile communities with
their police.

I`ve written the Justice Department because the president had a task
force on 2 1st century policing to say, hey, look. Don`t let that lion on
the shelf. Take that, give it to local communities because that is where
police are, and they will form their own task forces at the local level.
You should have police, community and elected officials at the local level.

I think you are likely to see her take that kind of approach or
something typical – or something like it, rather than going around to
various communities.

HAYES: Well, what`s clear to me and I`m curious to hear if you feel
is same way is this is not going to away.

NORTON: Well, it`s getting worse. It`s coming –

HAYES: Yes. I mean, we just saw reports as it was going to air that
an e-mail had gone to the Baltimore Police Department to have officers
bring riot gear for the weekend. There`s possibility of other folks being
brought in – state folks being brought in. The funeral is on Monday.

I mean, this is not going away. We are living in an era kin which the
combination of both video, increased awareness about this, and the fact
that America just has a very different situation than any other comparable
country in terms of the amount of people that die at the hands of police.
There is a complicated reason for that.

What role do you want to see the attorney general play in that debate?

NORTON: I think it is time for an attorney general to get cities,
county counties and their police and their public officials together. And
isn`t it interesting that she say this is summer, she is going to in fact
visit with communities to try to reconcile communities with their police.

HAYES: Did you interpret that report about morale, police morale as
an implicit rebuke of the tone that Eric Holder has taken? That perhaps
he`s taken too harsh a tone against law enforcement and she feels the need
to course correct?

NORTON: It has nothing to do with him. It has to do with morale all
over the country.

I mean, if you were a cop, you can`t look at television in an evening
without seeing your fellow police, you know, under siege. So, I don`t
think – yes he went around but that was mostly after Ferguson. This other
stuff really has to do with what`s happening at the local level, and the
fact that it keeps coming up.

And, Chris, I think the reason we know about it is these things
weren`t covered as much as they are covered now. Now, when press see that
– and it`s often a black man is shot they run to the scene. And we know
about what has been happening all along, what has been happening frankly
for centuries.

HAYES: Well, and one other thing brought into light by this,
particular as we look to Baltimore, where there might be more press this
weekend, is in Ferguson, there was a lot of focus on the racial make up of
the city council, the mayor of the power structure. You know, Baltimore
obviously is African American mayor, African American police chief, and
we`re seeing what looks like some pretty – at least at first glance pretty
bad police behavior.

NORTON: Terrible. Baltimore is horrible.

For sure, she`s dealing with what had been horrible – the mayor –
had been horrible for decades, but it does how legitimate an issue this is
with African-Americans. They don`t care who`s in charge, who`s in charge
who`s also directed. And he`s getting the same demonstrations that
everybody else got.

HAYES: Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, thank you for being here.
It`s good to be in your city.

NORTON: My pleasure. Welcome to D.C.

HAYES: All right. The Eric Holder tour has been going on for a lot
longer than planned. Until yesterday, Republicans refused to confirm
Loretta Lynch to the position, leaving Holder attorney general for a full
five months longer than planned. In a nod to the GOP obstruction holding
their boss hostage, Holder and Justice Department staffers started wearing
free Eric Holder bracelets.

Today, he let his go.


ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Now, I want to do something here.
We have these bands we`ve been wearing for the last whatever number of
whatevers. I think I can officially take this off now.


I think we can officially say now that Eric Holder is free.


HAYES: While Holder may be finally free, he leaves a lasting legacy
under his watch. The Justice Department began an effort that may just be
the beginning of the end of the war on drugs. After several states
legalize marijuana, the DOJ declined to challenge the law, decline to
prosecute for the most part people that were selling marijuana in those
states. He`s also urged changes to federal sentencing guidelines.

Today on his way out, Holder, the highest law enforcement official in
the land said plainly, too many people are in prison.


HOLDER: We are a nation that incarcerates too many people for too
long and for no good law enforcement reason. It is time – it is time to
change the approaches that we have been using these past 30, 40 years.


HAYES: Joining me now, Ari Melber, MSNBC`s chief legal correspondent.

Ari, you`ve been covering this beat. You talked to Eric Holder. And
my question to you is, will we look back 30 years from now into the
trajectory of American criminal justice policy and see the Holder era at
DOJ as a kind of key inflection point?

Chris. And, you know, prosecutors do something that is different than
other parts of government. They focus explicitly on the past. That`s why
it`s so silly when people say it is a time for locking forward, not
backwards. Whether that`s about prosecuting torture in financial climbs or
the meltdown or anything else, because what prosecutors do day in and day
out is look at crimes that have occurred, past tense, and they focus on

And as you just heard that coming from the chief law enforcement
officer, that would understandably be their focus. What was different
about Eric Holder here in the context of a failed war on drugs in his view
was that while they continue to obviously prosecute a great range of cases,
including some drug cases and gang cases and federal enforcement actions,
they took time out to have a larger policy about the excesses of that

And as you mentioned in area of the marijuana and the state reforms,
in the area of the mandatory minimums, in the area of prosecutorial
discretion and nonviolent offenses, they tried to step away from a punitive
incarceration only model, and it`s fair to say he was the first attorney
general to do that in this war on drugs era.

HAYES: And these are, I think, you know, obviously baby steps in the
context of how massive the American criminal justice system is. Two
questions come to mind. One is, are we going to see that momentum continue
legislatively, which is ultimately where the changes need to be made as
opposed to enforcement.

And two, Loretta Lynch has been described by everyone as a
prosecutor`s prosecutor. Rudy Giuliani came out for her. Do you
anticipate seeing that trajectory continued under her.

MELBER: I think she will hold the line on a lot of reforms. I would
not expect from what we know about her that she would be rolling this back.
And at policy, of course, this is part of the larger Obama administration.
So, we should expect some continuity there.

Having said, yes, her reputation, look, they`re both former
prosecutors. Here reputation in Brooklyn, as you know, Chris, is a very
tough, very focused prosecutor, on gang crime, on sex trafficking, on ISIS
where she`s prosecuted what are alleged would be joiners of the ISIS right
out of the eastern district there.

So, she is tough on all that and clear on that. But I do think having
the chief law enforcement officer make some of these changes and have it
under a period where we haven`t had any return of what some right wingers
might have once warned, well, if you dial back mandatory minimums at all,
you`ll have gang crime spree all across the country. We haven`t seen that
in states like Washington and Colorado that have gone far on pot.

So, I do think that itself, at a reality level, to the extent that
reality affects what Congress, will help some of the legislative proposals,
like the Safety Valve Act and the Smarter Sentencing Act that are
bipartisan and would further deal with this at a criminal level.

HAYES: You know, you make a key point there about the way in which
policy experiments we can sort of view them now how they cache out in the
real world. There is so much fear, frankly racialized fear that dominated
the conversation for so long. And crime was historically very high for a
large part of the period these policies are in place. In cases and states
legalizing marijuana or even in changes at the local level, I wonder how
much you would think crime continuing to stay low is the necessary
precondition to creating the space for this trend to continue.

MELBER: Well, it`s a great question because I do think we are in a
different era where on the one hand, the crop in this crime rate is
important and plays into it. On the other hand, if you look at the
flipside, something you have covered a lot, the role of video evidence and
citizen-created evidence in these law enforcement clashes right, that also
has changed the conversation. Not because police-related killings are
necessarily widely up, although in certain areas, clearly it is a serious
problem, as bad as other periods, but because the evidence is there and
that changes the equation.

So I think the question can drugs is not only what is the evidence,
because not everyone is an amateur criminologist. But how does the media
and social media, or what I call also called citizen media relate to that.
But again, yes, look at places like Colorado, there is not a large increase
in gang bang related violence which isn`t a surprise because you are
bringing part of the black market out of the shadows and into the regulated
place. Doesn`t mean we aren`t going to have heroin on demand and it
doesn`t mean that drugs aren`t still wrapped up in serious social epidemics
which include, you know, violence driving while inebriated and other issues
that we care about as society, right? But it does mean that if people see
that evidence and they see as a part of this progress, then yes, I do think
it changes some of the politics of crimes.

HAYES: Ari Melber, thanks for being here. Appreciate it.

MELBER: Thanks for having me.

HAYES: Lots more still to come.

The Comcast/Time Warner merger deal is off.


BRIAN ROBERTS, COMCAST CHAIRMAN & CEO: Obviously, we wanted to bring
the product we`ve got that we`re proud of to new markets, but it`s not
going to happen.


HAYES: Plus, our political round table is gathered here in D.C.,
ready to talk all things 2016.

And amazing, terrifying pictures from Chile, where a volcano that`s
been quiet more than 42 years erupts. Shooting ash six miles into the sky
and blanketing a town in dust.


HAYES: Much more ahead on the show tonight, including congresswoman
and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, will be here right here to talk
about what a Democratic primary, if there is one, is going to look like.

Stay with us.



ROBERTS: Obviously, we wanted to bring the products we`ve got that
we`re very proud of to new markets but it`s not going to happen. So we
reached that conclusion. We always structured this deal in a way that will
allow us to walk away if it looked like it wasn`t going to happen and
that`s where wire at.

We thought we could get the deal approved. We thought we should make
a good case. I think our team did. But in the end, we got to move on.


HAYES: That was Comcast chairman and CEO Brian Roberts this morning
in our sister network, CNBC, which is a Comcast company, as are we.

Comcast announced today it is withdrawing its bid to merge with Time
Warner Cable. It would have meant the biggest cable provider in the
country acquiring the second biggest cable provider.

According to “Washington Post”, quote, “Few companies have more
success in persuading regulators to allow them to grow than Comcast, which
evolved from a small cable television operator in rural Mississippi, into a
global media and telecommunications juggernaut.”

So what happened this time? And how did we get to today`s result?

Joining me now, Cecelia Kang, a reporter of business of media for “The
Washington Post”. Her latest piece today detailed exactly how this deal
was undone.

Cecelia, great to see you.


HAYES: When this was announced, there was a widespread sense I feel
that Comcast had won these regulatory battles before. They got NBC
Universal and there are some people who thought that was a bad idea. Here
we are.

KANG: Absolutely.

HAYES: That they`re going to win this one again. And it also seemed
like that was the operating assumption until a month or two ago and then
boom, all of a sudden, it`s done. How did that happen?

KANG: Completely imploded, at least publicly. But behind the scenes,
regulators have been watching and looking at this with a lot of very hard

Ultimately, it was very simple. They thought Comcast asked too much.
They wanted to become too big, particularly on the broadband side of the
business, the high speed Internet. This deal would have 50 percent of the
all high speed Internet connections the number of subscribers to one kind
in one company.

HAYES: So half of all high speed broadband.

So, I mean, here is what`s interesting. Comcast is making the case
where they said, look, the way the regional monopolies work is this. Time
Warner and us don`t compete. We have – we`re at different areas of the

So, if you combine us there is no net difference in amount of choice
consumers have, right? In New York City, where I`m a Time Warner
subscriber, I`ve basically got two options. If it was Time Warner, and it
became Comcast, I`d still have go options, right? That was the argument
they were making to regulators. Why did that argument not work?

KANG: That`s exactly right. And it`s very tidy too.

HAYES: Right.

KANG: But the thing that ultimately ignores is it is a very
complicated and fast-changing space, the media world.

HAYES: Right.

KANG: And so many companies like Netflix, like Amazon, like Facebook
depend on the access to the internet. And one company essentially becoming
a national company, even though as you said, Chris, they do not compete on
regions. They don`t have the same zip codes. That would put too much
power in the hands of that company over many other businesses in the

HAYES: Right. So, that`s where the real – I mean, there was
obviously some organizing by consumers and other public interests against
this deal. But a lot of the push came from other businesses. Netflix`s
CEO Reed Hastings basically said in earnings call, killing this deal is our
number one priority.

Why was Netflix so intent on that?

KANG: Netflix depends tremendously on these cable companies to
deliver their videos flawlessly. And they have to pay charges in the
behind the scenes of the Internet that nobody really sees. It`s called the
backend of the internet. This is a really wonky thing called
interconnection fees.

Netflix says, if you let one company have too much control of the
whole Internet in the United States, those companies can abuse their power
and make us pay more.

HAYES: Right, because you have the situation Netflix is both
dependent on the broadband providers and also competing with the broadband
provider at the same time, right?

KANG: Right.

HAYES: Netflix needs you to have broadband, and I have to communicate
with that company to pipe my, you know, TV shows through, right? But every
time I put a new original series on Netflix, I`m trying to page a bite of
the business the cable subscription, that same company, in this case
Comcast, is also selling you.

KANG: And, Chris, this is exactly why Netflix is trying to show how
Comcast has become such a hugely diverse company that`s actually
complicated its own interests in a way. It`s built itself over the years.
In 2011, when its merger with NBC Universal was approved, it became a huge
entertainment and media company.

So, in a way, Comcast actually competes with everything. If you are
entertainment, telecom or tech, you are competing against Comcast in one
way or another. And what the FCC –

HAYES: So, you have also created a situation in which you have
created enough enemies essentially. I mean, enemies is a strong term. You
created enough people in a vast array of the American marketplace who have
their own lobbyists and own interests to fight back in these regulatory

KANG: And they were vocal. Reed Hastings was just one person. A lot
of the programmers, like the owners of the networks, also complained. They
complained of past behavior by Comcast and the regulators heard that.
Antitrust and FCC regulators heard that, and said, you know what, if
Comcast has a record of breaking rules in the past, how can we trust that
if they had 50 percent of the broadband market, they wouldn`t do it again?

HAYES: The underlying issue here also is the fact that we have seen
in FCC – I mean, we should be clear. Both Department of Justice and FCC
were going to bring regulatory action.

KANG: Straight out block it.

HAYES: They were going to block it. They basically said, I mean,
that is – that`s the biggest antitrust enforcement action since what, the
Microsoft? I mean, a generation, right?

KANG: T-Mobile, AT&T. But no company is as diversified like Comcast,
that`s come before these regulators. It would have been really bad
politically, and the same administration, under the Obama administration,
for them to approve two huge Comcast mergers. That potentially was in the
thinking as well.

HAYES: We`re moving to a media world in which it does seem broadband
will dominate everything, right?

KANG: Yes.

HAYES: And also towards a new regulatory environment with net
neutrality provisions that have been put in by the FCC. I mean, this seems
to be the beginning of a new era in a regulatory sense.

KANG: It is. And I think Comcast underestimated. They misjudged the
way that regulators were going to approach this merger. They thought they
were just going to look at this with the same argument of antitrust they
have in the past. Regulators have sort of woken up. They educated
themselves on the marketplace. They`ve educated themselves on the fact
that Netflix and Amazon competes with the Facebook and competes with
Comcast, and they`re looking at the totality of this ecosystem that`s
really evolving quickly.

HAYES: Well, fascinating. Thank you very much.

KANG: Thank you.

HAYES: Cecelia Kang.

All right. The amazing pictures from Chile`s Calbuco Volcano which
has erupted for the first time in over 40 years. That`s next.



REPORTER: Chile`s Calbuco volcano sprang into life without warning
and in spectacular fashion. A red mushroom shaped column billowed in the
sky with occasional lightning bolts shooting through.


HAYES: It was as if somebody had detonated an atomic bomb. That`s
how one witness described a blast coming from southern Chile`s Calbuco
Volcano this week – a volcano that had been dormant over 40 years but on
Wednesday, Calbuco erupted, shooting a column of ash nine miles into the

It was an eruption so massive, it could be seen 100 miles away in

The initial blast was caught on camera by a tourist, at a Chilean
National Park. A second blast came early Thursday, creating a series of
lightning storms. These remarkable pictures captured at the event.

Thankfully, there had been no report of the death or injuries, but the
reactions have wrecked havoc across the region. A state of emergency has
been declared. Thousands of people have been evacuated from their homes.
Schools have been close and flights have been canceled.

Tonight, the streets of nearby towns are blanketed with ash, raising
health concerns and officials are warning residents to prepare for a
potential third blast.

We`ll be right back.


HAYES: Republican presidential aspirants are heading to the Iowa
Faith and Freedom Coalition`s spring kickoff this weekend, just one stop on
a seemingly endless series of pre-primary events lined up on the GOP

Now, it is a very different story on the democratic side, however,
Hillary Clinton has been campaigning virtually solo in Iowa and New
Hampshire, the first two primary states, while several potential candidates
are considering a run. One of the only people who seems determined to
challenge her is Martin O`Malley, former governor of Maryland, former mayor
of Baltimore. His organization is ramping up for a formal campaign launch
in late May. And that will present a new challenge for the Democratic
Party infrastructure already dominated by Clinton fans and loyalists.

How do you structure an actual contested primary?

Joining me now is the person charged with overseeing that process,
Florida Congresswoman and Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie
Wasserman Schultz.

I remember when the RNC to great fanfare came out with their debate
schedule and they said we have this many debates. I think it`s nine
debates. And here are the rules for the debates. And you get punished if
you go to nonofficial debates, and these are the (inaudible) and these are
the people who are going to host. And there was nothing from the
Democratic Party because it was kind of like, well, I don`t know are we
going to have debates? Is anyone going to run?

Eventually someone has to step in and create a process for the party
to have a primary, right?

the Democratic National Committee. And we are, and have been, busily
preparing to put together the mechanics that you need to run a primary. We
will be in the next – probably the next several days or so announcing a
debate framework for the primary debate season that we expect to have.

We do expect other candidates to get in the race, whether it`s Martin
O`Malley or Lincoln Chafee or others. And we have very specific steps in
our rules that have to be taken. We need delegate selection plans. We
need to know whether a state is going to have a primary or a caucus.

I mean, those thigns are all happening. And they happen whether we
have candidates officially declared or not. And we will eventually have
multiple candidates declared.

HAYES: OK. So if I`m – let`s say I am Martin O`Malley or Bernie
Sanders. What faith can I possibly have in the impartiality of the
Democratic Party, given how dominated it is by people that are – either
have worked for Hillary Clinton or vowed supporters of Hillary Clinton. I
mean, is there any plausible way in which the official infrastructure of
the Democratic Party can have a pretense of neutrality in this process?

SCHULTZ: Oh, of course. And I have made it very clear all the way
through as have my – I`ve made it clear to my staff. My staff has made it
very clear that we will this primary absolutely neutrally, that every
candidate will be treated equally and fairly and I believe that every
candidate and potential candidate has the absolute expectation that that
would be the case.

HAYES: Are people from the different possible contenders in contact
with your staff about for instance the debate schedule?

SCHULTZ: Not only are they in contact with us, but we reach out to
them, because…

HAYES: So there are conversations being had that are negotiations
around, say, what the debates will look like.

SCHULTZ: Well there are discussions being had about what we`re
thinking and we are making sure that we are keeping each of the potential
presidential candidates and the one that we have informed about our
thinking and getting feedback from them.

HAYES: Are you – you said that you are confident there will
absolutely be more than one person. I guess Lincoln Chafee has already

SCHULTZ: He`s already – well, he has an exploratory, but he`s..

HAYES: As of now Hillary Clinton is the only one who has officially
declared that she is actually running for president.


HAYES: But you are 100 percent confident there will be multiple
participants in.


HAYES: Do you think from your perch as the head of the Democratic
Party that a contested
primary, a competitive primary, is a good thing for the party?

SCHULTZ: I do. Absolutely. I mean…

HAYES: Do you really think that?

SCHULTZ: No I really think that. I mean, I will tell you. I mean,
I`ve been on the ballot 11 times and there have been a couple times in
which I didn`t have an opponent. In Florida, you are not even on the
ballot when you don`t have an opponent. And you are not as running as
robust outreach program. You get a little sedentary and maybe think that
you don`t have to work as hard and you don`t think about it as much.

And so I think the process of going through a primary will provide
that political exercise that I think each campaign needs and each candidate
needs to be able to hone their message, figure the best way to reach out to
the voters and put together the combination of voters that they need to
actually be successful on election day – on the general election day.

HAYES: There is an ideological distinction, at least in the sort of
public pronouncements of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party as
regards Citizens United and the role of big, unregulated money. Democratic
Party has by and large opposed the Citizens United decision, found it to be
wrongly decided. A lot of Democratic lawmakers have either expressed
support for or openness to a
constitutional amendment perhaps to address it.

SCHULTZ: As has Hillary Clinton.

HAYES: Hillary Clinton has, Harry Reid, others. At the same time,
the Democratic Party
is a political party that exists in the world of these actual rules.

SCHULTZ: Definitely.

HAYES: I just – I don`t know. I guess I want some first person
account of like how is life
different for you in this era where you know this is this huge amount of
money that is out there but can`t be given directly to the party, but you
know people are working on it – like how does that change your role day to

SCHULTZ: Well, it actually for us and same is true for the RNC, and
I`ve actually talked to Reince Preibus about this, with the law changing in
December, even though our position is that there is too much money in
politics. With the law changing in December, it actually gives those
donors that wish to give larger contributions the opportunity to give us
several hundred thousand dollars, which is more they could before.

So those are donors that may have given to a super PAC first, because
they really wanted to have a more outsized impact, and now we`re able to
encourage them to give that…

HAYES: So wait, what changed in December.

SCHULTZ: Because we tripled the maximums in the Cromnibus for –
yeah, for the convention…
HAYES: It went from 30 whatever, right?

SCHULTZ: It went from $32,400 to now it`s about $324,000, something
like that.

HAYES: Wow. That`s a lot of money.

SCHULTZ: It`s triple maxouts.

Well, it is some restrictions on it, on what it can – it`s a max out
for the convention. It is a max out for construction of headquarters and
other things.

HAYES: Do you feel that because there is a donor right now that can
write $10 million to
super PAC allied with a candidate that that has diminished the relative
importance that you and the DNC actually have in this process?

SCHULTZ: Well, it makes it so that we have a smaller footprint over
what it is that we are going to have an impact on. That is also part of
why I think that Citizens United was – I agree with President Obama, one
of the worst decisions, because for us and the reason we`ll encourage those
donors to give us to first is because our donations – our party believes
in transparency. Our party believes we should have an open process with
full reporting. And you contribute to us first and that`s what happens.

And we do believe that there`s way too much money in politics, but we
need to change…

HAYES: It`s fascinating for me to imagine just a fly on the wall with
a donor being like give to us and don`t give to us X because, you know,
there is only so much money, right.

SCHULTZ: The key thing is, is what we do have is the ability for make
sure donors understand if they want to have the most direct impact on the
outcome of an election and make a difference for their candidate, no matter
what amount their contributing, contributing to a party first is the best
way to do that, because we are the only organization that can directly
coordinate with a candidate.

Those super PACs and other organizations can`t and that makes a

HAYES: That can`t is increasingly in quotes. Congresswoman…

SCHULTZ: Well, not nearly as directly…

HAYES: Thank you very much.

All right, a few days after two prominent gay businessman hosted
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz for a reception at their
apartment, Ted Cruz introduces two bills to stop same-sex marriage. More
on that ahead.


HAYES: You know how sometimes people use A phrase “in bed with” as a
metaphor, colorful metaphor, for someone being improperly in cahoots with
someone else. Well a story that makes that quite literal ahead.


HAYES: Ted Cruz is pushing back on a report from the New York Times
about an event in
Manhattan that the candidate attended this week hosted by two gay
businessmen where he reportedly did not mention his opposition to same-sex
marriage saying only that marriage is an issue that should be left to the

In a statement, Cruz denied this signaled any change in his position
and if there were still any doubt, he has now introduced two bills in the
senate which would protect states that bar same sex-sex couples from

Joining me now, Sabrina Siddiqui, political reporter for The Guardian
U.S., Robert Costa, national political reporter for the Washington Post and
Ezra Klein, MSNBC policy analyst and editor-in-chief of Fox.

All right, here is why I love this story.


HAYES: Well there is a lot to love in this story, particularly like
just the notion of Ted Cruz at this small intimate gathering in Central
Park South where a month earlier a 26-year-old had died of a drug overdose
in a bathtub with these two gentlemen who are gay hoteliers. Like , it`s
just like something out of like a Tom Wolff novel or something.

But also just this idea of trying to talk to a donor class that is I
think by and large overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality, and a base
that by and large is overwhelmingly opposed to it and trying to sort of
speak in these two registers. And we know, right, we know the data says
that like there is just a systematic difference between how donors see the
world and how voters do, and particularly the base, and this is a perfect

EZRA KLEIN, MSNBC POLICY ANALYST: And this is a ton of what you are
going to see throughout the campaign. This – in some ways was a problem
last campaign too where as it becomes easier and easier for things that
candidates say in small gathers to become highly public. There has long
been in politics this kind of two-step where what is said to the crowd is
not what is said to the donor. And in increasingly it becomes much, much
harder to say something to the donor that doesn`t get in front of the

And Cruz is in a particularly difficult spot here. He is somebody who
runs against the establishment. He is loathed by his fellow Senate
conservatives. And he`s going to have a fair amount of trouble raising
money, so he is going to have to shade some of that a bit in order to get
some, frankly, elites on his side. But in order to get some of those
elites on his side, they may be with him on Obamacare. They may be with
him on executive overreach, but a lot of them are not going to be with him
on some of the more socially conservative dimensions of his campaign.

SABRINA SIDDIQUI, THE GUARDIAN US: And Ted Cruz is obviously vying if
for evangelical vote. He`s competing with the Mike Huckabees and Rick
Santorums of the world. And to an extent, though, Marco Rubio and Rand
Paul obviously are his main competitors in a primary . And they`ve struck a
somewhat more conciliatory tone. Rand Paul noticeably didn`t comment on the
religious freedom controversy in Indiana. Marco Rubio is out there saying
I`d go to a gay wedding and being gay is not a choice, it`s something
you`re born with.

And Ted Cruz, however, is the chief defender of religious liberty.
He`s not in a position where he can really soften his tone. And I think
that is what you see here is this struggle to say, well, of course I would
love my daughter if I found out she was gay, but I still vehemently oppose
same-sex marriage.

HAYES: What`s also interesting is here is Ted Cruz, though I think in
some ways is sort of and at the right edge of the Republican policy, and
even he did not introduce today a constitutional amendment that would ban
gay marriage. He introduces a constitutional amendment that protect bans
on gay marriage in states from a possible SCOTUS ruling and would remove
federal jurisdiction of state marriage law, which is a massively radical

But that says something even to me about where the kind of right most
plank of the Republican party is.

ROBERT COSTA, WASHINGTON POST: And what`s fascinating to watch is
because there is near uniformity in the Republican Party on these social
issues, it now comes down to a competition about posture, about attitude,
about how you frame things in your rhetoric. And so Cruz, you are right
he`s proposing his legislation. But he`s not really different from any
other conservative in the field. He`s trying to find some way to get

HAYES: This is the key point, right. There is actually not a ton –
like even though there is a million different candidates there is actually
not a huge amount of substantive space between them.

KLEIN: But it is insane that that is true. It is an incredible thing
that we are here in 2015 and it is difficult to find a Republican running
for president whose outrightly opposed to gay marriage and will actually do
something constitutional about it.

I mean, it was not a hundred years ago or 50 years ago or 20 years ago
that you were having George W. Bush in serious consideration of
constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The speed with which this issue has shifted and so the contortions
folks are having to go through to try to deal with a part of the base, a
part of the Republican base that has not shifted that quickly is hard.
It`s actually a tricky line to walk.

HAYES: And Huckabee – I think Huckabee probably is the one person.
I mean, I think my understanding of official position is that he is opposed
to it.

But what`s also fascinating is here is an issue the Republicans have
gone from being the right side of public opinion to the wrong side in a
whiplash inducing fashion. They are now entering into a
presidential election and are going to have their bacon saved by a Supreme
Court that very likely is going to come in and remove the issue as an
active issue .

COSTA: The donor class feels great about the Supreme Court`s

HAYES: Yes, there`s – the donor class is so excited because they are
like no one will have to talk about it.

SIDDIQUI: I think it the most complicated thing for Republicans is
also right now a lot have of them have said we want to leave it to the
states. And if the Supreme Court eliminates that as an excuse,
then it will be really really interesting to see how they come down on this
issue. They won`t be able to say it`s a state level issue

COSTA: There are two theories out there when I speak to top
Republican strategists.

One, is this Supreme Court ruling going to be a grenade? Is it going
to ignite the Republican primary and set off a culture war.

HAYES: Competition…

COSTA: A competition to go further to the right? Or is it battle,
people are opposed to it
but they move on.

KLEIN: And this is what I thought was so interesting about the
religious liberty fight out of Indiana.

What I read into that fight, what I thought was going on there, was
that that was finally a place where top Republican politicians could ally
with social conservative base on this issue. The religious liberty laws
were not going to aggressively going to discriminate against LGBT Americans
in Indiana, it was a fairly niche set of situations where that might
happen. But what it did was in an issue where a lot of folks in the base
really do not like the trend that these where these cultural issues are
going into, and they have been completely abandoned by their politicians
who are not even going to make an issue out of the Supreme Court ruling
that give them a proxy fight where they could reknit some of that

HAYES: 100 percent correct.

And in terms of your point. I mean, the question about this case
before the Supreme Court arguments on Tuesday is if and when it`s decided
in the way people anticipate, which you know would be surprising if it
weren`t, does it end up as Loving v Virginia, right, which says that you
can`t ban interracial marriage, or does it end up as Roe v. Wade which
doesn`t set off some sort of glide path to consensus, in fact triggers
massive 30, 40 years of apocalyptic social struggle.

COSTA: Well, who thinks it`s going to be Roe v. Wade is Bobby Jindal.
He writes this article in The New York Times. He thinks he can run against
the leftists and their allies and the corporations.

Mike Huckabee thinks it`s going to be Roe v. Wade. But most of the
top tier contenders don`t.

HAYES: Yeah, OK, stay with us. We`re talk about why basically all of
modern politics is
one big gigantic conflict of interest, next.


HAYES: Lots of talk about conflicts of interest, or possible
conflicts of interest, circling around Hillary and Bill Clinton.

It`s worthwhile to remember the background context which is that
basically all of modern American politics is one gigantic conflict of

Look no further than the case of Pennsylvania congressman Bill
Schuster, Republican chairman of the House transportation infrastructure
committee. Politico reports that last year Schuster muscled a beleaguered
transportation bill through the house, a bill promoted by his girlfriend
who is an airline
industry lobbyist. And that is just another day in Washington.

Still with me, Sabrina Siddiqui, Robert Costa and Ezra Klein.

I mean, this is the thing about the discussion of the Clinton issue,
which is yes, like it does appear that there was more care should have been
taken to flag things that appear as conflicts of interest. I think the
strong case that there is quid pro quo is very, very far from being
demonstrated. But it is also the case that, like yeah, this whole world of
people on both sides of the aisle are functioning in places where like
people are getting money for speaking engagements and then they`re going on
TV to advocate for those people and people are hanging out with lobbyists.
Like there are so many conflicts it just seems slightly insane to me, or
slightly like fake naive to be outraged by these in

KLEIN: I think it is reasonable as a normal human being to be upset
that foreign governments were donating large amounts of money to the
Clinton Global Foundation when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.
What I don`t think is reasonable is if you are a human being who has a
super PAC that is getting anonymous money in the multiple tens of millions
of dollars to you and nobody knows where that money is coming to then be
upset about that and pretend that you have some kind of moral
indignation about people taking charitable donations, not for a campaign,
that are transparent against your completely untransparent donations from
people who are definitely going to want things after the campaign.

HAYES: This is a great point…

KLEIN: There is a tremendous amount of ridiculous hypocrisy in this

HAYES: I mean, Ted Cruz has – one of his big backers, a guy by the
name of Robert Mercer, I believe, who has a hedge fund. It`s fighting the
IRS over a huge multibillion dollar tax bill. They`re – Mercer is going
to give Cruz millions of dollars. Cruz says he wants to abolish the IRS.

Like, that is as plain as you get as a conflict, right. But that`s so
just baked into American politics that that doesn`t rise to the level of
scandal, because that`s just how we understand the system working.

COSTA: I agree with your point about it – it`s baked in. There is a
web of relationships in both parties that would raise eyebrows from any
kind of scrutiny.

I think the difficulty for Cruz or for Clinton is that if you have all
this money coming at you, whether from foreign governments for a
foundation, or whether it`s for a super PAC, can you really running a
convincing populist campaign? Can you be the champion of everyday

HAYES: Yeah, that is – that applies broadly across the board.

SIDDIQUI: Well, I think this is what`s kind of baffling about some of
the revelations that are coming out about Clinton, and of course there is
not enough evidence right now that to really establish
that favors were being done by the State Department for foreign governments
that donated. That`s not…

HAYES: At all.

SIDDIQUI: That`s not established at all.

Having said that, clearly you know they underreported donations, or
didn`t report donations to the IRA. They also have not – didn`t even
disclose to the Obama administration as they promised to do, which foreign
governments were donating to their foundation. And for someone who is
already struggling to position herself as an everyday American, as Rob
said, she`s trying to – she`s going on this tour and trying to combat this
image that she`s out of touch, that she`s elitist, that the Clinton world
that this vaunted Clinton team…

HAYES: But that`s the thing that I want to say is like American
voter, listen to me. They are not like you. None of them are everyday
Americans at all. Who are we kidding?

And not only is that true, the system is created in such a way that
they cannot be like you. If they were look you, they wouldn`t be plausible
presidential candidates because they would not know enough people with
money – frankly.

KLEIN: Presidential candidates aren`t like us. They have – they
need to raise millions and
millions and millions and millions of dollars.

This is something I think is fascinating about sort of political
theater coverage of all kinds. This idea that we will wander around
criticizing people for being inauthentic while doing the least authentic
things that human beings (inaudible). That it`s strange that you human
being seem a little bit stilted when you get up on a stage and talk in
front of 30,000 people.

Or when you are in front of a barrage of press questions about
something that you don`t want
to talk about.

We want people to seem authentic doing highly artificial, superficial

HAYES: The other thing to me – this piece from – David Sarota (ph)
write this piece for International Business Times where he just went
through and he said, look “government documents show that Jeb Bush oversaw
Florida directing at least 1.7 billion dollars of state worker`s retirement
money to financial firms of his elder brother`s major donors.

Now at first you`re like well that looks kind of damning. I mean,
what that is, that is a fact about two social groups. The social group of
people that run funds that are going to manage state money and the social
group of people that donate to George W. Bush. And that seems to me a very
similar analog to what we`re getting in some of the Clinton stories, right.

It`s like the group of people that might have business before the
State Department and the group of people that are giving money to the
Clinton Foundation, like there is a lot of Venn diagramming.

COSTA: I was just in New Hampshire and I was struck when I spoke with
activists about their reservations with Bush, because they see him as tied
to corporate America in the same way many progressive feel uncomfortable
about Clinton`s ties to corporate America.

HAYES: Yeah, there`s that same issue.

SIDDIQUI: And Americans polling shows that they think Clinton capable
of doing an effective job as a leader, but that when you ask about
trustworthiness and honesty suddenly her numbers plummet. And that`s
what`s very really concerning for her.

HAYES: I`m really – it is going to be fascinating to watch the way
this plays out in terms of are we going to have more Foster Freeze moments.
are we going to have more moments where these folks who are behind the
scene, these gay hoteliers become front and center.

I hope so, because that`s the only modicum of transparency we have.

Sabrina Siddiqui, Robert Costa and Ezra Klein, great to have you here.

That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow show starts now.


Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>