All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 05/12/15
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN –
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When you talk to
Elizabeth, this is based on this dispute settlement provision that I just
HAYES: Open warfare on the left.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I believe this is the fight
HAYES: Tonight, Senator Sherrod Brown on the trade fight the
president just lost within his own party.
SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: I think the president has made this
more personal than he needed to.
HAYES: Then, the massive pushback on the Seymour Hersh bin Laden
Plus, why Marilyn Mosby`s appearance at a Prince concert was certainly
not a conflict of interest.
And why a major new poll on religion in America will not please Bill
BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS: The Judeo-Christian tradition in this
country is under attack.
HAYES: ALL IN starts right now.
HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.
A brewing fight on the left broke out into open warfare today with
Senate Democrats blocking debate on a bill that would give President Obama
authority to negotiate a massive trade deal and present the deal to
Congress for an up-or-down vote, without Congress being able to make any
changes to that deal. The back and forth between the White House and
Democrats has gotten personal. The vote was 52-45 in favor of moving to
debate on the bill short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
And this was not some situation just a few Democrats defected. Every
single Senate Democrat, except one, Tom Carper of Delaware, voted against
the White House or did not vote. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
normally close allies of the president, cast the proposed deal as bad for
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WARREN: We can`t keep pushing through trade deals that benefit
multinational companies at the expense of workers. Government cannot
continue to be the captive of the rich and powerful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: The massive trade deal called the Trans Pacific called the
Trans Pacific Partnership would set new terms for trade business
investments among the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations.
Together, those nations represent roughly 40 percent of global GDP and one-
third of world trade.
The White House and many Republicans say the president can`t complete
the deal if Congress won`t give him fast track authority known as Trade
Promotion Authority, TPA, but Senate Democrats are refusing to go give the
president that authority without additional measures to assist workers
displaced by globalization, tightened child labor law, and fortify the
government`s response to unfair trade practices, as well as a measure it to
crack down on currency manipulation by foreign governments.
The Republican leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell is refusing to
allow a vote on those measures that Democrats have prioritized.
Late this afternoon, President Obama convened a closed door meeting
with Senate Democrats to discuss a path forward. He`s been openly feuding
with Democrats over the deal particularly Warren, telling Yahoo! News that
her position is, quote, “absolutely wrong and adding the truth of the
matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else.”
Senator Sherrod Brown took exception to such comments.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: I think the president was disrespectful to her by the way he
did that. I think that the president, his – I think the president has
made this more personal than he needed to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Joining me now is Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio,
who`s been one of the most outspoken voices opposing this and on trade
issues in general.
Senator, I got to ask you this quote about Elizabeth Warren is getting
a lot of attention. I want to you just address it. You said, “I think
referring to Elizabeth Warren by first name when he wouldn`t have done that
for a male senator perhaps. I`ve said enough.”
What do you mean by that? Do you think this has gotten unnecessarily
personal all in all?
BROWN: Yes, Chris, I`ve said enough about that. I think the
president has gotten a little too personal about that. I want to move on.
I think the victory today on this was pretty unprecedented. Democrats
stayed together sending the message you don`t do trade agreements without
trade enforcement and you don`t do trade agreements without taking care of
workers who lose their jobs.
I mean, even, as you know, Chris, even the cheer of the most vigorous
cheerleaders like “The Wall Street Journal” for trade agreements
acknowledge their winners and losers, and it`s immoral for Congress who
votes on these trade agreements not to take care of people who are the
losers who lose their jobs because of this.
So, to me, it`s all with about that. It`s about trade enforcement.
It`s about helping workers that lose their jobs. I don`t like these trade
agreements, period. But if Congress is going to pass them, if the
president is going to insist on them, then we`ve got to do it right.
HAYES: Let me ask – let me ask you this as I try to read the
politics of what happened today. It was sort after remarkable vote, right?
I mean, Democrats vote together, only one senator, Senator Carper of
Delaware votes for it.
I couldn`t – I guess what I want to you explain to me is, was this
the Republicans sort of creating this – bringing this situation to this
end because they wouldn`t include those items you`re talking about? Was it
the White House? Was it the Democratic Caucus? Like, how did this all
BROWN: Well, it was – it was several weeks of work. It was talk –
ever since the finance committee voted for these four bills, we assumed
they would be together when I realized Senator Hatch, the chairman, wanted
to bring them separately, understanding that Republicans wanted to kill the
had help for workers, the trade adjustment assistance, understanding that
the president wasn`t wild about some of the trade enforcement actions.
My goal was to work with other senators to keep them together. We
were able to do that because almost all the senators, including the ones I
spent the most time with, those that were voting for the plan to vote for
TPA, those senators believe there still should be help for workers when
they lose their jobs and still believe in enforcement.
They want to see trade agreements. I don`t agree with them on that.
They want to see trade agreements, but they also know you have to have
trade. You have to enforce these rules so that China doesn`t cheat and
some of these other TPP countries don`t cheat, and they also know that
workers lose their jobs because of our actions in Washington.
And we have an absolute moral responsibility to help those workers, to
help those communities, and ultimately to help those small businesses that
lose their markets and lose their business because of these trade
agreements that President Obama and the Congress have pushed.
HAYES: Yes, one of those people is Ron Wyden who has been essentially
advocating for the TPP but also voted with you today once those bills on
assistance and currency manipulation were taken out.
The question now becomes, what`s the next step here? I mean,
basically can you can kill this? Do you think you can keep a Democratic
Caucus together so that fast track doesn`t get passed?
BROWN: Well, I think that fast track probably – there`s a reasonably
good chance it fails in the House. A number of people that voted with us,
there`s about a dozen Democrats that agree with Republicans that we should
have Trade Promotion Authority. So, I`m not under the illusion that we can
actually defeat TPA.
But I do believe that we can make it much more palatable. We can make
sure that workers are protected. And we eliminate it. We have a provision
to eliminate a child labor loophole that`s been in effect for 85 years.
That`s an amendment I worked on that was important in the finance
So, we`re making improvements here. I wish we could kill it in the
Senate. I don`t think we can, but I think we`ve made major progress and
sent a message to the House that, yes, the Senate`s more strongly against
this than people expected.
The Senate always passes trade agreements because senators, I guess,
are a little different from most of the rest of the people I know in this
world. And so, they buy into all this stuff, that trade agreements produce
jobs and they forget to read the evidence that these trade agreements cost
Every president of both parties, the reason I oppose President Obama
on this is, the same reason I opposed President Bush, same reason I opposed
President Clinton, regardless of party, is these trade agreements, they
always make promises about more jobs, make promises about higher wages.
It didn`t work in NAFTA. It didn`t work with PNTR with China, it
didn`t work with CAFTA. It didn`t work with South Korea only a couple of
years ago. They promised 70,000 jobs in South Korea. We`ve lost about
that number of jobs.
So, these trade agreements don`t work. I wish my colleagues would
open their eyes and see that. A number of them won`t. But we`re going to
make the best of this we can and eventually, it gets sent to the House. I
have a real shot of defeating it there.
HAYES: Fascinating. Well, it was a really big day.
BROWN: Big day, good day.
HAYES: An interesting day today. Senator Sherrod Brown, always
appreciate it. Thank you very much.
BROWN: Thanks, Chris.
HAYES: Joining me now, Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics,
informal economic adviser to Hillary Clinton`s 2016 presidential campaign
and author of a Roosevelt Institute report released today called “Rewriting
the Rules for the American Economy”.
Professor Stiglitz, you wrote a famous celebrated book about free
trade and free trade orthodoxy, in which you – one of the sort of first
mainstream economist to break in some ways with the consensus that formed
about the benefits of trade. What is your feeling about this trade debate
that`s happening right now over the TPP?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ, NOBEL LAUREATE ECONOMIST: Well, to put it quite
bluntly, I think from what we`ve been able to see of the TPP, you have to
remember, USDR keeps these trade agreements secret and the only reason we
know about it is from WikiLeaks (ph) and in my case, talking to negotiators
from other countries where there`s a little bit more transparency than the
From what we`ve been able to see, this is a very bad agreement. It`s
not just about trade. The trade part is bad enough. But it`s about
intellectual property, regulation.
It`s really about changing our overall legal framework in ways that
will disadvantage workers at the expense of corporations. It`s really that
HAYES: So, let me press on this. I mean, let`s divide this into two
categories. There`s the kind of basic econ 101 specialize in trade that
will maximize utility for all parties involved, right? That can be
theoretically true and not particularly applicable to a given actual trade
So, I`ll give you two examples. If the economy isn`t working very
well – and recently, our economy hasn`t been working very well – you can
destroy jobs from imports faster than you can create jobs, say, in the new
And that`s why when you look at the data in recent years in the United
States, those places in the United States that produce goods that are
competitive with goods that are being imported, say, from China, wages are
lowered, unemployment is higher.
You know, in the standard model, markets work perfectly. There`s no
unemployment. Even in the best of situations, however, trade – trade
liberalization, trade agreements lead to more inequality unless you take
countervailing measures. And, unfortunately, we haven`t been doing that.
The reason this is so important is inequality has been growing. You
know, I have a new book called “The Great Divide” and it describes this
great divide that`s opened up in our country over the last third of a
century. And the trade rules are an example of how changes in rules can`t
have led to an increase in the inequality in the United States, with just
to give you one number that I just found astounding that since 1980, say,
to 2012, the bottom 90 percent of America has seen no growth in their
All the growth has gone to the top. That`s in part a result of that
rules, the trade rules, and a combination of lots of other rules that we`ve
implemented and that`s the reason for the Roosevelt report about rewriting
the rules. We have to get rules right in order to make sure that we have
more prosperity and more shared prosperity.
HAYES: Joseph Stiglitz, Noble laureate, thank you very much. I
STIGLITZ: Thank you.
HAYES: Up next, the plot thickens in the new war of claims and
counterclaims over just what happened in the effort to get Osama bin Laden.
Then, Maryland prosecutor Marilyn Mosby under attack from the right.
And, is the so-called war on Christianity working?
That`s all ahead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS: Knowing what we know now, would you have
authorized the invasion?
JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I would have. And so would
have Hillary Clinton, just to remind, and so would have almost everybody
that was confronted with the intelligence they got.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Jeb Bush, likely 2016 contender, former Florida governor, and
brother of former President George W. Bush, appeared to tell Megyn Kelly
over the weekend that knowing what we know now, that`s a phrase Megyn Kelly
used, he would have invaded Iraq all over again.
Today, he was given the chance to retract or clarify that on Sean
Hannity`s radio show. And yet, he still managed not to answer the
seemingly simple question of whether knowing what we know now he would have
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
BUSH: I interpreted the question wrong, I guess. I was talking about
given what people knew then, would you have done it, rather than knowing
what we know now.
And knowing what we know now, you know, clearly, there were mistakes
as it related to faulty intelligence in the lead-up to the war and lack of
focus on security. My brother admitted this. And we have to learn from
SEAN HANNITY: So, in other words, if in 20/20 hindsight, you would
make a different decision?
BUSH: Yes, I don`t know what that decision would have been, that`s a
hypothetical. But the simple fact is, mistakes were made, as they always
are in life. This is not an informed policy. So, we need to learn from
the past and make sure that we`re strong and secure going forward.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
HAYES: OK. So, still no clear answer on what he would have done then
knowing what we know now on Iraq. Of course, there are many months of
primaries and campaigns and debates for Jeb Bush to figure that out.
HAYES: The Obama administration and the intelligence community are
defending the official count of how American operatives found and killed
Osama bin Laden after a report by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh
challenged many key points of the accepted story, and it set off a
firestorm of debate, while the veracity Hersh`s report is still quite an
open question, it`s provoked the broadest reexamination of the famous
operation since it first became public just over four years ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world
that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin
Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who`s responsible for the
murder of thousands.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Almost instantaneously, the details of the SEAL Team 6 raid in
Abbottabad became the stuff of American lore. The year long`s hunt for bin
Laden`s courier who led the CIA to the city of Abbottabad, home of
Pakistan`s version of West Point, and to a mysterious walled compound. The
perilous ride by stealth helicopter under the Pakistani radar to the
leader`s hiding place and the tense moment in the Situation Room when one
of the helicopters crash-landed.
Finally, the confirmation bin Laden had been killed followed business
his burial at sea aboard the USS Carl Vinson. All of it glorified and
enshrined in memory by the feature film “zero Dark Thirty”.
Now, Sy Hersh`s story published in “The London Review of Books”
contends that many of those details were a lie. Among the claims made in
that piece that bin Laden`s location was revealed by a former Pakistani
intelligence official who approached the CIA, that the raid on the compound
was carried out in cooperation with the Pakistanis who were fully aware of
the al Qaeda leader`s whereabouts, that the whole operation was concocted
to provide cover for a secret deal between the Pakistani and American
governments, and that bin Laden wasn`t buried at sea but instead had his
body parts tossed from a helicopter on the way out of Pakistan.
Now, these are some pretty serious claims and they come with some
serious caveats. For one, the story was reportedly passed on by “The New
Yorker” where Hersh, who was a guest on this show last night, has been a
contributor for decades. For another, it relies almost entirely on just
two sources, a retired Pakistani general and a retired U.S. intelligence
official, neither of whom seem to have had direct knowledge of the events
And as soon as the article went up, the pushback started.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That story is riddled with
inaccuracies and outright falsehoods.
MIKE MORELL, FORMER CIA DEPUTY DIRECTOR: I started reading the
article last night, I got a third of the way through and I stopped because
every sentence I was reading was wrong.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I simply have never heard of anything
like this and I`ve been briefed several times.
ROB O`NEILL, FORMER NAVY SEAL: The story that I read, the part from
Hersh, is full of lies. The story our president put out is the truth.
There`s not lies in there. We did everything that we said we did, we did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Citing U.S. intelligence sources, NBC News has corroborated
two very limited aspects of Hersh`s reporting. First, that some members of
Pakistani intelligence, we don`t know how high up, knew where Osama bin
Laden was hiding, as many people suspected given his location and his
proximity to the Pakistani military barracks. And second, there was a
Pakistani asset who provided information vital to the hunt for bin Laden
though according to NBC sources he was the not the source of bin Laden`s
Joining me now, Tommy Vietor, former spokesman for the National
All right. Here`s my first question for you, Tommy. If – let`s
imagine a hypothetical world in which it were the case that a Pakistani
brigadier general who was from ISI was a walk-in, came to the Americans and
said, I want – I want some of that reward money. Here is where he is.
He`s in Abbottabad, let`s do this.
If that were the case, no one would be able to come forward and say or
admit at any point, right? I mean, official denials of that aren`t
particularly persuasive because you guys in the White House rightly would
never want to expose this source if it were actually true.
TOMMY VIETOR, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SPOKESMAN: I think as
a general matter that`s true, Chris. But in this instance, nearly every
detail of what happened has been disclosed.
And so, Hersh asserts that this is a source that came to us, coughed
up bin Laden`s whereabouts and then was in the United States. Why then
would you have to concoct the most elaborate ruse in the history of the
United States to cover up for the safety of this individual if he was in
the U.S.? And, by the way, why would the Pakistanis concoct a story with
us completely humiliating to their intelligence and military leadership? I
mean, it just doesn`t make any sense on its face.
HAYES: You`re saying the story that in Hersh`s account, the story of
an America able to sneak to helicopters past Pakistani air defense, land in
a town that`s a big garrison town of Abbottabad, pull off this, get out of
their with no one noticing?
VIETOR: Well, yes. It is well known after this raid the Pakistanis
were absolutely humiliated, and that because of the raid incident and
because of this operation, our cooperation with them essentially ceased.
It was the lowest point in U.S./Pak relations, you know, maybe in history.
What I can`t understand here is why the ISI leadership, the military
leadership, would put forward a story that made them look incompetent and
was completely humiliating to them. That is the part that defies logic.
And also, remember, Chris, if there were a walk-in source, there was a
protracted conversation between the Senate Intelligence Committee, the CIA
and the White House about what role torture or detainee interrogations
played in the effort to find bin Laden. You have to believe that if the
Senate Dems found a Pakistani source, a walk-in, anything of that nature,
they would have put that evidence forward in their effort to say detainee
interrogations had nothing to do with finding bin Laden.
HAYES: OK. The walk-in part of this is something that our reporting
last night appeared to have two sources saying this walk-in source led to
bin Laden. Tonight we`re saying it is, you know, crucial to the find for
him but there was this sort of parallel courier investigation.
But I was sort of surprised to read this in “The New York Times” from
Carlotta Gall who`s covered the region for a while. She writes about the
Hersh piece. She says, “I was researching my book, I learned from a high-
level member of the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI had been hiding
bin Laden and ran a desk to handle him as an intelligence asset. After the
book came out, I learned more, that it was indeed a Pakistani army
brigadier, all the senior officers of the ISI are in the military, who told
the CIA where bin Laden was hiding, and that bin Laden was living there
with the knowledge and protection of the ISI.”
The news of Pakistan tonight reporting the name of the brigadier
general. So, there`s a number of people saying that there was this
specific person who came forward and basically sold out bin Laden.
VIETOR: I read that report. A few things: one – I mean, I was in
the Situation Room that day. I wasn`t privy to all the information leading
up to that effort but I was there that day, and for a whole lot of
I never heard about a source. I never heard about this brigadier
general. I never heard about any cooperation or collaboration with the
In fact, I know that we informed them that day of this operation and
there was a lot of subsequent intelligence chatter that was picked up, that
showed how caught off guard they were by what happened.
So, you know, the NBC – I saw Carlotta Gall`s piece today. My
understanding from reading that piece was she says a friend of hers knew
someone who provided her this information. I think there`s a lot of people
that think there`s no way the ISI at some level –
VIETOR: – didn`t know bin Laden was there.
My sense from when I was – my understanding when I was in the White
House and my sense to this day is that there is no clear hard evidence that
they were harboring him. Some people may believe that. Some people in
Pakistan may believe that. It`s very convenient for some individuals in
Pakistan to say of course we knew where he was. We had him all along. We
gave him to the Americans because they don`t want to look foolish.
HAYES: Do you think they knew where he was?
VIETOR: It`s impossible to know. There is – look, the ISI is not a
good organization. There`s a lot of people in there that are murderous
thugs, that are very bad people that have done bad things. They are an
organization we work with that`s sort of a necessary evil to deal with al
Qaeda in the region.
Is it possible that there are individuals who are in the ISI who knew?
Yes. But I don`t know for a fact that there were and it`s very difficult
to prove something like that.
HAYES: All right. Tommy Vietor, thanks for coming on.
VIETOR: Sure, thank you.
HAYES: Up next, we`ll go live to Wisconsin where a D.A. just decided
not to prosecute the police officer involved in the death of 19-year-old
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TURIN CARTER, UNCLE OF TEEN KILLED BY POLICE: I would just like
everybody to keep in mind that this was a 19-year-old kid whose life was
cut short before he was able to fully realize his potential.
SHARON IRWIN, GRANDMOTHER OF TEEN KILLED BY POLICE: I will miss him
the rest of my life when you guys go home and you don`t deal with this
anymore. This is a forever thing with me, and I just want to say this is
politics and not justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST, “ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES”: The family of
Tony Robinson spoke out tonight after Dane County District Attorney
announced today the Madison police officer who shot and killed the unarmed
19-year-old back in March will face no charges.
NBC News reporter Ron Allen is in Madison tonight as protesters gather
following the announcement. Ron, what`s the latest look like there?
RON ALLEN, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, it`s quiet here now. There
were a number of protesters out, a small but passionate group who marched
around the state capitol up the street there. And they`re not happy.
They`re not satisfied and they`re not surprised either by this outcome.
You know, the prosecutor, Mr. Ozanne, laid out a very detailed case however
basically saying that night there was a violent, chaotic situation that Mr.
Robinson apparently caused, that he was attacking people, running out in
the streets. They found the toxicology report found drugs in his system.
Several of his friends had called 911 saying that they had been attacked by
him, choked by him, that he needed help.
And this all ended up in an apartment that he was sharing or spending
some time in with one of his friends. The Officer Matt Kenny chased him
within the apartment more than 20 seconds. There was some kind of an
encounter. The officer claimed that he fired seven shots as he was
retreating, backing out of the apartment after Mr. Robinson had punched him
in the side of the head and knocked him almost unconscious and the
prosecutor found no reason to prosecute, to charge him any criminal
charges. So, again, a lot of people here are not satisfied but this case
for now seems closed.
HAYES: All right, Ron Allen, thank you very much.
Up next, just weeks after she decided to prosecute six Baltimore
police officers in the death of Freddie Gray, the backlash against
Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby has begun.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Are you worried about or prepared for the kind of
backlash that might be coming at you and your office?
MARILYN MOSBY, BALTIMORE CITY STATE`S ATTORNEY: What I can tell you
is that, at the end of the day my office is an independent agency from the
Police Department. And I was elected by the city and the constituents of
Baltimore City to pursue justice. That`s my mission as a prosecutor to
seek justice over convictions. So am I worried about any sort of backlash?
No. Absolutely not. Have I done anything that`s unfair are or rushed?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: On the day Baltimore City State`s Attorney Marilyn Mosby
announced charges against six officers involved in involved in the death of
Freddie Gray, she assured me she wasn`t worried about the potential
backlash. Well, worried or not, that backlash has now officially arrived.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: Miss Mosby is running the most
unprofessional office I`ve ever seen in my life.
TED WILLIAMS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: There was absolutely no way
whatsoever that Miss Mosby should have been on the stage at a Prince
MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS HOST: Totally inappropriate, she had no
business being there.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It`s completely outrageous that she is doing
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: It`s
highly unusual and when she does that she undermines her credibility.
O`REILLY: She`s unprofessional, she`s biased.
KELLY: You want to be – by the crowd, give up your law career and go
into television news.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Mosby now a prime target for FOX News and other conservative
media who were particularly irked by her appearance at a Prince concert in
Baltimore where she was called up on stage. She`s not just getting
criticism from the media, the team representing the six Baltimore officers
were charged is engaged in a legal attempt to remove her from the case
citing conflicts of interest. Police union representing the six officers
is leveled similar allegations. I asked Mosby about those allegations when
we spoke earlier this month.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Fraternal order of police says it is a rush to judgment, they
say that the support of one of the great family attorneys for your election
is a conflict of interest and they`re calling for a special prosecutor.
MOSBY: And that`s absolutely absurd. With reference to a conflict of
interest, there is no conflict of interest. My husband represents the
district in which I live. I am the Baltimore City state`s attorney. I
represent his district and 13 other districts throughout the city. I
prosecute crimes there. I don`t have to turn on the news and open up the
newspaper in order to see the crime impacting my community. All I have to
do is open up the door, so there is no conflict.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Joining me now Doug Gansler, former Montgomery County Maryland
State`s attorney and former attorney general of that state. Doug, here`s
the way I`ve been thinking about this. And particularly the controversy
over this concert, I can`t get my head around the supposed conflict of
interest here. Let`s say there was a street rally held for victims of
crime in West Baltimore or in west side of Chicago or a neighborhood that
had been beset by gang crime, there was a rally for victims of crime and
the local prosecutor got up at that rally and said I`m here to fight for
you and some people in the crowd were victims of family members, or family
members of victims whose assailants were being prosecute at that moment, no
one would call that a conflict. They would just call that the prosecutor
doing their job, right?
DOUG GANSLER (D), FORMER MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes. So there`s
no conflict of interest here. The question is whether there`s a conflict
of interest in the terms of being – conflict being a prosecutor and a
politician. This is a woman who, you know, six months ago was working in
an insurance company. She ran for state`s attorney, it`s a very seasoned,
incumbent state attorney in Baltimore won that race, just coming off an
election, and at this time once your politics is done, the sentiment that
you`re hearing is maybe she should go back and start to think about the
court of law instead of the court of public opinion, i.e. politics, and
that I think is where the issues rest, and there was conflict of interests.
HAYES: Doug, I`m sorry, that strikes me as deeply disingenuous. I
have covered prosecutors running for office at numerous levels. I have
watched ad after ad of every prosecutor that`s ever run for office who will
come to the voters and tell them all the terrible thugs and crooks and
rapists and murderers they have put away. That is how prosecutors get
elected. It is how they get re-elected. It is what they do when they call
a press conference to announce a big indictment, when they go out into a
neighborhood and say their gang task force is taking down these terrible
people. That is what prosecutors do.
GANSLER: The piece about the press conference to announce an
indictment is the difference. All the rest of it is sort of, you know,
bluster and accomplishments. When you`re talking about a specific case
that`s pending, what people say is the prosecutor is supposed to not issue
any facts that are not public, not rush to judgment, not say I`m with you,
I`ve heard your voice, therefore I`m going to prosecute, but do the right
thing for the right reasons in every case. And in this case what happens
was from the day she came out and made that press conference and, by the
way, the flip side is there were riots going on and they stopped once that
press conference happened.
The question then, of course, do you keep going to the concerts and so
forth? But even that day in her statement, should she have given facts
that were not public? Should she have said I`ve conducted this independent
investigation when the police had actually done the investigation? And
should she have charged somebody with second-degree murder? I think that`s
really what got people going, to charge somebody that drives a paddy wagon
with second-degree murder like they intended to kill somebody, some people
think might be over the top.
HAYES: Two things, one, I was there in Baltimore. The riots had
stopped before she gave that, just as a sort of factual matter of the time
line, right? They happened on Monday. She gave it on a Friday. There
were three intervening days in which there had not been violence, first of
GANSLER: Yes, but there`s been tension growing towards this Friday
when the facts were supposed to be made public which is all misinformation
because they weren`t supposed to be made public. That was kind of the
HAYES: Also, what information do you have that she didn`t actually
conduct an independent investigation?
GANSLER: Well, I`m sure she did. I`m sure she read the police report
and all that. You know, it actually goes to conflict of interest. You
know, the police do the investigation, the prosecutors make the assessment
of how those facts apply to the law, and in this case, just like every
other case, the police did their work and then the prosecutor makes their
assessment. Now it sounds like she had other people do some witness
interviews as well. But the very next day after she got the compilation of
the police investigation to announce charges, some people thought that was
premature. Certainly it`s atypical. It doesn`t happen a lot. Now the
flip side of that is, yes, the rioting had slowed down and even almost
stopped but there was great anticipation about the police finishing their
investigation and was somebody going to be held accountable? She came out
and said they would be held accountable before the weekend.
HAYES: Final quick question here, you were a prosecutor. Did you
ever hold a press conference to announce an indictment?
GANSLER: Yes, but I only read public statements by a public official
HAYES: All right. Doug Gansler, thank you for joining me. I
Up next, the fallout from the deflategate decision to suspend Tom
HAYES: Last week I visited a police training facility in New Jersey
to try a state of the art virtual reality simulator designed to help police
make better split second decisions when they face a potential threat in the
field and they have to decide when and if they have to deploy their
weapons. And one simulation, I had to try to talk down a woman who had
arrived at her ex-lover`s house with a gun. Here is some of what happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: I want to you drop that weapon. Open the door, put your hand
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Hands up, don`t shoot, I`m going to throw my gun
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I`m unarmed.
HAYES: Okay. Stay right there. Stay right there. Stay right there.
Stay right there.
Stand back. Get up. Get up. Get up and –
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: A full report on that simulator will air tomorrow night right
here at 8:00 p.m. Trust me, you do not want to miss it.
HAYES: Well, Pat`s fans aren`t taking the suspension of their price
quarterback Tom Brady lying down, they`re taking it sitting down. A
handful of dudes associated with the Boston`s Sports blog staged a sit-in,
yes, at the NFL`s headquarters in New York this afternoon handcuffing
themselves together in – I couldn`t tell if it was real or mock protest.
They were eventually removed by police, no word yet on any potential
Joining me now from outside Gillette Stadium in Foxborough,
Massachusetts, our own Steve Kornacki. Steve, I understand the author of
the deflategate report Ted Wells who was hired by the NFL to investigate
the allegations had some harsh words for Tom Brady`s agent today.
STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: Yes, and just more specifically I think
the generally the response that the Patriots organization and Tom Brady`s
agent have given to the investigation, to the punishment. I know a lot of
people outside New England won`t believe them. Won`t believe this. But
when you talk to people inside the organization, and I did tonight, they
say they were dumbfounded by the investigation, by the results, by the
punishment and they say they are adamant that they believe that basically
the fix was in when it came to this investigation and this punishment.
That`s certainly the spirit of their public comments and Ted Wells, the
lawyer who put that report together commissioned by the league to do that,
he had a conference call today and he had a very simple message for the
Patriots. He said, if you think you can undermine the credibility of this
report, think again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TED WELLS, NFL DEFLATEGATE INVESTIGATOR: This is the first time that
after I`ve issued my report that I find somebody is questioning my
independence and someway suggesting that I was influenced by the league
office and I think that was wrong. But for those personal attacks I will
be candid with you, I would not have responded but I think those attacks
are out of bounds and unfair and just plain wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KORNACKI: And, Chris, just to be a little more specific about what
Wells is referring to, he basically pointed to two things that he said
point most directly to guilt on the part of maybe Tom Brady. And perhaps
the Patriots organizations in covering this up a little bit or not implying
with the investigation, he said, number one, Jim McNally, he`s the guy who
had access to the balls, the footballs before the game for the Patriots,
the Patriots` refusal to make him available for a follow-up interview after
Wells says he received these texts, he found these texts in which McNally
calls himself the deflator. He said, that`s number one.
And number two, that Tom Brady has refused to turn over text messages
from his own phone even though Wells says he offered a deal to Brady`s camp
that you don`t have to turn over the phone itself. You don`t have to give
us access to that. We`ll basically threat this on the iron system. You
give us the texts that you think are relevant and we`ll accept that at face
value and enter those into evidence. And as they said they refused that
offer and that made it even more suspicious.
HAYES: All right. Steve Kornacki live at Pats Stadium in Foxborough,
Mass. Thanks, Steve.
Up next, a look at the startling new report on the decline of self-
identifying Christians in the U.S.
HAYES: Something I learned today from the big new Pew report on
religion that I should have known before is that the United States is home
to more Christians than any nation on earth. I mean, we are a Christian
nation. Even as the report shows, a very significant decline in the
percentage of Americans who call themselves Christians down to 70 percent,
the lowest level ever recorded at the same time the number of people who
are unaffiliated, secular or agnostic is shooting up sharply. In other
words, in the absolute sense, American is dominated numerically by
Christians. But in the sense of trends, well, it looks like Christianity
is on the decline in the U.S. particularly something called the religious
Joining me now to discuss this. Reverend Dr. Jacqui Lewis, senior
minister of the Middle Collegiate Church here in New York City. Michael
Hout, professor of Sociology at New York University who studies the
changing perceptions of religion in this country.
Great to have you both here. So fascinating stuff here. Between 2000
and 2014, we see a decline in Catholics and a declining main line
We see a significant increase from 16.1 to 22.8 percent unaffiliated.
This is a fairly seismic shift when you`re talking about a period of just
seven years in terms of the religious composition of the U.S., right
MICHAEL HOUT, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Absolutely. These are
continuation of trends that started around 1990 and going at a very, very
steady pace surprising some sociologists. We expect it to start to level
off. But it continues upward as evidenced in this report.
HAYES: Why was there an expectation that would level off?
HOUT: Well, we thought it would just spend itself. The main driver
was the way in which politically liberal members of conservative
denominations sort of wandered away from their churches, quit identifying
with it and we thought, well, that`s kind of spent. But now it`s getting a
second boost from the demographic change where younger people who haven`t
been affiliated with anything as adults aren`t taking up religion at the
same rate that they did in the past.
HAYES: There used to be a kind of, sort of effect as people age.
They would age into church. Right? They would be raised in the church,
they would sort of leave the church, and then they would have kids. Right?
I mean, I`m sure you`ve seen this, Jackie, firsthand. Right?
JACQUI LEWIS, MIDDLE COLLEGIATE CHURCH: That`s exactly right. And in
fact, what I`m also noticing firsthand is that the churches where people
are attending, I mean, this is bad news, but the good news is that the
churches that are staying stable are the black church. The so called
traditional black church. Why is that? I think it`s because traditionally
the black church has been a place and understood, Chris, that there was
something about the relationship with God but also the relationship with
the community so you heal your soul but you also heal the world. And my
church, middle collegiate that you know, has doubled in size in ten years.
So, all these bad news that`s happening, we`ve doubled.
HAYES: Okay. So, there`s two places where we`re seeing evangelicals
have remained fairly certain –
LEWIS: That`s right.
HAYES: – and the black fairly stable, the black church has remained
stable and thriving. What has really declined is what some people call the
religious middle, particularly the old main line Protestant denominations
and you`re saying there`s a political aspect to this, Michael?
HOUT: Not to their decline. That`s a demographic story. They
haven`t reproduced themselves since the baby boom. You have two people
have one kid, can`t do that for too many generations.
HAYES: You`re saying that basically Baptists don`t have enough kids -
HOUT: Presbyterians. That`s what they call the middle.
LEWIS: I think it`s a theological reason, Chris. And here`s what I
think it is. I think the theology that works for churches to grow is
really simple. It`s God is love. God is love. And if God is love, that
means that religion is about working for justice. And so the churches that
are growing, my church is working on economic justice, a true living wage.
HAYES: Okay. But evangelical megachurches that are growing are not
working on that stuff. They are comprehensive in the totality of people`s
lives. Right? I mean, they have all sorts of things. But in the idea
that like working for racial justice or economic justice is I think driving
Christian worship or growth seems to me not supported by the data
LEWIS: It`s supported by my particular study said that Robby Townsend
(ph) right, from Public Religion Research did a study about millennials.
So, let`s talk about millennials.
LEWIS: Millennials are pro-gay. And so churches that are anti-gay
are going to die. Millennials are pro-Muslim and Buddhist and their
friends are multiracial and multicultural. So, yes, the racial thing does
matter. And what I`m noticing right now is young people of faith are
deeply involved in this Black Lives Matter movement. It really matters to
them. So they were both down in Washington working on gay marriage hoping
that their churches will stand in as the justices explore a testimony about
this. And also working for racial justice and working against police
brutality. So, I think these justice issues put meat on the church and we
walk our walk. And I think people want something that`s real and
substantive. And if that`s I think it works. So, the evangelical sense
with substantive is I am an evangelical and this is my world of view. And
a progressive way –
HAYES: And there`s a million things they do as well. Right?
LEWIS: Exactly. Exactly. Yes.
HOUT: The demography is actually the key their growth too. They do
have children. Right. And more than other denominations in that has been
fueling their growth.
LEWIS: But since we`re not going to be able to necessarily grow our
churches by having more babies –
LEWIS: What I`d like to do is to encourage the church to hear the
message from the young people, let`s get real. Let`s open our doors to an
inclusive understanding that God is, A, speaking to everyone not just to
Christians. Two, God is on the side of love. Three, let`s be pro-gay
families and let`s be pro-racial justice and economic –
HAYES: There`s this whole argument that I`ve heard from folks
particularly theologically conservative folks in the Catholic Church. I
was raising the Catholic Church. My father was a Jesuit seminarian. I was
brought up in a sort of social justice Catholic left tradition. Right?
But you will hear from conservative Catholics that, you know, basically
look at this sort of the most wishy-washy liberal denominations. Those are
the ones declining. It`s the most ardent of evangelical, the strictest,
the ones that embrace orthodoxy and discipline the most –
HOUT: Yes. That was the standard line 20 years ago and it`s been
completely disproven by the last 20 years of experience.
HOUT: The polarization of American religion, the polarization of
everything has, in fact, driven out members of the conservative
denominations. And I`ll include Catholic there.
HOUT: They stand very conservative on these social issues and that`s
why they`re losing membership. Most of this change is among people who are
politically liberal and they`re leaving the church of their origin.
HAYES: So, that is where we`re seeing –
HOUT: They`re not finding anything.
LEWIS: They need to put – I`m going to go to church downtown and
find a place where everyone is welcome.
HAYES: Okay. I`ll come on a Sunday. I`ll bring my kids, my family.
LEWIS: We`d love to see you. Thanks for having us, Chris.
HAYES: All right. Reverend Dr. Jacqui Lewis and Michael Hout, thank
HOUT: Thank you for having us.
HAYES: That is ALL IN for this evening. “THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW”
starts now. Good evening, Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST, “THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW”: Recruited live
on TV, Chris.
HAYES: That`s right. You know, always be closing for God.
MADDOW: That`s right.
LEWIS: Well done.
MADDOW: And well done for her. Well done.
LEWIS: That`s right.
MADDOW: All right. Thanks to you. And thanks to you at home for
joining us this hour. It is a busy night tonight. It has been a very busy
news day today.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
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.>