All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 05/28/15

Robert Costa, Andy Shaw, David Feige, Sam Seder, Jess McIntosh, Michael Robbins


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN –


HAYES: The shocking federal indictment of the former speaker of the
house, Dennis Hastert, over alleged hush money.

Then –

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have a prosecutor who acts and sounds like
she`s a political candidate for office.

HAYES: Marilyn Mosby under attack, as conservatives try to score
political points in Baltimore.

MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS: She appears to be a problem.

HAYES: All this as the officers charged with the death of Freddie
Gray seek a change of venue.

Plus, what happened to surveillance footage from the night Chicago
police shot and killed a teenager.

Then, the corruption probe into FIFA widens as its president speaks
out for the first time.

SEPP BLATTER, FIFA PRESIDENT: We cannot allow the reputation of
football and FIFA to be dragged through the mud any longer.

HAYES: And the Republican presidential field gets a little more

Founding Fathers feared.

HAYES: Who is this man? And why is he running for president?

ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.

Dennis Hastert, speaker of the House for eight years, from the very
end of Bill Clinton`s presidency, through most of George Bush`s presidency,
has today been indicted, quoting the “Chicago Tribune”, “on federal charges
alleging he agreed to pay $3.5 million in apparent hush money to a longtime
acquaintance blackmailing him, then lied to the FBI when asked about
suspicious cash withdrawals from several banks.”

The indictment from the U.S. district court northern district of
Illinois reading, quote, “During the 2010 meetings and subsequent
discussions, defendant John Dennis Hastert agreed to provide individual A,”
as I said before, unnamed in the indictment, “$3.5 million in order to
compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct against individual A.”

To help us make sense of all of this, joining me now, Robert Costa,
national political reporter for “The Washington Post.”

Robert, did this come as out of left field to GOP politicos as it
seemed to come out of left field to all of us today, when this crossed the

ROBERT COSTA, THE WASHINGTON POST: I`ve spoken to several top
Republicans and close friends of former Speaker Hastert and they`re
stunned. They never expected this. And he`s someone who`s always kept
close counsel, someone who was a candid figure, a colorful figure, even
when he was inside of the House. But most interesting about this, Chris,
is that these references in the indictment, perhaps his time as a teacher
at Yorkville High School.

HAYES: Yes. So let`s be clear on the Dennis Hastert bio here. This
is a man who was famously high school teacher and wrestling coach, right?
And every profile you ever read about Denny Hastert, was front and center,
the guy was every man, just a small town high school wrestling coach and
teacher. The indictment says that individual A, the person that Hastert
was allegedly paying this money to, is someone who knew him, quote, “most
of his life”.

Isn`t that correct?

COSTA: That`s correct. Someone who was a longtime acquaintance.

HAYES: And we also, obviously, we have no idea what Denny Hastert
could have possibly done to individual A, such that he decided to pay us
$3.5 million. But the mind reels at the thought of what the original
infraction could have been that he would pay this.

COSTA: Well, and the idea that it`s hush money is fascinating. I
spoke tonight with Thomas Bliley, a former Virginia congressman, a former
committee friend of Hastert, and I said, what was the most defining thing
about Hastert in the House? He said, he was coach, that`s how he thought
of him, coach and teacher. He was a quiet man, but he was always with us
and telling stories about his time at Yorkville High School.

And so this is a shadow. If there was any kind of shadow or thing
from his past that haunted him, that was so key to his persona that you
could see why it bothered him and perhaps how he interacted with the FBI in
such a way.

HAYES: Yes. We should be clear, the indictment basically is on two
major infractions. Lying to federal investigators, at some point, federal
investigators got wind of this, and started questioning him about why he
was making these cash withdrawals, and also, essentially, evading currency
reporting requirements.

Banks have to report, right, when people are taking huge amounts of –
large amounts of cash out. He appears to have structured his withdrawals
to avoid that reporting requirement.

COSTA: That`s right. And according to the indictment, when pressed
by the FBI and federal investigators about why he structured his
withdrawals in this way, he said he kept the money, and he did not mention
any type of possible extortion attempt or any kind of donation or payment
to an outside person.

HAYES: Finally here, tell me a little bit about Hastert`s post-
congressional career, such that he had, he was liquid enough to have $3.5
million sitting around. I mean, that`s not a sum of money that your
average high school coach and even member of Congress has.

COSTA: He`s been a highly paid and prominent lobbyist here in
Washington, but not a high-profile lobbyist. He`s not someone who appears
in a lot of news stories, doesn`t do much television. For someone at his
level, he`s kept a quiet profile. There was an investigation, however, by
the “Chicago Tribune” in 2012 about his use of a speaker office. Former
speakers are provided offices and funds by the federal government. There
was a question about whether he misused his office in 2012 by the “Chicago
Tribune.” That`s only been – the only blot on his political winter.

HAYES: All right. Robert Costa, thank you very much.

COSTA: Thank you.

HAYES: Dennis Hastert was the longest serving Republican speaker of
the house in this nation, only losing his speakership following the
Democrat`s takeover in Congress in 2007.


REPORTER: Dennis Hastert was an accidental speaker, thrust into the
limelight eight years ago in the wreckage of Republican losses and other

Speaker Newt Gingrich was forced to step aside. His heir apparent
confessed he had committed adultery. Frantic Republicans turned to a
former high school teacher and wrestling coach from Illinois.

DENNIS HASTERT (R), FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: A good coach knows when to
step back and let others shine in the spotlight.


HAYES: Hastert`s poor handling of the Mark Foley scandal in 2006
almost brought him down. Congressman Foley resigned after allegations
regarding his sexually explicit messages to congressional pages.

When Democrats gained control of the House following a 2006 midterms,
Hastert chose not to run for minority leader. In 2007, Hastert resigned
from Congress. He`s been working as a lobbyist in the years since.

Joining me now, Andy Shaw, president and CEO of the Better Government
Association, former award-winning political reporter of Chicago, and in
full disclosure, my father-in-law.

Andy, you know Denny Hastert well. You covered him for a long time.
Your reaction to this news, which seemed pretty shocking on its face.

normally these sorts of things dribble out long before indictments, and you
have scuttlebutt that so-and-so is under investigation for such and such.

This is one of the few times in my 40 years of watching Illinois
politics, that something has come completely out of the blue. There hadn`t
been an inkling of acknowledgment that anything was going on with respect
to Denny Hastert and past transgressions. And so, I agree with the
previous guests that this is about as shocking as a political indictment
can be.

HAYES: What was Hastert`s reputation like in Illinois politics?
Obviously, Illinois politics can be a bit of a cesspool. There`s a – you
could line up quite a perp walk of Illinois politicians. What`s Hastert`s
political reputation?

SHAW: Well, first, the context, Chris. Illinois`s regarded as the
third most corrupt state in the nation – Chicago, the most corrupt city.
Denny Hastert comes out of what`s called the Illinois combine. The combine
was Republicans and Democrats who controlled the political structure, and
it was a mix of business and contractors and politicians, all of whom
seemed to do extraordinarily well within the political confines.

Remember, Denny Hastert spent four years in the Illinois House, as a
representative, then six years, did a number of years in congress, and he,
as speaker, was one of the key figures in the Illinois combine. This is a
combine that basically takes care of contractors and business people and
politicians. So, he is no stranger to the rough and tumble and often
corrupt world of Illinois politics.

Remember, one of his closest friends, former Governor George Ryan,
went to jail on corruption charges. There have been a number of le-level
allegations over the years against Denny Hastert, one involving the
congressional officer that your previous guest referred to, another
involving a land deal near his home, that he profited on. And even in `05,
there was an allegation in the “Vanity Fair” article that he had been paid
off by Turkish interests to help them in America.

So, he`s no stranger to controversy, but he`s been low-key all the
time, and the key is, he`s always been known as Denny or coach.

HAYES: So, I want to ask this question and I want to sort of tread
carefully here, because obviously, we`re dealing with – I mean, the thing
about this indictment that is so weird and also tantalizing, frankly, is
the fact that the allegation here the that there was some underlying
infraction. That Dennis Hastert did something to individual A, who`s known
him most of his life, that was so awful, that Hastert was then going to pay
him $3.5 million.

And obviously, the question you got to ask is, what the heck was that
initial infraction? I guess, you know, I don`t want you to sort of
irresponsibly speculate here, but I guess my question would be, were there
rumors about Hastert having skeletons in the closet, in the world of
Illinois politics, in his person life in any way that you knew of?

SHAW: No, there never were, Chris. And look, you can only try to
connect the dots as best you can. In this case, it feels like something
that stems from his coaching years, that could easily involve a former
student, because that tends to be the way these things play out. A student
who, for many years, said nothing, and then perhaps, when Hastert stepped
down as speaker, felt a little more empowered to say something or raise an

Look, I`m speculating, but I`m only speculating within the world that
the indictment suggests it involves. I don`t think it involves a next-door
neighbor and barbecues.

HAYES: Right.

SHAW: But you have a wrestling coach and football coach and former
teacher and someone he`s known all his life. That`s the only place you can
take this without knowing the facts.

HAYES: That`s a really important point, in terms of what we have from
the indictment. Again, this is indictment. These are allegations by the
federal government. Nothing has been proven. This man is innocent until
proven guilty.

He – the only facts we have, basically, are, known most of his life,
which suggests this was a long-standing relationship, and also, that the
initial meeting happens in 2010, after that congressional career is over,
as you noted. Andy Shaw –

SHAW: And, Chris, what we also know is, that this is a man who wanted
to preserve his reputation and have his legacy be that of the longest
serving Republican speaker in U.S. history, certainly not having it marred
by these allegations, which would explain the desire to have this go away
at whatever cost.

HAYES: Andy Shaw of the Better Government Association, thank you

All right. Speaking of charges, a day after over a dozen people were
arrested for corruption, the head of the most powerful sports organization
in the world breaks his silence.

Then, the gross reaction from certain right-wing quarters to Baltimore
prosecutor Marilyn Mosby.

And the governor of New Jersey makes a decision for his state`s
children that smacks of 2016 politics. That`s all ahead. Stay with us.


HAYES: Likely presidential candidate, Chris Christie, governor of New
Jersey, is abandoning Common Core, quite possibly because he`s about to
become a presidential candidate. Christie denounced Common Core at a
speech at Burlington County College today, saying that the educational
standards program that`s been in place in New Jersey for five years is,
quote, “simply not working.”

Now, Christie`s evolution on Common Core began with his strong support
in September 2011, saying in a news release, quote, “our aggressive
implementation of these standards in partnership with districts will ensure
our children have an education that will serve them well in the next stages
of their lives.”

Common Core has become, of course, the latest hated target of the GOP
base and politicians looking to court it. Except for likely presidential
candidate Jeb Bush, who himself has been attacked for that support.

Christie`s gradual move away from Common Core, whether authentic or
not, would certainly be opportune, should he decide to seek the Republican


HAYES: Today, the city of Baltimore recorded its 37th and 38th
homicides in the month of may. A 31-year-old woman and a little boy in
second grade, both found shot in the head, making this the deadliest month
in Baltimore in almost 20 years, since 1996, according to “The Baltimore

The wave of violence follows widespread unrest after the death of
Freddie Gray who sustained fatal injuries while in police custody in April.
And it comes amid a sharp drop in arrests by Baltimore police, raising
fears of an intentional slowdown by police as payback for the protests.
The horrendous violence in Baltimore over the last month statistically
abnormal but not completely foreign to a city that has been poor and
violent for a long time is now being used as a deeply cynical tool to score
political points with the right trotting out very familiar and tired lines
about quote black on black crime.

It`s also helping to feed the conservative backlash against Baltimore
state`s attorney, Marilyn Mosby, who`s being accused of ulterior motives in
bringing charges against the police officers involved in Freddie Gray`s


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have a prosecutor who acts and sounds like
she`s a political candidate for office. Not an office involving the
administration of justice, but an office involving the administration of
the government.

KELLY: Like she is running for office and she`s got an agenda.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I were the judge in this case, I would
seriously question her competence to try the case in a fair manner, because
her goal is not conviction. Her goal is justice. Her goal is the correct
outcome on the basis of the evidence.

KELLY: And justice, what she said there, was by any and all means

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s a little threatening.

KELLY: Wrong! Wrong, madam, wrong!


HAYES: Lawyers of the six officers indicted in the death of Freddie
Gray have now filed yet another motion, demanding Mosby recuse herself in
the trial because of alleged conflict of interest and has also filed for a
change of venue, arguing their clients won`t get a fair and impartial trial
within Baltimore City limits.

Joining me now, David Feige, former public defender, author of the
book “Indefensible.”

So, my first thought about this motion, to change the venue was Rodney


HAYES: Before we talk about that precedent, because that proved key,
what – on what grounds do you file these motions and on what grounds are
they granted? What do you have to show a judge to get a venue change?

FEIGE: You pretty much have to show a judge you can`t get a fair and
impartial jury and they`re filed very regularly and they`re denied almost
invariably, except, enter Rodney King, when a police officer is involved.

HAYES: So, in the Rodney King case, that case was tried in Simi
Valley, outside of Los Angeles. It was – and the community there was –
much whiter, more affluent than the demographic composition of, say, a Los
Angeles jury pool, and a lot of people think that was key to what ended up
happening in the verdict of that trial.

FEIGE: Right. I mean, look, let`s be clear – the venue is huge
here. And in a way, you can understand this motion as a parable about the
failure of policing itself. You know, it`s like this: the fact that
different races and different cases will see this case as differently as
they will, tells you an enormous amount about the sort of heartbreaking
legacy of stop-and-frisk, and of the kind of policing practices that the
Baltimore Police Department has been engaged in, in Baltimore.

HAYES: And by that, you mean that the interpretation of this is going
to be so dependent about whether people, where people are, in terms of
their own life experience, how they`ve interacted with the police, this is
so much a product of the prism of race, and also where you fall in the
socioeconomic scale.

FEIGE: Yes, but not just race, it`s about police practices. The
truth is, they police Baltimore differently than they police, for example,
Howard County, right? Which is, interestingly, they sight this case in
their motion of – that had to do with a civil suit against the police.
And it`s one of the only other ones where they found a case, their venue
was transferred. And it was transferred in that case, and guess what

After a woman sued because they handcuffed her 7-year-old son, they
moved that to Howard County, more white, more affluent, the jury found
against the plaintiffs and for the police.

HAYES: And this was in a civil suit.

FEIGE: Civil suit, right.

HAYES: If you were the defense attorneys for these cops, you would be
filing this motion absolutely, right?

FEIGE: Absolutely. It is absolutely critical. And frankly, I think
there`s very little chance these officers will ever face a Baltimore jury.
I think it is likely that the venue motion will be granted and if it isn`t,
I suspect they`ll waive a jury.

HAYES: That`s interesting. Talk about that waiving a jury, because
we saw that in the Cleveland case. That was what`s called a bench trial.
The judge presided over that. That`s – and handed down the verdict of not
guilty to the officer in the shooting of that couple that was being chased
in a car.

Why do you think they would waive a jury?

FEIGE: Well, I think they`ve made it clear in their papers, that is,
they do not believe that they can get a fair trial from a jury in
Baltimore. They just think that the dynamics are too, sort of, not in
their favor – too against them.

And by the way, I don`t think they`re wrong about that. And, Chris,
let me say this, too, I`m for changes of venue. I`m for fairness. I just
wish that this doctrine meant something outside these cases.

HAYES: Right, basically, your frustration, having worked as a defense
attorney, is all of a sudden, things become so much – the scales that are
so tipped against the defense in all normal circumstances, all of the
things we talk about, about due process, innocent until proven guilty,
going through all these checks on overreaching of prosecution, suddenly,
start to mean something when the people being prosecuted are the police.

FEIGE: It`s astonishing. And what`s really funny is, I mean, think
about it. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston marathon bomber, no change of
venue, right?

HAYES: I mean, if there`s ever someone who – I mean, you know, who
had an uphill battle, with a jury pool, in a city that was unbelievably
traumatized and terrorized by this mass murder, it was that trial.

FEIGE: I`ll give you another one, Jeff Skilling in Houston, denied!

HAYES: Right.

FEIGE: But what`s really crazy is, in Rodney King, granted. And
here`s what`s really funny about that whole thing. Is that one of the
better sentencing decisions ever to come from the United States Supreme
Court, U.S. v. Koon, that`s Stacy Koon.

HAYES: Oh, right. David Feige, thank you very much.

All right. Up next, disturbing details about the surveillance video
from the area where police shot and killed a Chicago teen.


HAYES: Tonight, a troubling update in the case of Laquan McDonald,
17-year-old African-American teenager shot and killed by Chicago police.
There`s a report of missing surveillance footage that may have shown
moments before and after McDonald was killed.

As we`ve reported on this show, 17-year-old Laquan McDonnell was shot
and killed by Chicago police last October. At the time of the shooting,
CPD did not offer an official account.

But a spokesperson from the Fraternal Order of Police, police union,
said at the time, and I`m quoting from the “Chicago Tribune”, that the teen
began walking towards Pulaski Road, that`s a major street in Chicago, and
ignored the officer`s request to drop the knife. Officers got out of their
car and began approaching McDonald again, telling him to drop the knife,
Camden said.

The boy allegedly lunged at police and one of the officers opened
fire. McDonald was shot in the chest. He was pronounced dead at a nearby

The medical examiner`s report showed that the teen was not shot just
once in the chest, but 16 times in the chest, scalp, neck, elbow, legs,
arm, hand, and back.

That revelation led us at ALL IN to file a foil request for police
dash cam video, which we had heard existed, of the actual shooting. CPD
rejected that request saying that releasing the video would, quote,
“interfere with active administrative enforcement proceedings and create a
substantial likelihood a person would be deprived of a fair trial or an
impartial hearing.”

And then last month, a bombshell development. The city of Chicago`s
top lawyer went before the city`s council finance committee and urged the
committee to approve a $5 million settlement for the family of Laquan
McDonald. A lawyer telling the committee, “The officer who fired all 16
shots claimed he was in fear for his life” and cited the unreleased dash
cam video, that dash cam video we are trying to get released and show you,
as crucial to the city`s decision to settle the case for that astonishing

Now, the city council unanimously approved the $5 million settlement.
And that dash cam video still has not been made public. But the lawyers
for the families of Laquan McDonald have seen it and one of them described
the footage to ALL IN.


JEFFREY NESLUND: When Laquan is about 12 to 15 feet away from the
officers, the width of an entire lane of the southbound traffic, one
officer begins shooting. Laquan immediately spins to the ground and the
video then clearly shows that the officer continues to shoot Laquan
multiple times as he lays in the street. Sixteen seconds pass from the
time Laquan hits the ground until the last visible puff of smoke rises from
his torso area. An officer then approaches Laquan, stands over him, and
appears to shout something as he kicks the knife out of his hand.


HAYES: The FBI, the U.S. attorney, and the Cook County state`s
attorney office are all investigating now Laquan McDonald`s death, along
with the Independent Police Review Authority, known as IPRA.

Now, come revelations, first reported by NBC television station in
Chicago, that over an hour of surveillance footage from a Burger King
located less than a hundred yards from where McDonald was shot and killed
is missing, according to his family`s lawyer. Listen to this. The footage
would have not shown shooting, but may have shown McDonald running through
the Burger King parking lot and witnesses in the parking lot.

We spoke to Jay Darshayne (ph). He`s district manager for burger
king. While he was not there the night of the shooting, he told us that
several police officers entered that Burger King after McDonald was shot
and requested to view surveillance footage. He said he authorized
employees at the Burger King to give police the password to access that
footage. He says police stayed for around three hours, then left.

The next day, Darshayne says, he was present when the Independent
Police Review Authority, that`s the Chicago version of internal affairs,
came to the Burger King and asked to review their security footage. He
says they discovered a chunk of surveillance footage missing from around
the time 17-year-old Laquan McDonald was shot and killed. According to a
McDonald family lawyer, 86 minutes was missing.

In a statement to NBC television station in Chicago, a spokesman for
IPRA said we have no credible evidence at this time that would cause us to
believe CPD purged or erased any surveillance video.

Chicago police did not respond to our request for comment.

Joining me now, Michael Robbins, who is representing the family of
Laquan McDonald.

Mr. Robbins, your reaction to this report.

MICHAEL ROBBINS, ATTORNEY: Well, the fact that the police entered
without the Burger King video – Burger King restaurant without a warrant
or a subpoena, accessed the system upon demanding the password and then
left and that 86 minutes or so of video is missing from all 11 cameras is
something that gave us a great deal of concern.

Now the video would not have shown the actual shooting, but it would
have shown the events leading up to the shooting and perhaps some of the
witnesses during the course of the shooting and the police interaction with
the witnesses following the shooting.

So there is no credible explanation for why this video is missing.

HAYES: Are you in contact – I mean, this case is really kind of
to me, I have to say. It`s something we started looking at, people we knew
Chicago brought to our attention, and the more it goes on, the more it
feels to me
that something is not right here.

Are you in contact with the various law enforcement authorities that
say they are investigating this? Are you confident there`s actually a
process in place right now to investigate whether a crime was committed?


Well, during the five months or so that we investigated this, during
which we found out about the missing Burger King video, we were able to
contact or come into contact with one or more of the occurrence witnesses.
We were able to – and then we got the dashcam video. And we saw that the
dashcam video depicted an incident that was completely different than what
was represented as having happened by the FOP spokesman.

So there`s a couple of aspects of this that are really quite shocking.
The absence of the Burger King video is very difficult to understand. As I
understand it, the police claim that when they arrived immediately after
the shooting and accessed the system, that it was off, that it was powered
off. Burger King has told us it`s never powered off, and insofar as they
know it was working.

So this 86 minutes during the relevant time frame is missing and it
would be an enormous coincidence if it a just happened to be powered off
during this particular time frame.

But in addition, the police conduct in connection with the witnesses
is very troubling. There are occurrence witnesses, two of them we have
spoken with, who witnessed the actual shooting itself because they became
stopped in traffic at the
moment when the shooting occurred, and they were within feet of the
shooting and observed it from their stopped car. And immediately after,
the shooting the police went up to these witnesses – these individuals who
were witnesses – and told them to leave or be arrested.

And so these people who were motorists were ordered to leave and
nobody asked them what they`d seen let alone even their identifications.

So these witnesses were told – I`m sorry.

HAYES: No. I just want to make sure I`m understanding this. This
all happened in the middle of traffic on Pulaski. There are motorists who
obviously are stopped because this is happening in the middle of Pulaski,
there are multiple police cars. You`re telling me there are motor vehicle
drivers who are in stopped traffic who actually witnessed the shooting and
are then, after a man is shot and
killed by police, instructed by police to leave the scene without any
information collected or interviews conducted with them.

ROBBINS: That`s correct – or be arrested.

Now, as it turns out – and these were motorists because as this
developed, many police were on the scene or arriving the scene, and traffic
was stopped on this busy four-lane street, this commercial boulevard.

And immediately after the shooting witnesses were told to leave. And
what happened in connection with one of them is when this individual, who
was there with his son and witnessed this fatal shooting, heard what the
FOP spokesman said had happened and with his own eyes saw that was not
true, after a great deal of searching his conscience, he came forward and
presented himself to IPRA, the Independent Review Police Authority, and
gave them a statement to tell them what
actually had occurred.

HAYES: Michael Robbins, this case we`re going to stay on. We`re
filing an
appeal of the rejection of our FOIA. We will stay with this.

Michael Robbins, thank you for joining me. I really appreciate it.

all right, the president of world soccer`s governing body, FIFA`s Sepp
Blatter is defying calls to step down amid allegations of widespread
bribery and
corruption in his organization. So, why does a prominent world leader have
his back? We`ll tell you next.



SEPP BLATTER, FIFA PRESIDENT: These are unprecedented and difficult
times for FIFA.

I must stress that those who are corrupt in football are in the tiny
minority like in society, but like in society, they must be catched and
held responsible for their actions.


HAYES: Sepp Blatter, the embattled president of world soccer`s
notorious governing body, FIFA, spoke today for the first time since
yesterday`s shocking indictment of top FIFA officials by the U.S.
Department of Justice, which alleges widespread corruption within the
multibillion dollar organization.


SEPP BLATTER, FIFA PRESIDENT: We will cooperate with all the
authorities to make sure anyone involved in wrongdoing from top to bottom
is discovered and punished.


HAYES: Blatter, who has ruled over FIFA for 17 years and faces a
reelection vote tomorrow is defying calls to step down as pressure builds
to reopen the bidding process for both the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, which
FIFA awarded and the
tiny oil-rich nation of Qatar respectively amid allegations of rampant

The situation is extraordinarily grim in Qatar where migrant workers
are building World Cup stadiums in slave labor conditions with hundreds,
perhaps thousands dying in the process already.

With investigations into FIFA continuing in the U.S. and Switzerland,
many are wondering whether the 79 year old Blatter himself will eventually
be charged. And while that would be welcome news from any of Blatter`s
longtime critics, it would be an outrage from the perspective of one of his
few allies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin who today accused the U.S. of
prosecutorial overreach in going after FIFA officials and suggested the
prosecution is part of the U.S. plot to keep Russia from hosting a World

Joining me now is a man who knows an awful lot about who can and be
not be
prosecuted in the U.S. Eric Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General.

You`ve done corruption cases.

So, first, just to talk about this corruption case, it seems so
strange when I saw it. I mean, everyone thought well that`s great because
we – I`ve all thought that FIFA is corrupt and it seems like there`s good
evidence they are. But why is the – what does the – how does the U.S. do
this? Like, how – what`s the jurisdiction here that allows the U.S. to
bring this case?

umbrella organization over confederations in different continents. And a
lot of the charges in the indictment here relate to the confederation for
North America, Central America, the Caribbean. A lot of the activities
took place in the U.S. They were using banks in the U.S.. They had
offices in the U.S., wire transfers here, more than enough reason for

And this was not just an allegation of bribery and money laundering in
connection with the World Cup. There are other tournaments sponsored by
FIFA confederation, the Gold Cup, which is the North American
confederation`s premier event. There are allegations of bribery, money
laundering that spread to different
confederations around the world.

So the U.S. has more than enough jurisdiction.

But the remarkable thing about this case is that it`s
multigenerational. And I have to disagree with President Blatter saying oh
this is trying times, unique circumstances. You read the indictment, this
has been going on for decades. People come and go and the corruption

HAYES: OK. Well, that seems like a segue to our great state of New
York here. I mean, it`s – there`s been a raft of indictments, the fifth
straight senate majority leader, is that right, has been indicted, five in
a row – we were just talking about Denny Hastert in Illinois where they
have got a long line.

How do you go about building and making corruption cases? And do they
do any good? That`s the real question, right? So – OK, so maybe these
guys get prosecuted at FIFA or maybe you get someone at the New York state,
you know, majority leader, but it seems like these institutions are very,
very, very hard to change.

SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, I think that`s a very important point. And it`s
clear that when the attorney general and the acting U.S. attorney and
others announced
this, they clearly had their eye on this ball, as we do in investigating
corruption in New York.

The catching bad guys is good. But the goal has to be reform, the
goal has to be changing systems and changing conduct so that there aren`t
more bad guys to catch.

And I`ve come out with comprehensive ethics reform proposals in
connection with cases we bring to send the message. There are only two
paths forward, either you are going to have more indictments and further
erosion of public confidence. In New York we`re now 90 percent of those
polled say corruption is a serious problem. I`m not sure how much – how
higher it has to go before people take action.

The goal is not just to continue the prosecutions, but path one is
more prosecutions, path two is real reform, same thing will go on in soccer
and it`s clear that the U.S. attorney`s office has their eye on that ball.
Their goal is not just to finish with these indictments, catch more bad
guys, it is to give what
they called a fresh start.

HAYES: There`s an interesting political role you play as a prominent
law enforcement official, particularly a U.S. attorney or an attorney
general like yourself or a state or for the national attorney general,
which is that, you know, you`re an impartial arbiter of justice, but you`re
also a politician, right, you`re also operating the political – in your
case you`re elected, Loretta Lynch is

What was your read on here was this woman introducing herself in the
U.S. with her first big case, right, and it`s not a terrorism case, it`s
not a bank
case, right, it`s an international soccer organization. She couldn`t
control that
because it started ahead of time, but it was a sort of remarkable way to
herself to the U.S. going after these bad guys, alleged bad guys, that most
Americans have no idea who they are.

SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, no, but this is clearly a case that she was
pursuing in
her capacity…

HAYES: It came out of her office.

SCHNEIDERMAN: It was the U.S. attorney for the eastern district of
York. And I have to say to undertake an investigation like this where you
go back decades and you have to get cooperating witnesses and you have to
get wire transfers and records, and it was an extraordinarily complex
conspiracy including dozens and dozens of people…

HAYES: Alleged conspiracy.

SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes. All of these are allegations.

But the quality of the work that goes into a case like this or into
the cases that have been brought against public officials in New York
State, you really have to get – really have to surround those you`re
accusing of corruption with cooperating witnesses, with documentary

I think that this case sends a message that is a powerful message for
new attorney general, which is that she`s prepared to go not just after
individual malefactors but after the much harder cases of endemic
corruption and big institutions and whether it is a bank or it is a
nonprofit or it is a government, it`s the same sort of complex conspiracy
that a lot of prosecutors have shied away
from in the past and they`re not doing that anymore.

HAYES: That`s an excellent point and something to look at as we go

New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, always a pleasure
to have you at the table. Thank you.

Yet another republican has entered the presidential race, though you
shouldn`t feel bad if you only have a vague idea of who this guy is. The
insanely huge GOP field next.



REID: Feeling lucky on the big board. Number 22.

HAYES: Here is it, first pick of the 2016 All In Fantasy Candidate

ANNOUNCER: George Pataki. That`s P-A-T-A-K-I. Look it up.

He`s the former governor of New York, George Pataki.

HAYES: Here`s the benefit to George Pataki, living human being.

REID: He`s alive.

HAYES: American citizen.

REID: Yes.

HAYES: Over the age of 35. Could actually run for president.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s also very tall.

HAYES: He`s also very tall, which – so, I think you`re looking at
least, you know, between zero and 100 points.


HAYES: That was one of many predictions I completely nailed. With
George Pataki`s entrance into the presidential race today, Joy Reid picks
up 100 points in the 2016 All In Fantasy Candidate draft. That leaves Joy
in a three-way tie for second place with Jess McIntosh and Josh Barro. Sam
Seder, just behind them with 100 points, and Michael Steele still on top,
baby, with 300 points.

You can check out the leaderboard at our Facebook page, It would be really special if you`d go ahead
and like
our page while you`re there.



Hampshire, birthplace of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln`s party, who
saved the union and who brought the promise of freedom to all Americans.
Teddy Roosevelt`s party, who fought for the square deal so that the rich
and powerful
couldn`t limit the freedom of working Americans. And Ronald Reagan`s
party, who
restored Americans` belief in ourselves and in the transcendent value of

It is to preserve and protect that freedom that this morning announce
I am a candidate for the Republican nomination for president of the United


HAYES: Former New York Governor George Pataki is officially running
for president. And there are a lot of reasons why his entry into the race
being met with let`s call it skepticism by political observers. But for my
money, the number-one reason he`s not going to be the GOP nominee is this -
- he is pro-choice. He is a Republican who supports abortion rights. In
1999 he went so far as to call on the Republican Party to change its
platform and get rid of language calling for a federal abortion ban.

But in the year 2015, it is simply not possible in any way, shape, or
form for the Republican nominee for president to be a person who supports
abortion rights. It will not happen. Cannot happen.

A CBS poll in March found that 75 percent of Republicans think
abortion should be banned or more strictly limited. These people are not
going to nominate a pro-choice candidate.

So you have to ask the question, why is George Pataki running for
president? There are now eight major Republican candidates who are
officially running with another seven potential on deck. It`s going to be
a historically large field. What is going on? Why is this crowded
Republican field so large? We`ll try to answer that question next.


HAYES: Joining me now, Jess McIntosh, vice president of
communications for Emily`s List and Sam Seder, host of the Majority Report
and MSNBC contributor.

OK, let`s start with – let me just start with a disclaimer here. I
think it`s great people are running for president. Like I – no, there`s a
certain kind of weird undercurrent to some of this coverage, like why are
these people running for president? Run for president. It`s a free
country. I wish more people ran for office. I wish we had 15 candidates
on the Democratic side. Like, that`s great. I`m not hating and I`m not

That said, why is George Pataki running for president, Sam?

SAM SEDER, HOST, MAJORITY REPORT: I don`t know. To be honest with
you, I don`t know. I imagine it`s for…

Look, I think like there used to be a time where we had this premise
that to run for president was a very difficult thing to do. It was very
hard on your family, there`s a lot of downside, and I think frankly,
particularly on the Republican side, I`ve said this, there`s very little
downside, and particularly there becomes even less downside the more people
that enter the race.

So George Pataki, when he ends up getting no more than 1 percent…

HAYES: Doesn`t matter because other people will too, so it won`t be
an embarrassment.

SEDER: He`s one of 15 guys. And I mean guys.

HAYES: This is really important, the more – and you said this
before, the more that enter the more the downside diminish, ergo, the more
people enter after that.

Because if he`s in, I`m in. If that guys going to run and get 1
percent, well I can go in and probably do better than that. And who knows
what happens, right? You never know in politics what scandals erupt. What
– the way the winds blow.

I mean, Rick Santorum, Jess, this is I think is part of what`s driving
this and my grand theory of why this field is so big. You know, Rick
Santorum, didn`t have a very thriving political career, I would say it`s
fair to say. He had been out of politics when he ran in 2012. He did
surprisingly well. He sort of emerged as kind of a last man standing…

JESS MCINTOSH, EMILY`S LIST: He came in second.

HAYES: He came in second. And I think it probably revived his
political career to the extent that like Rick Santorum is a guy who like
people want to
interview and what is…

MCINTOSH: Absolutely.

And now I think everybody`s like, well, if that guy came in second
then I should at least give it a shot.

I remember when it was Mitt and Rick at the end there and everybody
was like why did Tim Pawlenty drop out? This would have been his moment.

HAYES; Right.

MCINTOSH: I think everybody – like nobody wants to be Tim Pawlenty
this year. So now we have George Pataki running for president.

I don`t think it`s going to be the pro-choice thing that`s ultimately
his down fall. I think it`s going to be the boring thing.

HAYES: Yeah, well, but – yes, I mean, he`s not a particularly super
charismatic public speaker I think it`s fair to say.

MCINTOSH: He was my governor for 12 years and I forget his name all
the time.

HAYES: Yeah, he`s subdued.

HAYES: Oh, yes – no, I think it`s not just – I think it`s less that
there`s a chance I could win, although, you know, there is a chance, I
mean, you know, no one in the Republican race now has more than ten points,
you know, so
there`s only ten points that separate number one and number 16 or 17 or
wherever we`re at at this point.

But the bottom line is this is going to help Pataki at the end of
this. He`s going to be able to get a job as a commentator, he maybe
sitting next to me next
time we show up in a year. And there`s value in it.

I mean, I think every one of these guys realize there`s value in it.
Herman Cain now has a radio show. He may not have needed the money, but he
wanted that type of celebrity and now he has it.

And, you know, I mean, that`s basically what it is.

HAYES: Plus, the other big thing to me is the debate stage is a big
deal. I mean, you can get on that – if you can get on the debate stage,
you`re going to talk to – there will be tens of millions of people
watching those debates cumulatively. You can have a real effect if there`s
issues you`re passionate about.

I mean, and Jess, I don`t know, like if – I mean, to come back to the
question, I mean, I think there`s a lot of reasons George Pataki will not
be the nominee before you get to that, but do you agree with me that that`s
just a
disqualifier? Like…

MCINTOSH: Yeah. I mean, George Pataki is pro-choice like a
Republican can
be. I mean, he once endorsed the idea of making late-term abortion a
felony even if the woman needed it in order to survive. But compared to
this field where you have Scott Walker today sign an abortion ban with no
exemption for rape and incest,
you have Rick Santorum, who thinks that contraception is abortion and
should also be wrong and Jeb Bush who intervened as governor to force a
disabled underage rape victim to carry her baby to term, I mean, these guys
are a completely new breed of
Republican when it comes to choice.

And George Pataki actually can distinguish himself that way. I just
can`t imagine he would want to.

But this is a huge problem with them, they alienate women who ought to
be their supporters with these hard line doctrinarian stances. And they
can`t seem to get out of it.

HAYES: And there`s been the sorting process that`s happened over the
last 20, 30 years. I mean, in the same – like, Democrats could never,
ever nominate anti-abortion candidate and the Republicans could never
nominate a pro choice candidate.

SEDER: But you know, in 2004 there was a little bit of talk about how
Democrats should soften their position on abortion. I mean, Hillary
Clinton was part of that, of that movement.

HAYES: But I think that`s gone.

SEDER: Oh, that`s gone.

HAYES: That`s very gone.

SEDER: I think that`s very, very much gone. And let me get back to a
guy like Pataki, a guy like Pataki, he could stick around far lot longer
than anybody anticipated because we`ve said this before, too, is that I`m
Pete Peterson and Chris Christie is not going to carry my message of
cutting entitlements, well I`m just going to pay for Pataki…

HAYES: You`ve got a billionaire on stage with you, you get to stick

Jess McIntosh, Sam Seder, thank you both.

That is All In for this evening.


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.>