All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 06/02/15
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN –
GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R), LOUISIANA: It`s down to the point where we can
always give each other species.
HAYES: It`s a small world and a large field.
JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: We got 75 people running I
think last time I checked.
HAYES: Tonight, as Republicans descend on Disney, why Jeb Bush may be
in real trouble. And why the Draft Elizabeth Warren campaign is calling it
Plus, ESPN`s Jeremy Schaap on the shocking resignation of FIFA`s
Senator Barbara Boxer on the Republican meltdown over the Patriot Act.
And a look at the private conversations of Caitlyn Jenner`s public
JOE BENIGNO: Father`s a little messed up, but she`s pretty good.
She`s cute. How old is she?
EVAN ROBERTS: If I`m not mistaken, Caitlyn Jenner is the father.
HAYES: ALL IN starts right now.
HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.
There is one state that Jeb Bush absolutely must win if he wants to
become president. It`s his home state, Florida, but that for Jeb Bush is
no sure thing. Bush took part in a cattle call of Republican presidential
candidates today in the state he used to govern, an event convened by the
current Florida Governor Rick Scott at, yes, Walt Disney World in Florida.
It was not exactly a triumph and homecoming. New poll finds that
Bush`s lead in the GOP primary fight has evaporated with his support among
registered Republican-leaning voters following from 21 percent in March of
this year to just 10 percent in the new survey.
Bush is now effectively tie with at least six of his competitors,
including his home state rival, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who spoke to
Scott summit over video in Washington where he was voting on patriotic act
provisions, as well, as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker who said today he
plans to fight for Florida despite Bush and Rubio`s status as favorite
Also speaking of the summit, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Mike
Huckabee, though perhaps the most memorable moment belonged to another GOP
presidential hopeful, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who took a much
deserved swipe at the uniformity of GOP candidate stump speeches.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JINDAL: If you pay really close attention, if you listen to all those
speeches, you learn some something things. You learn, for example, that
every one of those 15 guys, they are against ISIS and they`re against
abortion. You might also learn that they are for Ronald Reagan and they
are for America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Joining me now from Orlando where he covered today`s summit is
Steve Kornacki, host of “UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI” here on MSNBC.
So, did you learn this is things, Steve? Were you shocked to find
those positions emanating from that stage?
STEVE KORNACKI, UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI: Yes, I guess you heard a few
of those things today, shockingly.
But it was interesting. You talk about a Jeb Bush there, he was the
final speaker today to come in person. It felt very much like a homecoming
for him, this crowd here, this was a – how do us, a Rick Scott organized
The crowd was made up basically Rick Scott`s top supporters from the
business community in Florida. So, these are people in many cases who Jeb
Bush has a history with that goes back a decade or two, maybe even longer.
So there seemed to be more excitement when he came into the room.
He seemed to feed off of that. I`ve seen Bush speak before. I
thought today he seemed more relaxed, a little bit more confident. Maybe
this is a little bit more candidate he would like to be out in the stump.
So, in that sense, this was probably a good day for Jeb Bush. He
probably got the best reception of any candidate there, but that comes with
two catches – the first catch being Marco Rubio who would have a claim to
the loyalties, a natural claim to the loyalties of a lot of people, Marco
Rubio wasn`t able to come in person because of that Patriot Act vote in
D.C. So, you can`t really match them up side by side.
The second thing is, you say that Florida is a must-win state for Jeb
Bush, and that`s going to be true next year. But in order for it to be a
must-win state, to get to that point in the campaign, he`s going to have to
win something before that. He`s going to have to break through in New
Hampshire, in Nevada, in South Carolina, in all of those early states. And
you can throw Iowa into that mix, too, and some of the others that will
come before Florida.
If you look at all of them right now, there is nothing on paper that
you look at and say, boy, Jeb Bush is really the strong favorite there
KORNACKI: Jeb Bush is in great position to win there.
So, it certainly is possible that we`ll get to Florida next year.
It`s possible at least that Jeb Bush won`t be much of a factor at all.
HAYES: Well, there`s two things to note here. One is the named
Florida first strategy used by current – sorry about that. Used by
current president of the United States, Rudy Giuliani, who banked on
Florida in the primaries and, you know, never quite made it through. That
is the problem for Jeb Bush. He has to win those ones early up.
The other thing is the news out of Nevada today. You explain that in
the significance for Bush in that respect.
KORNACKI: Yes, exactly. And I think the first thing you see in
Giuliani a danger for Bush, because I think a lot of people remember that
as Rudy Giuliani made this horrible miscalculation. He said I`m going to
win in Florida, I`m going to start in Florida.
It`s not really what happened. What happened was he got pushed back
because in every state he kept losing too much ground. He looked at Iowa
and eventually said, I can`t win Iowa. Now, I`m going to look at New
Hampshire. You know what? I`m not going to be able to win New Hampshire,
I`m falling too far behind here. So, he finally just kind of got forced
back into Florida.
And that`s the risk for Jeb Bush here, because you can start to see
those pieces likely did with Rudy Giuliani lining up. So you start in
Iowa, a caucus state. It was a very hostile to Jeb Bush, very difficult to
Then, you move to New Hampshire. A little bit more friendly. He`s
going to have some competition there. He`s not breaking 20 percent in the
polls right now. Certainly no guarantee there.
Then, you move to Nevada. In Nevada, the Bush people were banking on
getting that switched from a caucus, a caucus which would be heavy on
activists, maybe a little bit more Rand Paul friendly, a little bit more
friendly to Ted Cruz or whoever. They thought they were going to get that
switch to a primary. Well, there were all sorts of chaos in the
legislature in Nevada yesterday. And the upshot of it is, it will not be
switched to a primary.
KORNACKI: Now, we`re going to have a wider audience potential. So,
Jeb Bush did not get what he was expecting out of Nevada. That looms now
as a big question mark.
You go to South Carolina, South Carolina a state that has been very
good to the Bush family before, but two things are happening there right
now that are troubling for Jeb Bush. Number one is that Marco Rubio has
made significant inroads with the Republican establishment in South
Carolina. Second problem he faces is that Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
senator, just got in the race. And not many people think Lindsey Graham
has a shot at winning the nomination, but to the extent he`s a factor in
South Carolina, he will probably be peeling off Bush voters.
HAYES: You know, you in three minutes persuaded. I`m shorting Jeb
Bush stock now thanks to the Steve Kornacki flash now.
Steve Kornacki, live from Florida, thanks a lot.
HAYES: On the other side of the aisle, there are currently three
Democrats fighting for their party`s nomination, Hillary Clinton, Martin
O`Malley and Bernie Sanders. But haunting the contest for months has been
the specter of someone else, progressive hero Elizabeth Warren, who the
group Run Warren Run, as you might imagine based on the name, has been
trying to get into the race for six months.
Today, the organizers finally threw in the towel, suspending the Run
Warren Run campaign while still declaring victory.
Now, I know what you`re asking. Why give up? Did anyone actually ask
Warren if she wanted to run? Anyone?
DAVID MUIR, ABC NEWS: Are you going to run for president?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I`m not running for
MUIR: There`s nothing that could change your mind?
WARREN: David, like I said, I`m not running for president.
I`m not running for president.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, there`s no way you`re going to run in 2016?
WARREN: I`m not running for president. You can ask it lots of
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why don`t you want to run for president?
WARREN: I`m not running for president.
I am not running for president. No means no.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just a minor tiny little question here. Are you
going to run for president?
WARREN: I am not running for president.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s an affirmative, throwing it right out
WARREN: I am not running for president.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you have also said about 19 times that you are
not running for president. So, I`m going to give you a chance to say for
the 20th time –
WARREN: I am not running for president.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But if Hillary didn`t run, you might give it a
WARREN: I`m not running for president.
HAYES: All right. Joining me now, Anna Galland, executive director
of MoveOn.org civic action. Move On co-created the Run Warren Run
I – Anna, you and I go very – way, away, way back.
ANNA GALLAND, MOVEON.ORG CIVIC ACTION: We do.
HAYES: We met each other when we were teenagers. And I love and
respect the work that you do there. I never got the strategy here. Like -
HAYES: I`m serious. No, explain it to me.
I mean, obviously, I understand grassroots enthusiasm for Elizabeth
Warren. I think she`s been a remarkable senator in a million ways. She`s
strategically brilliant. She`s – you know, all of that.
But it always seemed like she actually didn`t want to run. And you
can`t get someone to run for president if they don`t want to run for
GALLAND: OK, so the proof is in the pudding here. So we`re wrapping
our campaign. We have not gotten Senator Warren to change her mind,
knowing that was always the understanding, that we would have to encourage
her to change her mind, do what she did in Massachusetts and change her
mind and jump into the race as a reluctant politician, as a reluctant
candidate. That was always the understanding.
But we`ve seen such an amazing impact through our members work on this
campaign with our partners at Democracy for America. We have changed the
political conversation in this country. We have set the table for the 2016
We have showed that there is a powerful, hungry movement out there
that wants to see economic inequality be at the center of the presidential
race, to want to talk about corporate interests in Washington and is
showing not that that there`s a movement, but that that movement is a
powerful political force.
So, I think the proof is in the pudding. We just run this campaign.
We didn`t achieve our top objective. I`m sad about that, I`ll be frank.
But I think you`ve seen the impact that our members have had just by
running this effort together.
HAYES: So it seems to me that there`s a few things that have run
together in terms of shaping the issues space of the Democratic – the
emerging Democratic primary. Part of it is activist mobilization around
Warren, the interest in her and her message.
Also, Bernie Sanders getting into the race who I think has a record
substantively that, you know, surely rivals Elizabeth Warren. He`s been in
the Senate a lot longer. He`s been talking about these issues for the
duration of his entire career.
And I think you also have a Clinton campaign that is kind of in the
early stages Jetsons the DLC kind of tacked to the center lesson that had
been learned in the 1990s.
Is that how you`re viewing this race right now?
GALLAND: I mean, I think you`re certainly seeing every single
declared candidate out there has been responding to the vibrant movement
that`s calling for, you know, bold policies to address the crisis around
economic inequality that we face right now. So, that`s real.
We`ve seen there is a hunger in the Democratic base and beyond the
Democratic base for bold policy proposals and that`s affecting not just on
the Democratic side, that`s affecting the rhetoric that Republicans are
So, this has been, I think, powerful in setting the table for the kind
of conversations we`re going to be having, and the proposals that these
candidates are then making and then the policies that will hold them
HAYES: Yes, I think the big question is going to be, how this gets
hash out in this primary? Because in the 2008 primary, the policy debate
lent people to make commitments, to kind of bid against each other in
certain ways and the question of the degree of competition, real
competition we see.
In this primary, don`t you think that`s going to affect how much force
this has going forward?
GALLAND: Yes. I mean, I think it`s possibly about the real question
we`ve shown there`s a hunger out there for the Elizabeth Warren policy
agenda on the economy. Are we going to break up the big banks?
GALLAND: Are we going to expand Social Security? What are we going
to do, you know, just in general, for the flight of working and low income
people in this country.
But there`s also an ascendant broader progressive movement. You can
see the Black Lives Matter movement is calling for real reform on the
criminal justice policies in this country, the climate movement.
So, there is an ascendant progressive movement in this country. We`ve
shown it`s politically powerful and it`s going to determine the rest of the
presidential election conversation. Mark my words.
HAYES: Your lips to the almighty`s ears.
Anna Galland, thank you.
GALLAND: Thank you.
HAYES: All right. With the presidential candidates now scrambling to
attract billionaire donors to power their campaigns, Americans are showing
unprecedented levels of disgust with the avalanche of money that has come
in the political system. Thanks in large part to the Supreme Court.
New polling from “The New York Times” and CBS News finds 84 percent of
Americans say money has too much influence in American politics; 85 percent
– this is in a country that does agree on a lot – on fundamentally
changes to the system or to see it completely; and 78 percent believes
spending on political ads should be limited by law.
As those numbers show, there`s almost complete anonymity across the
spectrum. The current system is almost irredeemably corrupt. But as “The
Times” notes, there is little expectations for change. More than half of
those surveys said they were pessimistic that campaign finance rules would
ever be improved.
Joining me now, “New York Times” political reporter, Nick Confessore,
who co-authored today`s report in “The Times”, and who covers money in
I mean, I`ve got to say, the numbers are striking. I mean, the
country is a polarized place. Eighty-five – particularly, should it be
completely rebuilt? Which is the language that suggests to someone who is
kind of half listening, like we want to do something radical. Should we do
something radical? And 85 percent of the people or 80 percent of the
people saying, yes, let`s do something radical to the system.
NICK CONFESSORE, THE NEW YORK TIMES: That`s right. And also, you
know, it suggests that there is a small group of people composed mostly of
Supreme Court justices and legal scholars who had this one set of ideas
about money and speech. That is totally at odds with the views of most of
the country. And, of course, the court often plays counter majoritarian
rules, protecting unpopular views.
HAYES: Protecting unpopular billionaires.
CONFESSORE: But it`s weird to see them add to the group of the
oppressed minorities that the wealthiest people are the most powerful ken
people in the country.
HAYES: Yes, and I think there is such a gap between particularly what
has grown out of holding Citizens United which hasn`t made its way back up
to the court as the level of Citizens United. There`s still a lot of
questions that you cover every day.
That is part of what is weird about the current system, right?
Wouldn`t you agree? I mean –
HAYES: It`s really unclear what the rules of the road are. You`ve
got to – you`ve got an sec that essentially is defunct, right? It`s in
this dead lock. It doesn`t – it can do very little. You`ve got some
lower court rulings and then you`ve got this crazy legal area that everyone
is operating in.
CONFESSORE: I mean, basically, it`s a regulatory failure. But it
still comes from the fact that there`s a central holding and Citizens
United about the idea of evidence. And there is just no way, shape or form
in which the reality matches the rhetoric in that decision and it is
creating a whole new form of politics in this country and the country hates
HAYES: The country does hate it. But here is the problem. I`m
friends with Larry Lessig, I`ve worked with him before. He`s a law
professor who`s been working a lot on corruption money and politics.
You know, the problem is the polling can be a mild wide and inch deep.
So, when you ask Americans, what are the most important problems for
HAYES: It`s very, very low on the list. When you ask, that as an
open-ended question or even when you ask them pointedly, like I want you to
rank, OK? We`ve got terrorism, we`ve got poverty here, climate change
here. It ends up very low. That seems to be the problem that reformers
CONFESSORE: Yes. Look, I mean, if I`m unemployed or my kid can`t get
a job or I`m trying to pay college bills, I`m not going to say it`s the
most important issue.
But politics works in two ways, right? There`s you listen to
constituents, listen to people, or you leave them. And this poll suggests
that there is an opening for somebody who says I`m going to make it an
issue, I`m going to push it, I`m going to immobilize.
There`s an enormous amount of cynicism when I spoke to people in the
poll respondents that we called back. What we found is that they`re
hopeless about it. So, why would you want to push for something that you
see there`s no change of winning?
And, listen, if you`re a campaign reform person and you listened to
Barack Obama in 2007, you probably thought, this is a guy who come in here
and change things. Instead, he basically singlehandedly blows up the
public financing system, passes a modest lobbying reform, and does nothing
else for his presidency.
HAYES: And then the court comes in and creates a constitutional
interpretation that makes reform that much more difficult, you know, from
that perspective of Congress.
CONFESSORE: So, like, recent entry has not been kind to people who
want this, even when they find people who will support it allegedly.
HAYES: My feeling on this? The worse, the better, which is the
history of money in politics is huge waves of money followed by tremendous
scandal and reform and we will see – mark my words right here on this
television – we will see scandal in this cycle.
Nick Confessore, thank you.
CONFESSORE: Thank you, Chris.
HAYES: Up next, how the head of the most powerful sports organization
in the world went from being untouchable to stepping down in just a week.
Plus, as the Senate passes the Patriot Act fix over the objections of
the Senate majority leader.
And a new fleet of FBI spy planes gathering data over American cities.
That story still ahead.
HAYES: Boston police and Massachusetts state police arrested a man
this evening in relation to an ongoing terrorism investigation in Boston in
which another suspect was shot and killed by police. Senior law
enforcement officials with direct knowledge of the investigation tells NBC
News the second individual is in the process of being booked and
fingerprinted. His identity will be released once he has been processed.
The man was arrested as law enforcement officials followed up on a
terror investigation involving Usaama Rahim. Rahim was shot and killed by
police today after he allegedly brandished a large knife at an FBI agent
and a Boston police detective as they attempted to interview him.
Authorities say Rahim had been under investigation for weeks by a
joint terrorism task force. Authorities had no warrant for Rahim`s arrest
but wanted to question him, fearing he had been radicalized by ISIS,
inspired social media, and would take action soon.
Again, the second suspect has not yet been identified.
I`ll be right back.
HAYES: A week ago, he was untouchable – the head of the most
powerful sports organization in the world.
But tonight, in an absolutely stunning turn of events, Sepp Blatter is
stepping down as president of FIFA, just four days after he was elected to
a fifth term and just six days after the Justice Department handed down a
47-count indictment against 14 people associated with FIFA, including nine
FIFA officials, alleging widespread corruption in the organization.
It was unclear last week whether that investigation stretched all the
way to the top. Tonight, we found that it does as Sepp Blatter stepped
down today saying the organization needs a profound restructuring and that
he was resigning his position. Law enforcement officials confirmed that he
was the focus of a federal corruption investigation.
Joining me now, Jeremy Schaap, the host of “E60 Reports” on ESPN.
And, Jeremy, when I had you on the program last week, I felt that
basically the implied was that Blatter is not going anywhere. He probably
will escape this. The guy is the terminator.
Look. Look what happened. Amazing.
JEREMY SCHAAP, E60 REPORTS, ESPN: It is. I don`t think anyone who
would tell you right now that they saw this coming would be telling the
truth, Chris. In fact, the last line of the show we did about Blatter said
– the most powerful man in sports answers to no one.
Well, it turned out I was wrong. And I think many people were wrong
because it seems that he`s answering, in a sense, to the federal
authorities in the U.S., to the federal authorities in Switzerland, the
circle was coming closer and certainly the people around him were enmeshed
in this and up to their eyeballs in this.
And I would have to imagine – although we can`t say this for a fact,
but it was that mounting pressure that led to the extraordinary events of
HAYES: Well, it certainly looks that way. “The New York Times”
reporting today that he, too, is a target of federal investigators and,
obviously, they`re the ones. American investigators and Swiss
investigators have these collars. I mean, you`ve got to think that`s front
SCHAAP: Sure. We said three weeks ago on ESPN, we reported on “E60”
that because of that federal investigation, he had decided that it would be
unwise to set foot on U.S. soil.
So, you know, it`s not a surprise in the big picture, that the federal
investigation would be leading to his doorstep. But it seemed that he
thought he would be able in some way to ride this out. It seemed that way
as recently, of course, as last Friday when he was overwhelmingly re-
elected to a fifth term.
HAYES: So, I want to talk about that. I used to cover Chicago
politics. And in Chicago, the mayor got to appoint city council members
So, one of the things – one of the great traditions of Chicago
politics is if you want to retire or resign, you run for re-election anyway
and the reason you run for reelection anyway so that you can get re-elected
and then, you know, six months in say I`m resigning and Mayor Daly gets to
say who is going to be your successor because he wants to hand-pick
Is that basically what Blatter did by running for re-election on
SCHAAP: I don`t think so. I really don`t.
I think that he – well, first of all, he was running for re-election
all along. I think he was certainly not anticipating that press conference
in Brooklyn, Wednesday, 48 hours before his re-election or the arrests in
Zurich 48 hours before that Congress was called.
I think it really was a question of the heat just getting turned up
all the way. I think he`s going to be very busy defending himself against
whatever kind of investigations are going on.
We heard from the federal authorities last week in the U.S. that this
is just the beginning of their investigation. We heard that they are
expecting perhaps another round of indictments.
The feds say that he is not at this point a suspect criminally, but he
has a status. I think the word in German is ostkuns personnan (ph), which
at least in Swiss German means he is something of a person of interest,
somewhere between a witness and a suspect.
So, who knows what Seep Blatter`s personal lawyers, what the FIFA
lawyers have been telling him the last 48 hours. But I doubt that he came
to this decision independent of whatever they might have had to say.
HAYES: OK. Finally on the question of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar –
you`ve done incredible reporting on just the sheer human misery and the
toll being extracted on workers essentially working in slave conditions to
construct the stadiums in Qatar there.
I mean, that seems to me, if you were betting on the stock of Qatar
World Cup 2022, that stock took a nose dive today, don`t you think?
SCHAAP: Well, I think that`s very much the case. And Greg Dyke, who
runs the English Football Association said that if he were running Qatar
2022, he wouldn`t be sleeping very well tonight, or words to that effect.
But remember, it is a very, very long process. To actually move that
World Cup out of Qatar, we`re talking about a revote. There are provisions
for a revote under the FIFA charter.
But you would have to assume that somebody would be running against
them, that somebody would defeat them if there were a revote and Qatar
would run again, there is no guarantee they wouldn`t win.
The procedures have changed. It`s not just the executive vote
anymore. That`s a body of about 24 people typically, although sometimes
some people get suspended, and at this point, the executive committee is a
few men short because of arrests. The vote is moving to the full 209-
And remember, I`m not sure the countries that wanted that 2022 World
Cup who lost it would be interested in getting a World Cup that has been
SCHAAP: They might see it as damaged goods.
The countries that are interested I think would rather probably wait
for the 2026 bidding which is to take place in 2017, Chris.
HAYES: All right. Jeremy Schaap, one of my favorite persons of
interest, host of “E60 Reports” in ESPN, thank you, Jeremy.
SCHAAP: Thank you, Chris.
HAYES: Up next, as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell takes to the
Senate floor to rail against the Senate`s failure to preserve the Patriotic
Act in its entirety. His fellow senator, Barbara Boxer, tells me what she
thinks about his behavior.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: This is a lose-lose for him in
every way you think of. So, what he did was, do what children do – you
know, change the subject, stamp your feet and attack somebody else. It was
really quite a performance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Today, in one of the most significant changes to national
security policy since 9/11, the U.S. Senate voted to put limits on the
government`s ability to access Americans` phone records. After several
days of heated debate, the Senate passed the USA Freedom Act, Freedom by
the way is an acronym, by a vote of 67-32 ending the NSA`s bulk collection
program delivering a stunning and complete defeat to Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell who fought tirelessly against the bill.
In a speech just minutes before the vote, McConnell accused his
colleagues, including 23 Senate Republicans, of essentially aiding the
enemies of the United
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R) KENTUCKY: As the Associated Press declared
today, the end of section 215 program is a, quote – this is the headline
in the AP today, a resounding victory for Edward Snowden, a resounding
victory for Edward Snowden. It is also a resounding victory for those who
currently plotted against our homeland.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Just moments after she voted yes on the USA Feedom Act, I
asked Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat from California, for her reaction to
the majority leader`s stunning insistence that his fellow congress members
delivered a victory to terrorists.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BARBARA BOXER, (D) CALIFORNIA: Does he really think John Boehner
is plotting against the U.S.? OK. Fine. What is he talking about? You
know, it`s a very strong act and all we did was fix the problem of the bulk
collection. So, I don`t know what he`s talking about.
He went off on some anti-Obama rant for just – it seemed like hours -
- it was minutes. And just to what end? I don`t quite know. I think he`s
upset that he lost and he didn`t save face. He tried to pass some
amendments, which would have made the reforms less important. And he lost
on that. And so this is a lose-lose for him in every way you could think
So what he did was do what children do, change the subject, stamp your
feet and attack somebody else. It was really quite a performance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: The NSA bulk phone record collection program may be in the
spotlight rye rite now, but the NSA is just one of many agencies in the
surveillance game. A report on the FBI`s shockingly low tech spying
HAYES: When I went to Baltimore to cover the protests after the death
of Freddie Gray, there was a rumor going around among many of the activists
and residents I talked that a low-flying surveillance plane had been
spotted circling the sky above the crowds.
On May 2, a resident who goes by the Twitter handle @ScanBaltimore
tweeted “anyone know who has been flying the light plane in circles above
the city the last few nights?”
One of his followers tweeted back this image of the plane`s flight
path, which appears to loop back and forth over West Baltimore where the
unrest was focused.
Then The Washington Post uncovered evidence that two planes had been
circling the area, the small Cessna propeller plane spotted by
@ScanBaltimore and a slightly larger Cessna jet.
The post traced them back all the way back to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation which eventually confirmed it had provided aircraft to the
Baltimore police department for the purpose of, quote, providing aerial
imagery of possible
Now with a report by the Associated Press allegations the FBI`s use of
aerial surveillance goes by far beyond the Baltimore protests. According
to the AP, the FBI has a whole fleet of spy planes registered to fake
companies and collecting video and cell phone data over American cities.
I`m joined now by one of the authors of that report, Associated Press
reporter Eric Tucker.
OK, Eric, first of all, what are these planes doing?
ERIC TUCKER, ASSOCIATED PRESS: So, according to the FBI, they are
taking – that their used for predicated for specific targeted
investigations for individuals
on the ground when there is reason to believe that there is criminal
activity going on. And they are capturing image, oftentimes working in
tandem with ground surveillance to work together for a particular ongoing
HAYES: OK, so important point here is that according to the FVI,
these are the results of targeted specific warrants, right, targeted to
individuals. This is not bulk collection. They`re not – as far as we
know doing a kind of flyover dragnet.
This is specifically targeted investigations according to the FBI,
this is designed in particular for individuals.
That said, there are situations, they say that are rare in which they
can attach specific cell site data – cell site equipment that scoops up
cell phone information. It mimics a cell phone tower and can indicate and
locate a particular individual.
HAYES: OK. So the point of these things is they can go up there, they
have technology that pretends to be essentially a cell phone tower and from
that they can listen to calls, they can get cell phone data from the people
they`re target on the ground? Is that right?
TUCKER: No. They can get location data. And I would say, according
to the FBI, that this is a very rarely used – they have indicated in very
rare circumstances – they cite a particular hostage case in which they`ve
used it. So, the primary purpose, they say, is for targeted predicated
I would say also one other thing that they say they used them for is
when there`s a request from local law enforcement, as was the case in
there`s reason to believe that there is crime that is specifically
currently unfolding on the ground, they can lend that assistance there.
HAYES: OK. So, here is a key point. DOJ policy guidance on unmanned
aircraft systems, these are drones, department personnel may never used
unmanned aircraft systems solely for the purpose of monitoring activities
protected by the first amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights
secured by the constitutional laws of the United States.
Does that run apply to these flights, which is to say can the FBI send
one of these Cessnas up to essentially monitor or surveil people that are
engaging in first amendment protected protest?
TUCKER: No. And they say that`s not the point. So – and the issue
with Baltimore became kind of a distinction. The way they described the
purpose in Baltimore was for – because there was rioting on the ground,
there were cars being
burned, there were fights, there were assaults, and so their explanation is
that that was not designed for first amendment monitoring but was, in fact,
because the Baltimore police, Baltimore FBI believed that there were crimes
ongoing on the
HAYES: All right. Eric Tucker, thank you.
TUCKER: Thank you.
HAYES: Still ahead, the reaction in public and in private to the
introduction of Caitlyn Jenner in Vanity Fair.
HAYES: The Upshot from the New York Times published a truly striking
visual this week, showing the rise of women serving in congress.
Now check this out, this is the percentage of women in the House and
Senate – and it`s broken down by party, with Republicans in red, Democrats
in blue. And from the 1920s through 1990 women from the two parties
tracked pretty closely. But watch what happens after 1990, there`s an
explosive rise in Democratic women in congress while Republican women level
off at around 10 percent.
Why aren`t there more Republican women in congress? I put that
question to Senator Barbara Boxer earlier today. You can see her answer on
our Facebook page, Facebook.com/AllInWithChris. While you`re there, well,
you know what I want you to do.
HAYES; At bars, in living rooms and around kitchen tables, the
American people have been talking about Caitlyn Jenner, whose Vanity Fair
covershoot and interview was notable for many things, including that at 65
Caitlyn Jenner is the oldest woman to appear on that cover solo.
Today, Vanity Fair released more pictures, including this one of
Caitlyn getting prepped for the photoshoot, and the tenor of the public
conversation so far has largely been, I would say, encouraging.
Media outlets have done a pretty decent job of adhering to GLAAD
standards and using pronouns appropriately. Some stupid, bigoted comments
from the usual suspects appear, at this point at least, to be the
There are other conversations, however, happening outside the public
eye that might have a different tenor. One public conversation in
particular might shed light on how people are talking about Caitlyn Jenner
privately, because even though this conversation was happening a lot on the
radio, it captured the moment to sports hosts, first caught sight of the
Vanity Fair cover, and it sounded like it was happening in private.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EVAN ROBERTS, SPORTS COMMENTATOR: It`s not that the Rangers didn`t
miss, it`s that everybody is dealing with injuries and a lot of – is this
real? I`m looking at the cover of Vanity Fair.
JOE BENIGNO, SPORTS COMMENTATOR: Who is on the cover of Vanity Fair.
ROBERTS: That would be Caitlyn Jenner.
BENIGNO: Oh, yeah, OK. Yeah, no she`s pretty good. She`s pretty
good. She`s pretty good.
Father`s a little messed up, but she`s pretty good.
BENIGNO: She`s cute. How old is she?
ROBERTS: If I`m not mistaken…
BENIGNO: How old is she?
ROBERTS: …Caitlyn Jenner is the father.
BENIGNO: What? Oh, that`s Bruce? Come on.
I thought that was one of his daughters.
ROBERTS: No, that`s him. He changed his name.
BENIGNO: I think that`s why I`m saying call me Caitlyn.
Oh, my god. I thought that was – didn`t he have two daughters? I
thought that was one of the daughters` names.
ROBERTS: Yeah, but that`s – his daughters are younger. Kylie or –
that`s Bruce Jenner. Well, no, that`s Caitlyn Jenner.
BENIGNO: Oh, my god, bro.
ROBERTS: Are you all right?
BENIGNO: No. It`s interesting. I`m going to read that article.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: When we come back, I`m joined by three people who offer thier
views on this cultural milestone.
HAYES: We`re talking about reaction to Caitlyn Jenner.
Joining me now, Michaelangelo Signorile, editor-at-large of Huffington
Post Gay Voices and author of the book It`s Not Over: Getting Beyond
Tolerance, Defeating Homophobia and Winning True Equality. William Rhoden,
New York Times sports columnist, Michelle Goldberg, senior contributing
writer at The Nation who has got a phenomenal new book out called The
Goddess Pose, which you should definitely check out.
Michelle and I, you are going to have a – you and I are going to have
an interview about that book when it`s on book stands.
So, here is my feeling about the reaction to Caitlyn Jenner. I have
been encouraged largely by the public perception. I think media outlets,
they`ve done a pretty good job. I think there`s rules that you use the
pronoun a person wants to use and – and yet I can`t help but feel that
there`s a gap between that and what is happening, for instance, in, like…
WILLIAN RHODEN, NEW YORK TIMES SPORTS COLUMNIST: In my neck of the
HAYES: In your neck of the woods. NO, seriously, right? Like…
RHODEN: The locker room.
HAYES: In locker rooms, right? Like, what is locker room
conversation in the world in sports, obviously, you know, Caitlyn Jenner.
RHODEN: What you show – with the clip. The clip that you showed is
of closer to what kind of is really happening in sort of a lot of houses,
particularly in the locker room. And frankly for my generation who grew up
covering Caitlyn when he was Bruce, when she was Bruce, it`s quite a big
transformation, but they`re the new rules here. These are the new rules.
She is Caitlyn. Transgender is the law – not the law of the land,
HAYES: Here`s what you`re saying – see, this is so fascinating. The
way you`re talking about this is talking about, like, someone who showed up
and like the king had issued a new decree and you`re just like well, that`s
MICHELLE GOLDBERG, THE NATION: This is the new regime.
HAYES: I feel like people`s reception to this is like, OK, I got the
about not being a jerk in this whole thing. Obviously, like, god bless
people be themselves.
RHODEN: But as opposed to what? I mean, as opposed to – I mean,
it`s not – this is different.
GOLDBERG: I think what you`re saying…
HAYES: No, I agrees.
But I guess my point is – what I worry is that that – that people
learn how to act a certain way, which I think is important, because again,
like we should all be kind to each other as a basic human as like a basic
human precept, but that the media ends up sort of like coding actual, like
– the actual feelings people are having which are much more complicated.
MICHAELANGELO SIGNORILE, HUFFINGTON POST: Well, look. I do a talk
radio show and I`m listening to people all day and, yeah, a lot of people
are awkward, they don`t get the wording – and we allow for that. It has
to be an education.
But I think what you`re getting to is we`re all leading. I think the
media, I think the way they`ve handled it, we`re leading this discussion.
Yes, people can have their moments when they`re trying to get used to it,
but somebody has got to lead the discussion. And this has been great. I
think we`ve seen that kind of leadership on how you talk about this and
people will get it as it goes on.
Just as they`ve learned about how to talk about gay people and lesbian
people and hopefully African-Americans and others.
GOLDBERG: I think that what is maybe the disjunction that you`re
sensing is that on the one hand, I think most people want to be respectful
with their pronouns, they don`t want to be bigoted. I don`t know that
everybody`s idea about what gender means and what it means to be a man or a
woman actually has changed as quickly as the language.
HAYES: This is the key to me. Understanding sex and gender as
distinct things, as conceptually distinct, right? That sex is a set of
physical attributes, gender is a sort of identity, a self-conception. That
is a radical restructuring
of the way most people think about this.
Let`s just be clear about that.
Now, I happen to think it`s correct and I endorse it and I agree with
it. But that`s my point is that like…
GOLDBERG: But it`s that thing that overnight everybody has…
HAYES: Right, like it`s like do people understand what is being said
here conceptually, because what we`re saying conceptually is something
pretty profound, that it`s pretty profound..
GOLDBERG: About what it means to be a woman…
HAYES: …or a man.
RHODEN: I absolutely do not think that people – you know, when the
producer called me and they said, I`ve got to be honest with you, I`ve not
really got my mind around this yet. But you`re right, you don`t want to be
– not so much a jerk. And I`ve been – this is 2015. I`ve been in the
room as the only African-American and come through the same kind of things,
people say awkward things.
HAYES: They get stumbly or they…
RHODEN: And your response is, listen, it`s OK. Let`s just get on
So I can`t make – I can`t sit up here and say, you know, I`m really -
- this is – I`m fluent in this. This is – I mean, now, in my family
there are gay people, but this to me takes it to a whole other level. This
does not mean just straight or gay, this is a whole conception of how you
see yourself as a human being.
SIGNORILE: A complicated issue about gender.
But I do think it breaks down in – by age. it breaks down according
to different regions of the country. I think people have more of an
understanding. and I think, again, it`s part of that education. When you
talk to young people about it, they have more of an understanding of gender
as fluid. It`s not necessarily about your biology.
HAYES: Do you think it`s true?
SIGNORILE: I think it is. I think they`re getting it.
GOLDBERG: Well, yeah, I mean, among young people – you know, I`ve
conversation. I`ve written about this. And there`s some conflicts,
especially within feminism over these issues. So, a lot of the younger
feminists, for example at the abortion funds no longer want to use the word
woman in relation to abortion because it excludes transmen. And for a lot
HAYES: Because when we`re talking about reproductive – the physical
attribute that`s allow one to give birth, right, that is part of the
that is sex, right? That`s a physical category. That`s not gender.
GOLDBERG: Right. So there`s been this kind of move to remove the
word “woman” from a lot of language around abortion funds and there`s a lot
of second wave feminists – and not only second wave feminists who say –
if you kind of take women out of this, and you kind of take an
understanding of patriarchy out of this (inaudible) have to do.
But I think – you know, there`s still a lot of sort of conceptual
murk to clear away.
But among younger people that I`ve talked to, it almost seems amazing
to them that anybody would question the need to have gender neutral
RHODEN: Well, I`ve been around lots of places that are not so
enlightened. I mean – and I think that we have to really be clear about
that. I think in an ideal world – but the clip that you just played, I
think that that might be a
little more part of the norm than we might like.
HAYES; Oh, and let`s just be clear about life for trans folks in this
country. I mean, they face tremendous amounts of discrimination,
tremendous amounts of violence. I mean, unbelievable and shocking amounts
And I thought Laverne Cox, who is an actress, who is on Orange is the
New Black, she made this point. She said, you know, that when she did the
TIME magazine cover that people called her drop dead gorgeous. She said
there are many
transfolks because of genetics and their lack of material access will ever
to embody these standards, meaning the sort of classical feminine standard,
Laverne Cox is ont he cover. Caitlyn Jenner. Caitlyn Jenner looks
like a million bucks, literally looks like a million bucks.
Like, she looks incredible because she`s on the cover of a glossy
magazine where everyone looks incredible because they`ve all had the use of
makeup and, you know, and Annie Liebovitz, that`s not the lived reality for
most transpeople in
this country, let`s be clear.
SIGNORILE: And absolutely. Most transpeople are not living in a
Hollywood cocoon of some kind, they`re living on the streets where there is
there are attacks on them, where they are clocked, where they are pointed
out, where they are harrassed.
HAYES: Where they also, let`s just say, where they stick out.
I mean, this is also an important point. Like the very fact that you
look at that cover, as those gentlemen did, and think, oh that`s a woman.
Like there are lots of transfolks who draw the eye because they don`t
conform to the performance of gender.
SIGNORILE: They don`t, you know, pass, quote, unquote.
But also, there`s a backlash to the larger LGBT equality. There`s a
backlash to marriage equality. It`s playing out on the streets. We`ve
seen gay bashing explode in New York and Washington State, both places
after marriage equality.
The people experiencing that are the more marginalized, which are
transgender women of color in particular on the streets. So we have to be
aware of that.
GOLDBERG: But I think there is a connect – I mean, I don`t think
that these exist in entirely separate realms.
So for example, you have to know these kind of quote, unquote bathroom
bills in some states, which seeks to keep transpeople out of bathrooms.
HAYES: And Mike Huckbee has talked about them. Mike, who said a very
dumb thing today about this, but has sort of talked about the state is
going to make your 7 year old girl go into a bathroom with a 42 year old
GOLDBERG: So inasmuch as Caitlyn Jenner and the show Transparent and
Laverne Cox, as much as they can normalize what has been considered a very
exotic issue just a decade ago, inasmuch as they can make people
comfortable enough to feel like these bills are ridiculous, I think it can
end up having a huge impact on people on the ground.
HAYES: No, I 100 percent agree that there is a sort of trickle down
effect that is largely incredibly positive. I mean, that`s actually in
some ways a take away.
RHODEN: And it is our responsibility in the media, whether it`s the
guys on the radio, whatever, to not be jerks.
RHODEN: I mean, it really is…
HAYES: And I want to just – let me just stick up for WFAN. I don`t
think those guys were being jerks. I actually think that was a totally –
I want to make it clear, this is not about those guys being jerks. I think
they had an honest and unburnished moment. And what I want to say is.
GOLDBERG: An even those guys were kind of like, OK, it`s Caitlyn.
HAYES: Exactly, right. I`m going to accept it.
Michaelangelo Signorile, Bill Rhoden, Michelle Goldberg, I really – I
enjoyed that. Thank you.
That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show begins now.
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.>