All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 07/22/15

Marq Claxton, Andrew Ritchie, David Cay Johnston, Ezekiel Emanuel, Sabrina Siddiqui, John Stanton


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

POLICE OFFICER: Get out of the car now. Or I`m going to remove you.

HAYES: Texas police released the Sandra Bland dashcam arrest video.

POLICE: I will light you up. Get out!



HAYES: Tonight, breaking news regarding the arresting officer. Did
law enforcement go too far?

Then, Trump attacks Perry.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He put glasses on so people
will think he`s smart. And it just doesn`t work.

HAYES: Today, Perry strikes back.

RICK PERRY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Donald Trump is the modern
day incarnation of the know-nothing movement.

HAYES: Plus, David Cay Johnston with our first official look inside
the Trump vault.

And why this man owes a $153,000 hospital bill after taking a selfie
with a rattle snake.

ALL IN starts right now.


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

The dashcam video of the arrest of Sandra Bland who died three days
later in a jail cell hanged to death has produced an instant debate about
whether her arrest was lawful and proper. The interaction between Bland
and the officer has become a Rorschach test about what rights citizens have
in the face of police authority. We will play extended portions of that
dashcam video in a moment.

But first, fast moving developments in this case. Sandra Bland`s
official state autopsy is complete but is not expected to be released until
tomorrow. The Waller County sheriff`s office released a mental health
evaluation in which she checked a box saying she had considered suicide,
writing that it was in 2014 because of a lost baby. Under the question
how, she wrote “pills”. However, on the medical evaluation form, she
answered no on the occasion of attempted suicide.

Today, Waller County District Attorney Elton Mathis said he is
investigating whether the arresting officer, Brian Encinia, violated any
criminal laws during the arrest.

Today, Bland`s sister Sharon Cooper said the family had been working
expeditiously on getting her bond to get her out of jail before her death.
The Bland family lawyer denied that Bland had issues with depression.

The Texas State Senator Royce West said she never should have been
taken into custody, while Texas State Representative Helen Giddings noted
Bland should be alive today.

And while there was concern the dashcam video provided by the Texas
Department of Public Safety had been edited, they said they were they were
technical issues caused during transfer and a newly released video solved
the problem.

Now, for a closer look at that dashcam video. Officer Encinia having
finished another traffic stop in which he issued a warning begins
approaching Bland`s car from behind. Bland`s car is the white one see

It is not long before Bland`s car makes a lane change without
signaling, a matter which becomes a key part of the interaction.

About two minutes and 30 seconds after Bland pulls over and after the
officer has asked for her driver`s license and returned to his car, Officer
Encinia goes back to Bland`s vehicle and the following exchange takes


POLICE OFFICER: Are you okay?

BLAND: I`m waiting on you. You, this is your job. I`m waiting on
you, whatever you want me to do.

POLICE OFFICER: You seem very irritated.

BLAND: I am, I really am, I (INAUDIBLE) getting a ticket for, I was
getting out of your way, you were speeding up, tailing me. So I moved over
and you stopped me. So, yes, I am a little irritated. But that doesn`t
stop you from giving me a ticket. So –

POLICE OFFICER: Are you done?

BLAND: You asked me what`s wrong and I told you.


BLAND: So, now I`m done. Yes.


Do you mind putting out your cigarette, please, if you don`t mind?

BLAND: I`m in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?

POLICE OFFICER: Well, you can step out of the car.

BLAND: I don`t have to step out of my car.

POLICE OFFICER: Step out of the car.

BLAND: Why am I –

POLICE OFFICER: Step out of the car.

BLAND: No, you don`t have to - no, you don`t have the right.

POLICE OFFICER: Step out of the car!

BLAND: You do not – you do not have the right to do that.

POLICE OFFICER: I do have the right. Now step out or I will remove

BLAND: I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself.

POLICE OFFICER: Step out or I will remove you.

BLAND: I am getting removed for a failure to signal?

POLICE OFFICER: Step out or I will remove you. I`m giving you a
lawful order. Get out of the car now, or I`m going to remove you.

BLAND: And I`m calling my lawyer.

POLICE OFFICER: I`m going to yank you out of here.

BLAND: OK, you`re going to yank me out of my car.


BLAND: OK. All right.

Let`s do this.

POLICE OFFICER: Yes, we`re going to.

BLAND: Yes, don`t touch me.

POLICE OFFICER: Get out of the car.

BLAND: Don`t touch me. I`m not under arrest. You don`t have the
right to take me out of my car.

POLICE OFFICER: You are under arrest.

BLAND: I`m under arrest for what?


BLAND: For what? For what?

POLICE OFFICER: Get out of the car! Get out of the car now.

BLAND: Why am I being apprehended? You`re trying to give me a ticket
for failure –

POLICE OFFICER: I said get out of the car.

BLAND: Why am I being apprehended? You just opened my car door –

POLICE OFFICER: I am giving you a lawful order.

BLAND: You opened my car door –

POLICE OFFICER: I am going to drag you out of here.

BLAND: So you`re going to – you`re threatening to drag me out of my
own car.

POLICE OFFICER: Get out of my car!

BLAND: And then you`re going to stun me?

POLICE OFFICER: I will light you up. Get out!




POLICE OFFICER: Get out of the car!

BLAND: All this for a failure to signal. You`re doing all of this
for a failure –

POLICE OFFICER: Get over there.

BLAND: Right. Yes.


HAYES: Bland gets out of the vehicle and soon questions why she is
being arrested.


POLICE OFFICER: Put your hands in your back and –

BLAND: Why am I being arrested?

POLICE OFFICER: Turn around.

BLAND: Why can`t you tell me why –

POLICE OFFICER: I`m giving you a lawful order. I will tell you.

BLAND: Why am I being arrested?

POLICE OFFICER: Turn around.

BLAND: Why won`t you tell me that part?

POLICE OFFICER: I`m giving you a lawful order. Turn around.

BLAND: Why will you not tell me –

POLICE OFFICER: You are not complying.


HAYES: The war of words escalates further. Bland uses expletives.
She also said the officer is hurting her.


POLICE OFFICER: You`re getting a warning. Until now, you`re going to

BLAND: For what? For what? I`m getting for what?

POLICE OFFICER: You stay right here. I said stay right here.


BLAND: I swear on my life (EXPLETIVES DELETED) for a signal. What a

You`re about to break my (EXPLETIVE DELETED) wrists.


HAYES: You hear her say you`re about to break my wrists there. About
a minute after that, a female officer was part of the interaction and the
following exchange takes place.


POLICE OFFICER 2: I got here.

BLAND: I know that this makes you feel good. You`re a real man now.
You just slammed me and knocked my head into the ground. I`ve got
epilepsy, you (EXPLETIVE DELETED).



BLAND: Good. Good, good, good. All right. All right. Yes, this is
real good. Real good for a female, yes. Y`all strong. Y`all real strong.


HAYES: Sandra Bland was arrested on charge of assaulting a public
servant. The statement filed by Officer Encinia said that Bland began
swinging her elbows at me and kicked my right leg in the shin.

The Department of Public Safety has identified violations of
department procedure. The officer is on desk duty and there are three
ongoing investigations.

Joining me to sort through this, Marq Claxton, director of the Black
Law Enforcement Alliance, a former NYPD detective, and attorney Andrea
Ritchie, Soros Justice fellow, and expert on women and policing.

There`s so much discussion of what happens in this. And we should say
this is what happens in this interaction is distinct and separate from
which the means by which Sandra Bland would ultimately die, which is still
under investigation. I want to separate out those two.

Can we start just with the pulling over to begin with? There`s been
lots of literature of what are called pre-textual stops. We saw in the
case of Walter Scott, a man who had three taillights, two of which were
working, one which was not working, is pulled over. He was a man gunned
down to his death in North Charleston.

Here it really does seem that she does move over. She does fail to
signal which is a violation of Texas law. She moves over to let him out of
the way. That`s what she says.

Andrea, what was going through your mind when you saw that as the
initiation of this stop?

ANDREA RITCHIE, SOROS JUSTICE FELLOW: Well, what`s going to my mind
was that it was outrageous. Obviously, officers have a tremendous amount
of discretion in determining when they`re going to enforce traffic laws.
There was a study that show most of us break a traffic law every three

I`m sure any one of our viewers has failed to signal a lane change at
some point – particularly when you see lights in your rear view mirror
when you see a police officer. The thing you want to do is get out of the
way. That`s what the law requires you to do.

So, to forget to turn on your turn signal at that point is certainly
understandable. It is technically a violation of Texas law, but for him to
exercise his discretion to pull her over, give her a ticket and then begin
to really escalate the situation and harass her over a minor infraction
that put no one in danger was in fact about her trying to get out of the
way of an emergency vehicle or police vehicle is truly outrageous.

HAYES: Mark, from your perspective as a police officer and,
obviously, you were a detective. You are not a state trooper. You were
not tailing people around.

But is this a good stop? Is it a legitimate stop just from the

the beginning, you have to realize whether or not the police officer was
right in stopping or taking action on this infraction that he allegedly
observed, whether that`s, you know, in play or not, the fact is we`re
talking about a violation of law. Not even a crime. So, you have to
engage and interact with the civilian population with human beings in a
particular way based on what it is you`re investigating.

If there`s a question about a crime, a violent crime, you may approach
and discuss and interact one way. So, we`re talking about a traffic
violation. Not a crime. So, it calls into question about the police
officer`s ability to interact and engage verbally, and whether or not this
particular police officer actually exacerbated the situation, increased
tensions, was provocative in his demeanor and his language. And that
really is disturbing based on what we`ve seen in the video.

HAYES: Let`s talk about that, the place where this interaction
explodes which is to exchange about the cigarette. Let`s play that little
bit right now.

POLICE OFFICER: Do you mind putting out your cigarette, please, if
you don`t mind?

BLAND: I`m in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?

POLICE OFFICER: Well, you can step out of the car.

BLAND: I don`t have to step out of my car.

POLICE OFFICER: Step out of the car.


HAYES: OK. Andrea, let`s talk about the law here.

Two questions: if an officer orders you, or asks you to put a
cigarette out, are you compelled by the law to put the cigarette out in
your car? A. And, B, if an officer orders you out of the car, are you
compelled by the law – does he have the legal and constitutional authority
to order you out of the car?

RITCHIE: So, the answer to the first question to my knowledge is no.
I`m aware of no law that prohibits you from smoking a cigarette in your own
car, as you`re waiting for a police officer to run your driver`s license
and your insurance and make sure that everything`s clear on that front
during a traffic stop.

You can tell from his tone of voice, that he is being very sarcastic
at that point. I felt that he just really was unnecessarily prolonging the
detention. He had what he needed. He was writing her a ticket. He asked
her a question about being – whether she was annoyed or not. She answered
calmly and truthfully. If he wasn`t prepared for the answer, he shouldn`t
have asked it.

And it is clear that at that point, he decided that he was going to
dig into her. And he did. At that point, she had had enough. She was
frustrated by the basis of the ticket where again, people fail to turn
signal all the time. I saw ten people fail to do on it my way here to the
studio and none of them got stopped. It`s highly discretionary who gets
stopped. Obviously.

And the next – sorry.

HAYES: Just that second question about the law. Because this becomes
a debate about what actually the Supreme Court has said about a cop
ordering you out of your car. What does the law say about that?

RITCHIE: I mean, my understanding is that the police officer has the
right to order you out of your car. During a – once the officer has
probable cause to believe you committed a traffic stop.

The rationale for that is that the officer should be able to protect
his safety, make sure that you`re not going to reach for a weapon in the
car, make sure you`re not going to drive away and escape.

At that point, she had been pulled over for quite some time. There`s
no indication that there was any physical threat to him. He never
mentioned once in the video tape that he thought there was a weapon. He
believed there was a weapon.

So, really, at that point, he was ordering her out of the car and
exercising control simply for the sake of exercising control over her,
clearly. And so, whether he had technically the legal right to do so or
not is kind of not the point. He was doing it for – it was completely
superfluous at that point for the purposes of the stop.

HAYES: That does seem clear. But, Marq, but it does seem to me that
in some ways it is the point, because the question is, how are officers
trained about what authority and leeway they have those interactions? He
says get out of the car and at one point, she basically says why are you
ordering me out of the car? He says I am issuing a lawful order. It seems
clear to me he had been trained.

The Supreme Court has weighed in and said, you do have the authority
to order someone out of the car. As a police officer, that`s a tool in
your tool kit if you want to use it in this situation. Is that something
you`re familiar with as a police officer?

CLAXTON: Very familiar.

Let`s be clear: we learn this about the Fourth Amendment, the right
for people to feel secure in their persons, their homes, their properties,
their effects. And that is very relevant here.

But there also have been additional decisions that come forward. One
that really pops out in my mine is Pennsylvania versus Mimms which deals
directly with the ability of a police officer to stop or order a person out
of their car during even a routine traffic stop.

I think what is necessary for that to be valid is that there has to be
some reasonable fear for that individual police officer`s safety. And
that`s the key word that`s missing in so much of this discussion that we

HAYES: Right.

CLAXTON: We often talk about the police officer was afraid for his
life. That`s not good enough. The police officer was fearful. That`s not
good enough.

There is a standard. And that standard is reasonable. It is
unreasonable, for example, for a police officer to see a straw in a
person`s mouth and they say I was in near for my life because that straw
could have been shot into my eye and into my brain, et cetera.

That`s not reasonable.

HAYES: Right.

CLAXTON: We should be dealing with what is reasonable along with what
is legally constitutionally correct.


RITCHIE: Absolutely. And what is reasonable when you are clearly she
was speaking in a calm voice. She was explaining her irritation but she
was speaking calmly. He never, ever suggested that she pose any kind of
physical threat for him.

And for him to go straight from a verbal command to leave the car to
threatening to light her one with a taser is going from zero to what`s
supposed to be only a substitute for lethal force – so from zero to a
thousand in less than a second. And his voice goes up very high, very

And in terms of what`s reasonable under those circumstances, it`s
clear that he is acting in a way that is completely unreasonable and
unjustified by anything the case law contemplates when giving a police
officer the right to take someone out of a car.

HAYES: And, Marq, she asked, I think (INAUDIBLE) at Fusion had
watched the tape and reported that she asked 14 different times in the
duration of the tape, “Why I am a being arrested?”

Were you trained as an officer that you have to give an answer to
that? She never gets – Sandra Bland never gets an answer to that. She
keeps saying, I can`t believe thought is happening over a failure to

What was your training? What`s your understand of what an officer is
obligated to say in that situation?

CLAXTON: No obligation at that point, to the point of the arrest
itself to indicate to the person, you`re being arrested for A, B, C or D.
The only obligation to indicate what the specific charges are for the
police officer to a prosecutor`s office. Now, that`s what the book says.

But in reality, if you are interested in making sure that you de-
escalate situations, that you present this professional image, that you
keep the scene calm, that you maintain control, you should afford the
person an indication of what it is that you`re holding them for. That`s
just basic decency.

And that, in so many ways, that`s missing in so many cases in law
enforcement. And what we`ve begun to see is that because we`ve second as a
nation for police officers, police agencies, individual police officers to
operate under the color of law, these abuses continue to happen. That`s
what is happening in this case and so many others.

HAYES: All right. Marq Claxton, Andrea Ritchie, thank you for taking
time to walk through that. A lot of extremely strong feelings about what
is shown in that tape. That was very, very clear. Thank you very much.

CLAXTON: Thank you.

HAYES: Still ahead, the latest on the plans of a former police
officer who was going to wear black face to raise funds for the six
Baltimore police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray. You heard
that right.

Plus, the guy who tried to take a selfie with a rattle snake and ended
up with a $153,000 hospital bill.

But, first, a long-awaited disclosure from presidential candidate
Donald Trump.


TRUMP: I have to be myself. Look, I built a great company, a great
empire. It`s phenomenal success. I don`t want to read Teleprompters.
Reading Teleprompters would be much easier.

I went to the Wharton School of Finance. I was a good student.
Reading Teleprompters is easy but you don`t learn about a person.



HAYES: Republican presidential candidate, Senator Lindsey Graham, had
a pretty clever response today to Donald Trump who yesterday, in a speech
in Graham`s home state of South Carolina, called Graham both a total
lightweight and a stiff. In a moment of near perfect Trump-ness, read
Graham`s personal cell phone number out loud.

Graham really wants to get into the top ten in national polls, and be
on stage for that first GOP presidential debate in two weeks. And he must
know at this point, the best way to raise your profile in this Trump
dominated media environment is to hit back at the Donald.

So, Graham teamed up with a Web site called Independent Journal
Review, a kind of conservative “BuzzFeed” to produce this legitimately
funny video about getting rid of his cell phone after getting Trumped. It
shows Graham chopping his phone with a butcher`s knife, putting it into a
blender and taking a swing at with it a golf club among other forms of


HAYES: That was the funniest response to a Trump attack today.

But there was another response to Trump from another presidential
contender that was completely unprecedented in its ferocity, including the
words toxic, nonsense and cancer. Stay tuned for that.



TRUMP: So, everyone figured, oh, keep Trump out of the debates,
because he`ll never file his financials, because he doesn`t want to see, he
doesn`t want people to see that may be he`s not as wealthy as people

Well, it turned out I`m much wealthier than people thought. I built a
great company.


HAEYES: The moment you expected has finally arrived. Donald J.
Trump, a man who`s famously both hyperbolic and aggressively vague about
his network, actually filed the financial disclosure form required by the
Federal Election Commission to run for president.

Today, that document was released to the public, coming in at a
whopping 92 pages, it confirm what Trump himself asserted in a statement
last week, this report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump`s massive

Listing over 500 corporations and other business entities in which the
mogul holds some kind of position, the form shows Trump has at least $1.4
billion in assets and at least $265 million in liabilities.

But for all Trump`s fetishization of wealth and his own success story,
this is a guy who was born on third base claiming he had a triple. His
father, let`s remember, Fred Trump, was one of the biggest real estate
developers in all of New York City.

When Donald Trump graduated from college, he already had a net worth
of $200,000, mostly in real estate in Brooklyn and Queens. When he joined
his father`s company in 1968, it was a vast empire valued at $40 million,
according to “The New York Times”.

In other words, Donald Trump is to the world a business what Jeb Bush
is to the world of presidential politics. Not exactly a Horatio Alger
success story.

Joining me now, David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist
who covered Trump for many years, as reporter for “The New York Times” and
“The Philadelphia Inquirer”.

And, David, having looked at this disclosure form, what strikes but
what we`ve learned from it?

thing is that his production company which does “The Apprentice” only shows
$4 million of revenue. Now, four years ago, Donald claimed that his new
deal for “The Apprentice” with NBC was going to bring him $130 million over
I think it was two seasons. And clearly, that figure does not support

So, we don`t – unless there`s something else that we don`t know, it
certainly suggests a lot less money. It also shows that Donald`s fees from
the big hotel on the Chicago River in Chicago are really quite modest for a
hotel of that size.

And, of course, we don`t know today what Donald`s net worth is,
because as he himself said, and you pointed out, these forms were not
designed for him. We know he`s worth at least $1 billion, based on these
forms showing both his debts and his assets.

HAYES: Now, the other part about this that I always find fascinating
– this is true about the sort of Mitt Romney`s financial disclosures of
2012, is it`s a window into the legal tax architecture of people at the
very tip of the sphere, the very top of the pyramid in the kind of
inequality laden country in which we live. And you`ve written about this
copiously that, you know, those financial tomorrows don`t look like
ordinary people`s financial forms. And, in fact, they`re designed entirely
around reducing tax liability as much as possible.

JOHNSTON: That`s right. And I think it is entirely possible based on
my few hours of analysis of the documents, that Donald may not pay income
taxes. We know that three years into his career, his income went negative
and he stopped paying income taxes. This was back in the early `70s.

There`s a special law Congress passed in the early `90s, that if
you`re a full time real estate professional, you can take unlimited paper
losses for your real estate to offset your earned income. All the rest of
us are either limited to $25,000 if we make under $100,000, and nothing if
we make over $200,000.

So, Donald appears to have enough losses that he could live tax-free.
And you haven`t seen him offering to put out his tax returns.

Now, Jeb Bush put out years of his returns. We have Hillary Clinton`s
returns going back to long before her husband was president.

Mitt Romney only gave us two years of his returns. And I particularly
pointed out, he was trying to minimize his wealth. And that as a private
hedge fund manager could benefit from a rule that would have allowed him to
go years and years and years not paying income taxes, perfectly legal.

HAYES: Yes, let me make sure I understand this. There was a law
passed specifically for real estate developers. So, when you took a
payment loss, right, meaning you didn`t sell it as a loss. It just means
the value declined of some asset. You could take that decline in value as
a loss against income for that year`s taxes?

JOHNSTON: Yes. Actually, his properties are rising in value but
you`re allowed to depreciate them on the theory that they`re wearing out
the way a machine wears out.

HAYES: Right.

JOHNSTON: And we know in many years in the past, Trump, actually –
at lunch, he and I discussed this once. He had $3.4 million in losses. I
pointed out to him a dollar is – as valuable as 3.4 and he should
reorganize his finances to sell the other $3 million to his partners. He
thanked me.


HAYES: There is a deal with – he has managed to kind of obscure the
story of the fact that this is at least in the beginning, an inherited
empire. I mean, his father was one of the great real estate barons and was
a real up by the boot straps story. This is a guy who started a real
estate business if I`m not mistaken at the age of 15, started wheeling and
dealing, buying and developing huge properties, far out in the outer
boroughs in New York, built up this empire. Donald Trump inherited a huge
amount of this.

JOHNSTON: Right. Yes. Fred Trump was a self-made man. When Donald
did his first big deal, converting the decrepit Commodore Hotel next to
Grand Central Station into the Grand Hyatt, Fred Trump`s very good buddy,
Mayor A. Beam arranged to funnel $400 million of tax money to Donald.

You know, pretty easy to make a big fortune if on top of inheriting
money because you were born with a platinum spoon in your mouth, the
taxpayers forked over $400 million to you when you`re in your 30s.

HAYES: Yes. This is meritocratic America at its best, an inherited
real estate empire, a tax code that lets you take depreciation allowances
against actual real earned income, and, of course, all of the various ways
that municipalities can back-door subsidize real estate development. You
put all that together, it turns out you can make a lot of money.

David Cay Johnston, thank you very much.

JOHNSTON: Thank you.

HAYES: All right. Still ahead, the harshest response yet to Trump
from former Texas Governor Rick Perry.


PERRY: Let no one be mistaken: Donald Trump`s candidacy is a cancer
on conservatism and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised and discarded.



HAYES: Police supporters in Baltimore were planning a fundraiser
this fall for the six officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray. And
one of the scheduled entertainers, not even the police union, was happy
about it.

67-year-old Bobby Berger, himself a former Baltimore cop, was set to
perform as the event as Al Joelson, a white entertainer from the 1920s and
30s famous for wearing black face in minstrel shows and movies like The
Jazz Singer.

Berger, seen putting on his makeup in an old news segment, was fired
from the police department in 1982 over his performances, according to the
Baltimore Sun.

After being reinstated, amid a decade long legal battle, he eventually
left the force years later. While Berger told The Sun there`s, quote –
and I`m quoting here – not one iota of racial overtones in his
performance, some of the people he planned to raise money for saw it a
little bit differently.

A lawyer for Sergeant Alysia White (ph), one of the six officers in
the Freddie Gray case, said his client wouldn`t accept any funds from the
event calling it, quote, racist and in poor taste.

An attorney with the Baltimore Fraternal Order of Polie likewise said
they wouldn`t take any of the money.

While the FOP president reportedly sent a letter to all of the state`s
union lodges, letting them know, his lodge wasn`t supporting it.

Berger didn`t seem to be having any trouble selling tickets, telling
the Sun he`d already sold about 600 at 45 bucks a pop in just the last ten
days. But now, according to a report in the last hour, that event has been
canceled by the venue.

The venue, Michael`s 8th Avenue in suburban Baltimore posting a
statement on its website, “no contract was signed with Mr.Bberger,
Michael`s does not condone black face performances of any kind. Michael`s
regrets any concerns the discussion of this may have caused in the


HAYES: Earlier this month a man named Todd Fassler (ph) was bitten by
a rattlesnake while trying to take a selfie. Then he sent video of the
aftermath -= oh my god – then he sent video of the aftermath to his local
San Diego ABC affiliate KGTV. Fassler he eventually recovered after a
five-day stint in the hospital but only after depleting the anti-venom
supplies at two local hospitals according to KGTV.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My whole body was shaking, was gyrating.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Soon after the rattlesnake bit him…

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He literally paralyzed my whole body.

UNIDENTIIFIED MALE: Todd Fassler`s (ph) body started to shut down.

UNIDENITIFIED MALE: My tongue was stuck out of my mouth, my eyes were
off to the side.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All becuase Fassler (ph) was trying to get a
selfie with the snake.


HAYES: OK, Protip here: no selfies with rattlesnakes. You want to do
whatever you can to avoid being near them as Mr. Fassler learned.

Now the San Diego local was lucky enough to have medical care. But
the drugs and care that saved his life did come with a shockingly hefty
price. After first reporting on the rattlesnake selfie snafu, KGTV
reporter Dan Hagarty tweeted a picture of the hospital bill he says Fassler
sent him. His bill, a grand total of
$153,000. The majority of that, $83,000, coming from pharmacy costs,
meaning the cost of drugs.

The bill of over $150,000, due July 27, 2015, less than three weeks
after he
left the hospital.

Now, we don`t know if Fassler has insurance. It is more than likely
that even if he did, it wouldn`t be asked to pay the full amount. But the
$153,000 snakebite bill is a window into what the U.S. health care system
so distinct and so dysfunctional, the insane way the U.S. health care
system prices drugs and services.

Joining me now, Dr. Zeke Emanuel, MSNBC contributor, chair of medical
ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

All right, what is going on here with this bill? How do you, as
someone who has spent a lot of time studying this system makes sense of

money, it`s what in the field is called charges. It`s what hospital
charges. They`re totally made up. They bear no relationship to reality.
They bear no relationship to how much effort is needed to care for a

I would note there, Chris, that $40,000 roughly of that bill is for
five nights in the hospital, $8,000 a night. You could virtually rent a
Caribbean island for that kind of price.

HAYES: You can stay at the nicest place in all of America.

EMANUEL: The whole world.

HAYES: But then explain to me why – I have to…

EMANUEL: So we call those charges. And then there`s costs, which are
really what`s going to be paid. And of course, there is no such thing as a
cost, because commercial insurers like Aetna or United, they pay one rate,
Medicare pays a different rate, typically lower, Medicaid pays a different
rate, typically even lower than that.

The only people who pay that kind of bill are people paying full
price, Chinese billionaires or oil sheikhs, really no relationship to

The problem is, the guys who run the hospital, they don`t know how
much of that really costs them in terms of effort, activity and supplies.
They`re just guestimating it. And then they rack up the numbers. And they
really go into a bathroom and negotiate with the insurer`s about the prices
and Medicare tells them what they`re going to pay.

HAYES: So here – you have put your finger on something that drives
me insane, just personally, in my own life, right. I consider myself a
fairly smart
individual. I consider myself relevantly erudite.

EMANUEL: You don`t have to prove it, Chris, we agree.

HAYES: Well, let me tell you this, I cannot make sense out of
hospital bills. For months and months and months after my second child was
born, things would show up in the mail and it would be this inscrutable
nonsense spreadsheet that I would devote all of my cognitive capacity to
and come up completely empty about what the heck was going on, who was
charging who, who was paying for what. It`s nonsense.

EMANUEL: Chris, if it makes you feel any better, I`ve been getting
some physical therapy for a problem I have with plantar fasciitis. I get
virtually the same things week after week, and the bill varies by hundreds
of dollars, and I can`t make any sense of out it.

And I`m a kind of expert in this field. So, they bear no relationship
to reality.

And, look, the hope is, my hope certainly, is that as we move further
into the reform effort, as we pay doctors and hospitals differently, these
bills, this kind of funny money is going to go away.

The most progressive places in the country – ironically not far from
where this guy got treated for his rattlesnake – they actually have done
what are called tie motion studies (ph), they know what it actually costs
to deliver care and they can tell you that. And then they can put all the
price together and give you actually a price that reflects the actual cost
of caring for someone.

Now that`s not to say the actual cost of caring for someone is any
more rational.

One of the points I like to make is $153,000 for five days – five
nights in the hospital, that is three times the average income in America,
three times the yearly income of the average person in America. That is an
insane amount of money. We don`t – I mean, they could have done all of

HAYES: Here`s my question. So, then, what is the forcing mechanism?
One of the bit critiques of the Affordable Care Act, and this is a
critiques some people who are not sort of – don`t want to see it burned to
the ground, are generally sympathetic to it – one of the more
sophisticated critiques, is that due to the political exigencies when it
was passed there`s not enough in the bill to basically force out all the
funny money and all of the kind of cost padding that happens.

Are you confident that we`re going to see real reform on this side?

EMANUEL: Confident.

First of all, there are lots of mechanisms in the bill. The most
recent several announcements that the Secretary of Health and Human
Services Sylvia Burwell made, that we`re going to have a target of moving
doctors and hospitals off fee for service, 50 percent of the payment by
Medicare by 2018. The new most recent proposal on bundled payments for hip
replacement and knee replacements that are mandatory in 75 metropolitan
areas, those are very important mechanisms that are going to force this
change, and these sort of funny bills out of the system.

And that I think, all the powers that allowed her to do those things
were in the bill.

The real issue is to – first of all, use the full powers of the
Affordable Care Act to actually push payment change fast and therefore,
change how we deliver care. And second, we do now need to begin thinking
about what I like to call as health care reform 2.0. There are some
additional things we all recognize ought to be done. And I think hopefully
once we get passed the 2016 presidential election, we`ll be able to focus
our attention on those next steps.

HAYES: All right, Doctor Zeke Emanuel, thanks for joining me.
Appreciate it.

EMANUEL: Thank you.

HAYES: Up next, the man Trump called a, quote, hypocrite, who, quote,
puts on glasses so people think he`s smart, as some words for The Donald.


RICK PERRY, FRM. GOVERNOR OF TEXAS: My fellow Americans, beware of
false prophets. Do not let itching ears be tickled by messengers who
appeal to anger, division, resentment.



HAYES: This show has been called a lot of things. You can Google
some of them. But no one has ever said it was Emmy nominated until today.

All In with Chris Hayes was honored today to win two Emmy nominations.
One of our All In America report on the new frontier in women`s health care
in Buffalo, New York, and another for the Fifty Year War, a show on the
changing face of poverty in America, which I co-hosted with NBC News
special anchor Maria Shriver.

You can find links to those segments in the All In with Chris Facebook

We are so honored to be nominated. And I want to congratulate
everyone on this great team who works extremely hard every day to produce
this show for you every night.

We`ll be right back.


HAYES: Former Texas Governor Rick Perry is currently polling in tenth
place among GOP presidential candidates, putting him right on the bubble to
make the first debate two weeks from now in which only the top ten
candidates will be allowed on stage.

Perry has been locked in a feud with the leader of the pack, Donald
Trump who recently tweeted that Perry should be forced to take an IQ test
before being allowed to enter the GOP debate.


TRUMP: I see Rick Perry the other day. And he is so, you know, he`s
doing very poorly in the polls. He put glasses on so people will think
let`s he`s smart. And it just doesn`t work. You know, people can see
through the glasses.

But he`s got the glasses, the whole deal. Trump. I say he did a
lousy job on the border.


HAYES: Trump, who has infamously cast undocumented immigrants as
rapists and
criminals sent to the U.S. by the Mexican government, will visit the U.S.-
Mexico border tomorrow heading to Perry`s home state of Texas for a tour
with border patrol agents in the town of Laredo, which incidentally is 96
percent Latino, so that should be interesting.

As for Perry, he knows his best shot at the national media coverage he
needs to stay in that top ten and make the first debate is to go after
Trump. And today he completely unloaded on the current front runner
offering up a blistered broad side that is pretty unprecedented in recent
presidential politics, although, then again, so is Trump.


PERRY: Donald Trump the candidate is a sower of division, wrongly
demonizing Mexican-Americans for political sport. Donald Trump is the
modern day incarnation of the know nothing movement. He breathes the free
air thousands of heroes died protecting and he couldn`t have endured for
five minutes what John McCain endured
for five-and-a-half years.

When he would seek to demonize millions of citizens, when he would
stooped to attack POWs for being captured, I can only ask as Senator Welch
did of Senator
McCarthy, have you no sense of decency, sir?

Let no one be mistaken, Donald Trump`s candidacy is a cancer on
conservatism and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised and discarded.


HAYES: When we come back, we`ll talk about Perry`s incredibly harsh
attack. And how Trump has effectively destroyed the best laid plans of the
Republican Party. Stay with us.



PERRY: He offer as barking carnival act that can best be described as
Trumpism, a toxic mix of demagoguery and meanspiritedness and nonsense that
will lead the Republican Party to perdition if pursued.


HAYES: Joining me now to talk about the Trumping of the GOP
presidential race and Rick Perry`s flourish with the vocab there, the
backlash our Guardian political reporter Sabrina Siddiqui and John Stanton,
the Washington, D.C. bureau chief for Buzzfeed news.

I think this fight is interesting, because there is actually a really
profound substantive context to it, which is of course what happened to
Rick Perry the last time he ran for president? Everyone remember, Sabrina,
the oops moment. But it was before that that he had this moment. I want
to play this. This is him defending his signing of a law that allowed
undocumented immigrants in Texas to pay in-state tuition, the Texas DREAM
Act. And this is him defending it. Take a listen.


PERRY: If you say that we should not educate children who have come
into our state for no other reason than they`ve been brought there by no
fault of their own. I don`t think you have a heart.


HAYES: That`s what did him in. I mean, there is a back story here
about him dying once on this issue in a Republican primary.

SABRINA SIDDIQUI, THE GUARDIAN: There is. And I think that Rick
Perry throughout his political career has sought to strike this balancing
act when
it comes to being a hard liner on border security, but still seeming
amenable to forms – to broader immigration reform, and wanting to, at
least, present a sympathetic tone to those who are here illegally but have
not committed any criminal activity.

You know, he not only defended providing lower in-state tuition to
qualified undocumented immigrants, but he has also repeatedly said that
something needs to be done about the roughly 11 million undocumented
immigrants in this country, although he hasn`t exactly come out in favor of
a pathway to citizenship.

And then at the same time you will remember he took a very hard line
deploying as many as 1,000 national guard troops to the border during the
migrant crisis of last summer. So he has clearly taken steps to I think
present himself as being a hard liner, but he also doesn`t want to alienate
the sizable Latino population not just in the state of Texas, but then of
course nationally as he runs for president again.

HAYES: But that is a well articulated how, in some ways, he`s trying
to have it both ways.

But John, as to the border posturing, let`s look at this picture of
Perry and Sean Hannity during the child migrant crisis. Take a look at
this. This is them.
That`s the gun on the boat. These were children, 2-year-olds and 3-year-
olds coming over with their moms, fleeing some of the most or horrified
violence in the
western hemisphere.

And I`m sorry, but you can`t detach this, quote, cancer from that kind
of posturing. That`s precisely part of the cancer that you`re describing.

JOHN STANTON, BUZZFEED: Yeah. And also it is a bit like actually
Trump saying that the Mexican government is sending people here. You know,
I mean, the kids that were coming over last summer were – they were
turning themselves in, right. I mean, they weren`t sneaking across the
border, they were getting taken to border patrol agents and then to border
crossings, official border crossings so that they could get picked up on

It was – they were looking for asylum. And so, you know, it – you
know, you can`t – I don`t know, it`s interesting to watch him do this,
because I also think, frankly, he is the only, one of the only folks that
really seems willing
to say, like the really angry part of party, I`m going to write off
probably because they`ve already kind of written him off to a certain
degree on immigration.

But he is definitely saying, there`s no chance I`m going to try to win
these people that are supporting Trump back now.

HAYES: That is the tactical calculation that I think is interesting
here, because so much of it revolves around this calculation people making,
particularly about that constituency of the Republican base on this issue,
Sabrina, which is why to me, there is profound substantive resonance to
this whole thing. Because the folks that are telling pollsters, 60 percent
plus of Republican voters that they agree with his comments on immigration
have effectively held a veto on immigration
policy in the country for ten years. That`s what this theatrical visit to
the border tomorrow is all about.

SIDDIQUI: It is indeed.

But I think that what separates Rick Perry in 2016, for example, from
2012 is that this time there are more candidates in this ever crowded
Republican field who are more moderate on the issue of immigration and
learning the lesson from Mitt Romney`s resounding loss among Latino voters
in 2012.

You have Jeb Bush and you have Marco Rubio, two candidates who on
record have supported immigration reform. Marc Rubio remains open to a
pathway to citizenship he said. So I don`t think that Rick Perry believes
this time he is going to have
the same pushback that he did on the debate stage from Mitt Romney who went
on to be the nominee and learned the hard way that actually he probably
should have taken
Rick Perry`s approach back then and ultimately faced long lasting

And when you have Donald Trump of course distracting from the message
the inroads Republicans are trying to make with Latino voters, I think they
want to continue and condemn him because whoever the nominee is on the
Republican side, he or she will be judged for how they responded to Donald

HAYES: On a policy perspective here, I should say that Bush has
essentially sworn off the path to citizenship. He said it is not
happening, that happened a few days ago.

John, there is a debate breaking out about whether what we`re seeing
now in the polling with Trump is similar to the Herman Cain phenomenon or
the Michele Bachmann phenomenon, these kind of the merry go round rides we
saw the last time around or whether there is something bigger and more
enduring here because of the generousness of Trump himself.

STANTON: Yeah, I think he`s different than they are in that sense, he
basically fund this indefinitely as long as he wants to. And unlike, you
know, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann who tried to sort of have some talk
about policy
issues and be substantive in some manner, he doesn`t really care about that
right now, I don`t think. And maybe during the debate he might, but
certainly right now he doesn`t.

And so I think – so long as he can come up with new and creative ways
to say things that make people go, oh, my god, I can`t believe he said. I
think he`s going to still be in the race.

HAYES: Yeah, that`s right. If you stay away from policy, that`s the

Sabrina Siddiqui, John Stanton, thanks to 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.>