All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 09/04/15

Roger Stone, Robert Reich, Alex Gibney, Mathew Staver


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

do what he`s doing, which I think is a bad development for our American
political system.

HAYES: Democratic front-runner takes on the Republican front-runner
in an MSNBC exclusive as Donald Trump fails the so-called commander-in-
chief quiz.

HUGH HEWITT: Are you familiar with General Soleimani?

little – go ahead, tell me.

HAYES: And the standoff in Kentucky.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She`s not going to resign. She can`t sacrifice
her conscience.

HAYES: The lawyer for Kim Davis joins me live.

Plus, Robert Reich on Bernie-mentum and today`s jobs numbers.

And correcting the record on an American visionary.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The whole structure of my life was changed forever
by going and working on the Mac.

HAYES: Alex Gibney on his amazing new documentary about Steve Jobs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s certainly one of the most intense and
cherished experiences they will have in their life.

HAYES: ALL IN starts right now.


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

In an interview today with MSNBC`s Andrea Mitchell, Hillary Clinton
weighed in on the kind of campaign being run by her potential front-runner
opponent, Republican frontrunner Donald J. Trump.


CLINTON: He`s great at innuendo and conspiracy theories and really
defaming people. That`s not what I want to do in my campaign and that`s
not how I`m going to conduct myself and I also believe the president of the
United States has to be careful about what he or she says. Loose talk,
threats, insults, they have consequences, so I`m going to conduct myself as
I believe is appropriate for someone seeking the highest office in our


HAYES: While Trump`s insult comic shtick makes for good television,
it may not be what voters ultimately want from the person conducting our
foreign policy or controlling our nuclear arsenal. Clinton`s comments come
as Trump is embroiled in yet another feud, this time with Hugh Hewitt, a
conservative radio host. It started with an interview yesterday on
Hewitt`s show when Trump had trouble answering questions on foreign policy.


HEWITT: Are you familiar with General Soleimani?

TRUMP: Yes. I – but go ahead, give me a little – go ahead, tell

HEWITT: He runs the Quds Forces.

TRUMP: Yes, OK. Right.

HEWITT: Do you expect his behavior –

TRUMP: And I think the Kurds, by the way, have been horribly
mistreated by us.

HEWITT: No, not the Kurds, the Quds Forces, the Iranian Revolutionary
Guards` Quds Forces, the bad guys.

TRUMP: Yes, right.

HEWITT: Do you expect his behavior to change –

TRUMP: Oh, I thought you said Kurds, Kurds.

HEWITT: No, Quds.

TRUMP: Oh, I`m sorry. I thought you said Kurds.

HEWITT: On the front of Islamist terrorism, I`m looking for the next
commander-in-chief to know who Hassan Nasrallah is and al Zawahiri and al-
Julani, and al-Baghdadi. Do you know the players without a score card yet,
Donald Trump?

TRUMP: No, you know, I`ll tell you honestly. I think by the time we
get to office, they`ll all be changed, they`ll be gone. I knew you were
going to ask me things like this and there`s no reason because number one,
I`ll find – I will hopefully find General Douglas MacArthur in the pack.

HEWITT: I don`t believe in gotcha questions, I`m not trying to quiz
you on –

TRUMP: Well, that is a gotcha question, though. I mean, you know,
when you`re asking me about who`s running this, this, this. That`s not –
that is – I will be so good at the military your head will spin.


HAYES: This morning, Trump lashed into Hewitt.


TRUMP: I thought he said Kurds, this third-rate radio announcer that
I did his show. Got you, got you, got you. Every question was, do I know
this one and that one and, you know, it was like he worked hard on that.
But I thought he said Kurds.


HAYES: For his part, Hewitt told “The Huffington Post”, “I think
yesterday`s question set was fair, obviously Donald Trump disagrees. That
said I hope he comes back on often.”

The two will get their chance at a rematch as soon as September, when
Hewitt is said to co-moderate the next Republican debate.

Donald Trump is far from the only presidential candidate to stumble on
foreign policy. Ben Carson, another political outsider who`s surging in
GOP polls, simply flubbed a couple foreign policy questions on Hewitt`s
show in March. And while a number of candidates have had trouble with
basic foreign policy knowledge, sometimes the voters cared and sometimes
they didn`t.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you ready for the gotcha questions? They`re
coming from the media and others on foreign policy, who`s the president of
Uzbekistan, all of this stuff. It`s coming and how are you dealing with

gotcha questions and they are already starting to come and when they ask me
who`s the president of Uzbeki-beki-beki-stan-stan, I`m going to say I don`t
know, do you know? And then, I`m going to say, “How does that create one

KATIE COURIC, TV ANCHOR: You`ve cited Alaska`s proximity to Russia as
part of your foreign policy experience. What do you mean by that?

narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on the other
side the land boundary we have with and Canada. It`s funny that a comment
like that was kind of made to – I don`t know. You know.

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: The new Pakistani general has just
been elected – not elected this, guy took over office. It appears he`s
going to bring stability to the country and I think that`s good news for
the –

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can name him?

BUSH: General, I can name the general.


BUSH: General.


HAYES: All right. Joining me now, Republican strategist Roger Stone,
former top advisor to Donald Trump, and MSNBC contributor Dorian Warren,
senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Roger, it`s great to have you here.


HAYES: I know you are a devoted fan of Richard Nixon, yes.


HAYES: Do you have a Nixon tattoo?

STONE: I do.

HAYES: You have a Nixon tattoo.

STONE: Right.

I admire him for his resilience. It`s an ideological or something.

HAYES: Right.

STONE: It`s the fact that when you come down in life, you get back

HAYES: You come back up.

But I got to think, Richard Nixon, whatever you want to say of Richard
Nixon, across the ideological spectrum, that was a guy who would have been
fine on the foreign policy questions. I mean, does that make you cringe
when you listen to that?

STONE: No, not really because I think it`s about understanding the
big picture in foreign policy. Look, Hillary Clinton knew the name of
every of these foreign leaders. We lost control to enemies all across the
Middle East and she botched Benghazi, so how much good did that do her?
This is about larger policies.

HAYES: Well, but – you don`t think it`s – you actually don`t think
it`s a threshold issue?

STONE: No, I really don`t. This is why Trump`s voters are tired of
the elite media being in bed with the political establishment. These kind
of gotcha questions.

HAYES: You think Hugh Hewitt is part of the elite media?

STONE: I think Hugh Hewitt had just had his 15 minutes, and in a
year, you`ll never hear his name again.

HAYES: What do you think?

DORIAN WARREN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I refer back to the classic
political science text on this, the reasoning voter by Sam Popkin who
argues that voters are low information – they exercise low information
rationality. So ultimately they take short cuts to assess personalities of
presidential candidates and then use those short cuts to make a decision.

Ultimately, this won`t matter for Donald Trump`s voters, particularly
in the Republican primary. If he made it to a general election, voters are
going to care much more about domestic issues and a general sense of his
foreign policy positions. The gotcha questions isn`t what – it isn`t
going to move one voter in terms of – especially Republican voters to
another candidate or not.

HAYES: That may be true. My question, though, is if he is going to
be – let`s say – I mean, let`s say he`s the nominee, right? Presumably
there`s going to be a point, right – and there`s no reason. In the same
way I wouldn`t know very much about how the develop a hotel, right?

If you asked me right now, like, well, what`s the zoning? I`d be like
“I don`t know.” But at a certain point if someone said, “You`re going to
develop a hotel.” I`ve figure it out. Presumably he`s going to study this,

STONE: I think presidential politics is about sweeping issues, it`s
not about getting down in the weeds. The truth is, Trump understands that
ISIS is going to start killing people in this country soon and they need to
be dealt with. He knows the Iran deal, for example, is a flawed deal and
not in the interest of the country. This is what people care about.

HAYES: The thing you just said there reminds me of a great Reagan
quote. He says the problem with our liberal friends is they know so many
things that aren`t true.

STONE: Right.

HAYES: What you just said, knowing things that aren`t true. That
ISIS is going to kill people here, that the Iranian deal doesn`t work. How
can we trust him on the Iranian deal if he doesn`t know who Qassem
Soleimani is?

STONE: Because a number of people in the intelligence and military
community who are in touch with him, who knows things about the Middle East
have told them –

HAYES: Aren`t those just the same experts, aren`t those just the same
pointy headed intellectuals we shouldn`t trust in the first place? How do
you sort out the experts you should trust and the experts you shouldn`t?

STONE: Most of the ones you trust are retired and knowledgeable.
Just invite me back in a year when ISIS kills the first American on
American soil.

HAYES: Look, they may do that, and God forbid I really hope they

STONE: Everybody I respect in this area suggests that this is coming
based on intelligence.

WARREN: Chris, we`re going to continue this, this is actually
probably because he listened to you for so long, Roger, this is the
brilliance of Donald Trump`s campaign, right, because he is driving the
media narrative. We`re going to be talking about that for the next few
days and this is going to be the discussion leading up to the next debate.
Now, the next debate is automatically framed as this square off between him
and Hewitt.

HAYES: By the way, I love the idea of Donald Trump with thrash cards
to bust out when Hugh Hewitt asks him a series of gotcha questions.

STONE: I suspect he`ll be very well prepared.

HAYES: I would imagine he would. It struck me how much this phrase
“the silent majority” as figured in Donald Trump. That`s a callback to
Nixon. A Nixon coinage from a lilt after `68, I think. It was after the
`68 election.

But there`s something that strikes me about that, right? In 1968,
whites as a percentage of the population of voting age were 90 percent,
right? By 2013, it`s 63 percent.

So there`s this real question of that Nixon block, that Nixon
majority, does that Nixon majority exists in America?

STONE: Why do we assume they`re all white? Nixon made great inroads
into the African-American community. He got a third against John Kennedy.
He got 28 percent against Hubert Humphrey. He also put more money into the
African-American business community than any president in history.

HAYES: You also know what the trajectory, though, of Republican vote
totals and you know Donald Trump right now has an unfavorability rating of
79 percent among non-white voters according to ABC/”Washington Post”.

STONE: Right. So, people have a choice. They can choose opportunity
and job growth and prosperity and future for the American dream, or they
can argue about immigration.

I`m arguing that at the end of the day, Trump, as someone who can
return the country to prosperity, will have appeal to all voters not just
white voters.

HAYES: You think those numbers will change? You think those if you
back here in a year?

STONE: They`ve already started to change.

WARREN: This is the last gasp of dog whistle politics in terms of
using racism strategically to recruit white voters to vote for Republican
Party principles that is arguably against most white Americans` interests
in terms of economic interests. And, in fact, Donald Trump isn`t even dog
whistling, he`s dog barking in this case.

This is the gasp because after this presidential election in 2016, the
Republican party will either die because they can`t use this strategy
anymore, this is the last chance they`ll get to use this strategically
racist strategy or they`ll have to come up with something else. They
might, though, push Latinos into – and especially Latinos who vote for the
first time in 2016 and Asian Americans and those that identify as people of
color, they might push them permanently into the Democratic camp for a

HAYES: Let me ask you this –

STONE: Obviously, I don`t agree with that.

HAYES: Yes, I know you don`t agree with that.

But let me ask you think. I know who you think will get the
nomination. Who is the biggest threat to Donald Trump? Who is the – who
has the pole position for number two?

STONE: Well, first of all, I think the nomination contest is still
wide open. Although Trump is in a strong position and he`s clearly the
front-runner, and he has the money necessary to get into a fire fight.
Otherwise the nomination is wide open.

I do think it`s interesting that the three candidates who have moved
up are all from outside the realm of politics. Dr. Ben Carson, Carly
Fiorina, and Trump. That says something about the American people`s view
of politics, politicians, government, political institutions, the media.

HAYES: I would say it`s particularly true of – most of those polling
are Republican primary voters, likely Republican primary voters. I think
it`s particularly true of the Republican electorate at this moment who –
and Ted Cruz who has also polled well and fashioned himself as a kind of
enemy of the sort of traditionalist.

STONE: No, he`s playing the long game and I think very skillfully.
He raises substantial amount of money. He`s a very talented speaker. He`s
got a strategy and following it.

WARREN: And he hasn`t attacked Donald Trump. So that puts him in
line to be a V.P. pick potential.

STONE: Or to inherent anti-establishment votes.

HAYES: And they will appear together at a rally against the Iran

Roger Stone, thank you very much.

STONE: Good to be here.

HAYES: Dorian Warren, great to have you here as well.

WARREN: My pleasure, Chris.

HAYES: All right. Still to come, Bernie Sanders live from Iowa.
Robert Reich on what today`s job report means, plus same-sex couples get
marriage licenses as Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis is still in jail. Her
lawyer will join me live.

And later, we`ll have more from Andrea Mitchell`s exclusive interview
with Hillary Clinton. Both she and Donald Trump have weighed in on the
refugee crisis so we asked every presidential campaign to see where they
stand and we will have their responses ahead.



factor in my decision is whether my family and I have the emotional energy
to run. If I can reach that conclusion that we can do it in a fashion that
would still make it viable, I would not hesitate to do it.

But I have to be honest with you, and everyone who`s come to me, I
can`t look you straight in the eye and say now I know I can do that.
That`s as honest as I can be.


HAYES: Vice President Joe Biden speaking candidly at an Atlanta
synagogue about what it would take for him to run for president in 2016. A
recent Quinnipiac poll found that Biden polls better than frontrunner
Hillary Clinton against top Republicans. Among potential Democratic
voters, he`s pulling in third at 18 percent, just behind Bernie Sanders 22
percent. Right now, Bernie Sanders is on the stump as he has been plugging
away in Iowa holding a town hall at this moment. We will check in on that
live next.


HAYES: Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is speaking right now at
a town hall in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. And one thing we know for sure – he
will focus on the economy.

The latest jobs report today offers more evidence the economy is still
growing, still rebounding into the Obama presidency. It`s one of the
longest post-war expansions ever recorded.

The latest jobs report also offers more evidence the economy still
could be doing better. The economy added 173,000 jobs in August and the
unemployment rate dropped further to 5.1 percent, lowest level since 2008.
Average hourly earnings rose by a better-than-expected 0.3 percent in

Of course, that`s not the whole picture, since 2009, the poorest have
suffered the steepest decline in real wages despite a rebounding growing
economy. Despite today`s unemployment number. And for those still looking
for full time work, there`s plenty of talk from presidential candidates.


TRUMP: I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created.
I tell you that.

JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Four percent growth and the 19
million new jobs that comes with it.

jobs is our highest moral purpose and we will move to get that done.

will create millions of better paying modern jobs.

help people create more jobs and higher wages.

CLINTON: Now, that will create millions of jobs and countless new


HAYES: And there`s senator sanders who has a concrete jobs plan. No
matter what political critics think of it, it`s a jobs plan written right
there on his Web site. It would involve investing a trillion dollars on
infrastructure products and creating, according to his campaign, 13 million
jobs. His focus, throughout his campaign, remains firmly on the poor and
middle class.

Joining me now, former secretary –


seeing in the Vermont, seeing it here in Iowa and seeing all across this
country that the greed of a few who want it all who are at war against the
middle-class and working families our job is to tell them loudly and
clearly, their day has come and gone. They are not going to get it all.


HAYES: Joining me now, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, author
of the forthcoming book, “Saving Capitalism for the Many Not the Few”, and
star of the film “Inequality for All.”

Let`s start today, Robert, with this fundamental contradiction in the
economy. It`s growing. It`s one of the most enduring post-war expansions
we`ve ever seen, you know, in terms of the amount of months we`ve had
private sector job growth, et cetera. Wages are creeping up a little bit,
unemployment is down, but we have this problem of money getting into the
pockets of essentially working Americans.

ROBERT REICH, FORMER LABOR SECRETARY: That`s exactly right, Chris.
This has been – in terms of wages, this is has been the most anemic
recovery on record – in fact, it`s the first recovery since 1946 in which
the median household income actually dropped adjusted for inflation.

You know, people talk about average wages going up. Averages don`t
mean anything. The basketball player Shaquille O`Neal and I have an
average height of 6`2”.

HAYES: Right.

REICH: I happen to be very short.

I mean, what you really want to look is at the median, look at the
people in the middle and below. They are not getting ahead. In fact, even
if they have jobs they`re getting – they`re falling behind.

HAYES: So that`s – that strikes me as one of the central challenges
of this, of anyone to be elected president, of the next president and the
presidential campaign.

So, let`s start with how to address that. What do you think of
Sanders`s idea which is just essentially direct infrastructure investment,
$200 billion a year, over five years, we have a multiplier effect, you hire
people to do stuff, build bridges, roads, green construction. Does that

REICH: Well, I tell you why I think it`s a very good idea and a very
important idea, number one, because we can borrow a very, very low interest
rates right now. Number two, you still have a lot of people who are not
only out of work who are working part time and would rather be working full
time, a lot of people too discouraged to look for work, a lot of them are
young people who could take these kinds of construction jobs.

And number three, you have a crumbling infrastructure. You have roads
and bridges and pipes and rapid transit systems that are falling apart, all
over America. Put those three together and it`s logical this kind of plan
is necessary.

HAYES: So, the question becomes, does that address the central
problem, right? So, we have more jobs. What you expect is you get people
out there, and it tightens the labor market, right? Because we have more
jobs and more competition for those laborers we see wages go up but in some
ways a tightening labor market so far hasn`t done that. So, why do we
think this would help?

REICH: Well, a tightening labor market, we haven`t seen a very, very
tight labor market given the things I just said. We saw a tighter labor
market in the late 1990s, and that`s when the bottom 20 percent did better
in terms of wages, but there`s a – as you`re suggesting, there`s much
larger problem here and it goes back to – starts at the late 1970s. You
have productivity continues to increase, American workers are doing more
and more with less and less.

But their wages are going nowhere, adjusted for inflation, most people
in the United States today are no better than their counterparts were in
the middle-class or poorer 35 years ago. I mean, there has been a huge
movement of excess productivities with regard to wages, income, wealth, all
going to the very top.

HAYES: Well, what you said right there literally sounds like it could
be a Bernie Sanders stump speech which prompt this is question. Do you
have a favorite in this race? You`re close to the Clintons. You were a
Rhodes Scholar with Bill Clinton. You served in his administration.
You`ve known Hillary Clinton and bill Clinton for decades.

Obviously what you just articulated sounds like Bernie Sanders stump
speech. Do you have a preference here?

REICH: Are you trying to put me in a corner here, Chris?

HAYES: I`m not. I`m just asking an innocent question.

REICH: Is this a Donald Trump kind of gotcha question?

No, I – look, I have known Hillary since she was 19 years old. I
have a great deal of respect for her. I think she`d make an excellent
president. I`ve known Bernie a long time, too. And I`m – you know, in
terms of policies he is very much articulating the kinds of things that are
needed in this country.

I mean, I think that he`s allowing – because he is kind of creating
territory for Hillary to move into. He`s allowing Hillary and the
Democratic candidate to be a little bit bolder than otherwise. But this
country right now needs boldness.

The reason that Donald Trump is coming from the right, that kind of
angry right wing populism and the reason that you have Bernie Sanders from
the left, a kind of progressive populism is because most people are just
fed up with the system as it is.

HAYES: Yes. All right. Robert Reich, thank you very much. Have a
great weekend.

REICH: You, too.

HAYES: Still ahead, a look at how the Benghazi select committee has
taken a familiar left turn into scandal-chasing territory.



ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: You said recently using your person e-
mail while you were secretary of state was not the best choice and that
that you take responsibility. Are you sorry?

CLINTON: Well, I certainly wish I had made a different choice and I
know why the American people have questions about it and I want to make
sure that I answer those questions starting with the fact that my personal
e-mail use was fully above board. It was allowed by the State Department
as they have confirmed.

But in retrospect, it certainly would have been better. I think
responsibility. I should have had two accounts, one for personal and one
for work related and I`ve been as transparent as I could asking that all
55,000 pages be released to the public, turning over my server, looking for
opportunities to testify before Congress.

I`ve offered for nearly a year finally the committee will give me a
chance to testify in public if the – toward the end of October.


HAYES: The committee that Clinton is referring to, the House Select
Committee on Benghazi. By the time she testifies before that committee, it
will have been around for more than 500 days. That`s longer than the
congressional inquiries into Hurricane Katrina, the attack on Pearl Harbor,
the assassination of President Kennedy, Iran Contra and Watergate.

As Democratic congressman and committee member Adam Schiff notes, when
the Benghazi committee was first formed last may, eight standing committees
had already investigated the Benghazi attacks, as had the independent
accountability review board. But House Speaker John Boehner insisted –
with a straight face that there was still legitimate work to be done.

Well, today the committee heard testimony from Jake Sullivan,
Clinton`s top policy advisor when she was secretary of state. Yesterday
heard more than eight hours of testimony from long time Clinton advisor
Cheryl Mills who had asked for her full testimony to be made public. Her
request – perhaps somewhat oddly – was turned down by the committee
chairman Republican Trey Gowdy.

And you can see why Mills might want the whole transcript out there.
Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the committee, has accused Republicans
of selectively leaking doctored and misleading information designed to hurt

And then there`s Brian Pagliano, who set up the server that housed
Clinton`s private email account and who was subpoenaed to testify before
the committee. Pagliano said Wednesday he would plead the fifth prompting
some to question what Pagliano has to hide.

But I think the better question is what exactly does the IT guy who
set up
Clinton`s email server have to do with the four Americans tragically killed
in Benghazi?

The answer would seem to be, well, not a whole lot. But then again,
the Benghazi committee at this point doesn`t really seem to be about


REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS, (D) MARYLADN: This investigation has turned
into a derail Hillary Clinton nomination by any means necessary.


HAYES: Indeed, the Benghazi committee should probably just be called
what it is – the House committee to destroy Hillary Clinton`s chances at
being president.

Remember, we have seen this sort of thing before. Ken Starr, remember
him, special prosecutor, was initially appointed to investigate the
Whitewater land
deal – not whether President Clinton had had an affair.

But this is the GOP playbook against the Clintons, find a reason to
investigate, then fish for something, anything you can use against them,
even if has nothing do with the original investigation. And something
tells me that before it`s finally disbanded this Benghazi committee is
going to break all kinds of records for longevity.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here`s your receipt. Here your license.


HAYES: William Smith, Jr., and James Yates were the first same-sex
couple today to get a marriage license in Rowan County clerk Kim Davis`
office. A short time later, three more same-sex couples followed. That`s
because Davis herself remains in jail for defying a federal court order to
issue marriage licenses.

This morning, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee seemed
to imply that Kim Davis is being punished more severely than some of
America`s most notorious serial killers.


held without bail. I want you to think about this. Jeffrey Dahmer got
bail. Albert Desalvo, the Boston strangler, got bail, John Wayne Gacy got

Kim Davis, because she follow her convictions, is put in jail and is
not given bail.


HAYES: According to her lawyer, Mathew Staver, Davis is prepared to
stay in jail rather than, quote, “violate her conscience” which in this
case means her religious believes that marriage is a union of one man and
one woman.

In a press conference this afternoon, Staver said the licenses were
because they lacked the signature of Kim Davis and he compared his client
to Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


MATHEW STAVER, KIM DAVIS` ATTORNEY: So, she`s now stuck with a
do I resign as an elected official when the people want me there in Rowan
County, where I`ve been doing a good job or do I sacrifice my conscience?
She`s not going to resign. She can`t sacrifice her conscience, so she is
willing, as Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in “Letter from the Birmingham
Jail” to pay the consequences of that decision and that`s why she`s here,
although she shouldn`t be.


HAYES: Joining me now, Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of the
Liberty Council, the legal group representing Kim Davis.

Mr. Staver, there`s no victory here. There`s no path to victory. I
mean, how do you understand the end game here?

STAVER: Well, there certainly is no victory when Kim Davis, an
innocent person, is actually incarcerated. In fact, one of the marshals
even said that never before had he arrested someone who committed no crime.
She`s committed no crime.

HAYES: She`s been found in contempt of court. People do occasionally
get put in jail for being in contempt of court. I`ve reported on people
that that`s happened to.

STAVER: You know, as far as the end game is concerned, that`s going
to be in part up to the judgment, it`s also going to in part up to
appellate court because there`s so much due process that has been violated
in this case. Kim Davis I know this, will do two things, as I mentioned,
she will not resign unless the people want her to be removed and they put
her there and they want her to stay there. And
number two, she`s going to not sacrifice her conscience. She can`t violate
her conscience. It`s a line she can`t cross.

HAYES: What`s the limited principle on that conscience? If there
were – she did not want to give marriage licenses to interracial couples,
would that be okay?

STAVER: Well, we`ve got expressed constitutional amendments to that

HAYES: No, no, but…

STAVER: …is there a reasonable accommodation…

HAYES: I`m sorry, let`s just be clear here. The express
constitutional amendments to that were only found in 1967 in Loving V.
Virginia, right, it wasn`t actually spelled out, that was a Supreme Court
decision that found that and the
question is post-Loving V. Virginia, 1967, if someone had done this, should
they also have the right to carry on their duties and not give marriage
licenses to interracial couples?

STAVER: The difference is before and after the Supreme Court decision
marriage was always and still remained the union of a man and a woman…

HAYES: No, no. I`m just asking you to answer the question.

STAVER: There was expressed constitutional amendments against racial
discrimination. They injected race into a marriage between a man and
woman. It didn`t change the essence of marriage before or after Loving, it
got away racism that was injected into it.

HAYES: That`s just defining away the question. If really the issue
here, as you say, is conscience, right, then that sort of jurisprudential
argument doesn`t seem to me to apply. I mean, the question is what does
her Christian conscience tell her? If someone`s Christian conscience
didn`t allow them to, for instance, issue divorce certificates – I mean,
Jesus himself condemned divorce, let`s be
clear, should they be able to do that?

STAVER: Well, let`s be very clear. Throughout the Millennia of human
history we`ve never had same-sex marriage.

HAYES: No no. But Jesus – answer the divorce question.

STAVER: It wasn`t her job duty when she ran for office in 2014 and it
was changed by five people two months ago and as a result of that she stays
in jail.

HAYES: Answer the question about divorce. I really do want to know
limited principle here.

STAVER: But marriage is still – the essence of marriage has always
been the unit of a man and women. When it`s fundamentally changed, not
whether you can or not get married because of divorce or not divorce, that
doesn`t fundamentally change marriage…

HAYES: Mr. Staver. Mr. Staver?

STAVER: …but when you change it to something that`s never been in
the history of America or millennia, that`s fundamentally different.

HAYES: Mr. Staver, no-fault divorce is perhaps the most radical
change to marriage that has happened in centuries and there were many
people, including the pope, who said so when it was introduced. So my
question is…

STAVER: But what does that have to do with a clerk? A clerk doesn`t
have anything to do with that, but when a clerk authorizes under their name
and the authority a marriage that has never been in the existence of the
history of millennia, that`s fundamentally different resent and that
collides with her conscience. The only thing she`s asking for is this,
remove her name and her authority from the certificate and she can file,
she can issue it. That`s a simple accommodation for conscience. And
that`s very easy to do.

HAYES: Let me ask you this, how is your organization doing in terms
of fundraising right now?

STAVER: Why don`t you ask that question of the ACLU?

HAYES: Well, they`re not standing in front in front of me, but I`d be
happy to. I think they do quite well.

STAVER: But you`ve never asked that question of the ACLU, have you?

HAYES: How are you doing?

STAVER: Why don`t you ask that to the ACLU when they represent their
people. Why don`t you ask that of the people who represented O.J. Simpson.
Where were they getting their money? That is absolutely irrelevant to the
issue. The issue here…

HAYES: No, the issue is that there`s a woman who is in prison…

STAVER: Accommodate her conscience and religious freedom. It`s very
easy to do. You may not want to address that, but that`s the simple
issue here.

HAYES: Mr. Staver, there are allies of yours who have been talking to
reporters saying they think you`re taking Kim Davis for a ride and
basically raising money off her plate so I`m just asking you the question.
How are you doing on fund raising this week?

STAVER: Anyone who asks that question does not know Kim Davis, Kim
Davis has a strong conviction and conscience. She contacted us for
representation. We are
representing her. I can tell you, we`re putting a whole lot more money
into the cost and expenses than we would ever get from this case. This has
never been about
fund-raising. This is about protecting someone`s conscience. If you can`t
get that simple idea that we`ve got freedom of religion and conscience
rights and the
question is not whether she`s sincere, not whether there a collision, but
is there a reasonable way to accommodate her convictions? And yes there

HAYES: With all due respect, the question is is there a limiting
condition? You failed to give me one in this interview.

Mr. Staver, thank you very much.

STAVER: No, no, no, the question is whether there is a reasonable

Still to come, as the world reacts to the overwhelming crisis in
Europe, I want to know exactly where each of the presidential candidates
stand on taking the refugees. I`ll tell you what we found ahead.


HAYES: The 1990s brought the world the personal computer revolution,
a revolution that was defined by an epic corporate battle: Steve Jobs
versus Bill Gates, Apple versus Microsoft fighting for the hearts and minds
of the American consumer. And the man who had ultimately emerge the winner
and the most consequential was at that time the loser and he was not happy
about it.


Microsoft is they just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste. And
what that means is – I don`t mean that in a small way, I mean in a big way
– in the sense that they – they don`t think of original ideas and they
don`t bring much culture into their product.

And you say, well, why is that important? Well, proportionally spaced
fonts come from typesetting and beautiful books, that`s where one gets the
idea. If it weren`t for the Mac, they would never have that in their
products. And so I guess I am saddened not by Microsoft`s success, I have
no problem with their success, they`ve earned their success for the most
part. I have a problem with the fact
that they just make really third rate products.


HAYES: My interview with the director after the new fantastic Steve
Jobs documentary ahead.


HAYES: I got to say, I have been absolutely glued to Twitter and to
television today as this incredible scene is unfolding in Hungary.

Desperate refugees and migrants took it upon themselves to leave
Budapest and march on foot towards Germany, a 300-mile journey in a public
act of defiance against a government that tried to keep them there, perhaps
helped force an offer today from that same right-wing Hungarian government
to bus people the Austrian border.

Austria and Germany have since agreed to take those people in. And
this comes as a tense standoff with a trainful of refugees and migrants
came to an end. A freight train brought in to block the view of cameras
while many boarded buses bound for camps.

And some of those brought to camps in the southern part of the country
attempted to break down a fence. Police retaliated with tear gas.

Meanwhile, the 3-year-old Syrian boy whose death sparked global outcry
was buried today in his hometown of Kobani, Syria, alongside his mother and
5-year-old brother. Their bodies returned to the very place they were so
desperately trying to escape.

Back in this country, what seemed like a distant crisis just a few
days is now a presidential campaign issue. Today, Democratic presidential
candidate Martin O`Malley urged the U.S. to accept at least 65,000 Syrian
refugees next year. The State Department officials have said the U.S.
would accept between just 5,000 and 8,000 refugees from Syria by the end of
2016, but as TIME magazine reports today, officials would not confirm those

In an interview with MSNBC`s Andrea Mitchell, former secretary of
state and current Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton weighed in on the
situation but did not give a number as to how many refugees should the U.S.


ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC: Should the United States raise its quotas and
permit more people from Syria to come in?

HILLARY CLINTON, FRM. SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, the pictures – well,
the stories we`ve been watching this terrible assault on the Syrian people
now for years are just heartbreaking and I think the entire world has to
come together. It should not be just one or two countries or not just
Europe and the United States, we should do our part as should the
Europeans, but this is a broader global crisis.


HAYES: On the Republican side, when asked if the U.S. should take in
refugees Donald Trump said possibly yes but added Europe is, quote,
“handling it” while Rand Paul noted the U.S. has already taken in Syrian
refugees, about 1,500 by the State Department`s count since 2011. And keep
in mind Germany is taking 800,000, and Paul warned against taking in too
many people.


SEN. RAND PAUL, (R) KENTUCKY: So, I think we do have to be careful
with this and we should have a warm and welcoming heart but we also just
can`t accept the whole world to come here either.


HAYES: So, mostly this is just vague claptrap, and that`s from
Hillary Clinton, from the State Department and from Rand Paul.

Now, we`ve reached out to the other presidential hopefuls for their
position on the situation. The campaigns of Jim Gilmore, Lincoln Chafee
said they are
still formulating a policy proposal. We have yet hear back from the other
candidates. When we can – right now, let`s just be clear about this, with
tremendous efficacy and a system we already have in place to take in
refugees, we can relieve a massive amount of pressing human suffering if we
as a nation and a body politic choose to do so.

And the American public should know where every single candidate
stands on
this and we will keep asking each and every one of them until their
positions are clear.


HAYES: He`s one of the most revered, influential Americans of the
last 100 years, arguably the most influential person of the computer age.
Steve Jobs was also a very complicated and at times quite flawed human

Director Alex Gibney`s latest documentary out in theaters today
captures that complexity, including the sometimes-difficult relationship
Jobs had with his employees, pushing them the edge to create the first Mac.


JOBS: They will tell you it was the hardest they`ve ever worked in
their life, some of them will tell you it was the happiest they`ve ever
been in their life, but I think all of them will tell you that is certainly
one of the most intense and cherished experiences they will ever have in
their life.


HAYES: Joining me now, Alex Gibney, a brilliant documentarian whose
latest film “Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine” opens today in U.S.

Great to have you here, Alex.

ALEX GIBNEY, FILMMAKER: Great to be here, Chris.

HAYES: OK. Why – this is not a life, the life of Steve Jobs, that
has gone
underchronicled, I think it`s fair to say.

GIBNEY: I think that`s fair to say.

HAYES: This is someone who has been in the public eye since he was 24
or 25, there`s a variety of documentaries about him. Why make this?

GIBNEY: I think – it hasn`t gone unchronicled, but I think what
Steve Jobs` life has done is gone unanalyzed. And this was an attempt to
kind of make sense of who he was, what he wrought and also what he means to

I mean, I guess I was interested in making this because I was kind of
surprised when he died that so many people around the world, millions of
people around the world who didn`t know him from Adam, were weeping and
that, you know, you wouldn`t see that for Lloyd Blankfein.

HAYES: Well, fair.

GIBNEY: So I thought what is this about that? And it was that
that I thought was worth doing, not a kind of cradle-to-grave biography of
Steve Jobs but a sort of – a look at what he means to us all.

HAYES: So what – and what did you find? What does he mean to us?

GIGNEY: I think one of the interesting things about Jobs is that he
was the guy, the personification of the idea that your computer can be more
than a tool, it can be an extension of you. He called it the bicycle of
the mind.

And because he so singularly cast himself in the role as Apple and
wrote that role very well and performed it very well, we grew up with him,
with these devices kind of charting that progress. So he is our guide to
this world where the computer is an extension of us.

HAYES: The – what comes across in the film which, by the way, is
excellent, and it`s a gripping piece of visual story telling, there`s
archival footage and one of the advantages of course is making this movie
is this is a guy that was in the public eye in various times. You have got
these great interviews that are kind of coming in and out…

GIBNEY: And he`s kind of a de facto narrator of the story.

HAYES: He ends up being that.

One of the things that comes across is this guy really was a
psychopath in some ways.

GIBNEY; I might not go that far.

HAYES: Well, he was – his psychological settings in terms of drive,
ambition, focus, single mindedness. The degree to which normal concerns
about other people`s feelings and social norms and disruption weigh on all
of us just did not on him in the way it does for all of us – for better
and for worse.

GIBNEY: I agree.

I think because he had that focus it allowed him to do extraordinary
things and to make or to preside over the making of extraordinary devices.

But I think more than just not being a nice guy, he went out of his
way in many instances to be cruel in ways that he didn`t have to. I mean,
did he really have to park his Mercedes in the handicapped section of the
lot everyday? Those kinds of things – well, it doesn`t matter that much
in terms of the history of Apple, it matters in terms of values.

And I think one of the reasons I wanted to make this film was to talk
about values, not only the values of Apple and Jobs, but the values of
Silicon Valley and
also as corporations become ever more powerful in our lives, and
governments seem to whither either because everybody is too fractious or
because they`re losing some kind of fundamental grip, we have to wonder
about these values and we have to question them.

HAYES: But here`s – let me make the case for Jobs. Until I started
working at a big corporation I don`t think I realized just how powerful
herd mentality and inertia are in the highest ranks of the supposedly
hypercompetive private sector.

I mean, mostly it`s people who are following other people. There`s a
huge pack and there is this unbelievable path dependence and inertia and
people just do the thing they saw other people do and it takes someone of a
very specific caliber to run away from that or to march straight – take
that head on.

And it seems like he was that.

GIBNEY: He was. And more power to him. I mean, he – he really
a new path.

But you can be tough, you don`t know necessarily have to be cruel. He
encouraged us all to think different, emblazoned on that advertising
campaign were the images of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, but he
didn`t seem to transmit those values to the workers in China who were being
paid so little and whose working conditions were so bad.

So, those are the issues I think that we have to reckon with. And
also I think the other interesting thing about Jobs was he really did
connect us to our
machines in a very powerful way and he connected those machines to each
other so that we`re all more interconnected. I think you have to give him
tremendous credit for that.

Yet at the same time, the guy had difficulty himself with human
connection. I think he viewed it as transactional, and I think we can also
look at these devices and wonder how much they`re connecting us and how
much they`re also isolating us.

So in a way the story of Jobs was also an opportunity to look at what
he had wrought with these devices.

HAYES: Finally, what did Apple make of this film? How cooperative
were they? How much do they see themselves as kind of guarantors of his
legacy and

GIBNEY: I think they do see themselves as guarantors as his legacy of
a saint, he wasn`t that. And they gave us no cooperation. In fact, I was
amused when they said “sorry, we don`t have the resources to help you on
this project.”

I was wondering, if they don`t have the resources, who does?

HAYES: Yeah.

GIBNEY; So they didn`t cooperate, but that`s all right. Sometimes
that allows you or forces you to go in more interesting directions.

HAYES: All right. Alex Gibney, documentary on Steve Jobs, excellent
work. Thank you very much.

GIBNEY: Thanks so much.

HAYES: All right, that is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow
show with much more of Andrea Mitchell`s exclusive interview with Hillary
Clinton starts right now.


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