All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 10/16/15

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN -- DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He was president, OK? Whether don`t blame him or don`t blame him, but he was president. HAYES: The Republican primary is fighting over 9/11 again. JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He kept us safe. HAYES: Jeb Bush attacks Donald Trump for citing his brother`s record as the RNC chair warns of disaster for his party. Then -- why Donald Trump`s self-funding deception has big implications. TRUMP: I`m funding my own campaign. Nobody else is. HAYES: Plus, new bombshell evidence that the Benghazi committee is a plot to stop Hillary. And the man behind "Steve Jobs." DANNY BOYLE: He`s a wonderful like OK, I have to rethink what I think. You know, I have to think different. HAYES: My interview with director Danny Boyle when ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. At this hour, Donald Trump is wrapping up a campaign rally in Tyngsboro, Massachusetts, where he has spent a lot of time, frankly, reading off poll numbers, but has yet to address the attack he faced today from Jeb Bush over the September 11th attacks. The back and forth kicked off this morning when Trump said this on Bloomberg TV. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: When you talk about George Bush, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time. If you -- BLOOMBERG TV: Hold on. You can`t blame George Bush for that. TRUMP: He was president. Okay? Don`t blame him or don`t blame him, but he was president. The World Trade Center came down during his reign. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Jeb Bush took umbrage at that comment tweeting, "How pathetic for @RealDonald Trump to criticize the president for 9/11. We were attacked and my brother kept us safe." The tweet mirrored a comment Jeb Bush made last month in the second GOP presidential debate. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: You know what? As it relates to my brother, that`s one thing I know for sure -- he kept us safe. I don`t know if you remember, Donald. (CHEER AND APPLAUSE) Do you remember the rubble? (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Jeb Bush is outraged at Donald Trump for having said something that is incontrovertibly true. George W. Bush was president when nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered in the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Now, he`d been president for about nine months. And even after hearings and years of reporting on the 9/11 Commission and its report, there continues to be a tremendous deal of debate about what could have been done if anything to prevent that attack. But there is no debate about who was in charge when it happened. The larger campaign question is about the fact that Jeb Bush still doesn`t appear to have figured out how to talk about his brother`s presidency. Joining me now, MSNBC contributor Josh Barro, correspondent with the "Upshot" in "The New York Times." This strikes me as a classic Donald Trump gaffe where he will say something and he says it in a kind of irreverential way and the tone is a bit offensive, but a lost times I think what he`s saying particularly about his primary foes is basically true. In this case, you know, you can say George W. Bush, it wasn`t his fault. You can say a lot of things. It did happen while he was president. JOSH BARRO, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I don`t even know that this is a gaffe. I think it`s another Donald Trump thing where he draws out Jeb Bush to associate himself more closely with his brother. I mean, do you think Donald Trump did any damage to himself with this comment? HAYES: True. BARRO: He`s said much more awful things that did no damage to him. So, certainly, I don`t think this was a gaffe at all. HAYES: And that gets to the point about part of the problem that I think the Jeb Bush campaign has never solved from day one, from the first wave of bad publicity they got, which was about Jeb talking about Iraq and going back and forth about whether it was a bad idea or not, would you have done Iraq again knowing what we know now, that they have never solved the problem of what is your relationship to your brother`s presidency. BARRO: Yes. And I think at some point you kind of have to own it, right? I think Jeb is saying what he`s saying for two reasons. One, I think this is an emotional thing for him. I think that he believes his brother was a good president and did a good job on this stuff and wants to defend his record. But people who are really put off by the idea of another Bush presidency were never going to vote for Jeb anyway. George W. Bush still polls well with Republicans. Half the Republicans still think we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was a poll that was done in January. So, if Jeb is going to pick -- HAYES: Maybe he should run on a victory lap about the WMD we found. BARRO: Right. I mean, it`s like if there`s a significant well of support for his brother and for his brother`s anti-terrorism policies which there is in the Republican Party -- HAYES: And you heard it. I mean, that was the high point of that debate for Jeb Bush was that moment. That was the most raucous applause the guy has gotten possibly all campaign. BARRO: And I think what Jeb means when he says he kept us safe, I think it`s related to the sort of deranged approach that a lot of Americans on all parts of the political spectrum have had to terrorism in the wake of September 11th, which is there came this idea that terrorism is common and is a leading source of mortal threat to Americans. And the fact that we have not had another major terrorist attack since September 11th is therefore a demonstration of extraordinary effort by the government to prevent such attacks. In fact, attacks like this are extremely rare. It was not a normal thing there would be an attack like this and the fact that there was not another attack like that during his presidency or during President Obama`s presidency is not a demonstration that something materially changed in how good we were preventing these things. But a lot of people do think that. They think it was extraordinary that there were no further similar terrorist attacks on American soil. HAYES: And in fact, that has become essentially for all -- that`s sort of the singular talking point for the George W. Bush legacy. That`s the reason that he keeps going back to that. BARRO: Yes. And I think -- I don`t think there`s evidence for the idea it`s likely there would have been similar follow-up attacks if not for the policy changes in that presidency. Certainly that -- I don`t think there`s evidence that the Iraq war was something that prevented further attacks like that. But I think a lot of people really think, well, gee, there wasn`t another of these. That was a sign that something changed and they were doing something right. HAYES: Reince Priebus who`s the head of the RNC had this thing today about how if the GOP doesn`t win in 2016, we`re cooked as a party. "I think we have become unfortunately a midterm party that doesn`t lose and a presidential party that`s had a really hard time winning. We`re cooked as a party for quite a while if we don`t win in 2016." What do you think? BARRO: Didn`t people say this before the 2012 election, that Republicans had really gotten their hopes up? And Republicans really, really thought they were going to win that election. HAYES: They sure did. BARRO: Mitt Romney really thought he was going to win that election. In the end, I mean, they lost, but they didn`t lost that badly. It was, what, 3 1/2 points. I think, you know, Republicans will survive a loss after 2016, just as they survived a loss after 2012. Of course, better for the party to win. But I think Reince Priebus certainly in 2017 will not be -- HAYES: Reince is like I`m cooked. But the other thing about it I think it speaks to is staring down the barrel of this essentially structural divide in government which I think is in some way is the kind of subtext that stalks this whole campaign. It`s something that`s very hard for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to talk about. It`s something Republicans don`t want to talk about because they don`t want to admit that they`re going to be relegated to essentially the role Democrats were for much of the sort of post-war period as the party governing out of the House with a Republican president. BARRO: Yes, I would not be too triumphalist if I were a Democrat about the idea that Democrats were -- HAYES: No, I`m not. BARRO: -- winning every presidential election going forward -- HAYES: No, I just think the decks are stacked on both sides in interesting ways. BARRO: It`s clear the Republicans have a clear advantage in off years but, you know, presidential election results are moved by a lot of things, especially the economy. It`s not such an overwhelming advantage that Republicans can`t win in 2016, especially, you know, we`re seeing warning signs in the economy. If things get worse then I think -- HAYES: It`s a whole new ball game. BARRO: Very likely a Republican wins. HAYES: All right. Josh Barro, thank you. Donald Trump`s presidential campaign filed its first report with the Federal Election Commission yesterday. In addition to some pretty hilarious details, that Trump spent more on hats than Bobby Jindal raised in three months, we learned that Trump has pulled off something pretty incredible when it comes to how he`s funding his campaign. If you`ve been watching, Trump`s speeches you`ve seen him make a point again and again and again that seems to be very important to him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) TRUMP: The fact is I`m the only self-funder. I`m putting up my own money. I`m funding my own campaign. I`m self-funding my campaign. I am self-funding my campaign. We`re turning down millions of dollars. I`m self-funding my own campaign. I`m putting up my own money. I`m using my own money. I`m spending all of my money. I`m self-funding. I`m self-funding my campaign. I`m self-funding my campaign. I`m not taking money from hedge funds or anybody else. People come up, they want to give you lots of money. Lobbyists, special interests, donors, they want -- and I keep turning them down. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: All right. Well, we now know that his claim there that he is Mr. Self-Funded is not really true. Trump has only spent about $2 million of his own money on his campaign and has not given it a single dollar in four months. Instead, his campaign is largely being funded by donors. I mean, the campaign has raised $5.8 million from donors. It has only spent 5.6 million, which technically puts it in the black. Now, the fact that Trump has raised all that money doesn`t change the fact that he is one of the few people in this race who can claim legitimately not to be controlled by big money. Trump reported donations from 74,000 donors, who gave an average of just $50. But the fact is, so far, this entire enterprise has been pretty low impact on Trump`s personal fortune. And at a certain point to pay for advertising and staff and the ground game and all the things you have to do in a serious presidential run, Trump will either have to start raising a lot more money or start writing $10 million and 20 million checks to his campaign, and that I suspect is when we`re going to find out just how serious this presidential run is. Joining me now, Nick Confessore, national political reporter "The New York Times." I mean, that to me was the real takeaway was -- wait a second, this whole thing has essentially been a free ride for Donald Trump. He`s flying around, he`s a rich guy anyway, he`s got his private jet. He`s flying around, cameras are following him, he`s doing well in the polls and there`s very little sacrifice from him financially. NICK CONFESSORE, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Look, he`s paying for his plane flights out of his own pocket. He`s paying for some staff, you know, from his business organization. But people who are his fans are paying for the campaign. And it`s amazing -- HAYES: People are sending this guy -- his whole shtick is how rich he is and he`s self-funding. They are, without them working very hard to fund-raise, they are sending him money. CONFESSORE: He raised $4 million last quarter from people who just sent him money online. And it`s amazing, right? It`s become a self-fulfilling branding exercise like -- and look, he`s winning. He`s winning the race. He`s ahead in the polls. So you can`t say it`s not working for him, right? But he`s not spending his own money anymore. HAYES: The other strike thing about it was that the burn rate`s very low because they don`t have a big campaign organization, right? I mean, they`re not spending money. They don`t have a huge staff. They`re not buying advertising. What -- are they spending money on anything? What are they spending money on? CONFESSORE: He has the smallest staff in the top five or six candidates that we saw. He spent more on baseball hats and t-shirts in the third quarter than he did in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina combined. HAYES: Really? CONFESSORE: Yes. So, look, and it`s the story, right? Like -- HAYES: So he is -- this is the Trump hat has been one of the main expenditures of the Trump campaign. In fact, a bigger expenditure than, say, field organizers in Iowa. CONFESSORE: Or advertising. Yes. HAYES: That includes advertising too. CONFESSORE: No, no, no. Also advertising is less than the hats. And the hats are the message. The hats are the message, right? The whole point of this is like Donald Trump. And now, those hats are everywhere. HAYES: And the other sort of big money fight that`s happening on the Republican side is this fight between Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush basically over who`s raising more money, who has more cash on hand, and who is more beholden to essentially mysterious dark money super PAC donors. What`s going on between the two of them? CONFESSORE: All right. So, basically that these two guys are fighting for fifth place and it`s very important to them, right? Because they believe when all the dust settles and Donald Trump drops out and Ben Carson flails and Ted Cruz can`t expand, then magically at the end, these two guys will be the people. So, what`s happening is that Bush spent a lot more. He built a much bigger organization but he couldn`t raise that much. And so, he`s basically ended with about as much cash on hand as the fall begins as Marco Rubio. And all the stuff you`re hearing is irrelevant. They`re about tied for cash on hand for the primary. On top of that, yes, there`s a huge super PAC for Jeb Bush and a very huge 501c-4 group, this non-profit groups for Marco Rubio, which is paying for almost all of his campaign advertising, which is a point of contrast for the two campaigns. There`s less transparency in the money for Marco Rubio. HAYES: Right. Let`s be clear, the super PAC unlimited donations but there is some transparency. CONFESSORE: Disclosure of donors. HAYES: 501c4s do not have to disclose. CONFESSORE: Nada. HAYES: So, Marco Rubio, we just don`t know who`s paying for his advertising. CONFESSORE: We have no idea. HAYES: We have no idea. CONFESSORE: No clue. HAYES: It could be someone, we don`t know. But Jeb Bush we do know. CONFESSORE: It could be Sheldon Adelson. We don`t know. HAYES: Yes, that`s right. So how much -- I mean, all these reports, right? Are on the old hard money system like, you know, regime. How much does that even matter? CONFESSORE: Well, look, it does matter. Ask Scott Walker. At the end of the day, you do have to pay for your own campaign salary, your own plane ticket. You can`t outsource all of it. And, in fact, it`s hard to outsource things effectively to a super PAC like get out the vote. So, you have to have money to pay your bills and keep your lights on. HAYES: Super PACs are sort of design in some ways or optimized for ads, right? They can take in a lot of money, hire a consulting firm, they could run ads. That`s a fairly low overhead, high dollar thing you can do. But actually running a campaign, say, field staff in Iowa, that`s a much harder thing to outsource to a super PAC. CONFESSORE: Because you can`t do it that way. You have to be in touch with your own voters and your own voter contact effectively to be a good campaigner. HAYES: All right. Nick Confessore, always a pleasure. Thank you. CONFESSORE: Thank you. HAYES: Still ahead, the Benghazi committee continues to unravel, leading to Clinton`s testimony next week. More evidence comes out that it is a plot to stop Hillary Clinton. Plus, for years, Exxon was a loud voice in denying the existence of manmade climate change. What they were doing behind closed doors tells a very different story. That report`s coming up. HAYES: And later, when it comes to the argument over who really won the Democratic debate, there is one definitive measure, at least for the moment. We will look at those stories and much more ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I`m not going to comment on what Joe`s doing or not doing. I think you can direct those questions to my very able vice president. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: For those keeping track at home, Biden watch is still on. Now, the vice president is sending a message to former staffers through a top aide. Ted Kaufman, who served as Biden`s chief of staff in the Senate and then went on to replace Biden as senator when Biden became vice president, wrote in a letter to Biden alumni, "The vice president is determined to take and give his family as much time as possible to work this through." Kaufman closing the letter with this: "If he decides to run, we will need each and every one of you yesterday." As to whether the vice president may have missed a key milestone this week, the first Democratic debate, Biden`s own brother says that doesn`t matter. Quote, "Everybody`s trying to make hay out of the idea that Joe`s decision is based on something other than an internal barometer. That`s simply not true. It`s all about the dialogue between his head and his heart." And as that dialogue continues, it`s a good time as any to check the scoreboards in our ALL IN 2016 fantasy candidate draft. God, I love that music. This week`s debate has given some of our -- participants with big d Democratic draft picks some additional points. We have a tie for the lead here. Joy Reid and Michael Steele both earning 2,100 points. Jess McIntosh has 2,000 points. Sam Seder still in this thing with 1,800 points. And well, Josh Barro is chugging along, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, he has 1,000 points. That`s your ALL IN fantasy draft candidate update for this Friday evening. We`ll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: You`re scheduled to testify in front of the Benghazi committee in the House of Representatives in a few days. What are you expecting and how are you preparing? HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I really don`t know what to expect. I think it`s pretty clear that whatever they might have thought they were doing, they ended up becoming a partisan arm of the Republican National Committee with an overwhelming focus on trying to, as they admitted, drive down my poll numbers. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: As the House Select Committee on Benghazi wrapped up its interview today with Huma Abedin, long-time aide to Hillary Clinton, it continues to be hit with allegations it is a partisan operation out to get Democratic presidential hopeful. After two House Republicans said essentially that Trey Gowdy, the committee chairman, has asked people to look at what the committee is doing. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. TREY GOWDY (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: It all focused on the words that people are not on the committee used. Focus on the actions of those of us who have been on the committee for the last year and a half. And, Megyn, out of the 54 witnesses that we have interviewed, 41 of whom by the way no other committee interviewed, not a single one of them has been named Clinton. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The Benghazi committee may not have interviewed any named Clinton yet. She`s scheduled later this month. But they have interviewed several people connected to the former secretary of state. According to a new report today from "The Huffington Post", Trey Gowdy has been focused on those allies in closed-door Benghazi meetings. Now, a source telling them there have been 53 interviews and depositions with witnesses called in for Gowdy`s probe. Gowdy has attended fewer than 10 of the 53. But the interviews, which were described by "The Huffington Post" as staff led, that Gowdy has attended include: Cheryl Mills, Clinton`s chief of staff when she was secretary of state. Jake Sullivan, Clinton`s former deputy chief of staff and current adviser. Sidney Blumenthal, long-time Clinton adviser. And Brian Pagliano, a State Department staffer. We should note that Gowdy did not attend the interview of Huma Abedin. Other committee witness interviews that Gowdy did not go to according to "The Huffington Post", three of the four diplomatic security agents who actually survived the attack. Also, CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell and former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Flynn. A spokesperson for the congressman said Gowdy has attended to far more matters that do not involve Clinton than those that do, including ones involving the White House, State Department on witness document production, and the CIA. Joining me now, Jennifer Bendery, she`s political reporter of "The Huffington Post" who broke this story this afternoon. Jennifer, the Gowdy folks will say, well, you know, we`ve been doing tons of stuff, some of the stuff we`ve been doing has been, you know, we`ve been looking at documents, we`ve been interviewing a lot of people. Anyway, Elijah Cummings who`s the Democratic person, he`s missed a lot of hearings too. What`s the story here? JENNIFER BENDERY, THE HUFFINGTON POST: Well, there`s an important distinction to be made between Trey Gowdy only going to eight or nine out of 53 of these witness interviews and Elijah Cummings going to a small amount too. Trey Gowdy`s the chairman of this committee. He is making the case that this is a legitimate investigation, they have a legitimate purpose to get to the bottom of the 2012 Benghazi attack and yet, if you look at his track record of going to these interviews, he`s going to maybe 10 max out of 53 and of those, at least half of them are with Clinton, specifically with people who are Clinton allies. So, just the message there doesn`t suggest that this is an evenly weighted investigative process. He is primarily looking at these people who are all former or current Clinton allies. What does that tell you? HAYES: Yes, what struck me the most was the contrast between Mike Morell of the CIA, whose interview he did not attend and Brian Pagliano who is a fairly as I understand it, not particularly high-level State Department staffer who is the person who set up the server that has been in question and who again, I may be wrong and you can correct me here, had nothing to do with the response to Benghazi itself. BENDERY: Well, and don`t forget, today they brought in Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton`s top aide, who was not involved in this at all. The reasoning for bringing her in was purely because she works for Hillary Clinton. So, she doesn`t have any direct link to anything to do with Benghazi other than she works for Hillary Clinton. HAYES: Yes. She -- BENDERY: The reasoning for some of these people is just oh, you work for Hillary Clinton, you`re probably important to this probe that we`ve been doing for almost a year and a half for almost a year and a half. HAYES: And now, we`re going to get, I mean, part of the problem that strikes me also is the weird secrecy behind this. I mean, you`ve got a situation in which this isn`t being done in public, it`s being done behind closed doors, the transcripts are not being made available even when witnesses like Cheryl Mills actually request them to be. And so, everything is being done via leak and sources as opposed to any modicum of transparency. BENDERY: One thing that Democrats have been saying through this is that the ones that we do hear about are often leaked by Republicans on the committee and they`re primarily private meetings with Hillary Clinton allies or aides. So, it creates this image that the ones we do hear about are all Clinton people, which makes it look like, hey, this whole investigation really is centering on Hillary Clinton. HAYES: What are your expectations in covering this committee for this big marathon day of testimony, I think it`s going to happen next week. That will be public, my understanding, that we will have access to that. There is someone who is reported as saying they`re hoping they can just keep her up there and she`ll break. How long is this thing going to go? BENDERY: I mean, "The Huffington Post" published a story earlier today about how Hillary Clinton`s people are looking at the way the president of Planned Parenthood carried herself a week or two ago when she took five hours of grilling from Republicans in a different committee on Planned Parenthood. So, Cecile Robert -- Richards, she handled herself very well, didn`t crack, took a lot of heat during that meeting. And so, if Hillary Clinton`s looking at her as a model for the way she`s going to go into this one, then she`s not going to crack either. HAYES: All right. Jennifer Bendery, thanks for joining me. Appreciate it. BENDERY: Up next, did Hillary within the debate or was it Bernie that came out ahead and how much really does it matter in the long run? We`ll take a look at that next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: There`s been a lot of debate about the Democratic debate, in particular whether the broad consensus from pundits that Hillary Clinton won the debate would be proven wrong by subsequent polls. Now, as it turns out, three post-debate polls all show Hillary Clinton winning over Bernie Sanders. But that`s a really pretty meaningless metric. This is not a debate meet in high school. It doesn`t matter whether the judges think someone won or not. There`s only one metric that really decides the winner of a debate in the context of a campaign. It is the polling after the debate. Not polling about who won but who voters support for president. That of course is the whole point of this enterprise. Does that polling move in a candidate`s direction after the debate? On the Republican side, Carly Fiorina`s a classic example. Her support shot up the most in the week after that second debate. And by that metric, the early indications we have are that Hillary Clinton won this debate. In New Hampshire, Clinton has regained the lead for the first time in any poll of that state since early August. Clinton 37 percent, Sanders 35 percent in the latest Suffolk University/"Boston Globe" poll. That is, however, within the margin of error, but it represents a major swing from the last month in which several polls including NBC News and Marist showed her trailing Sanders by double digits in that state. Now, while a post-debate surge in the poll numbers sometimes signals a turning point, it can just as easily represent only a short-term bounce. That`s the other lessons we`ve gotten as to who wins a debate. Mitt Romney, the man who pretty clearly won his first debate with President Barack Obama in 2012, can tell you all about that. Joining me, Tad Devine, senior adviser for Bernie Sanders` presidential campaign. Mr. Devine, what is the strategy for victory for Bernie Sanders going forward? How -- I have a good sense of the Hillary Clinton strategy, racking up endorsements from members of -- prominent members of the political establishment in the Democratic Party, locking up super delegates, spending a lot of money, particularly in Iowa. What is -- what is the Sanders strategy? TAD DEVINE, SENIOR ADVISOR, SANDERS FOR PRESIDENT: Well, our strategy is, Chris, excuse me, to begin in Iowa and New Hampshire and try to win support from voters. We believe a nominating process is very favorable for Bernie Sanders. It begins in Iowa, a place that he`s been to many times, where we`re building a very strong organization on the night of the debate. We had 90 debate watch parties in Iowa that night, very well attended. On to New Hampshire, where as you mentioned we`ve led in polls -- by the way, I wouldn`t jump to the conclusion that the debate has really affected Hillary`s standing in New Hampshire. Almost $3 million of paid television advertising that they started on August 4, which we have yet to answer I think has had a lot to do with her better numbers in New Hampshire. HAYES: That`s interesting. DEVINE: And it`s contributed to it. And in Nevada where a poll came out last week, Bernie was at 34 in Nevada. The NBC poll that came out today saying his support with Latinos had shot up to the mid 30s. I think we can see a nominating process beginning in those states where Bernie Sanders can do very, very well. Second, we`re building a fund-raising mechanism that will allow us to compete effectively with the Clinton campaign. I believe as of today we have as much cash on hand as they do. I look very closely at their reports. They`ve got some liabilities there. They`ve got some spending I think that`s going to be reflected probably in the next quarter and not in this one. And I think we`re going to be able to go toe to toe with them because we`ve built a fund-raising mechanism that is from the bottom up and not the top down. 99.9 percent of the people that have contributed to Bernie Sanders` campaign can contribute again. We`ve raised more money, had more contributors in the first two quarters than any presidential campaign in history, including Barack Obama`s re-election as president of the United States. So what we`re building is something that can go the distance. We`ll have the resources. I think we have the best message. I think we have a very strong messenger. And I think we have a very good chance of winning this nomination. HAYES: So, you -- what I`m hearing from you in some ways is -- this isn`t -- you know, sometimes you`ll see a campaign with high stakes play for Iowa and New Hampshire, right. We`ve got to come in there or the momentum would ebb. What I`m hearing from you is you feel the donor base, the small donor base that has been built by the campaign, the operation, the grassroots organizing you`ve done, means that you can create a viable campaign that can move past the first two, three, four contests into South Carolina, head toward Super Tuesday and actually just -- and keep essentially raising enough money to keep that going. DEVINE: That`s right. And I`ll tell you, as a test case of this theory, in the last two weeks since we had a big push at the end of the last quarter and then the debate which has been a phenomenal fund-raising event. We have raised more money in small dollar contributions, under $200, in those two weeks than Hillary Clinton`s campaign did in the previous three months. We`re building something that can be potentially very big and unprecedented. And by the way, it reflects what Bernie Sanders wants to do. He wanted to build a campaign that could take on a corrupt system of fund- raising in America. And he`s doing it in the real world. HAYES: So then the question becomes -- you talked about the advertising. I was looking at your FEC report, there`s been essentially zero. You guys have not done a lot of TV ad buys. DEVINE: None. HAYES: None, right? So that`s going to happen at some point, right? I mean, you guys are going to have to go big up on the air at a some point, particularly in Iowa and New Hampshire. DEVINE: Yeah, we will, Chris. We`ve got the resources to do it now. You know, I`ve estimated -- they`ve spent $5 million on TV in Iowa and New Hampshire. I think probably another million and a half on production and research to go with that TV. They`re close to 7 million in expenditure. We`re at zero in the same column. The only way we`re going to beat them is to force them to spend down and to have more resources closer to the election when it counts. I think that reflects our strategy. It also reflects the way Bernie approaches campaigns. He`s a very grassroots kind of guy. He`s built organizations like this all his life. We will be there with the media. We will have the resources to do it. And we`ll compete for voters when they`re paying the most attention, which is later, not earlier. HAYES: Tad Devine, you know your briefing book. You`ve been looking at those numbers. You`ve got that spreadsheet in your head. And that was a very, very articulate, transparent look at the strategy. Really appreciate it. Thank you. DEVINE: Good to be with you. HAYES: All right, coming up, the shocking report that Exxon hid research supporting the existence of manmade climate change while publicly enforce the agenda of climate change denial. That`s next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t believe that nicotine or our products are addictive. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe nicotine is not addictive. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe that nicotine is not addictive. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe that nicotine is not addictive. UNIDENITIFIED MALE: And I, too, believe that nicotine is not addictive. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: We now know of course those gentlemen were lying. A series of investigations and lawsuits later revealed that big tobacco knew full well cigarettes were not only addictive but massively harmful to human health. And that was the scandal, not just that their product was dangerous, but that they knew it was dangerous and addictive and lied about it for decades. It`s why the tobacco companies have had to pay billions of dollars in settlements and why in 2006 they were found guilty of civil fraud and racketeering for deceiving the public to maintain profits. Now, some bombshell new reporting suggests a possible parallel in the fossil fuel industry. Since the mid `90s Exxonmobil has spent millions of dollars to spread denial and doubt about manmade climate change. In 1997 then chairman Lee Raymond campaigned fiercely against the Kyoto protocol telling a conference in Beijing, "the case for so-called global warming is far from air tight. There`s a lot we really don`t know about how climate will change in the 21st Century and beyond." But recent reports by the L.A. Times and the Pulitzer prize-winning "Inside Climate News" document how Exxon`s own scientists were researching and drawing conclusions about climate change as far back as 1977. One of them reportedly informed the company`s management committee, "there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels." Then toward the end of the 1980s "Inside Climate News" reports "Exxon curtailed its carbon dioxide research." But even that in the early `90s researchers and engineers at Exxon and a subsidiary were still incorporating climate projection models into their planning for arctic operations according to the L.A. Times. In response, two California congressmen have now written a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking her to open the same kind of investigation into Exxonmobil the government pursued against big tobacco. Joining me now, Neela Bannerjee. She`s a senior reporter for "Inside Climate News." And Neil, how much do we know about what Exxon knew and when inside their company about what essentially their product was doing to the atmosphere? NEELA BANNERJEE, INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS: I think at this point we know quite a lot. Exxon, one of their senior scientists told a management committee, which is the top executives of the corporation, in 1977 in a very neutral report about the emerging science of climate change. And from then on Exxon not only tracked the science but they did their own in-house research that was on par with anything that academics or the government were doing. And in fact, academia and the government welcomed Exxon`s research. And the reason Exxon was doing this was because they knew that if the science was true that at some point there would be limits on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and they thought at that time in the late 70s and 80s that the best way to address those possible limits or constraints would be to do really good science so they could have a seat at the table and a legitimate voice in the process. HAYES: So that`s fascinating. So, their scientists way back 38 years ago are saying, look, the stuff that we pull out of the ground when it gets burned releases carbon dioxide and that is heating the Earth, we`ve got scientists coming to some agreement on this, and they`re thinking OK, well, we`re a company that`s made of scientists, right? I mean, a place like Exxon, petrochemical companies and fossil fuel companies depend on scientists for everything they do. We need to sort of know this science so that when inevitably they come to regulate us we could have a negotiation about that. But then they also started doing something else, right? Which was essentially funding folks to confuse people about the science itself. BANNERJEE: Well, you know, there was some overlap in that. But basically -- so the period that "Inside Climate News" looked at was from about 1977 to 1986. And at that time they weren`t involved in any denial activities. I mean, they actually talked about uncertainty, but they talked about uncertainty in the way that other scientists in academia and government did. Their questions were not beyond the pale. And so what we have gathered is that at around 1989 that marks when there was a shift in the internal thinking and the thinking at the executive level about what to do on climate change. And that was when Exxon joined this group called the Global Climate Coalition, which sounds very green, but in fact they were put together to fight any policy reaction to climate change. HAYES: So instead of -- I mean, at a certain point they decided oh, rather than just accept this as a fait accompli, this thing`s going to get regulated, and figure out how we can manage, maybe we can just confuse people or be part of a large effort to muddy the waters enough that we can just keep doing what we`re doing. BANNERJEE: You know, we -- our research hasn`t gone that far. And I think other people have done that research about what they were involved in, but there was some kind of decision made that the approach to have a seat at the table by doing cutting-edge research was just not the way to go for them, and they decided that it was not enough just to be neutral and to, you know, keep producing fossil fuels but that actually they needed to be a very loud and articulate voice about the uncertainty and about -- and use the uncertainty as a wedge to kind of confuse the issue, yes. HAYES: Neela Banerjee, "Inside Climate News," thank you very much. Coming up, he`s directed Trainspotting, Slum Dog Millionaire, 28 Days Later, now he`s taking on the story of Steve Jobs. My interview with Danny Boyle, fascinating guy, ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Some stunning video out of southern California where torrential downpours trigger mudslides and flash flooding late Thursday. Nearly 40 miles of interstate 5 were completely shut down today and only partially reopened tonight. Rivers of mud swallowed cars stranding hundreds of drivers. The severe drought makes the region especially vulnerable to flash flooding. More thunderstorms are expected in Southern California later tonight and over the weekend. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: There are some major developments concerning the U.S. airstrike that killed 22 people at a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders in Afghanistan. As the Associated Press reports, American special operations analysts were gathering intelligence on the hospital just days before it was destroyed by a U.S. military attack. According to the AP, those analysts believed it was being used by a Pakistani operative to coordinate Taliban activity. What is still unclear at this time, the AP reports, is whether the commanders who ordered the air strike were aware the site was a hospital or knew about the allegations of possible enemy activity within it. Earlier this month, an American aircraft, an AC-130 gunship, attacked a hospital being run by Doctors Without Borders in Kunduz, Afghanistan. Kunduz had been recently overtaken by the Taliban and Afghan and American forces were in the process of retaking it. The air strike on the hospital run by the Nobel prize-winning non- profit killed 22 people. In the days since that strike, the Pentagon story on what transpired and why has shifted. The key to understanding what really happened as NBC News`s Jim Miklaszewski reports, may come from gun, camera video and cockpit recordings from inside the AC-130 gunship. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JIM MIKLASZEWSKI, NBC NEWS: The cockpit audio that was taken during that time, we`re told that some of the military on board the air force special operations forces who fly those gunships and fire the weapons expressed some concern about the target itself and at least one person apparently questioned whether the air strike was legal. Now, the people we`re talking to indicate that it could be a war crime if in fact the crew on board knew it was a hospital and that there were civilians inside. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: All right, those details have yet to be definitively established. But in the meantime Doctors Without Borders continues to call for an independent international investigation. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Apple co-founder Steven Jobs has a favorite story about Apple`s impact on the country. He told it this year at the annual shareholders meeting. STEVE JOBS, CO-FOUNDER APPLE COMPUTER: I received a letter from a 6- and-a-half-year-old boy a few months ago, which to me completely sums up what we`ve accomplished in the last few years. And it reads, "Dear Mr. Jobs, I was doing a crossword puzzle and a clue was as American as Apple blank. I thought the answer was computer, but my mom said it was pie." (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Steve Jobs is as American as apple pie, up there with Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Benjamin Franklin -- larger than life, American inventor who helped shape the world as it is today. And now, well, I should say once again he is the subject of a new film. Steve Jobs, it opens nationwide October 23rd written by Aaron Sorkin, who won the Oscar for Social Network about the founding of Facebook, and directed by Danny Boyle who an Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire. The movie looks at Steve Jobs in three different phases of his career, each involving the launch a particular project. And it shows Jobs as an incredibly driven person obsessed with control. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t feel rejected. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re sure? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very sure. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because it`s not like the baby is born, the parents look and say nah, we`re not interested in this one. On the other hand, someone did choose you. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s having no control. You find out you`re out of the loop when the most crucial events of your life were set in motion. As long as you have control. I don`t understand people who give it up. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: I recently sat down with director Danny Boyle and began by asking why he doesn`t consider this film a biopic in the traditional sense of the word. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) DANNY BOYLE, DIRECTOR: It`s about this guy, Steve Jobs, and he`s -- if you had to -- his motto was think different, right? OK. That`s a big thing about him. And of course that`s what this does. It`s like Sorkin, Aaron Sorkin the writer, he chooses not to do a conventional biopic, which is you know, the biopic, the skimming stone that hits on all the best bits, and cradle to grave and stuff like that. He just does something completely different which is that he takes three iconic moments and actually just looks behind them immediately. And you get an insight into a guy that you think you know about. We have a wealth of information we think we have about him. And it tries to actually reassemble that behind the scenes, literally behind the scenes. HAYES: So that`s interesting. When you say it was amazing that what you were reacting to in some ways is the deftness of that structural innovation that Sorkin brings to it, right, to take -- which comes through in the movie, right. I mean, it`s -- you -- that is a very unconventional way of telling the story BOYLE: It is. Because he revolutionized a lot of industries. I mean, like half a dozen. I mean, unbelievable: music, animation, computers, phones, desktop publishing and product launches. And they used -- there`s a joke in the Walter Isaacson book, that he was to product launches what Vatican 2 is to church meetings. I mean, he literally reinvented the whole thing and said this is it. And everybody`s followed the template now and they launch toothbrushes now. I mean, anything they`ll launch with a kind of CEO walking around and kind of chatting in a friendly style. So to take those -- to take that public image of him, which is the image he wanted to give you, and to go wait, justify before you get to that, in the 40 minutes before he walks out on stage, here are six important people and what happens to them and him in the moments before he walks out on stage. It`s a wonderful like OK, I have to rethink what I think. You know, I have to think different. So that was the idea of it. HAYES: When I think about you I think about Slumdog Millionaire, which is this massive exuberant tapestry, extremely colorful, a million different locations, right? And this is people talking in rooms, basically, like how do you approach that as a director? BOYLE: There`s a couple of things really. You say what`s the organic life of it? And of course it`s this man`s restlessness, actually, which is as restless as Mumbai. You know, so you`re actually doing it through the... HAYES: That`s the animating energy that`s... BOYLE: Yeah. That drives the film, really. And you`re driving it through him. And we always used to say it`s the sound of his mind, which is a wonderful image of the idea of this. And he`s restless. And it`s his refusal to slow down or look back which drives a lot of the tension of both personal with his daughter and refusing to acknowledge that she was his daughter, and friendship, professionally with Woz. He will not acknowledge that the shoulders of giants that he`s standing on. He refuses to do that. He is the innovator. He will only look forward. He doesn`t want to look back. We`re not going that way, we`re going that way. So you get this kind of restlessness that you get in a city like Mumbai, and then you kind of like -- you build on that. HAYES: You try to kind of cage that because you`re getting him -- you know, so much of it is driven by him, by that sort of restlessness, the sound of his mind. And also this -- the conflict. I mean, the fact that he bumps up against everyone who`s sort of in his path. BOYLE: And he`s uncompromising. I mean, it`s a wonderful thing for drama. You find this uncompromising character, willful. I mean, his heroes were King Lear and Ahab from Moby Dick, you know, willful reality distortion figures who believe they can change the world. And he did change the world. And what are the costs of actually doing that is obviously the human side of the story really. But the energy of the piece comes from the character. HAYES: Fassbender`s performance is fascinating. And one of the first things that struck me about it was I realized that as iconic as Steve Jobs is if you asked me to do a Steve Jobs impersonation I`d have nothing. I can conjure the guy. I can think of him. And if you asked me to do like a Bill Clinton impersonation I could do it, right? So in some ways it`s -- even though he`s playing this iconic figure he doesn`t have to do that kind of caricature thing because in some ways we think of Jobs, we think -- I don`t think we associate a sort of set of personality quirks, deliverance quirks. So you just -- I found you just believe him as Jobs right away. BOYLE: Yeah. That was always the idea is that it wouldn`t be about slavishly trying to actually make him look like him every kind of moment. You trust a different, slightly more intangible process where the actor is working from the inside out. So it`s not about the outside getting everything looking right, getting the mannerisms, all that kind of stuff. You make a few gestures towards it, but the rest is up to the actor and working internally. And there`s an extraordinary thing went on in this process, this kind of meta process in a way, which is Michael Fassbender kind of battling with the script, almost in the way that Steve was battling with the forces that we were resisting. And he finally manages to get on top of it. So he came to dominate it in a way that it was interesting. Jeff Daniels, who`d worked with Sorkin`s material before, said that you have to, once you get on top of it, once you battle your way to the top of it and dominate it, it`s a ride then, you know, it`s got a kind of rhythm that just feels like it`s not everyday speech. It`s way too fast. The sharpness of thinking is unbelievable. But it feels like it is, like we`d want to be. And he became that. And it becomes effortless in a way. And he would -- we were fascinated, the crew, everybody, watching him in that third section. He was just riding it then. And he could have almost done anything. He could have read a cookbook to us for hours on end and we would have just sat there mesmerized by it. And you realize that he`d arrived at this point where it is the crest of the wave. It was going to break over everyone and the world was going to change. And of course it`s a great moment for drama where you go that`s great, the success is great, but what have you got to do personally? You know, on the personal level. And he has to make -- he has to be reconciled with his daughter. He has to admit, as he does, and it`s self-knowledge, that he is the author of the most wonderful -- wonderfully made products but he is also at the same time himself poorly made. And in that he finds a kind of redemption, I suppose, with his daughter. HAYES: Danny Boyle, real pleasure. Enjoyed it. Thank you very much. BOYLE: Thanks, Chris. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: That is All In for the evening. Rachel Maddow Show starts right now. Good evening, Rachel. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END