All In With Chris Hayes, Transcript 3/16/2016

Guests:
Elizabeth Warren, Joel Simon, Olivia Nuzzi, Dick Durbin, Bill de Blasio
Transcript:

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
Date: March 16, 2016
Guest: Elizabeth Warren, Joel Simon, Olivia Nuzzi, Dick Durbin, Bill de
Blasio

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

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

(SINGING)

HAYES: Hillary Clinton celebrates her biggest night yet.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are moving closer to
securing the Democratic Party nomination and winning this election in
November.

(CHEERS)

HAYES: While chaos reigns on the Republican side, with threats from the
front-runner.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don`t think you can say that
we don`t get it automatically. I think it would be – I think you`d have
riots. I think you`d have riots.

HAYES: Senator Elizabeth Warren joins me to discuss both races and the
major story out of the White House today.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I am nominating Chief Judge
Merrick Brian Garland to join the Supreme Court.

(APPLAUSE)

HAYES: Then, we`ll look at Trump`s war on the media.

TRUMP: Some really disgusting people back there.

HAYES: And speak with one of the few elected leaders openly calling him a
racist. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Plus, the two elections last night that proved the power of Black Lives
Matter, when ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

And somehow, amidst the most turbulent election cycle of recent memory, the
past 24 hours have been, perhaps, the most frenzied bringing into sharp
relief the very different directions that America`s two major political
parties are currently headed.

On the one hand, we have a Democratic Party that while confronting
significant internal disputes over its principles, policy, and future is
working out those differences through a fairly straightforward process.
And on the other hand, a Republican party in complete chaos, both on the
campaign trail, and in Washington, hurdling towards total institutional
collapse and threatening to take the rest of the country with it.

Last night was the biggest one yet for Hillary Clinton whose path to the
Democratic nomination is now clearer than ever. She won five big states
over Bernie sanders giving her a bigger delegate lead than President Obama
held at any point in his 2008 contest with her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Let`s stand with everyone who believes America`s best days are
ahead of us. For all of our challenges, I`ve never had more faith in our
future and if we work together, if we go forward in this campaign, if we
win in November, I know our future will be brighter tomorrow than
yesterday.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Having steadily picked up pledged delegates since Iowa, Clinton now
needs to win just 35 percent of the remainder of pledged delegates to
clinch the nomination. Sanders on the other hand would need 65 percent of
all the remaining delegates, a feat his campaign maintains is possible
given the states yet to come on the primary calendar.

This morning in Washington, the man that both of them are running to
succeed now at his highest approval rating in almost three years fulfilled
his role in another process crucial to American democracy, appointing
Supreme Court justices.

President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the 63-year-old chief judge of
the D.C. Circuit Court, to fill the vacancy left by the late Justice
Antonin Scalia. Garland is regarded as a moderate jurist, well-regarded on
both sides of the aisle. And as recently as last Friday, Republican
Senator Orrin Hatch said President Obama could easily name him, calling
Garland a fine man adding the president, quote, “probably won`t do that
because this appointment is about the election, so I`m pretty sure he`ll
name someone the liberal Democratic base wants.”

In his announcement this morning, President Obama called on the Republican-
led Senate to do its part in the constitutional process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: To suggest that someone who has served his country with honor and
dignity, with a distinguished track record of delivering justice for the
American people, might be treated as one Republican leader stated as a
political pinata – that can`t be right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Republicans on Capitol Hill like their party at large responded by
thrashing around between all out norm-defying maximalism and trying to look
reasonable and accept political realities, as he did within hours of
Scalia`s sudden death, Mitch McConnell wasted no time in rejecting outright
the president`s prerogative.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: Let`s let the American
people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it
considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Several at-risk Senate Republicans who will be up for election,
including Susan Collins, Kelly Ayotte, even judiciary chair Chuck Grassley
have all said they`d be open to meeting with Garland. And now, lawmakers
are reportedly talking behind the scenes about confirming him in a lame
duck session if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency.

While refusing to hear a holding on the nominee takes the GOP`s
congressional dysfunction to new lows, it pales in comparison to the state
of crisis in the Republican primary. Donald Trump won four out of five of
the state contests held last night. More than doubling his lead over Ted
Cruz and forcing Marco Rubio, who lost his home state of Florida, to drop
out of the race. Trump now needs to win 55 percent of the remaining
delegates to secure the nomination, difficult but distinctly possible.
Cruz needs 80 percent and John Kasich needs a mathematically impossible 106
percent even after winning Ohio last night.

Those odds explain why Kasich is now openly banking on a contested
convention and Cruz is heaping praise on Marco Rubio after months of trying
to tear him down.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. JOHN KASICH (R-OH), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It is unlikely that
anybody is going to achieve enough delegates to avoid a convention.
They`re going to look at somebody who could actually be president of the
United States who has a record.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Marco is a good man. He ran
an honorable, a strong campaign, but Marco Rubio`s supporters, we`re
welcoming them to join us. We`ve seen that happening all across the
country, Marco supporters coming to join us and it`s time for the
Republican Party to unite.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: According to “Politico”, a group of conservatives, including Erick
Erickson is meeting tomorrow to discuss a potential third-party run against
Donald Trump. While former House Speaker John Boehner is backing a
candidate who`s not even running.

The GOP`s perpetual white knight, current Speaker Paul Ryan, after
initially declining to rule it out, Ryan said in a statement he wouldn`t
accept the nomination. But don`t forget, that`s exactly what he said about
being speaker of the house. And look where he is now.

Meanwhile, as Donald Trump`s lead in the delegate count continues to
expand, so does his control over the Republican Party, itself. After Trump
warned of riots in the case of a contested convention this morning,
implicitly threatening violence to make sure he gets his way, RNC spokesman
Sean Spicer actually came to his defense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I think you`d have riots. I think you`d have riots. You know, we
have – I`m representing a tremendous, many, many millions of people.

SEAN SPICER, RNC SPOKESMAN: Yes, I assume he`s speaking figuratively. I
think if we go into convention, whoever gets 1,237 delegates becomes the
nominee.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: A Trump surrogate later said in an interview that the party tries
to overall its voters, quote, “Riots aren`t necessarily a bad thing.”

Today, after Trump dropped out of next Monday`s Republican debate, the RNC
and FOX News decided to, well, cancel it all together, sending a clear
signal to the current front-runner, “Yes, Mr. Trump, right away, Mr.
Trump.”

I got a chance to speak earlier with Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat
from Massachusetts, about all this and I started by asking what she makes
the Republican response to President Obama`s Supreme Court nomination.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: You know, the most – one of the
most solemn undertakings that we have in government is filling a vacancy on
the United States Supreme Court. The president has just completed his
constitutional duty, Article 2 Section 2. He has nominated someone to fill
that vacancy.

And now, what we want is for the Republicans to join us in doing the job
that the Senate is supposed to do. Hold our hearings and have a vote.
Give our advice and consent on this nominee.

It`s pretty straightforward. It`s there in the Constitution. What we`re
asking for is do your job.

HAYES: Do you think there`s a relationship between – I mean, we`re seeing
the Republican Party in some ways come apart at the seams through this
nomination process, the primary that`s happening. The folks that you work
with, your colleagues represent essentially the establishment to the extent
there is one, their elected leaders.

Do you see a relationship between the behavior of your colleagues and –
who are senators and what`s happening in this primary?

WARREN: So, look, what they`re doing right now at the Supreme Court is
completely unprecedented. There`s never been anything like this in
history.

But I have to say, the Republicans in the Senate have been building this
for a long time because they have truly given in to the extremists in the
party. Remember that right after President Obama was re-elected in 2012 by
5 million votes that the response of Republicans in the Senate was to try
to block him from filling any of three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals, second most important court in the United States.

Tried to block him from filling any vacancy on the NLRB. Why? So they
could shut down the NLRB because thaw wouldn`t have a quorum.

Tried to keep him from naming anyone to the Environmental Protection
Agency, as secretary of labor, to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Why? Because they were trying to hold those as vacant so they could shut
down parts of government.

And when you`ve given into your extremists like that, when the whole
animating of energy, of the United States Senate, is in effect to try to
deny the legitimacy of the president who was democratically elected, the
legitimacy of what`s called for in the Constitution means they really have
just gone the extremist route, and let`s face it, Trump is the natural
consequence of that.

So, I think all these pieces are weaving together and they`ve all hit this
high point now or low point with Trump as the presidential nominee and
Senate Republicans having picked this position that says, we`re not going
to even hold hearings and a vote on a vacancy in the United States Supreme
Court basically for a year. This is really pretty stunning.

HAYES: And when you put the two together, you have the last nominee that
this party nominated, Mitt Romney, calling the current front-runner
essentially a charlatan, a fraud, a con artist, possibly a threat to the
republic, and at the same time, his party saying we must preserve this
seat, so said charlatan, fraud, con artist may be able to fill it in the
future.

WARREN: Exactly. And look how Mitt Romney plays into all of this. The
kinds of things I was talking about, where the Senate Republicans said, we
don`t want anyone for the next four years in the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals, we don`t want anyone over at the NLRB because we just want to shut
it down.

Where was Mitt Romney then? Where were the supposedly cooler heads of the
Republican Party at that point? The answer is, they were in bed with the
extremists.

HAYES: Right.

WARREN: And now, look what they`ve got on their hands.

HAYES: Are you someone who is scared by Donald Trump? Do you find what`s
happening around his rallies, around his rhetoric deeply worrisome, scary?

WARREN: I take Donald Trump very seriously. What he is promoting is a
form of hate that is virulent and that is bad for this country.

My view on it is this. It`s time for all of us to speak out, Republican,
Democrat, independent, libertarian, vegetarian, everybody, to say no to The
Donald. We cannot have a man like this as a serious candidate for
president and have him threatening to take over the White House.

This is not a reality show. This is real life and this is our country and
when we`re talking about president of the United States, we got to take a
deep breath here and get really serious. Not Donald Trump.

HAYES: You`ve been very careful about your relationship to the primary on
the Democratic side. You have not endorsed either candidate. I – my
sense is you don`t really love talking about it but I would feel remiss if
I didn`t ask you about it. A lot of people are asking if you will endorse,
if you have plans to endorse before the convention, and what your current
thinking is on the race.

WARREN: Let me say one thing about it – as you call it my relationship to
the primary. The way I think of it, I`ve been cheering them on because I
am really proud to be a Democrat and this primary has made me prouder, even
prouder to be a Democrat.

Why? Because our candidates are out there talking about the issues. Our
candidates are out there debating the very best way to make sure that our
young people can get an education without being crushed by debt. Our
candidates are out there talking about trade deals that leave workers in
the dirt and saying that we`re not going to support that kind of thing
anymore.

Our candidates are out there talking about how we get more money into
rebuilding infrastructure, roads and bridges so that we have better jobs
not overseas but right here in America. Our candidates are having the kind
of debate that we should be having in a democracy. It makes me proud, and
I got to tell you, it makes clear the difference between Democrats and,
boy, that show that`s going on over on the Republican side.

So, right now, I tell you what my timeline is, I like what we`re doing on
the Democratic side and I think it`s what we ought to be doing.

HAYES: All right. Senator Elizabeth Warren, as always, a great pleasure.
Thank you for joining us. I appreciate it.

WARREN: Good to talk to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HAYES: Still a come, a chilling message from the Republican front-runner
as he took the stage from his victory speech last night. Donald Trump`s
escalating fight with the media is next.

Plus, breaking news stemming from the violent scene at last week`s Donald
Trump rally.

And later, on the heels of a Hillary Clinton sweep last night, New York
City Mayor Bill de Blasio on his candidate`s path forward and candid
remarks about Donald Trump`s, quote, “racist appeal”.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: All right. Last night when Republican voters in Illinois went to
the polls, they weren`t just voting for a presidential candidate. They
were also voting for delegates like the actual people, the delegates who
are tied to a candidate who are going to actually go to the convention to,
you know, support, say, Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, and the assumption being
that if you vote for Donald Trump, you vote for his delegates. You vote
for Ted Cruz, you just vote for his delegates.

But last night, for Trump in Illinois, that didn`t happen. As Dave
Wasserman of “The Cook Political Report” first noted tweeting, quote,
“Interesting GOP result in Illinois` sixth district. Two Trump-bound
delegates named Barbara Kois and Paul Minch won, but a third named Nabi
Fakroddin lost.” In fact, Trump`s delegate, a person who`s gong to be vote
for Trump, Nabi Fakroddin, received almost 5,000 less votes than Trump`s
other two delegates in that very same district, costing him the third spot
and Donald Trump a delegate to take at the convention.

Today, Wasserman notes Trump supporters` apparent diversion to foreign-
sounding names ended up potentially costing him three of the state`s 69
delegates. So, if Trump comes up short of the number of delegates he needs
by, say, two or three he may have foreign-name-averse supporters to thank
for it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: All right. We have an update on the violence that broke out at a
Trump rally last Wednesday when an apparent Trump supporter violently
smashed a protester in the face when being escorted out of the Trump rally.

The Cumberland County, North Carolina sheriff said he has disciplined five
deputies following a professional standards investigation, with three
deputies demoted in rank for their actions following that assault. Because
while the protester after being attack ended up on the floor surrounded by
sheriff`s deputies, the alleged assailant just walked away and he was not
arrested until the following day. He even took time after the rally to
give an interview saying he liked, quote, “clocking the hell out of that
big mouth.”

As for Trump, himself, last night, he took the stage for a standard
election night event, a press conference in front of a row of American
flags in the Donald J. Trump grand ballroom in Trump`s Mar-A-Lago estate in
Palm Beach, Florida.

And despite billing the event as a press conference, Trump didn`t actually
take any question from the press. Not a single one. What Trump did do,
unlike in past campaign events, is position his campaign manager Corey
Lewandowski in a very prominent spot just to his side behind him in full
view of the cameras, even offering Lewandowski a personal shout-out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Corey, good job, Corey. Good job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Trump`s decision to publicly thank Lewandowski last night was
striking since Lewandowski is literally the subject of criminal complaint
filed last week by now former Breitbart conservative reporter Michelle
Fields who alleged that Lewandowski grabbed her tightly by the arm and
yanked her down when she tried to ask Trump a question, leaving bruises on
her arm.

The incident was followed by a report in “Politico” about, quote,
“Lewandowski`s quick temper and heavy-handed leadership,” which included
claims that at a previous job, Lewandowski called a female subordinate a
“C” word, and more recently had made sexually suggestive and at times
vulgar comments to and about female journalists who have covered Trump`s
presidential bid, something Lewandowski denies.

Following a pattern with the Trump, one of the reporters who wrote that
piece, Ben Schreckinger was denied entry into Trump`s press conference last
night. On a radio show today, Lewandowski denied blacklisting reporters,
saying he has, quote, “a great relationship with these people.”

Now, Trump has often lambasted the media as scum, and lying, disgusting
people, among other harsh attacks. Last night was no different. Keep an
eye on how Lewandowski, who is to the left of Trump, reacts as Trump
unleashes his latest assault on members of the fourth estate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Lies, deceit, viciousness, disgusting reporters, horrible people.
Sure, some are nice. Some are nice. Some really disgusting people back
there.

(CHEERS)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: He seemed to enjoy that, didn`t he?

Joining me now, Olivia Nuzzi, political director at “The Daily Beast”, and
Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalist.

Olivia, you covered this campaign. Lewandowski in a radio interview
basically saying the idea we back list is preposterous, of course, we don`t
do that. Why don`t you say that?

OLIVIA NUZZI, THE DAILY BEAST: I would like to know why I have not been
granted press credentials to Donald Trump`s events since November. I`m one
of the reporters who has not been permitted to enter those events, his
rallies with the press. I have to go in with the public, which is fine.
It`s a little bit of an inconvenience.

But the idea they`re not blacklisting the media, that they`re not
retaliating against people who have covered him critically and I think
accurately is just totally ridiculous.

HAYES: Trip Gabriel, a “New York Times” reporter, back in Iowa had written
a piece about the ground operation, critical of the ground operation there
and he found himself essentially blacklisted at an event as well.

Joel, you wrote a post for “The Columbia Journalism Review” about concerns
about Trump. You know, let me play devil`s advocate. Every campaign tries
to essentially intimidate and cajole and seduce reporters in some
combination. Why is Trump any different?

JOEL SIMON, COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALIST: Well, the difference is that
Trump, himself, is a media outlet. He has such a huge following on social
media, 6.8 million followers on Twitter, that he can control his message in
a way that`s unprecedented. He doesn`t need the press in the same way.
And so, he can treat journalists with disdain, with contempt, he can call
them names, have them manhandled at his events, and he still gets precisely
the coverage he wants.

HAYES: What do you think about when you think about what the press should
do in response to that?

SIMON: I mean, the problem is that Trump has sort of gamed the system.
The fundamental difference here is the power between the media and the
candidate has shifted. That is why Trump is behaving the way he does and
this is part of a global dynamic. Everywhere in the world, committee to
protect journalists, we`re primarily a frontline organization, we`re
concerned when journalists working in conflict zones and repressive
societies.

But everywhere in the world, those in power are treating the press in this
way, in this aggressive way because they don`t need journalists in the way
they once did.

HAYES: You know, Olivia, it strikes me the press right now is doing
exactly what the Republican establishment did, which is a collective action
problem, right? People want to book Donald Trump because he rates well.
He`s also the story right now on the Republican side. From a news value
perspective, there`s no question about that.

And so, everyone`s competing with each other. And if “The Daily Beast”
gets kicked out of the thing, well, that`s one less thing to deal with.
And this precisely the way the Republican establishment tried to deal with
him until they came up to find that this collective action problem needed a
collective solution, it was too late.

NUZZI: Exactly. I think, you know, the thing is it`s not just the power
dynamic has shifted with Donald Trump. I also think it doesn`t matter how
we cover him, it`s not as if the networks or print journalists are saying,
oh, Donald Trump is so great and this coverage is terrific for him.

The coverage has been critical since he announced his campaign nine months
ago. But the difference here is his supporters just don`t care. Nothing
is getting through to them. Nothing is making them change their mind about
him.

So, it`s not that he`s his own media outlet, which is undeniably true.
Every candidate in their own way is with their own Twitter account and with
social media in general. But it`s also that nothing can take Donald Trump
down so far. No story has been able to shift the narrative here. No story
has been able to make his supporters reconsider.

And that`s very different. Normally what happens is a candidate gets
critical press then they suffer in the polls.

HAYES: Right.

NUZZI: Their support goes to someone else.

We see this happen with Carly Fiorina, with Ben Carson, or last cycle with
every other candidate that surged whether it was Michele Bachmann or Herman
Cain.

But we`re not seeing it this time because Trump is so different, and I
think really it`s that Trump has been a public figure for so long, he`s a
celebrity for so long, a tabloid fixture. There`s nothing people don`t
already know about him.

And so, there`s no new information the media can introduce for the most
part that is going to make anyone see him in a new light. He`s sort of
like Hillary Clinton in that way. People are set in stone about how they
feel about him.

HAYES: When people talk about him as a sort of authoritarian, an
inclination. He said, one of the things we do when we win we`re going to
open up those libel laws, when “The New York Times” writes a hit piece, a
total disgrace, when “The Washington Post” which for other reasons writes a
hit piece, we can sue them, win money, instead of no chance of winning
because they`re totally protected.

SIMON: Yes, this is – this is his fantasy. And I do think it appeals to
a lot of his followers. They, like him, have a certain contempt for the
press.

HAYES: Everyone does.

SIMON: Well, you know, everyone does.

HAYES: Often, it`s hard to blame them.

SIMON: Unless you live in a repressive society, and then that`s when you
need the press. That`s what people are forgetting here.

HAYES: I would remiss if I didn`t show this graph from “The New York
Times” about the earned media as it`s called that he has gotten in his
campaign which is just astounding. It`s much larger than all the other
candidates combined.

And to Olivia`s point, I think there`s important thing, as people talk
about that, people I encounter day-to-day, who think this is a cause for
his rise. Keep in mind that Donald Trump is 29 points under water in
national favorability studies right now. No one running for president at
this point has never been a nominee this low.

So, it`s not that it`s not impacting the way people think about him, it`s
not just impacting the 40 percent of the Republican electorate that keeps
voting for him.

Olivia Nuzzi and Joel Simon, thanks for being with me. I appreciate it.

SIMON: Thank you.

NUZZI: Thank you.

HAYES: All right. Ahead, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, the big wins
last night for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and what that means for the
race.

And there were two massive upsets in last night`s results, thanks in part
to the Black Lives Matter movement. That story is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Last night`s primaries didn`t come from the national presidential
contest but at the local level. Two incumbent prosecutors were not only
challenged in Democratic primary contests, they were ultimately denied
another term by voters.

Now, it is incredibly rare for an incumbent prosecutor to face such a
challenge. Election data shows that about 95 percent of incumbent
prosecutors win re-election and 85 percent run unopposed in general
elections.

The two incumbents who lost last night were each associated with highly
controversial cases.

In Cuyahoga County, Ohio, which includes the city of Cleveland, Timothy
McGinnty, the county prosecutor, did not seek criminal charges against the
police officers involved in the shooting death of 12-year-old Tamir Rice.
McGinnty lost last night to Democratic primary challenger Michael
O`Malley.

And in Illinois, Cook County states attorney Anita Alvarez also lost her
bid for re-election.

Alvarez was under fire after waiting 400 days before charging the police
officer who shot
17-year-old Laquan McDonald in Chicago with first-degree murder. She
finally announced the charges just hours before this video of the shooting
was finally released to the public after a court order.

Alvarez faced a Democratic primary challenge from a woman who used to work
for her in the
state`s attorney`s office. Kim Fox, her challenger, who is now the odds-on
favorite to be the next
state`s attorney for Cook County has a pretty incredible personal story.
She drew up in the notorious
Cabrini Green (ph) public housing development, survived sexual abuse and
endured homelessness and last night she defeated Alvarez by a whopping 30
points telling supporters her victory was about
turning the page.

I was in Chicago yesterday. And I got a chance to speak with Ms. Fox ahead
of her primary win.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HAYES: I think it`s fair to say that you grew up in and come from a
community that`s quite heavily policed in Chicago. You grew up in public
housing. You, yourself, have been a victim of crime, yourself. You have
experience as a prosecutor in the same office.

You said you want to get rid of the tough on crime boogeyman, which is
crazy talk for a prosecutor. I mean, no prosecutor talks that way.

KIM FOX, PROSECUTOR: Yeah. I mean…

HAYES: What are you doing?

FOX: Historically, prosecutors talk in this, like, counting on the table,
I`m going to lock up
people for as long as I possibly can and really try to scare people to vote
for you. What we`ve seen, the data has born out that those policies have a
disproportionate impact on poor communities, largely poor communities of
color. And it`s destabilizing. And what we`ve done, we have not really
dealt with the issues of crime and violence, we`ve dealt with people with
low level offenses. And when they come out of our criminal justice system,
they`re going back to the exact same neighborhoods that are lacking in
resources, employment, mental health, public health and that is where the
issues of crimes rise.

HAYES: But wait a second, people can point to the crime statistics both
Chicago and nationally and say, no, crime has come down. In fact, violent
crime has fallen to 30, 40-year lows in certain places. In Chicago, it`s
higher than other places per capita, but still much lower than it was in
1992 or 1998 or 2004. I mean, maybe it`s working and you`re going to screw
it up?

FOX: It`s not working.

If you go to neighborhoods on the west side, south sides of Chicago and you
look at those –
the decimation of some of those neighborhoods in terms of investment,
(inaudible) the unemployment rate, and then you find that even though crime
is lower, the concentrations, the pockets of crime are in those areas. And
those are the same areas where we`ve sent people to prison not for violent
crimes, but for nonviolent offenses.

We`ve done a really good job as a country for incarcerating people for low
level drug offenses. We have not done a really stellar job at dealing with
the issues that are the root causes of violence in those communities.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HAYES: Kim Fox now faces a Republican challenger in November. You can
watch my full interview with her on our website, AllinwithChris.com.

Next the most hated man in American politics and his hometown mayor. I`ll
talk to New York City mayor Bill de Blasio. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Hillary Clinton ran the table last night as she picked up wins in
Ohio, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Missouri. And with those
victories Clinton took a step closer to securing the Democratic nomination,
but despite being at a serious disadvantage with Clinton significantly
adding to her delegate lead last night, Bernie Sanders vows to continue his
political revolution all way to
the Democratic national convention this summer in Philadelphia, saying,
quote, “with more than half the delegates yet to be chosen,” which is true
“and the calendar that favors us in the weeks and
months to come, we remain confident our campaign is on the path to win the
nomination.”

But whatever the outcome of the nominee, one thing is clear, the center of
gravity of the National Democratic Party has moved significantly to the
left not only since Bill Clinton was president but in some ways since
President Obama took office just eight years ago.

One prominent Democratic politician who sees that as welcome news, I`d
imagine, New York mayor Bill de Blasio. And joining me now is New York
City mayor and Hillary Clinton supporter Bill de Blasio.

Mayor, it`s always a pleasure to have you stop by.

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, (D) NEW YORK CITY: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: So your wife said something that caught my eye about conversations
with your kids about this primary.

And it has been striking to me literally the biggest democratic divide of
any demographic divide, Democrat or Republican, race, anything, is the
generational divide. Under 30, Sanders is winning 71-29; 60 or over,
Clinton, it`s the inverse. What do you make of that?

DE BLASIO: I think young people have experienced life during and after the
great recession and, you know, having been born to parents who are the
Great Depression generation, I can see an interesting resonance when I talk
to my kids Kiara and Dante. They are exceedingly concerned about money.
They`re scared to death of college debt. They do not think opportunity is
easy to come by.

There`s a sobriety and a sharpness to a lot of members of this generation,
because they were born into overt economic unfairness. Well, different
reality than the Great Depression, but the result is the same. A really
sharp progressive impulse and a dissatisfaction with the status quo that is
visceral.

I do think, to your previous point, the Democratic Party is moving to the
left. I think the country is moving to the left. I think the next
generation is already there. And I am very happy about those realities.

The Democratic Party of the DLC days, Democratic Leadership Council days,
unfortunately was part of the problem and that impulse had to be weeded out
of the party and it`s happening now
and a lot of that is coming from the next generation.

HAYES: That is a better answer than they`re naive idealists which is the
answer I hear a lot, right – I mean, people say, well, sure generationally
you think these things and then you get knocked around by life.

DE BLASIO: I think they`re very sober and realistic. I really do.

HAYES: In some ways the opposite, right?

DE BLASIO: Yeah, no, I actually think it`s based on lived experience. And
by the way, do you know a lot of people who would say – do you know a lot
of folks in their 40s, 50s, 60s who would say the next generation is going
to have to better than me? That was a key concept of the American dream.

I know, I know for a fact that the numbers say the next generation will
have it worse than we had it and will face much deeper challenges and much
more economic unfairness and much more stratification of wealth. Well,
they`re reacting very logically and they`re saying this doesn`t work.
We`re not going to continue this.

HAYES: There was a moment in the debate when Clinton and Sanders were
asked if Donald Trump is a racist and they both gave answers that basically
said, yes, but did not say the words, Donald Trump is a racist. You
tweeted this. “I didn`t realize this was a question. Behaves like a
racist, speaks
like a racist, of course, real Donald Trump is a racist.”

Should they have just said that?

DE BLASIO: It`s, look, I get why people hesitate to make such a sharp
accusation.

HAYES: Yeah. It`s like that word has this sort of status where you –
it`s like who are you to say this, right?

DE BLASIO: There`s that reality and, look, I understand it`s something you
should say when
you`re sure. Well, I`m sure because I saw what he said about Mexicans. I
saw when he said about Muslims, about the Ku Klux Klan.

When presented with the question whether he`d accept support from the Ku
Klux Klan, white
supremacist groups, David Duke, he hesitated. Now, if anything has been
invalidated in American history it`s the Ku Klux Klan. If you have to
hesitate on that question, you qualify right there for being a racist.

But it`s on top of that, I said the way he`s using his racial appeal is
extraordinarily cynical. We talk a lot lately about dog whistles and coded
language. He`s gone way past that to overt language. And I think,
therefore, we have to use overt language and call him the racist he is.

HAYES: What do you – look, I grew up in New York City, I grew up in the
Bronx in the `80s. And it was basically every day it was like Donald Trump
was on the cover of the tabloid. I`d got wait for the bus, catch the bus
to school. Donald Trump, Leona Helmsley, you know, Reverend Al Sharpton.
What do you make of this watching this person who came up through this
city, like had this always been there, the ad he took out about the Central
Park jogger saying we need to bring back the death penalty. His father`s
accusations of racial discrimination in his developments, or is this
shocking to you, something new?

DE BLASIO: When you go back to the Central Park 5 who were later
exonerated, you`re right, you could see the germ of this, you could see the
origins because there, too, he was making a racial appeal, maybe more
coded, but still a racial appeal.

But I would say in the years since, we got see him as a reality TV star and
sort of self-promoter
and not necessarily dangerous and not scheming in this way, well, what`s
happened in the last few months, maybe it was latent, you could call it
whatever you want but it`s perfectly plain now. I called it protofascism.
I`m very comfortable with that, because…

HAYES: I noticed.

DE BLASIO: You look at the combination: xenophobia, racism, encouraging
violence among his supporters, militarism. He didn`t get a lot of
attention the other day when he said let`s go into the Middle East, clean
out ISIS, we`ll be back really quickly, you know, that was his framing.
We`ve heard that from militarist leaders for generations, the boys will be
home by Christmas.

So all the component parts are there. When I see that, I know my history
well enough to say I take that very, very seriously. The good news is I
don`t think the majority of American voters believe in those ideas are
going to find them acceptable. The voting pool he`s dealt with so far is
not just Republican, with some independents and crossover voters thrown in.
It happens to be very conservative often militant Republican.

Well, where this is going is to a whole lot of open-minded people.

HAYES: Yep.

DE BLASIO: And I think Hillary Clinton fares a lot better when we get to
that playing field.

HAYES: We are probably going to see that. Mayor Bill de Blasio of New
York City. Always a pleasure to have you.

DE BLASIO: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: Thank you very much.

DE BLASIO: My pleasure.

HAYES: We will be right back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: What the Republicans are trying to do right now with the
president`s announcement of the nominee for the Supreme Court is
unprecedented.

Earlier today I talked to a Democratic senator who told me that off the
record, between the lines, he`s seeing some wiggle room. I`ll bring you
that interview next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Today President Obama called the bluff of Senate Republicans who
have refused to consider any Supreme Court nominee by nominating someone
that many of those Republicans have
previously admitted is eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
That is, of course, 63-year-old Merrick Garland chief judge of the highly
respected and influential U.S. court of appeals, the District of Columbia
circuit, not necessarily the nominee liberal activists might hope for or
hoped for. Nor is he the person who might make the most sympathetic or
energizing symbol in an election year. Rather, President Obama seems to
think Garland is the person that has the best shot of actually getting
confirmed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Over my seven years as
president, in all my conversations with senators from both parties, in
which I asked their views on qualified Supreme Court nominees, this
includes the previous two seats that I had to fill. The one name that has
come up repeatedly from Republicans and Democrats, alike, is Merrick
Garland.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES; Garland worked as a federal prosecutor during George H.W. Bush`s
administration, held a top post in the Justice Department overseeing the
Oklahoma City bombing investigation during Bill Clinton`s presidency.

And in his current position, he also happens to be a top feeder of law
clerks to the Supreme Court, meaning his clerks are getting jobs at the
Supreme Court at a very high rate, a sort of informal, but very telling
measure of how highly regarded he is.

And there are already cracks in the stance of Senate Republicans. There`s
even been the suggestion by Senator Orrin Hatch and other Senate
Republicans they might consider Garland`s nomination during the lame duck
session if Republicans lose the presidential election.

After all, Senator Hatch heaped this praise on Garland during his 1997
confirmation to the D.C. Court of Appeals.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, (R) UTAH: Based solely on his qualifications, I support
the nomination of Mr. Garland and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

To my knowledge, no one, absolutely no one, disputes the following: Merrick
Garland is highly
qualified to sit on the D.C. Circuit. His intelligence and his scholarship
cannot be questioned.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Nearly 20 years later Judge Garland makes a pretty compelling
nominee for the
Supreme Court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MERRICK GARLAND, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Fidelity to the constitution and
the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life. And it is the
hallmark of the kind of judge I have tried to be for the past 18 years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Just ahead, Senator Dick Durbin of the senate judiciary committee.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Joining me now, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, assistant
Democratic leader, and a member of the judiciary committee.

Well, Senator, I guess here`s what I really want to know from you. If the
cameras were off, just
talking you and me, you had to bet money, what are the odds this is going
to happen?

SEN. DICK DURBIN, (D) ILLINOIS: I think the odds are 50/50. And
understand we`re starting from a position where Senator McConnell announced
there would be no hearing, there will be no vote and he wouldn`t even meet
with the man. And yet even today about six Republican senators have
volunteered that they`d be willing to meet with him.

I think they`re realizing this position that they`re being saddled with by
Senator McConnell is hard to explain back home. They`re not being fair and
they`re certainly not living up to the historic precedent of the Senate
which has never, never refused a hearing to a presidential nominee.

HAYES: Here`s my question. What is the plan to maintain the pressure?
Because it seems to me that right now, the day the president announces the
pressure is probably at its most intense. It is at most front of mind for
voters and for the news as well. If they wait this period out, a month,
two months, how do you keep them honest?

DURBIN: Well, I can tell you that two-thirds of the American people think
Senate Republicans are being unfair, that they aren`t doing their job, they
aren`t living up to their constitutional responsibility. They`re going to
hear that at home. And I don`t think a lot of them want to live with that.
Many of them believe we should go through a hearing. They`re saying it
quietly, but now I believe they`re going to have a chance to step up and at
least say I`ll meet with the man. That`s fair thing to do.

HAYES; Are they saying – you say they`re saying that quietly. Do you
mean, are they saying that to you? Are you having conversations with your
Republican colleagues?

DURBIN: I`m talking to some of my Republican colleagues. But I will also
tell you that we`re kind of reading between the lines. When Senator
Grassley says well, we called together the Republicans on judiciary
committee, some of them were reluctant to sign our letter say that weren`t
going to neat with these people. It tells me that a lot of them are having
second thoughts.

HAYES: I want you to address some complaints that I`ve seen emanate from
progressives in response to this. I saw a number of reactions today of
disappointment, people feeling that Judge
Garland, who is acclaimed and respected and obviously has tremendous
experience, is a judge whose both judicial philosophy, particularly on
criminal defense, is perhaps not as in line with what liberals
would like to see and who also is at the older end of the scale in which
presidents tend to make these nominations. Is this essentially a
compromise before the negotiations start?

DURBIN: No. I think what the president set out to do is to look through
the potential nominees and find the person, the most solid candidate he
could find, so it became difficult, if not impossible, for Republicans to
argue he wasn`t qualified or ready for the job. In Merrick Garland, he
found that person.

Now those who are hoping that we`re going to have a person very liberal or
very this or very that, you know, that isn`t the way this works. You know,
the president is going to propound to the Republican majority in the senate
a nominee which he believes will serve this country well and has been
praised by Republicans in the past. In fact, a majority of Republicans
voted for him the last time he was on the floor of the senate.

So he is a solid nominee with solid legal credentials.

HAYES: You know, one of the sentiments I`ve seen expressed, and you`re
starting to see
this be gamed out on both sides. I think there are some liberals who say
fine, bring it on, double down,
you guys are about to nominate Donald Trump. We`re going to win the White
House and the senate, then we`ll nominate some 25-year-old that you hate
and put that person on the bench.

DURBIN: Lindsey Graham said that in the senate judiciary committee.

HAYES: I know.

DURBIN: He said first to my Republican friends, we`ve just set a
precedent. If this happens to
us, we can`t complain.

And secondly, I wish they`d go ahead and let the president send somebody.
It`s going to be a more moderate person than someone sent by Hillary
Clinton.

HAYES: So, here`s what I find fascinating. You can see them now
attempting to sort of have it both ways which is I`ve seen some people,
including if I`m not mistaken, Chuck Grassley open the door to the
possibility of a lame duck confirmation, which is to say we`re going to
delay until election day, but if we lose that bet and you guys win, then
very quickly we`ll confirm this nominee so that we forestall the
possibility of a new Democratic president nominating someone else.

What`s your reaction to that?

DURBIN: I can tell you I think my Senate Republican colleagues are too
clever by half. First, they want to wait for a new president then they
want to wait for a lame duck. The more they talk, the deeper they get into
it.

The American people, two out of three, believe this nominee from the
president deserves a hearing and a vote – two out of three, including
about a majority of the Republicans feel that way.

So let`s face facts here. The Senate Republicans are floundering at this
point. Senator McConnell put them on a strategy which is impossible to
defend. Many of them have to go back
home and explain it and it`s becoming more and more difficult.

HAYES: All right. Senator Dick Durbin, thanks for taking the time to come
on the show. Appreciate it.

DURBIN: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: And that is All In for this evening. The 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

Copyright 2016 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.>