All In With Chris Hayes, Transcript 3/31/2016

Betsy Woodruff, McKay Coppins, Wendy Davis, Eric Boehlert, Radley Horton, Alex Jones, Gary Emineth, Dave Weigel

Date: March 31, 2016
Guest: Betsy Woodruff, McKay Coppins, Wendy Davis, Eric Boehlert, Radley
Horton, Alex Jones, Gary Emineth, Dave Weigel


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

properly. People understand, they haven`t stuck to the pledge.

HAYES: The frontrunner meets with the RNC as his numbers against Democrats
collapse, and the entire political world erupts over his abortion comment.

TRUMP: It has to be some form of punishment.



HAYES: Tonight, increase calls for Cleveland protests.

ALEX JONES, INFO WARS: We need five million constitutional Trumpians,
Trumpists to be there.

HAYES: A Trump super PAC goes on the air.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure, I get some grief when I say I`m voting for
Donald Trump.

HAYES: And my interview with Wendy Davis on Trump`s trouble with women.

Plus, I`ll talk to another unbound Republican delegate getting wooed by Ted

Then, the latest on the ugliness at Trump rallies and media bias and the
Democratic frontrunner.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We find out now that she`s got 147 FBI agents
investigating her e-mail practices. Yes, that sounds routine. That`s
totally normal.

HAYES: Another troubling Hillary headline totally debunked.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s 147 FBI agents investigating her.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


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

And today, Donald Trump met with the head of Republican National Committee
as it became clearer than ever that a Trump nomination is an absolute
nightmare scenario for the GOP. “Just had a very nice meeting with Reince
Priebus and the GOP”, Trump tweeted. “Looking forward to bringing the
party together and it will happen!”

That seems like very wishful thinking. A meeting comes two days after
Trump publicly repudiated his pledge to back the eventual GOP nominee, no
matter what, as his rivals and much of the GOP establishment plot to deny
him the domination at a contested convention. It follows what “Politico”
called 24 hours of mayhem, when Trump uttered a series of statements that
were incendiary even by his standards.


MATTHEWS: Can you tell the Middle East we`re not using a nuclear weapon on

TRUMP: I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the

MATTHEWS: How about Europe? We won`t use it in Europe?

TRUMP: I – I`m not going to take it off the table.

MATTHEWS: You might use it in Europe?

See, the problem is, you know, we have the Geneva Convention. We have all
sorts of rules.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion? Yes or no, as a

TRUMP: The answer is that it has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes, it has to be some form.


HAYES: Trump later reversed that position which he claims was taken out of
context but the damage was done, if not with Trump voters but the rest of
the American public, which gets to a crucial point when it comes to
understanding the Trump phenomenon and where it is right now. For months
and months, people have been asking why all of Trump`s extreme positions
and outright bigotry and offensive statements and flat out lies aren`t
having an effect.

The reality is they are having an effect, just not with the hard core Trump
supporters, the 30 percent to 40 percent GOP primary voters apparently
primed to back him no matter what. But then there`s everyone else in
matter, and when you look at the numbers among the general public, as Greg
Sargent detailed today, it`s clear that Trump is shaping up to be a
nightmare nominee.

Trump is viewed unfavorable by a whopping 80 percent of voters, 18 to 34,
80 percent of African-Americans and 85 percent of Hispanics. He`s even
underwater among Republican leaning groups such as viewed unfavorable by 52
percent of non-college whites, 53 percent of conservatives, and amazingly,
51 percent of the white men, the one group that`s supposed to like him.

And the trend lines are devastating for Trump and his party. At the start
of this month, polls showed Trump within three points of Hillary Clinton in
a hypothetical general election match up. Not too bad. Today, he`s losing
by 11 points. He`s losing by an even bigger margin to Bernie Sanders.

Now, one group we haven`t talked about yet is the biggest voting bloc in
the entire country. As “The Washington Post” notes, three quarters of
women view Trump unfavorably.

Yesterday, with Chris Matthews, Trump addressed the issue.


TRUMP: I don`t – I don`t understand why. I mean, the numbers aren`t
good. The numbers were good. The numbers aren`t as good with women as
they were. But nobody respects women more than I do.


HAYES: Yes, it`s a real head scratcher. Today, a pro-Trump super PAC
rolled out a truly amazing new ad designed to help solve that problem.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure, I get some grief when I say I`m voting for
Donald Trump. But you know what? I want to protect my family. Paris, San
Bernardino and now Brussels, I want a president that will keep us safe. We
need to control our borders, and stop letting in dangerous people. Trump
will do that.


HAYES: The PAC tells NBC News the spot will run both nationally and
statewide in Wisconsin where voters go to the polls on Tuesday, and where
Trump faces troubling signs.

One new poll shows Trump losing to Ted Cruz 40 percent to 30 percent with
Cruz up 21 points since February, and Trump completely stagnant.

Joining me now, McKay Coppins, senior political writer of “BuzzFeed News”,
MSNBC political analyst Howard Dean, former Vermont governor, former chair
of the Democratic National Committee, Betsy Woodruff, political reporter at
“The Daily Beast”.

Betsy, let me start with you. Two ways of interpreting what`s happening in
Wisconsin, right? The fact that Wisconsin has a set of specific
conditions, the strength of its establishment, conservative talk radio.
You`ve got Reince Priebus, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, all from Wisconsin.
It`s a state tailor made for Cruz or for a kind of conservative effort to
stop Trump, or we`re seeing the momentum start to come off of the Trump
train? What do you think?

BETSY WOODRUFF, THE DAILY BEAST: I think it`s possibly we`re seeing both
of those things at the same time. I would err on the side of the former
explanation. The reality is that Wisconsin`s Republican world doesn`t
mirror the rifts that Republicans in other states and nationally have.
There isn`t kind of this angry acrimony that you see for instance between
the national Republican grassroots and the Republican Party. There`s not
the acrimony you see, maybe in Virginia, Texas or other states.

And part of that is because the talk radio world is effective, at kind of
bringing those two groups together. Now, another important thing about
Wisconsin, though, is that 70 percent of all voters there have an
unfavorable view of Trump, which really undercuts the entire thesis of his
campaign, which is that he can over these Rust Belt states.

HAYES: Yes, I think that thesis, McKay, is getting a little harder to buy
by the day. I mean, you`re watching it now. I mean, there`s people
saying, if course, this guy is a disaster as a nominee. And I`ve gone back
and forth, there`s been times when he`s said things that made me think, oh,
well, this guy could be a pretty good general election candidate. But the
way he`s conducted himself, his inability to exert any self discipline – I
mean, yesterday`s spectacle with my colleague, Chris Matthews, I thought he
did a phenomenal job I have to say.


HAYES: You know, it`s just evident the guy hasn`t thought about anything
at all and people don`t like that.

COPPINS: It`s all impulse and reflex. He`s cultivated a certain brand.
He`s good at responding or reacting to everything that comes at him on
brand. But that brand is not as we`ve seen, appealing to the national
electorate. It`s appealing to 35 percent of Republican primary voters, 40
percent on the good day or if he`s lucky.

I mean, I think that the theory that he was going to win back Northeastern
states and win back Rust Belt states may – I mean, you could see a world
in which that would work, right? You could see a world in which Trump`s
economic populism paired with kind of his whole shtick could win, win
voters that Republicans haven`t in a long time. But he`s alienated so many
other voters.

And now, even in that poll that you just showed, 51 percent of the white
men don`t even like him. He doesn`t have a core of support that can carry
him to a national victory.

HAYES: Howard, you ran one of the two major parties in America for a
period of time, at least the Democratic national committee. Here`s my
question for you. So, Trump goes to meet with Reince Priebus. Is there
anything the RNC can do as an entity to stop him, to cut him short of the
nomination, to essentially take a nomination away from him?

HOWARD DEAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: There is. The insiders don`t
believe it`s possible or wise to do it. I`ve had a couple of dinner
meetings with Republicans where you talk to CEOs and all these kinds of
things, different points of view. And most of them believe Trump`s got it.
The price of taking the nomination away from Trump would be to destroy the
Republicans in this election cycle.

There`s another thing that we haven`t talked about. Ted Cruz is an
incredibly unappealing candidate. And for him to be the alternative to
Trump, it`s out of the frying pan and into the fire. Ted Cruz`s personal -
- his views on things are more extreme than Donald Trump`s are. This is a
spectacular meltdown.

HAYES: Yes, your point there about Cruz I think is well-taken. I think
the question is, do they scotch the whole field and try to –


DEAN: They could.

HAYES: I mean, that`s what`s on my mind.


DEAN: They can change the rules. They can change the rules. I know what
the rules are now because of hearing and listening to some really prominent
Republicans who know about the convention. They`re different from ours.
They can absolutely change the rules and make sure Trump didn`t get the
nomination. There would be a big price to be especially with the
nomination of Ted Cruz.

I have not yet met a Republican insider who in a private dinner, one of
these type of things or these private meetings that we have with various
people, who believes that the nomination is going to go to anybody who is
not in placed nomination. Right now, John Kasich doesn`t have the
credentials to be in nomination.

I just think this is – I`ve never seen anything like this. The only thing
is I don`t like to venture a guess because I`ve been wrong 100 percent of
the time about everything I`ve said so far.

HAYES: And you have esteemed company.

And, Betsy, that`s part of what`s made it difficult to gain this out. I
mean, I`ve sort of – I have felt, you know, covering this day in and day
out, having been deeply embedded in this, it feels there`s something
shifting in the last week. And it`s not about shifting with his appeal to
the core of people in the Republican primary it appeals. It`s the shift –
it`s the dawning awareness of the scale of the electoral disaster that he
could be in the fall.

WOODRUFF: Some of these polling numbers, I can`t imagine how hard it is
for folks at the RNC to look at them. I mean, just the WaPo/ABC poll that
came out, I believe a few hours ago. It showed Hilary Clinton`s
unfavorable rating was 52 percent. In any other universe, the RNC would be
salivating over that number. It`s the only thing they within the to talk

The only hiccup is that their guy has more than two-thirds unfavorable
rating. They can`t talk about it.

HAYES: Well, there`s this hilarious shtick that Reince Priebus does, where
he likes tweets about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and it just like


COPPINS: Talk about the turn out numbers with Republican primary voters.

HAYES: I mean, what could the guy do?

COPPINS: You almost feel bad for him, right, because it`s like what else
is – what is he supposed to do? The thing is, you do wonder, right, the
big question, we were just talk about this.

The big question is the RNC, the party elders, the leaders of the
establishment, what this comes down to isn`t actually the rules. It isn`t
actually, you know, what who can sue for what and change with rules. It`s
about how much, how willful the party is to stop Trump. That`s the big

HAYES: The big question is where there`s a will, there`s a way. The rules
are essentially a symptom of power. They are not a source or its cause.
I`m a Nietzsche in this respect. No, I mean, I really believe this, right?

It`s like this is about power. This is about who controls what and who is
willing to do what.

If the people in power, Howard, decide to roll over, which it sounds like
your conversations they are resigned to doing, then they can`t stop him.
If they do want to stop him, they can.

DEAN: First of all, this will have about 19 more chapters before we get to
the end. Second of all, it really is possible they will have the
equivalent of the Democratic 1968 convention in Chicago. Not only will you
have this mayhem inside the hall if they try to take down Trump by changing
the rules. What`s going to happen outside the halls when you have every
group who is opposed to this kind of right wing – I mean, when your choice
is Trump or Cruz, both of them are so far outside the mainstream of
American politics that – it`s out of frying pan into the fire.

You`re going to have every group this America protesting outside the
convention hall in Cleveland. I don`t know what I would do if I was
Reince, but – well, I`m not.

COPPINS: Quit your job.

HAYES: Yes. Well, the point you made about `68 is key, because everyone
remembers the footage of what happened outside the convention hall. Inside
that convention hall –

DEAN: And inside.

HAYES: Right. Well, inside the convention hall there was a fight over the
Mississippi delegation, whether it was the Mississippi Freedom Party or the
old segregationists. I mean, you had parallel slates of delegates showing
up, all sorts of things like that. I mean, you can have – I don`t know,
maybe we`ll have two South Carolina.

DEAN: What people remember about that convention besides the riots, Daley
going like this, cutting off Abe Ribicoff. I mean, the mayhem inside the
convention hall was the antithesis of what you do in a democracy.

HAYES: Well, we might be headed towards it. We`ll see.

McKay Coppins, Howard Dean, Betsy Woodruff, thank you for your time

WOODRUFF: Sure thing.

HAYES: Still ahead, the big scope on Hillary Clinton that sounded like too
outlandish to be true, turns out – drum roll – wasn`t true. The story
behind the supposed 147 FBI agents, coming up.

But, first, Donald Trump`s comments on abortion set off a firestorm from
both the left and right. Wendy Davis joins me to talk about it. That
story is next. Do not go anywhere.



MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion? Yes or no as a

TRUMP: The answer is that it has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes, it had to be some form.

MATTHEWS: Ten cents, ten years, what?

TRUMP: That I don`t know.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

TRUMP: I don`t know.

MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else.

TRUMP: I do take positions on everything else. It`s a very complicated

MATTHEWS: By saying you`re pro-life, you mean you want to ban abortion.
How do you ban abortion without some kind of sanction? Then you get in
that a very tricky question of a sanction – a fine on human life, which
you call murder? A fine? Imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself

TRUMP: It will have to be determined.


HAYES: Almost immediately after the words came out of Donald Trump`s
mouth, in fact, even as they were coming out of his mouth, two things
became very clear – one, he really frankly never given the issue of what a
world where abortion banned would look like. And two, he had run afoul of
the very group that he was presumably trying to appeal to, that is the
anti-abortion rights movement.

Within hours of Trump advocating the punishment of women who get abortions,
two leading anti-abortion groups recommended – condemned his remarks.
Susan B. Anthony List saying in part, “Let us be clear, punishment is
solely for the abortionist who profits off of the destruction of one life
ands the grove wounding of another.”

March for Life saying in part, “Mr. Trump`s comment today is completely out
of touch with the pro-life movement. Women who choose abortion often do so
in desperation and then deeply regret such a decision. No pro-lifer would
ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion.”

Ted Cruz who opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest agreed.


REPORTER: Should women who get abortions be punished?

comments, today, are just the latest demonstration that he hasn`t thought
seriously about the problems facing this country. He`s willing to say
anything to try to get elected.


HAYES: Trump realizing he managed to anger both pro and anti-abortion
rights activity spent the day walking it all back, first saying the issue
should be put back to the states and reversing his position entirely,
saying, quote, “The doctor or any other person performing this illegal act
upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman
is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb.”

Tonight, Trump tried a new angle saying his comments were taken out of
context. Now, the anti-abortion rights movement have spent decades
carefully crafting a position that equates it with murder but only indicts
the doctor in that scenario and not the women who undergo abortions. But
Donald Trump apparently not understanding the nuances of that admittedly
convoluted position exposed the contradictions of the anti-abortion rights
movement. For that, he had to recant.

Joining me now, Wendy Davis, former Democratic state – Texas state
senator, candidate for governor and famously filibustered Texas abortion
restriction bill. She`s supporting Hillary Clinton for president.

What was your reaction to watching Trump say that and then the backlash
from the folks in the anti-abortion movement?

WENDY DAVIS (D), FORMER TEXAS STATE SENATOR: It was fascinating because
it`s hard to make any logic of the position that the anti-choice movement
has in this regard. They use the terminology murder, as you said. But
then at the same time they try to walk back from any position that would be
perceived as condemning women who choose to have an abortion.

But the fact of the matter is that the pro-life movement, for a very long
time, has been all about punishing women who are wanting to choose an
abortion in this country. And that punishment has come in the form of
making sure that they remove that access step by step, dismantling Roe v
Wade as best they can through the many restrictions that they`ve enacted
and state legislators across this country that have prohibited so many
women to be able to access that care.

HAYES: You know, I also had a moment last night when I was watching this
all play out over the course of the day and the backlash where it occurred
to me in some ways, you know, it`s almost, what is happened in Texas or
Mississippi is the best case scenario for that movement, because
confronting the reality of what criminalizing abortion would be would
provoke such I think widespread dismay from the American public. It`s
better to have it officially legal but totally inaccessible as the status
quo they can aim for, because they don`t have to deal with Donald Trump
stepping out of line.

DAVIS: Yes. I think that`s such an excellent point. But what`s so
interesting about it, Chris, is that his comments, while they clearly
offended a great number of people and would really turn the anti-choice
movement on its head in terms of the American public`s perception of that,
which is already not very good. What he said yesterday wasn`t necessarily
any kind of anomaly, because when you look at the actions of so many
others, Ted Cruz, John Kasich himself as governor, each of them has been
vehemently anti-choice and anti-access to women`s reproductive health care
in all of its forms.

And they have created a dynamic where women have been punished. They`ve
been relegated to a system where they can no longer access basic health
care. So many women in Texas were receiving their only health care from
these family planning clinics that closed when Planned Parenthood and other
clinics were starved for funds. Not only can they not get cancer screens
or STD screens, they can`t get contraception.

So, the whole idea that women ought to be forced into getting pregnant and
where in Texas they can no longer access abortion truly does relegate them
to punishment. So, I kind of appreciated the fact that Donald Trump
actually put into words what they`ve been doing all along.

HAYES: It also occurred to me that if you want to make the distinction
between the abortionist and the woman, that in actual regime of
criminalized abortion, often that would be the same person, right? We know
for a fact that women resort to attempting to terminate their own
pregnancies, presumably then you would – there would have to be some
criminal punishment needed out.

DAVIS: No question about it. In fact, that`s already happening. There
already are women who are under criminal investigation or allegations
because they have either self-induced or because they`ve helped another
person to obtain an abortion in violation of the law. So, it`s already the
dynamic on the ground in this country that that is happening. Again,
Donald Trump put the words to the reality.

HAYES: Wendy Davis, thank you so much for joining me. Appreciate it.

DAVIS: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: Coming up, if you thought caucusing is a weird and possibly not
particularly Democratic process. Just wait until you hear how North Dakota
does it. I will explain, ahead.


HAYES: Big scoop on the Hillary Clinton e-mail story earlier this week and
the siren went out.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, 147 people on the FBI case, that`s humongous.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A new report says 147 FBI agents are now involved in
the investigation on her private email server and the handling of
classified material.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: New developments in the federal investigation into
Hillary Clinton`s private e-mail server, very well-researched, says a
staggering 147 FBI agents are on this case right now.


HAYES: Now, that story reported by `The Washington Post” would be a huge
deal, if true. I mean, that would be a ton of FBI agents. For instance,
in investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing, the largest act of
homegrown terrorism of United States, there were 120 special agents based
in Oklahoma City and more agents at FBI headquarters in Washington working
on the case according to the FBI website.

In “The Washington Post” Hillary Clinton story would suggest there`s a
criminal investigation of truly historic, titanic proportions. It would
also suggests there are huge amounts of unknowns out there over what the
scoop of this is and what they think the wrongdoing might be. So, it would
have been news very a very good reason.

But here`s the thing – that number, 147, was not correct. It was not even
close to correct. Here`s “The Washington Post`s” own correction.

“An earlier version of this article reported that 147 FBI agents have been
detailed to the investigation, according to lawmaker briefed by FBI
Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since
told `The Washington Post` the figure is too high. The FBI will not
provide an exact figure but officials say the FBI personnel involved is
fewer than 50.”

Now, according to MSNBC`s own Ari Melber, a former federal law enforcement
official with direct knowledge of the Clinton investigation tells MSNBC an
estimate anywhere near 50 agents is also off base. There are currently
about 12 FBI agents working full-time in the case. The source could only
speak anonymously about an open investigation.

OK. The report is 147, probably closer to 12. Is it the correction will
get as much attention as the original report? How does that happen also?
More importantly, why does this keep happening with stories about Hillary
Clinton? We`re going to take a closer look at this, next.


HAYES: So, the story comes out this week from “The Washington Post”, there
are 147 FBI agents assigned to the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation
which made everyone think, whoa, that`s a major investigation. It turns
out, that`s not true. There are 12 agents working full time on the case,
according to the source with direct knowledge of the investigation, who
told that to MSNBC`s Ari Melber.

According to a former FBI official also speaking honestly, “147 was such a
ridiculous number,” said the source, “adding the 50 also sounded
unrealistic for this kind of inquiry. You need an act of terrorism to get
50 agents working on something,” said the former FBI official.

How did the Washington Post get it so wrong? Look at the Washington post
original source. According to a lawmaker briefed by FBI director, James B.
Comey . It is a safe bet the lawmaker was a Republican in Congress who
leaked this knowing full well it would look terrible for Hillary Clinton.
And this has now become a pattern. An unnamed source on Capitol Hill leaks
an item that appears very incriminating for Hillary Clinton and it turns
out there is a lot less to it. Joining me now Eric Boehlert, Senior Fellow
at Media Matters. The number was so preposterous and head scratching I`m
amazed at the currency it got.

print. It doesn`t make any sense. You`d have to go back and check that,
but as you pointed out, every news organization in America ran with that
number. Look this number was originally floated by Fox News back in
January. For the Washington Post newsroom that should have been the first
red flag.

You know, back in January Fox was pushing that there`s this massive, not
only e-mail investigation, a Clinton corruption, Clinton foundation. This
was going to go on for years. That was the story Fox was telling. No one
else could ever confirm it. It was only an investigation that Fox could
somehow figure out. So that should have been a red flag. If a story is
too good, check it. If the number is too good it doesn`t make any sense.
But this is the Clinton rules, right. You kind of throw everything out,
and if it turns out to be wrong, nobody pays the price.

HAYES: Well, and the sourcing to me is OK. Because this has been a key
part of this. I want to go back to May 2013. We were on air. We`ve been
on air for about a month. Big new piece on ABC exclusive Benghazi talking
points under went 12 revisions scrubbed of terror reference. And again,
this was coming from pretty clearly Republican member of Congress. Then
the original full email chain showed the source was completely wrong about
it. And again, it was the same thing, it was a full day story, four-day
story and then finally the actual e-mail chain came out and it was totally

BOEHLERT: You see this over and over again. Republican staffers just
feeding this stuff, feeding this stuff.

HAYES: This case is a member of Congress. The citation here is lawmaker.

BOEHLERT: That`s right, that`s right, that`s a good point. So we saw the
pattern with Benghazi. We`ve seen it with emails. If you want to get
nostalgic go back to Whitewater, go back to Travelgate, go back to the
pardons. Over and over again, we create these investigations. Republicans
are briefed on them and they spin these fantastic tales to the press who
types it up because they think its great story.

HAYES: Well sure, it`s a story. I mean if it were true.

BOEHLERT: Every time, every time when we go through it, these facts don`t
hold up. Then the Washington Post, well, they`re not going to make any
change in their anonymous sourcing policy according the Media Matters and
according to the Washington Post. So we`re just going to keep doing this.
New York Times last summer, Hillary is the target of a criminal

HAYES: Famous leak. It was walked back.

BOEHLERT: But once you put that in the pipeline, once you put that out
there, wait, Hillary is going to be indicted. You can`t walk that back.
One hundred and fifty agents, you can`t really effectively walk that back.
And I haven`t seen many news organizations try to walk it back in the last
48 hours.

HAYES: And the other part about this is when you talk to Republican voters
at campaign events, when we`ve been on the trail at a caucus room, a very
high percentage think it`s essentially a foregone conclusion, she will be
indicted before the election. Like that is a probable event. That she
probably won`t even be. That`s been because in that world, not just in the
mainstream media, particularly in the conservative media, this just an
imminent thing.

BOEHLERT: Yes, the orange jump suit it`s imminent, just like Benghazi
there was going to be impeachment hearings. All of it is imminent once you
get inside that silo, that echo chamber, why would you believe everything
else? The problem is when we start having the Washington Post sort of
nibbling on the edges and thing like that. Look in terms of the e-mails,
Doyle McManus, said in a piece in the L.A. Times, Associated Press rounded
up some experts, American Prospect had University of Michigan law
professor, all of them going into detail. Legally there`s no there. No
one is going to be indicted according to all these experts. So that should
be the starting point. Not the opposite of when will she be indicted and
how is this going to trip up her campaign.

HAYES: Right, and there is a huge gulf between should she have done this,
was this a right idea? Is there reason to critique her or question her
judgment? Is there a criminal investigation larger than the Oklahoma City
bombing happening? There`s a pretty wide gulf.

BOEHLERT: There`s a pretty wide gulf. And here`s one the other very
interesting things about the Clinton`s is the criminalization. It goes
back to the `90s and now the need to criminalize a Bill on Hillary.

HAYES: Ted Cruz, you know, sort of waxing poetic about her like tossing
and turning in her jail cell the other day at a campaign rally. Eric
Boehlert, thank you very much.

Coming up two new videos from outside the same Donald Trump rally. One
that is disturbing and the other one that`s, well, we`ll let you be the
judgment. We`ll play them both. Don`t go anywhere. Just ahead.


HAYES: Police in Janesville, Wisconsin is looking for a suspect who they
say pepper sprayed a 15-year-old girl who was protesting outside a Trump
rally on Tuesday. Authorities believe this man used pepper spray on the
girl following an altercation between that girl and another man. Here is
how this unfolded. Video shows the 15-year-old who had been chanting black
lives matter, accuse a white man with white hair of groping her. And after
a heated exchange between the two she punched the man in the cheek. Now in
the press conference today police said there`s no evidence that man groped
her and he`s not being investigated. That man also declined to press
charges against the girl for the punch. But detectives referred her to
juvenile services for disorderly conduct. Now the part of the case the
Janesville police are still investigating is what happened immediately
after the punch when another person at the rally pepper sprayed the 15-
year-old girl in the face.





HAYES: Police are asking for the public`s help in identifying the pepper
spray suspect and say he could face charges of battery and the illegal use
of pepper spray, and disorderly conduct. The pepper sprayed teenager left
the area to receive medical attention. But perhaps just as disturbing, in
my view even more disturbing, is what was shouted at her after she was
pepper sprayed.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Goddamn communist [bleep] lover. Get out of here.


HAYES: Goddamn communist N word lover. Get out of here. Now something we
find ourselves saying a lot. Campaigns do not control who the supporters
are or how they act. There`s been a disturbing pattern of violence by
Trump supporters. But in the full interest of equal time and being
balanced, we will show you something that happened at the same rally that
ended with this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a [bleep] circus. Everybody look, look.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Look at the monkey. Look at the monkey.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I did that on purpose.


HAYES: We`ll play that full video after this short break in 60 seconds.
Stick with us.


HAYES: Outside Tuesday`s rally in Janesville, Wisconsin, it seems one
anti-Trump protester had enough. After describing Trump as a fascist while
arguing with a Trump supporter, he eventually took aggressive action on


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You come out here and wait in line.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What are you smoking?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m smoking pot. That`s what I`m spoking, lady. I`m
smoking the green. Is that what you think I`m on drugs because I hate this
fascist [bleep]. I just gave you what you wanted. I gave you what you
wanted. It`s a [bleep] circus everybody, look.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Look at the monkey. Look at the monkey.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I did that on purpose. It`s all a show here.


HAYES: In case you missed it, we`ll show that dismount one more time.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a [bleep] circus everybody. Look. Look.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Look at the monkey. Look at the monkey.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I did that on purpose.


HAYES: The protesters out there, please, don`t be that guy.


HAYES: Here`s a story that might seem a little off topic, but I don`t
know, it seemed pretty important to me. What if scientists are wrong about
global warming? Meaning they have been underestimating how bad it`s going
to be. There`s new evidence that`s exactly what`s happening and the
nightmare, worst case scenario will unfold in decades whether than
centuries. New York Times reporting that researchers think the massive
West Antarctic ice sheet is melting even faster than previously thought.
So fast that combined with other ice melts around the world, the total rise
of sea could reach five or six feet by 2100, which is so high it will
provoke a profound crisis within the lifetime of children being born today.
To quickly explain all this I`m joined by climate scientist, Radley Horton.
OK, professor, what is being revealed that we didn`t realize before?

we went back about ten years or so, we felt we would see only one or two
feet of sea level rise per century basically due to expanding of the ocean
as it warms and melting of ice on land. At first ten years ago we thought
it was the temperature of the air that could melt the surface of the ice.
What we have learned in the last ten years including in this new study, is
that there are a number of insidious ways that that land based ice can melt
and make its way to the sea. It`s not just the air touching it. It`s
changing dynamics that cause it to move. And in this case an instability
along the cliff face where the water meets the air, it can lead steady
rapid –

HAYES: We`re learning all these things about how the dynamics of how these
huge chunks of ice melt. And what we`re learning is they melt faster than
we thought. And what does that mean for us?

HORTON: Absolutely. Well, I think the first implication is that we were
made to realize we`re only learning about these processes as we begin to
observe them. That suggests basically right up front that we can`t predict
exactly how much change in sea level we`re going to get. But the more we
push the system, the more we allow increase in greenhouse gases to push us
outside of things we`ve experienced in the past, the greater the risk of
these Frankenstein surprises. Whether they`re rapid changes in sea level,
melting of the Artic sea ice, an array of possibilities.

HAYES: The difference between two feet and six feet, well that seems like
a lot. But what does that – I mean the inhabitability of America`s coast.
What does that mean in that respect?

HORTON: It`s tens of millions of additional people globally exposed to
coastal flooding if we have six feet instead of two. It also means much
more frequent flooding. Six feet of sea level rise for many parts of the
world turns what`s currently a flood event that happens every hundred years
into something you can expect every decade. Even is storms don`t get any

HAYES: That completely alters the habitability of certain places and the
kind of infrastructure necessary and large concentration of population. I
mean we`re talking like massive, massive dislocation.

HORTON: Many low lying area where it`s impossible to build sea walls and
adapt here, because you don`t have the financial recourses, or the
geography won`t support it. There`s going to have be retreat from these
coastlines. It`s a huge dislocation.

HAYES: Retreat. Radley Horton, thank you so much for being here. I
really appreciate that.

Up next, why the hottest place Republican campaigns this weekend. The
place to is none other than Fargo, North Dakota. I will explain right
after this break.


HAYES: We`ve been talking about the two separate races under way in the
Republican presidential election. A very public race to win votes and the
stealth campaign to pick up loyal delegates to get them to the convention
this summer this Cleveland. But Donald Trump may be winning at the ballot,
he`s is danger of being out organized in the delegate race. That`s why he
threatened to sue the Republican Party in Louisiana, where he may come out
with fewer delegates than Ted Cruz despite having won the popularity vote
in that state. Now his threat to break the GOP loyalty pledge could cost
him delegates in South Carolina. We have to sign the pledge to get on the
ballot in the first place. Amid growing signs that Trump may not have the
wherewithal to get enough votes on the convention floor, supporters like
Infowars are now preparing to revolt.


ALEX JONES, THE ALEX JONES SHOW: Be in Cleveland for the week of that
convention. Be there. And we are going to absolutely show the world the
real power. We need five million constitutional Trumpians, Trumpists, to
be there to show that all this world`s trash and all the filth, the few
hundred thousand we`ll have there, are totally dwarfed, and the
establishment does not dare steal the popular vote from the people.


HAYES: According to one party operative I spoke to a couple of weeks ago,
Republican National Committee man named Curly Haugland, “The popular vote
doesn`t matter at all. It`s the delegates who pick the nominee regardless
of how the citizens in the state vote.”


CURLY HAUGLAND, RNC STANDING COMMITTEE: The delegates are not bound. They
are free to vote their conscience on all issues before the convention and
on the nominations. Anything is possible because the convention of the
Republican Party is the highest authority of the party and they can do
anything they want.


HAYES: Nowhere is the party more in control than in Haugland`s home state
of North Dakota. Where the voters are cut out of process all together.
While some states hold primaries and some hold caucuses, and there`s back
and forth over which model is the most representative. The North Dakota
Republican Party holds a state convention to select its slate of 28
delegates, who are free to vote for whoever they want this summer in
Cleveland. No voters need at all. Thank you very much. That convention
kicks off this Fargo. And two of the campaign will go all the way there to
make their case. Ben Carson, who endorsed Donald Trump, is scheduled to
speak at a Sunday morning session, not till after all the delegates have
been elected. Ted Cruz on the other hand, has the prominent speaking slot.
He`s delivering the keynote address on Saturday right before the voting

Joining me now Gary Emineth, he`s former North Dakota Republican Party
Chair. He`s running this weekend to be a North Dakota delegate and Dave
Weigel, National Political Correspondent for the Washington Post. Mr.
Emineth let me start with you. Describe the kinds of people that are going
to be running, like yourself, to be delegates to this convention.

having me. But first of all there`s to be about 2,000 people at the state
convention. And hey, come from party faithful. People that have been
involved in the district process, whether the district chairman, precinct
committee people and if they choose to want to be a delegate to the
convention, they apply to the state party. There`s a committee that
reviews them. Then they select a slate of delegates to the state
convention. But the floor`s open for anybody that wants to be a delegate.
They have their name placed in nomination and then an election is held from
the 2000 delegates on the floor to decide who those 25 delegates will be.
And of course three of them are national committee members, RNC members,
committeeman, committeewoman, and state chairman.

HAYES: You say, it`s open to everyone, but there`s a criteria. You have
to have to meet certain criteria. History of work for the Republican
Party, monetary contributions, federal or statewide candidacy, legislative
candidacy, never attended a national convention. All these go into the mix
of who ends up being elected to be a delegate.

EMINETH: That`s correct, Chris. Part of the point of it is that people
that go to a convention are typically the activist. So it`s a different
process. The party decided in North Dakota to unbind the delegates. We`re
one of three states and two territories for a total of 112 delegates that
are going to this convention unbound. North Dakota chose not to have a
primary and spend the money, taxpayer`s money. Didn`t have a caucus and
decided to let these delegates be unbound. And actually at this coming
convention if it`s a contested race and Donald Trump doesn`t get to his
number, he`s going to be in a position to play a pivotal role in this
election process.

HAYES: You`re going to be incredibly popular. I want to talk to you about
what that might look like. But Dave, first of all, I love the scenario of
it coming down to North Dakota, because no one gets 1237 and the North
Dakota unbound delegates. But to me, what I`m hearing here is it just
matters, increasingly matters who`s in that room in Cleveland. When you
get into the nitty gritty of this, I don`t think the North Dakota folks are
going to be particularly Trump favorable, because they`re people who have a
history with the Republican Party.

DAVE WEIGEL, THE WASHINGTON POST: Yes, that`s key, because the Congressman
here, held online poll a couple of months ago of who voters supported.
Trump won it narrowly but it was not screened the way that this convention
going to be screened. The caveat I would say is that the Trump forces have
not written this convention off or slept through it. They scrambled late.
They admit they were beaten to punch by Ted Cruz`s forces.

But by capturing Ben Carson`s organization the way they did. It`s easy to
laugh at Ben Carson. He had probably the best organization in terms of
getting delegates, bringing grass roots people into the movement making
sure they are registered the right way. That tied probably with Cruz and
those people work for Trump now, his two to lieutenants are going to be at
the convention this weekend competing with one of Cruz`s lieutenants.
They`re not going to let these delegates just slip by. They are not
blundering the way it looks from outside.

HAYES: So Mr. Emineth, you`re going to be running to be a delegate to go
the convention in Cleveland. First of all, are you telling folks who you
favor, and if not, how are you going to make up your mind?

EMINETH: Well, first of all, I`ve probably leaned a bit towards Donald
Trump because maybe a Tea Party or I`ve a party chairman, I think there
needs to be shake up in Washington. But at this point, I`m really not for
a candidate yet. I think there`s plenty of time between now and the
convention that we have time to decide what`s going to happen. But I would
say there`s a lot of people that, you`re right, that are going to be
applying to be delegates that are what I call establishment. I think you
give John Kasich in advantage in the process. But at the end of the day
Donald Trump does have the ground game that Ted Cruz has. And I can say in
North Dakota this time around, while the Trump are playing catchup, the
Cruz campaign, and you`ve seen it through the caucuses and state convention
is really a microcosm of a caucus. And so I think Cruz is going to have an
advantage of getting some people that are going to be delegates to the
national convention from North Dakota.

HAYES: Dave, the question I have is, who knows how to do this the best?
What we`re headed toward is a scenario there`s not a lot of practice with.
I mean 76 was the closest approximation to this. And folks are just not
used to like the internal mechanisms of manipulating the rules and the
levers of the party apparatus to win these kinds of battles.

WEIGEL: Cruz`s campaign knows how to do it pretty well. I would add the
Raphael Cruz, the candidate`s father was in the state as long as September,
trying to get people to become delegates to the convention. They
definitely have won the organization game in that round. In terms of
understanding how the larger process works, the team that Trump puts
together, late in the day includes veterans of the 1976 contested
convention. People who know how this works. There`s also a sort of
alliance between Trump and Cruz in a couple of respects. I was just
talking to the Trump camp before I got here, and they think their forces
and Cruz`s forces are all going to try to stack the rules committee, so
there is a hard cap on how you need eight states, the majority of the
delegates in eight states to even be nominated. They think they have the
best chance.

Both Cruz camp, and Trump`s campaign think they have the best chance of
winning a contested convention if they limit it to them and they don`t kick
this down to an unpledged third ballot contest. They`re already kind of
working together even as they work against each other as they make that
happen. The Trump people are a bit more sophisticated than we`re letting
on. No one would pretend the Cruz people don`t have a lead here.

HAYES: Yes, the rule 40, which I what Dave is referring to. You`re going
to hear a lot more about rule 40. Rule 40 will be one of the most
controversial and important parts of this entire open convention because as
Dave said, it basically sets the threshold. You have to have one majority
in eight states. I believe if I`m not mistaken.

EMINETH: It was rule created to stunting a Ron Paul.

HAYES: That`s exactly right. And we`re going to see if that holds, Cruz
and Trump have interest to keep that and keep other people out. Gary
Emineth and Dave Weigel from North Dakota the center of the political world
this weekend. Thank you very much. That is ALL IN for this evening.



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.>