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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN -- (EXPLETIVES DELETED) HAYES: More anti-immigrant ugliness. Donald Trump goes on the attack. DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Listen to this -- they`re suggesting Social Security for illegal immigrants. HAYES: Hillary Clinton blasts back. HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Call people out when they say Mexican immigrants are drug dealers and rapists. HAYES: Tonight my interview with the Obama cabinet member who just endorsed Hillary. Plus, Bernie goes to Hollywood. ELLEN DEGENERES, TV HOST: Have you ever been in handcuffs? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes. I don`t know exactly what you mean by that. HAYES: More evidence that Jeb Bush is in big trouble. JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I know that`s kind of unusual. HAYES: Why are the top two Republicans threatening to boycott the next debate? BEN CARSON (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: OK. So I just want that on the record. HAYES: And how did George Pataki answer this question? Can you look me in the eyes and honestly say Ben Carson or Donald Trump would be a better president of the United States than Hillary Clinton? All that when ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Hillary Clinton made a triumphant visit to Texas today to court Latino voters as her campaign attempts to enter a new phase -- moving past the summer`s negative news cycle and pushing ahead with a strategy of reassembling the Obama coalition. Today`s trip comes on the heels of Clinton`s strong performance at the first Democratic debate, which seems to have calmed some of the panic about her candidacy. It may have even helped put the uproar over her private e-mail server to rest. And it comes as the Benghazi committee which helped keep that e- mail story alive is beginning to collapse on itself amidst a rare bout of honesty in Washington. Yesterday, another House Republican, Congressman Richard Hannah of New York, followed Kevin McCarthy`s example, admitting what many have long suspected. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) REP. RICHARD HANNAH (R), NEW YORK: This may not be politically correct, but I think that there is a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton. You know, I think there`s a also a lot of it that`s important that we needed to get to the bottom of this. After what Kevin McCarthy said, it`s difficult to accept that at least a part of it was not. And I think that`s the way Washington works. But you`d like to expect more from a committee that spent millions of dollars and tons of time. (END AUDIO CLIP) HAYES: In a statement, Congressman Trey Gowdy, the committee chair, pointed that Hanna is not a member of the committee and never raised concerns in private conversations. Tomorrow, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin is set to testify before the committee in a closed door session. And a week from today Clinton herself will testify in public. Today, however, she had a much more pleasant task, traveling to San Antonio to collect a key endorsement from a sitting member of President Obama`s cabinet, Housing Secretary Julian Castro -- the former mayor of that city. After being introduced by his twin brother, Congressman Joaquin Castro, the secretary gave his support in two languages. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JULIAN CASTRO, HUD SECRETARY: As first lady, as a United States senator, and as secretary of state, she`s been fighting for children and families to give them a chance to reach their own dreams. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) (SPEAKING SPANISH) (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Clinton`s own attempts in Spanish were somewhat less successful. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CLINTON: I want you to know I am not just La Hillary. I`m also Tu Hillary. Yo estoy contigo. That`s a promise. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The crowd didn`t seem to care, chanting her name and break out in thunderous applause. Earlier on at a Q&A hosted by the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Clinton laid out her views on the immigration debate. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CLINTON: So much of this debate about immigration that is coming from the Republicans is really misguided and misinformed. And it`s time somebody said what the facts are. Immigration is good for America. Immigration built our country. Immigration has provided a pathway to opportunity. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: She also told a re personal story about volunteering to babysit the children of migrant farm workers as a young girl in the Chicago suburb. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CLINTON: At the end of a long day, there was an old ramshackle bus that was coming down the road and it stopped at the end of the dirt road that led to the encampment. And when those little children saw that bus, they started to jump up and down because they knew their mothers and their fathers and their aunts and their uncles and their big brothers and sisters were coming home. And as soon as the door to the bus opened, those little children just started running down that road, and the parents, as tired as they were, were bending over and scooping them up. And I remember saying to my mother when she picked me up, you know, they`re just like we are. They -- you know, they`re just families like we are. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Of course, Clinton couldn`t avoid being put on the spot about whether she`s eyeing Julian Castro as a potential running mate. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CLINTON: I think really highly of him, and I am thrilled to have his endorsement today. Both he and his brother, the congressman, are just among the best young leaders in America, regardless of category or the fact they come from San Antonio. So I am going to really look hard at him for anything. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: And joining me now is that man, Julian Castro, secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Secretary, why did you make this decision to do this right now? JULIAN CASTRO, SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: Well, it`s very clear. We just had the first Democratic debate, that this 2016 campaign is getting into gear. You know, for the last 14 months, I have been working very hard at HUD, and focusing on making sure that we`re serving well, people who are in need. And I continue to do that. But I felt it was time now that the campaign was gearing up that I lend my support to the person I believe would make the best president going forward -- and that`s Hillary Clinton. HAYES: Is there anything politically tricky about doing this while you actually are in the cabinet? You`re in the administration. Obviously, there`s all this talk about whether Vice President Joe Biden will get in. Obviously, the president himself has stayed out of primary endorsements, as I think is the norm. Did you have to give the White House a heads-up this would be happening? CASTRO: Well, of course I did. Of course I did. And the fact is that my support of Secretary Clinton has been in the works for some time. My brother Joaquin endorsed her, you know, nine or ten months ago. So, you know, this is something that I think was not too big of a surprise to folks. But, of course, I gave the White House a heads-up. And the fact is that Vice President Biden has been an excellent vice president. I believe if he runs and if he were elected president, that he would do a phenomenal job as president. And so, my support for Secretary Clinton is about my belief in her. And what I see from what she has put out there. It`s not about anybody else. HAYES: The secretary has put out a very strong immigration platform. She is a supporter, as are I believe all of the Democratic candidates, of comprehensive immigration reform. What changes, say, January 20th, 2017, if it were to be Hillary Clinton sworn in or Bernie Sanders or any other Democrat that could make a possibility given that the House of Representatives we have and are likely to have in a year and a half`s time? CASTRO: Well, you never know what is going to happen after the 2016 cycle. I believe that we may see some movement once the Republicans face the same kind of loss that they had in 2012. And they see the overwhelming numbers of folks of different stripes. But, of course, particularly in the Latino community and the Asian-American community that in 2012 went -- Latinos at 71 percent and Asian-Americans at 73 percent for President Obama. They know, just as their, you know, summary or autopsy of the 2012 campaign said, that they fundamentally have to change. And it may not have happened in this cycle. But I`m confident that it will in the future. And even if it doesn`t, Secretary Clinton has made it very clear that she will ensure that the progress we`ve made under President Obama in terms of DACA and DAPA is preserved and she will seek to go further than that if Congress does not act. HAYES: It seems to me that we are watching in this cycle, a bit last cycle but really in this cycle the kind of -- the sort of -- the full ripening of Latino political power in this country as a voting bloc, as a sort of set of interlocking institutions to mobilize folks and the media environment. Are we seeing something really kind of new? Obviously, Latinos have been in the country forever, since almost its founding. But are we seeing something new in terms of the electoral and political role Latinos are playing as a sort of voting group? CASTRO: Well, you`re very right, Chris. As you know, I mean, you have a range of folks in the Latino community, folks who are new immigrants, a lot of folks like my family that have been here for a couple generations, and some even longer. San Antonio`s a good microcosm of that. It`s 63 percent Latino, and it runs the gamut. So, I don`t -- I don`t think their involvement is new, but what you`re picking up on, that there`s a new energy to this and probably a more effective organizing effort than ever before. I`m very proud of the folks who became very active around the DREAM Act and around the administrative action, and that is carried forth. And then you add in the incendiary comments that Donald Trump has made over the last several months, and what that`s adding up to is at the ground level, at the grassroots level, like I`ve never heard before in the Latino community, everyday folks are realizing, "Hey, something`s going on here and I`m going to go out and vote this time." HAYES: Interesting. Secretary Julian Castro, a pleasure. Thank you, sir. CASTRO: Thank you. HAYES: In Texas today, Hillary Clinton called out her Republican opponents directly for what she described as their irresponsible rhetoric on immigration. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CLINTON: Frankly, some of the really harsh, inflammatory language coming from the Republican candidates about Hispanics has just added to the ongoing problem we face and opening the door for those who then feel somehow free to not only speak in pejorative terms but even to act in a way that is prejudiced and hurtful. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That effect she was describing was on full display at a Donald Trump rally in Virginia last week where a group of large Hispanic protesters got an ugly response from Trump supporters. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (EXPLETIVES DELETED) (INAUDIBLE) (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Yes, that was that man spitting in that protester`s face. You did not mistake yourself when you saw it. This is by no means the first time something like this has happened at a Trump event, where people have often showed up to protest his comments on immigration. At one point, Trump himself seemed willing to try and repair relations with the Latino community, agreeing to do a candidate Q&A with the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the same event Hillary Clinton did today and at least four other candidates from both parties have done. But then about a week before it happened, Trump backed out. And I`m joined now by Javier Palomarez, president and CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, who hosted the Q&A with Hillary earlier today. Mr. Palomarez, you`ve been a frequent guest on the show a few times. JAVIER PALOMAREZ, U.S. HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CEO: How are you, Chris? HAYES: I`m very good. It`s good to see you again. Why did -- why did Donald Trump drop out? Do you have any indication of what happened there? PALOMAREZ: You know, we had plenty of conversation with that candidate. As you know, we publicly stated that he would be joining us on October the 8th. As the date drew closer, him and his campaign advisers decided to opt out. I`d rather spend my time, Chris, talking about serious candidates and about people who value the opinion of America`s burgeoning Hispanic community. Clearly, this fella believes that he can get to the White House without the Hispanic vote. We`re about to see whether that`s the case or not. I`d rather talk about people who matter and people who actually have a shot at becoming the president of the United States, and who take this process as seriously as it should be taken. HAYES: Who counts in that category to your mind? PALOMAREZ: You know, I think that we`re blessed to have a variety of candidates on both sides of the aisle. You know, on the Republican side, I`ve had the pleasure of spending time with John Kasich, with -- certainly with Jeb Bush, who was with us about three weeks ago. On the Democratic side, I`ve now had the pleasure of dealing and talking at length with the three leading candidates, with Bernie Sanders, with Martin O`Malley, and today as you know, with Secretary Clinton. And I`m enthused by the level of interest and the willingness to engage America`s burgeoning Hispanic community on both sides of the aisle. HAYES: Do you agree with -- PALOMAREZ: And so, I think -- HAYES: Sorry. Continue. PALOMAREZ: I`m sorry, go ahead. And so, I`m very happy to see that on both sides, frankly, of the aisle that there are people that value the contributions that America`s Hispanic community has made historically and continues to make to America both from an economic and a social perspective. I`m very enthused by that. And I think as we move forward here, 2016 now needs to be a year of action. I`ve heard all the rhetoric. I`ve heard a lot of dialogue. We have been courted and had the opportunity again, the privilege to sit with a variety of these candidates, arguably the leading candidates on both ends. But now, it`s time for action. And what I want to say are concrete policies, concrete plans, proposals for how we fix a variety of things in America. Obviously, immigration is important to my constituency. As you know, we represent 4.1 million Hispanic-owned businesses in this country that collectively contribute over $661 billion to the American economy. Beyond being business owners, however, we are voters. We are taxpayers. And we are concerned with all the things that all Americans are concerned with. But on this issue of immigration, it is a unifying issue amongst my constituency. And so, we want to see concrete proposals and plans for how we fix America`s broken immigration system. We view immigration reform as an economic imperative for the continued well-being of our nation. Frankly, the best plan I`ve seen thus far, and I`ve had plenty of time to talk to all of the candidates, is from Governor Martin O`Malley. He has put forth a robust plan for how we move forward and how we begin to fix this immigration system that`s been broken for some time now. I believe, however, that today`s conversation with Secretary Clinton was very enlightening. I`m very enthused by her passion behind America`s Hispanic community, her passion behind getting this thing fixed, and the fact that she surrounded herself with brilliant young Hispanic leaders like Amanda Renteria and certainly, Secretary Julian Castro, speaks volumes to me about just how seriously she takes this issue in the Hispanic community. HAYES: All right. Javier Palomarez, thank you, sir. PALOMAREZ: Thank you, Chris. Take care. HAYES: Still ahead, a look at post-debate Bernie whose strong showing has kept the donations flowing. Plus, President Obama announces a delay in withdrawing troops from Afghanistan on the same day a stunning expose on the U.S. drone program is released. And later, Jeb Bush went from the shock and awe approach, private jets, lots of campaign cash, to driving between events and staying in cheaper hotels. Is it time to start Jeb watch? Those stories and more, ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: It was almost a year ago that Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old African-American boy, carrying what turned out to be an air gun, was shot and killed by Cleveland Police Officer Timothy Loehmann less than three seconds after police arrived on the scene. Now, earlier this week we reported on the results of two outside investigations into the case commissioned and released by the Ohio prosecutor, who will ultimately be the one presenting evidence to a grand jury. Those reports found that Officer Loehmann acted, quote, "reasonably" when he used deadly force. Now, we have learned that two months before being asked to conduct one of those investigations, Colorado prosecutor Lamar Simms clearly alluded to the Tamir Rice when discussing use of force issues in a local TV interview. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LAMAR SIMMS, COLORADO PROSECUTOR: So what the court is saying is we`re not going to look into an officer`s motivation, into an officer`s biases, prejudices, but whether a reasonable officer confronted with the same facts and circumstances could have taken certain steps. The community may react to facts learned later, for example, by looking around the nation, say, you have a 12 or 13-year-old boy with a toy gun. We learn that later. The question is what did the officer know at the time, what should a reasonable peace officer have known at the time when he or she took the steps that led to the use of physical force or deadly physical force? (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Ohio Prosecutor Timothy McGinty says his office is not reaching a conclusion based on Lamar Simms` report or the other report, and will leave it up to the grand jury to decide whether or not to press charges. Again, it`s been almost a year since Rice`s deaths. Tomorrow, Tamir Rice`s mother is expected to ask McGinty to step down from this case and turn it over to a special prosecutor. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DEGENERES: Please welcome Senator Bernie Sanders. (MUSIC) (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: So you know you`ve hit the big-time as a presidential candidate when you go through the rite of passage of dancing on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show". I think it`s safe to say that when Bernie Sanders announced he was running for president back in April, it would have been very hard to conceive of the Vermont senator getting this particular invite. There he was today dancing alongside Ellen to the Tramps` "Disco Inferno". That after a $25 a ticket fund-raiser Wednesday night in Hollywood hosted by "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane where MacFarlane basically explained why he is almost a single issue Bernie Sanders supporter. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SETH MACFARLANE, COMEDIAN, PRODUCER, DIRECTOR: I want to tell you the moment when for me Bernie Sanders won last night`s debate. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) The question was asked, what is the greatest national security threat to the United States? (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) The other candidates gave answers like the crisis in the Middle East, nuclear Iran, ISIS, cyber warfare, offensive tweets, all legitimate threats to be sure. But Senator Sanders was the only person on that stage who gave the correct answer, climate change. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Sanders` swing through Hollywood continued with another fund- raiser at the home of a high-end real estate agent. Tickets for this event started at $250. But if he chose to spend the maximum $2,700 or raise $10,000, you got invited to a pre-event reception. According to the pool report about 300 people attended raising roughly $150,000. The campaign also announced a record surge in online donations totaling some $3.2 million since Tuesday`s debate with the average donation being just 32 bucks. All that is in addition to the $26 million Bernie Sanders` campaign reported raising in the third quarter topping all candidates who raised third quarter numbers except Hillary Clinton. Look at that, right there. Joining me now, Liz Kennedy, counsel and campaign strategist at the public policy organization, Demos, where she works on politics. It seems to me there are sort of, what all the candidates are doing and what Bernie Sanders is doing from a fund-raising perspective. Is that a sort of fair characterization? LIZ KENNEDY, DEMOS: Well, I think it`s absolutely exciting Bernie Sanders has been able to generate this kind of grassroots enthusiasm and that is translating into so many people coming involved as small donors in his campaign. I think it does speak to people resounding to his primary issue of inequality in our country and not just the economic inequality he talks about but the political inequality we see with the donor class playing such an outsize role in setting the public policy outcomes. HAYES: Yes, it`s fascinating. Here you have this merging of form and content, right? He`s walking the walk, right? He talks about billionaires and millionaires. People are trying to give him guff about these hard money fund-raising events. In Hollywood, Michael Briggs says, the spokesperson -- these are not particularly high dollar, we`re not signature around in rooms talking to very wealthy people. You have from his staff today, 77 percent of money raised by Sanders came from gifts of $200 or less, 99.99 percent of Bernie Sanders contributors can give again. So, here`s my question for you as someone who wants to see the system reformed. Isn`t this evidence it works fine? Bernie Sanders, here we are Q3, Bernie Sanders is outraising all those people, raising small dollars. Why do we need reform? KENNEDY: Yes. One success story does not a system successfully reformed make. And I think what we need to look at is the success of public financing, for example, in New York City, where when we have a system that incentivizes these kind of small donors in local? In state races that`s really now where we`re seeing money in politics take over and the big donors be able to play an outsize role in, for example, North Carolina`s state government. So, I think it`s great that as you mentioned you organized an event that said if you bring on more people you`ll be able to be in this. It`s about grassroots organizing. It`s about more people becoming part of the process. That`s what our democracy is supposed to be about. HAYES: And we saw this -- you know, it reminds me of the trajectory of this, we saw this in 2004 where the Howard Dean campaign kind of figured out how to raise money through small donors online. That was expanded by the Obama campaign which was able to do it at the big level and small level. Now, you have Bernie Sanders doing it. But all of these reports, if we want to show that graph again about the fund-raising, the bar chart, right? That doesn`t count super PAC money. That`s the key here, right? So, Hillary Clinton has got a super PAC and Jeb Bush got a super PAC, and Marco Rubio has a super PAC. Bernie Sanders doesn`t have a super PAC. So, that money that he has there, that`s all he`s got, that $26 million is all he`s got coming in. Whereas the other candidates, that`s where the big money is coming and that`s where the unrestricted donations are coming. KENNEDY: And that`s, of course, because the Supreme Court in Citizens United somehow decided that it was not corrupting of our democracy. Chris, democracy is supposed to be a system where our government is responsive to each of us as political equals, as equal citizens. And yet when you`re having these huge checks come in that are really only small percentages of what these millionaires and billionaires, the winners in our casino capitalism, they`re able to inject their own preferences and opinions and therefore determine public policy outcomes. We need a system where small donors can actually drive a candidate to success, where money and politics is not a barrier. It`s terrific that Sanders is doing this. We need actual policy reform -- HAYES: That create this on a large scale. KENNEDY: Incentive. And we need to hear from the candidates what they`re going to do to demand that kind of change. HAYES: We should note Donald Trump raised 3 million in the quarter even though he`s self-funding. That was actually -- this is $3.9 million in the quarter. That was largely small donations. So grassroots support abounds. Liz Kennedy, thank you very much. KENNEDY: My pleasure. HAYES: Still to come, why Donald Trump and Ben Carson are threatening to boycott the next Republican debate. That`s ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARRACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As I`ve said before, while America`s combat mission in Afghanistan may be over, our commitment to Afghanistan and to Afghanistan and its people endures. As Commander in Chief, I will not allow Afghanistan to be used as safe haven for terrorists to attack our nation again. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Today, 14 years into the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in this country`s history, President Obama announced that U.S. troops will not be withdrawing as scheduled. Just a year and a half after vowing U.S. troops will start a complete withdrawal from the country beginning next year, this afternoon the President reversed course. Under his new plan, 9,800 troops will stay in Afghanistan through next year, and some 5,500 will stay after that with no immediate plan for their withdrawal. The surprise policy reversal, which means the war in Afghanistan will be handed to the next president, quickly became campaign fodder. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CARLY FIORINA, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I certainly support his recognition of reality. RAND PAUL, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think it`s a mistake. It`s also not what our founding fathers intended. Our founding fathers intended that when we were to go to war that congress would debate this and this would be approved or disapproved by congress. I don`t know what our mission is. LINDSEY GRAHAM: The 5,500 is a political choice by the president, and I`m glad he`s allowing 9,800 to stay through 2016. But if we go to 5,a00 we`re going to jeopardize everything we fought for in Afghanistan. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Jeb Bush tweeted that if POTUS is committed to fighting terrorism, securing a stable Afghanistan, it`s time to give our military commanders what they need. Marco Rubio said while he`d welcome the decision to maintain troop levels until 2016, he disagreed with the president`s decision to prematurely announce a further drawdown before he leaves office. Now, today`s announcement, which will prolong the war in Afghanistan, perhaps indefinitely, comes the same day as a bombshell report from The Intercept, which provides the most detailed look into the U.S. drone program and targeted killing program to date. The stunning expose reported out from a series of documents leaked from a source within the intelligence community, gives us a rare behind- the-scenes look into the strategy that helped bring us to this point. Joining me now, Jeremy Scahill, founder of The Intercept. It`s an incredible set of articles, and really, in some ways, you kind of knew some of the stuff. But it`s this really granular look at what the strategy has been and what the policy`s been. Bracketing for a moment the deep moral and constitutional problems with this targeted killing, one of the things that comes through is this has not been particularly strategically successful and we`re kind of seeing that play out today. JEREMY SCAHILL, THE INTERCEPT: You have to remember, these documents cover the height of the drone wars, that period when the CIA and the defense department were fighting over who would control the drones, and President Obama still has not made up his mind about that. He was going to give it to the military. He was going to give it to the CIA. But, there are two things at play here. One is the documents show that the military is advocating to just get tons more drones. But, they`re also agitating for a return to targeted snatch operations, where they actually go in like they did in Iraq and early on in Afghanistan, do the night raids, take people, interrogate them, that intelligence leads you to the next thing. The argument that they`re making in this is that drones hurt our intelligence gathering operations because we`re killing people we need information from. You can make a moral argument against this, and I do it all the time. You can make a strategic argument that drone strikes create more new enemies, but also mean you can`t get any intelligence. HAYES: It also comes through, there`s one article that`s sort of the haymaker article, which is about an operation of some of the most elite units we have, the best intelligence, best operators we have, trying to go and actually go through a list of folks we thought were high up in the Taliban command and just how much error there was. We`re killing a lot of people we didn`t intend. SCAHILL: At one period it was 9 out of 10 people that the joint special operations command was killing in these strikes were not the intended target. And even if the people were innocent civilians, the military would label them as enemies killed in action unless posthumously someone proved they weren`t a militant or a terrorist. It`s sort of like a reverse justice system except there`s no trial or verdict and if you prove it later -- HAYES: You`re assumed to be an enemy. SCAHILL: Right. You`re assumed to be an enemy. And this is how the White House -- they created -- and John Brennan was really one of the architects of this, current CIA director -- they created a mathematical equation that will almost always result in zero for the number of civilians killed. They don`t actually know who they`re killing in many cases, Chris. HAYES: And, I thought about this today because I saw John Kasich, his quote on this was talking about essentially we need better -- more special forces for this. And it strikes me, you have this situation where the American public doesn`t want a huge amount of ground troops, right? That`s politically -- there`s also pressure to not just let Afghanistan fall to the Taliban. And so you end up with this strategy that`s like, well, if we have enough special forces and drones, that`ll kind of keep things as they`re going, and we`re sort of seeing that fall apart before our eyes. SCAHILL: See, as someone who`s spent time on the ground in Afghanistan, in Somalia, in Yemen, in Iraq, in these countries, I think the entire program makes us less safe. I think the assumption that we can kill our way to victory is bankrupt. But within the military and the CIA, there are powerful forces that want a return to kidnapping operations, to the extraordinary rendition program. And the Obama administration of course has tried to take it in a very different direction. Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who was the former head of the defense intelligence agency, and was Stanley McChrystal`s right-hand man at JSOC when they were killing their way through Iraq, gave The Intercept an interview. And in that interview, Lieutenant Flynn said, look, we can whack a guy and pat ourselves on the back, and he actually said that we killed Abu bag of donuts, which is -- in itself something -- but we made him a martyr now, and we`ve given the enemy a motive to want to fight us harder. Now, I think that`s probably true. But his solution is, let`s send in the troops and snatch people, and that`s bankrupt too. HAYES: And that`s what we`re going to see as this reversal -- see on the campaign trail, this sort of pressure in opposite direction. Jeremy Scahill -- everyone should go check out this incredible series at The Intercept. Thanks so much. SCAHILL: Thank you. HAYES: Up next, would either of the Republican front-runners truly be a better president than Hillary Clinton? I`ll ask a Republican presidential candidate just that right after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE HUCKABEE, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Here`s what I do know, when I was in college, we were told that the climate was changing but we were about to go into a deep freeze and if we didn`t make urgent changes in the way we live we were all going to be popsicles within another generation. Now we`re hearing that we`re going to burn up. BEN CARSON, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Is there climate change? Of course there`s climate change. Any point in time, temperatures are going up or temperatures are going down. That`s happening. DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So I am not a believer, and, I will -- unless somebody can prove something to me -- I believe there`s weather. I believe there`s change. And I believe it goes up and it goes down and it goes up again. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: There aren`t a whole lot of Republican presidential candidates who, A, understand what climate change is, just the basic what it is. And B, have publicly accepted the science behind climate change. But, former New York Governor George Pataki is one of them. And he sat down with me for an extensive discussion of energy, policy and climate change, which you can watch in its entirety in an All In web exclusive. When you`re the governor of a state, as Pataki was, for 12 years, one of the biggest states in the union, having policy debates about issues like climate change is the type of thing you need to be able to do. So, I had to ask him, does he think the Republican party`s current presidential front-runners, Donald Trump or Ben Carson, could also engage in those kinds of discussions? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE PATAKI, FORMER GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK: I don`t think they have the experience. And I think you do develop not just skills, but knowledge and awareness, particularly when you`re the executive -- HAYES: So let me ask you this. Can you look me in the eyes and honestly say, Ben Carson or Donald Trump would be a better president of the United States than Hillary Clinton? PATAKI: Yes. HAYES: You honestly believe that? PATAKI: I just looked you in the eyes and said that. HAYES: You think Donald Trump or Ben Carson would be a better president of the United States, knowing what you know about what it actually takes to administer the levers of governance. PATAKI: I do think so. Hillary Clinton has not been an executive. She never ran a state. She never held executive office, to the extent she ran anything it was the state department when it was absolutely chaotic. She was a legislator. They vote yes, they vote no. They take credit. They hide. She was never an executive, period. She`s never run anything. HAYES: What has Ben Carson run? PATAKI: He was the head of the medical department at Johns Hopkins. HAYES: You`re right. That is a better qualification than being Secretary of State and a United States senator. I agree. PATAKI: It`s better qualification than being a Secretary of State, resetting with Russia, dealing with radicalism -- HAYES: I honestly don`t believe you believe that. PATAKI: Well, I understand what you believe. HAYES: So you really think that. You think you`re going to go in that voting booth, if Donald Trump or Ben Carson are nominated, and you`re going to say, yes, hand the nuclear football and the administration of the American state to these gentlemen. PATAKI: Chris, you look at a number of factors. One is experience. She has not been an executive. Second is philosophy. Her philosophy -- HAYES: Sure. And that matters a lot. PATAKI: -- is very different from that in my party. Third is character. Can you trust the person? HAYES: Is your philosophy closer to Ben Carson than it is to Hillary Clinton? PATAKI: My philosophy is my philosophy. I don`t compare it to anybody else. HAYES: But you got to make these choices -- PATAKI: No, I don`t. I`m fighting so I can be the nominee so we don`t have to get into that. HAYES: Okay. Governor George Pataki, it is a great pleasure. PATAKI: Chris, always fun. Thank you. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Still ahead, you may remember George Pataki was a candidate in the now infamous, dare I say it, legendary All In 2016 Fantasy Candidate Draft. What you probably didn`t expect was he`d be a better pick than Rick Perry, maybe even a better pick than Jeb Bush. State of the draft is next. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s the former Governor of New York, George Pataki! (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: If you want to get a sense of just how unpredictable and crazy the Republican race has been so far, take yourself back to our special All In Fantasy Draft show. When Sam Seder drafted what looked like such a strong roster of candidates, we all thought he was cheating. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Did you just -- am I being -- is there something going on here? This is like Florida, 2000 election. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Now, just look at the candidates Sam managed to draft back in January. Mitt Romney, who at the time was threatening to enter in the race, possibly the next day. Scott Walker who was viewed as a serious competitor to win the nomination. Jeb Bush, the consensus GOP favorite. Hillary Clinton, the favorite on the Democratic side. And the -- also, Lindsey Graham. So, the Clinton pick has worked out pretty well for Sam so far, but that`s about it. Romney never got in the race. Walker crashed and burned, dropping out after just two debates. Graham is a rounding error in the polls. And then there`s Jeb Bush, whose, quote, "shock and awe campaign launch" was supposed to scare serious rivals out of the race and allow Bush to effectively cruise to the nomination. It is not working out that way to say the least. The trials of Jeb Bush, next. (COMMERICAL BREAK) HAYES: Jeb Bush, who at one point was the clear favorite to win the GOP presidential nomination, is sitting at just 7% support in national polls, behind three candidates who have never held public office, as well as Marco Rubio, who was once Bush`s protege. It was not supposed to be this way. Bush`s big advantage coming into this race, the reason that so many tapped him as the eventual nominee, was money. Bush, of course, had access to a famous fund-raising network that would allow him to raise a huge amount for his campaign, which, the theory went, he could then use to bury his competition. And today was the day the campaigns had to release their third quarter fund-raising numbers. We learned Bush raised 13.4 million in new donations for his presidential bid. That sounds pretty good. Until you consider that Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, raised twice that much in the third quarter and he`s far from the only candidate to raise Bush, whose fund- raising pace has slowed amidst concerns over his faltering candidacy. With about $10 million now on hand, Bush actually has less cash in the bank than Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson. As for efforts by Bush and his backers to effectively purchase popularity via advertising, there are also some ominous signs. Last month the super Pac backing Bush, Right to Rise, unleashed a $24 million ad campaign to tout Bush in the early states, with spots like this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The state was Florida. The governor was Jeb Bush. Proven conservative. Real results. Jeb. Right to Rise USA is responsible for the content of this message. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: According to Politico, in the key early state of New Hampshire, Bush and Right to Rise have spent at least $4.8 million to support Bush since early September. The results -- Bush`s numbers have actually moved down in the granite state from 9% to 8.7%. Bush is reportedly now cutting back on spending, staying at cheaper hotels, often flying commercial, and traversing Iowa not in a private plane as he did in August, but by car. And in a pretty depressing development for the one-time favorite, Ben Carson, who is pulling far ahead of Bush and easily outraised him last quarter, has decided not to do any more campaign events until the next GOP debate on October 28th, so he can focus on selling his book. So, Bush is now losing badly to a guy who, at the moment, isn`t even bothering to campaign. Can Jeb Bush be saved? That`s next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Joining me now to talk about the sad state of affairs in the Jeb Bush campaign, and Ben Carson pausing his campaign for a book tour, Betsy Woodruff, political reporter for The Daily Beast and the Matt Welch, editor and chief of The Reason Magazine. Matt, are you a bull or a bear on the Jeb Bush campaign? MATT WELCH, THE REASON: I have thought from the beginning that the Jeb Bush campaign had nothing behind it. The whole rationale for it was inevitability. We`ve seen a demonstration project here that money is not determinative in politics. There`s nobody out there saying, I`m a bush conservative, damn it. That doesn`t exist. It was just that I`m going to outspend everyone and make myself look inevitable. He right now has lost to Ben Carson in every poll for two months. 50% of Republican voters, 50, have been behind the combination of Trump, Fiorina, and Carson for two months. There is no establishment. Long live the establishment. HAYES: Well, so, Betsy, here`s to me the bullish case, what none of that hard -- none of those hard dollars count the super Pac. Super Pac donors, he`s got a huge, well-funded super Pac. Super Pac donors can ride in at any time with a million-dollar check. And, we all remember like, John McCain was basically down to his last ten cents in 2008, and ended up coming back. So, what`s your feeling? BETSY WOODRUFF, THE DAILY BEAST: It`s not pretty. And I think the New Hampshire example is really just the most damning. The fact is, over that three-week window Politico was talking about, 60% of political ads on the air in New Hampshire were pro-Jeb ads and his numbers went down. That`s unreal. That`s so bad. I don`t know how you spin that. I mean, you can fly cheap airlines everywhere. You can feed your staff McDonald`s dollar menu. I don`t know how you tell your donors this makes sense, money is helping us out and moving the needle. It`s tough. It doesn`t look good. HAYES: You`re right. I think that number is the most damning. You pour this advertising in, it doesn`t do anything. Meanwhile, this is my favorite campaign story of the day. Ben Carson, a man who I think, it`s safe to say a lot of people did not anticipate to be doing as well as he is, a man who`s never held elected office although incredibly distinguished career as a neurosurgeon, was just like hey, peace out, I`m going to go on my book tour for two weeks. Like, what is going on? WELCH: Now, I think this is a bit of a nothing burger story on the part of ABC which first broadcast this. Campaign books, in fact, you talk about John McCain, when his campaign was dead, and I think I was flogging a book on McCain at the time, in July of 2007, what did he do? He went on a book tour. Campaign books, especially of those very few presidential candidates who people want to read their books of, and there really aren`t many, but Ben Carson is one of them. He probably sells more books than the rest of all the candidates combined. It`s free media. That`s how they describe it. We don`t need to go out there and pay for stupid ads in New Hampshire.We`re going to have friendly interviews all over the joint for the next two weeks. So, I think that it`s not really that he`s suspending his campaign. His campaign will probably be better served by doing in the next two weeks. HAYES: It also brings to mind though, Betsy, whether this is -- I mean, one of the things that popped out to me about Ben Carson`s fund- raising numbers, he raised a lot of numbers, I think it was 20 million, and I think spent 11 million raising that. I mean, this is -- he was running a direct mail operation that is functionally redistributing money from grassroots conservative donors into the pockets of direct mail consultants. WOODRUFF: It`s amazing. He`s making so many consultants so wealthy. And on top of that, the rest of his campaign isn`t exactly living on a shoestring budget either. He spent $1,000 on dinner at Johnny`s Half Shell, a very fancy oyster joint just downstairs of this studio that I`m in. He`s spent money on limousines, he`s bought very, very expensive state dinners. I mean, conservative grassroots donors love Ben Carson. If you want to make a bunch of money, rent out an e-mail list, slap a picture of Ben Carson on it, say you`re trying to stave off creeping Jihad. You will get lots and lots of $20 donations from naive Ben Carson fans. Carson and his team are using this money to eat oysters and to make their consultant friends rich. And it`s just fascinating to watch. It`s really a singular situation. HAYES: Yeah. I mean, if you`re a Ben Carson donor and you really want Ben Carson to be president, just keep in mind right now when you`re writing him a check for $100, 55 bucks is going to a consultant right now. I mean, that is a very high rate. Direct mail, of course, is always expensive. Everyone has overhead expenses. WELCH: Right. And everybody -- it`s kind of known by people who practice politics that it`s sort of openly corrupt. I mean, a lot of the consultants kind of double dip and double bill and all these kinds of things. So, I think the people who give money kind of know that, especially if they`re rich. HAYES: Okay, so my second favorite campaign story of the day is Ben Carson and Donald Trump threatening to boycott the next GOP debate, which is on CNBC. Basically, a conference call happened today and, you`ve got to love the fact they`re now throwing their weight around as front-runners, saying they don`t want to sit around for more than two hours, they`re frustrated with the CNN debate. Do you think they basically have CNBC over the barrel, Betsy? WOODRUFF: Look, it`s totally plausible, if Donald Trump and Ben Carson actually pull out, what happens to their ratings? It`s kind of boring. I mean, let`s be very honest, very candid here. Do we want to watch a Republican primary debate that doesn`t have Donald Trump? I don`t know. I don`t know if I`m tired of it yet. And Trump was so bright pink by the end of the last one that I understand him not wanting to stand up there for three hours. So yeah, I think they have a lot of leverage. I think the RNC is going to be pulling for them too because it has to. And it will be interesting to see if CNBC blinks or not. HAYES: All right. CNBC of course our sister network. They say they never intended to do three hours, so we`ll see how this is ultimately resolved. Also you mentioned candidate books. We have a special All In special book project we`re working on, someone reading all the candidate books. It`s going to be very fun. Betsy Woodruff, Matt Welch, thank you both. 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 <Copy: Content and programming copyright 2015 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>