All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 05/12/15

Guests: Sherrod Brown, Joseph Stiglitz, Tommy Vietor, Doug Gansler, JacquiLewis, Michael Hout

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN -- BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When you talk to Elizabeth, this is based on this dispute settlement provision that I just described. HAYES: Open warfare on the left. SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I believe this is the fight worth having. HAYES: Tonight, Senator Sherrod Brown on the trade fight the president just lost within his own party. SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: I think the president has made this more personal than he needed to. HAYES: Then, the massive pushback on the Seymour Hersh bin Laden report continues. Plus, why Marilyn Mosby`s appearance at a Prince concert was certainly not a conflict of interest. And why a major new poll on religion in America will not please Bill O`Reilly. BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS: The Judeo-Christian tradition in this country is under attack. HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. A brewing fight on the left broke out into open warfare today with Senate Democrats blocking debate on a bill that would give President Obama authority to negotiate a massive trade deal and present the deal to Congress for an up-or-down vote, without Congress being able to make any changes to that deal. The back and forth between the White House and Democrats has gotten personal. The vote was 52-45 in favor of moving to debate on the bill short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. And this was not some situation just a few Democrats defected. Every single Senate Democrat, except one, Tom Carper of Delaware, voted against the White House or did not vote. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders normally close allies of the president, cast the proposed deal as bad for American workers. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: We can`t keep pushing through trade deals that benefit multinational companies at the expense of workers. Government cannot continue to be the captive of the rich and powerful. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The massive trade deal called the Trans Pacific called the Trans Pacific Partnership would set new terms for trade business investments among the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations. Together, those nations represent roughly 40 percent of global GDP and one- third of world trade. The White House and many Republicans say the president can`t complete the deal if Congress won`t give him fast track authority known as Trade Promotion Authority, TPA, but Senate Democrats are refusing to go give the president that authority without additional measures to assist workers displaced by globalization, tightened child labor law, and fortify the government`s response to unfair trade practices, as well as a measure it to crack down on currency manipulation by foreign governments. The Republican leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell is refusing to allow a vote on those measures that Democrats have prioritized. Late this afternoon, President Obama convened a closed door meeting with Senate Democrats to discuss a path forward. He`s been openly feuding with Democrats over the deal particularly Warren, telling Yahoo! News that her position is, quote, "absolutely wrong and adding the truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else." Senator Sherrod Brown took exception to such comments. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BROWN: I think the president was disrespectful to her by the way he did that. I think that the president, his -- I think the president has made this more personal than he needed to. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now is Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, who`s been one of the most outspoken voices opposing this and on trade issues in general. Senator, I got to ask you this quote about Elizabeth Warren is getting a lot of attention. I want to you just address it. You said, "I think referring to Elizabeth Warren by first name when he wouldn`t have done that for a male senator perhaps. I`ve said enough." What do you mean by that? Do you think this has gotten unnecessarily personal all in all? BROWN: Yes, Chris, I`ve said enough about that. I think the president has gotten a little too personal about that. I want to move on. I think the victory today on this was pretty unprecedented. Democrats stayed together sending the message you don`t do trade agreements without trade enforcement and you don`t do trade agreements without taking care of workers who lose their jobs. I mean, even, as you know, Chris, even the cheer of the most vigorous cheerleaders like "The Wall Street Journal" for trade agreements acknowledge their winners and losers, and it`s immoral for Congress who votes on these trade agreements not to take care of people who are the losers who lose their jobs because of this. So, to me, it`s all with about that. It`s about trade enforcement. It`s about helping workers that lose their jobs. I don`t like these trade agreements, period. But if Congress is going to pass them, if the president is going to insist on them, then we`ve got to do it right. HAYES: Let me ask -- let me ask you this as I try to read the politics of what happened today. It was sort after remarkable vote, right? I mean, Democrats vote together, only one senator, Senator Carper of Delaware votes for it. I couldn`t -- I guess what I want to you explain to me is, was this the Republicans sort of creating this -- bringing this situation to this end because they wouldn`t include those items you`re talking about? Was it the White House? Was it the Democratic Caucus? Like, how did this all play out? BROWN: Well, it was -- it was several weeks of work. It was talk -- ever since the finance committee voted for these four bills, we assumed they would be together when I realized Senator Hatch, the chairman, wanted to bring them separately, understanding that Republicans wanted to kill the had help for workers, the trade adjustment assistance, understanding that the president wasn`t wild about some of the trade enforcement actions. My goal was to work with other senators to keep them together. We were able to do that because almost all the senators, including the ones I spent the most time with, those that were voting for the plan to vote for TPA, those senators believe there still should be help for workers when they lose their jobs and still believe in enforcement. They want to see trade agreements. I don`t agree with them on that. They want to see trade agreements, but they also know you have to have trade. You have to enforce these rules so that China doesn`t cheat and some of these other TPP countries don`t cheat, and they also know that workers lose their jobs because of our actions in Washington. And we have an absolute moral responsibility to help those workers, to help those communities, and ultimately to help those small businesses that lose their markets and lose their business because of these trade agreements that President Obama and the Congress have pushed. HAYES: Yes, one of those people is Ron Wyden who has been essentially advocating for the TPP but also voted with you today once those bills on assistance and currency manipulation were taken out. The question now becomes, what`s the next step here? I mean, basically can you can kill this? Do you think you can keep a Democratic Caucus together so that fast track doesn`t get passed? BROWN: Well, I think that fast track probably -- there`s a reasonably good chance it fails in the House. A number of people that voted with us, there`s about a dozen Democrats that agree with Republicans that we should have Trade Promotion Authority. So, I`m not under the illusion that we can actually defeat TPA. But I do believe that we can make it much more palatable. We can make sure that workers are protected. And we eliminate it. We have a provision to eliminate a child labor loophole that`s been in effect for 85 years. That`s an amendment I worked on that was important in the finance committee. So, we`re making improvements here. I wish we could kill it in the Senate. I don`t think we can, but I think we`ve made major progress and sent a message to the House that, yes, the Senate`s more strongly against this than people expected. The Senate always passes trade agreements because senators, I guess, are a little different from most of the rest of the people I know in this world. And so, they buy into all this stuff, that trade agreements produce jobs and they forget to read the evidence that these trade agreements cost us jobs. Every president of both parties, the reason I oppose President Obama on this is, the same reason I opposed President Bush, same reason I opposed President Clinton, regardless of party, is these trade agreements, they always make promises about more jobs, make promises about higher wages. It didn`t work in NAFTA. It didn`t work with PNTR with China, it didn`t work with CAFTA. It didn`t work with South Korea only a couple of years ago. They promised 70,000 jobs in South Korea. We`ve lost about that number of jobs. So, these trade agreements don`t work. I wish my colleagues would open their eyes and see that. A number of them won`t. But we`re going to make the best of this we can and eventually, it gets sent to the House. I have a real shot of defeating it there. HAYES: Fascinating. Well, it was a really big day. BROWN: Big day, good day. HAYES: An interesting day today. Senator Sherrod Brown, always appreciate it. Thank you very much. BROWN: Thanks, Chris. HAYES: Joining me now, Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics, informal economic adviser to Hillary Clinton`s 2016 presidential campaign and author of a Roosevelt Institute report released today called "Rewriting the Rules for the American Economy". Professor Stiglitz, you wrote a famous celebrated book about free trade and free trade orthodoxy, in which you -- one of the sort of first mainstream economist to break in some ways with the consensus that formed about the benefits of trade. What is your feeling about this trade debate that`s happening right now over the TPP? JOSEPH STIGLITZ, NOBEL LAUREATE ECONOMIST: Well, to put it quite bluntly, I think from what we`ve been able to see of the TPP, you have to remember, USDR keeps these trade agreements secret and the only reason we know about it is from WikiLeaks (ph) and in my case, talking to negotiators from other countries where there`s a little bit more transparency than the United States. From what we`ve been able to see, this is a very bad agreement. It`s not just about trade. The trade part is bad enough. But it`s about intellectual property, regulation. It`s really about changing our overall legal framework in ways that will disadvantage workers at the expense of corporations. It`s really that simple. HAYES: So, let me press on this. I mean, let`s divide this into two categories. There`s the kind of basic econ 101 specialize in trade that will maximize utility for all parties involved, right? That can be theoretically true and not particularly applicable to a given actual trade deal, right? STIGLITZ: Exactly. So, I`ll give you two examples. If the economy isn`t working very well -- and recently, our economy hasn`t been working very well -- you can destroy jobs from imports faster than you can create jobs, say, in the new exports sectors. And that`s why when you look at the data in recent years in the United States, those places in the United States that produce goods that are competitive with goods that are being imported, say, from China, wages are lowered, unemployment is higher. You know, in the standard model, markets work perfectly. There`s no unemployment. Even in the best of situations, however, trade -- trade liberalization, trade agreements lead to more inequality unless you take countervailing measures. And, unfortunately, we haven`t been doing that. The reason this is so important is inequality has been growing. You know, I have a new book called "The Great Divide" and it describes this great divide that`s opened up in our country over the last third of a century. And the trade rules are an example of how changes in rules can`t have led to an increase in the inequality in the United States, with just to give you one number that I just found astounding that since 1980, say, to 2012, the bottom 90 percent of America has seen no growth in their income. All the growth has gone to the top. That`s in part a result of that rules, the trade rules, and a combination of lots of other rules that we`ve implemented and that`s the reason for the Roosevelt report about rewriting the rules. We have to get rules right in order to make sure that we have more prosperity and more shared prosperity. HAYES: Joseph Stiglitz, Noble laureate, thank you very much. I appreciate it. STIGLITZ: Thank you. HAYES: Up next, the plot thickens in the new war of claims and counterclaims over just what happened in the effort to get Osama bin Laden. Then, Maryland prosecutor Marilyn Mosby under attack from the right. And, is the so-called war on Christianity working? That`s all ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS: Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion? JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I would have. And so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind, and so would have almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Jeb Bush, likely 2016 contender, former Florida governor, and brother of former President George W. Bush, appeared to tell Megyn Kelly over the weekend that knowing what we know now, that`s a phrase Megyn Kelly used, he would have invaded Iraq all over again. Today, he was given the chance to retract or clarify that on Sean Hannity`s radio show. And yet, he still managed not to answer the seemingly simple question of whether knowing what we know now he would have invaded Iraq. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) BUSH: I interpreted the question wrong, I guess. I was talking about given what people knew then, would you have done it, rather than knowing what we know now. And knowing what we know now, you know, clearly, there were mistakes as it related to faulty intelligence in the lead-up to the war and lack of focus on security. My brother admitted this. And we have to learn from that. SEAN HANNITY: So, in other words, if in 20/20 hindsight, you would make a different decision? BUSH: Yes, I don`t know what that decision would have been, that`s a hypothetical. But the simple fact is, mistakes were made, as they always are in life. This is not an informed policy. So, we need to learn from the past and make sure that we`re strong and secure going forward. (END AUDIO CLIP) HAYES: OK. So, still no clear answer on what he would have done then knowing what we know now on Iraq. Of course, there are many months of primaries and campaigns and debates for Jeb Bush to figure that out. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: The Obama administration and the intelligence community are defending the official count of how American operatives found and killed Osama bin Laden after a report by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh challenged many key points of the accepted story, and it set off a firestorm of debate, while the veracity Hersh`s report is still quite an open question, it`s provoked the broadest reexamination of the famous operation since it first became public just over four years ago. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who`s responsible for the murder of thousands. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Almost instantaneously, the details of the SEAL Team 6 raid in Abbottabad became the stuff of American lore. The year long`s hunt for bin Laden`s courier who led the CIA to the city of Abbottabad, home of Pakistan`s version of West Point, and to a mysterious walled compound. The perilous ride by stealth helicopter under the Pakistani radar to the leader`s hiding place and the tense moment in the Situation Room when one of the helicopters crash-landed. Finally, the confirmation bin Laden had been killed followed business his burial at sea aboard the USS Carl Vinson. All of it glorified and enshrined in memory by the feature film "zero Dark Thirty". Now, Sy Hersh`s story published in "The London Review of Books" contends that many of those details were a lie. Among the claims made in that piece that bin Laden`s location was revealed by a former Pakistani intelligence official who approached the CIA, that the raid on the compound was carried out in cooperation with the Pakistanis who were fully aware of the al Qaeda leader`s whereabouts, that the whole operation was concocted to provide cover for a secret deal between the Pakistani and American governments, and that bin Laden wasn`t buried at sea but instead had his body parts tossed from a helicopter on the way out of Pakistan. Now, these are some pretty serious claims and they come with some serious caveats. For one, the story was reportedly passed on by "The New Yorker" where Hersh, who was a guest on this show last night, has been a contributor for decades. For another, it relies almost entirely on just two sources, a retired Pakistani general and a retired U.S. intelligence official, neither of whom seem to have had direct knowledge of the events in question. And as soon as the article went up, the pushback started. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That story is riddled with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods. MIKE MORELL, FORMER CIA DEPUTY DIRECTOR: I started reading the article last night, I got a third of the way through and I stopped because every sentence I was reading was wrong. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I simply have never heard of anything like this and I`ve been briefed several times. ROB O`NEILL, FORMER NAVY SEAL: The story that I read, the part from Hersh, is full of lies. The story our president put out is the truth. There`s not lies in there. We did everything that we said we did, we did. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Citing U.S. intelligence sources, NBC News has corroborated two very limited aspects of Hersh`s reporting. First, that some members of Pakistani intelligence, we don`t know how high up, knew where Osama bin Laden was hiding, as many people suspected given his location and his proximity to the Pakistani military barracks. And second, there was a Pakistani asset who provided information vital to the hunt for bin Laden though according to NBC sources he was the not the source of bin Laden`s whereabouts. Joining me now, Tommy Vietor, former spokesman for the National Security Council. All right. Here`s my first question for you, Tommy. If -- let`s imagine a hypothetical world in which it were the case that a Pakistani brigadier general who was from ISI was a walk-in, came to the Americans and said, I want -- I want some of that reward money. Here is where he is. He`s in Abbottabad, let`s do this. If that were the case, no one would be able to come forward and say or admit at any point, right? I mean, official denials of that aren`t particularly persuasive because you guys in the White House rightly would never want to expose this source if it were actually true. TOMMY VIETOR, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SPOKESMAN: I think as a general matter that`s true, Chris. But in this instance, nearly every detail of what happened has been disclosed. And so, Hersh asserts that this is a source that came to us, coughed up bin Laden`s whereabouts and then was in the United States. Why then would you have to concoct the most elaborate ruse in the history of the United States to cover up for the safety of this individual if he was in the U.S.? And, by the way, why would the Pakistanis concoct a story with us completely humiliating to their intelligence and military leadership? I mean, it just doesn`t make any sense on its face. HAYES: You`re saying the story that in Hersh`s account, the story of an America able to sneak to helicopters past Pakistani air defense, land in a town that`s a big garrison town of Abbottabad, pull off this, get out of their with no one noticing? VIETOR: Well, yes. It is well known after this raid the Pakistanis were absolutely humiliated, and that because of the raid incident and because of this operation, our cooperation with them essentially ceased. It was the lowest point in U.S./Pak relations, you know, maybe in history. What I can`t understand here is why the ISI leadership, the military leadership, would put forward a story that made them look incompetent and was completely humiliating to them. That is the part that defies logic. And also, remember, Chris, if there were a walk-in source, there was a protracted conversation between the Senate Intelligence Committee, the CIA and the White House about what role torture or detainee interrogations played in the effort to find bin Laden. You have to believe that if the Senate Dems found a Pakistani source, a walk-in, anything of that nature, they would have put that evidence forward in their effort to say detainee interrogations had nothing to do with finding bin Laden. HAYES: OK. The walk-in part of this is something that our reporting last night appeared to have two sources saying this walk-in source led to bin Laden. Tonight we`re saying it is, you know, crucial to the find for him but there was this sort of parallel courier investigation. But I was sort of surprised to read this in "The New York Times" from Carlotta Gall who`s covered the region for a while. She writes about the Hersh piece. She says, "I was researching my book, I learned from a high- level member of the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI had been hiding bin Laden and ran a desk to handle him as an intelligence asset. After the book came out, I learned more, that it was indeed a Pakistani army brigadier, all the senior officers of the ISI are in the military, who told the CIA where bin Laden was hiding, and that bin Laden was living there with the knowledge and protection of the ISI." The news of Pakistan tonight reporting the name of the brigadier general. So, there`s a number of people saying that there was this specific person who came forward and basically sold out bin Laden. VIETOR: I read that report. A few things: one -- I mean, I was in the Situation Room that day. I wasn`t privy to all the information leading up to that effort but I was there that day, and for a whole lot of subsequent conversations. I never heard about a source. I never heard about this brigadier general. I never heard about any cooperation or collaboration with the Paks. In fact, I know that we informed them that day of this operation and there was a lot of subsequent intelligence chatter that was picked up, that showed how caught off guard they were by what happened. So, you know, the NBC -- I saw Carlotta Gall`s piece today. My understanding from reading that piece was she says a friend of hers knew someone who provided her this information. I think there`s a lot of people that think there`s no way the ISI at some level -- HAYES: Right. VIETOR: -- didn`t know bin Laden was there. My sense from when I was -- my understanding when I was in the White House and my sense to this day is that there is no clear hard evidence that they were harboring him. Some people may believe that. Some people in Pakistan may believe that. It`s very convenient for some individuals in Pakistan to say of course we knew where he was. We had him all along. We gave him to the Americans because they don`t want to look foolish. HAYES: Do you think they knew where he was? VIETOR: It`s impossible to know. There is -- look, the ISI is not a good organization. There`s a lot of people in there that are murderous thugs, that are very bad people that have done bad things. They are an organization we work with that`s sort of a necessary evil to deal with al Qaeda in the region. Is it possible that there are individuals who are in the ISI who knew? Yes. But I don`t know for a fact that there were and it`s very difficult to prove something like that. HAYES: All right. Tommy Vietor, thanks for coming on. VIETOR: Sure, thank you. HAYES: Up next, we`ll go live to Wisconsin where a D.A. just decided not to prosecute the police officer involved in the death of 19-year-old Tony Robinson. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TURIN CARTER, UNCLE OF TEEN KILLED BY POLICE: I would just like everybody to keep in mind that this was a 19-year-old kid whose life was cut short before he was able to fully realize his potential. SHARON IRWIN, GRANDMOTHER OF TEEN KILLED BY POLICE: I will miss him the rest of my life when you guys go home and you don`t deal with this anymore. This is a forever thing with me, and I just want to say this is politics and not justice. (END VIDEO CLIP) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST, "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES": The family of Tony Robinson spoke out tonight after Dane County District Attorney announced today the Madison police officer who shot and killed the unarmed 19-year-old back in March will face no charges. NBC News reporter Ron Allen is in Madison tonight as protesters gather following the announcement. Ron, what`s the latest look like there? RON ALLEN, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, it`s quiet here now. There were a number of protesters out, a small but passionate group who marched around the state capitol up the street there. And they`re not happy. They`re not satisfied and they`re not surprised either by this outcome. You know, the prosecutor, Mr. Ozanne, laid out a very detailed case however basically saying that night there was a violent, chaotic situation that Mr. Robinson apparently caused, that he was attacking people, running out in the streets. They found the toxicology report found drugs in his system. Several of his friends had called 911 saying that they had been attacked by him, choked by him, that he needed help. And this all ended up in an apartment that he was sharing or spending some time in with one of his friends. The Officer Matt Kenny chased him within the apartment more than 20 seconds. There was some kind of an encounter. The officer claimed that he fired seven shots as he was retreating, backing out of the apartment after Mr. Robinson had punched him in the side of the head and knocked him almost unconscious and the prosecutor found no reason to prosecute, to charge him any criminal charges. So, again, a lot of people here are not satisfied but this case for now seems closed. HAYES: All right, Ron Allen, thank you very much. Up next, just weeks after she decided to prosecute six Baltimore police officers in the death of Freddie Gray, the backlash against Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby has begun. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Are you worried about or prepared for the kind of backlash that might be coming at you and your office? MARILYN MOSBY, BALTIMORE CITY STATE`S ATTORNEY: What I can tell you is that, at the end of the day my office is an independent agency from the Police Department. And I was elected by the city and the constituents of Baltimore City to pursue justice. That`s my mission as a prosecutor to seek justice over convictions. So am I worried about any sort of backlash? No. Absolutely not. Have I done anything that`s unfair are or rushed? Absolutely not. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: On the day Baltimore City State`s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced charges against six officers involved in involved in the death of Freddie Gray, she assured me she wasn`t worried about the potential backlash. Well, worried or not, that backlash has now officially arrived. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: Miss Mosby is running the most unprofessional office I`ve ever seen in my life. TED WILLIAMS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: There was absolutely no way whatsoever that Miss Mosby should have been on the stage at a Prince concert. MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS HOST: Totally inappropriate, she had no business being there. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It`s completely outrageous that she is doing this. JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: It`s highly unusual and when she does that she undermines her credibility. O`REILLY: She`s unprofessional, she`s biased. KELLY: You want to be -- by the crowd, give up your law career and go into television news. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Mosby now a prime target for FOX News and other conservative media who were particularly irked by her appearance at a Prince concert in Baltimore where she was called up on stage. She`s not just getting criticism from the media, the team representing the six Baltimore officers were charged is engaged in a legal attempt to remove her from the case citing conflicts of interest. Police union representing the six officers is leveled similar allegations. I asked Mosby about those allegations when we spoke earlier this month. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Fraternal order of police says it is a rush to judgment, they say that the support of one of the great family attorneys for your election is a conflict of interest and they`re calling for a special prosecutor. MOSBY: And that`s absolutely absurd. With reference to a conflict of interest, there is no conflict of interest. My husband represents the district in which I live. I am the Baltimore City state`s attorney. I represent his district and 13 other districts throughout the city. I prosecute crimes there. I don`t have to turn on the news and open up the newspaper in order to see the crime impacting my community. All I have to do is open up the door, so there is no conflict. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now Doug Gansler, former Montgomery County Maryland State`s attorney and former attorney general of that state. Doug, here`s the way I`ve been thinking about this. And particularly the controversy over this concert, I can`t get my head around the supposed conflict of interest here. Let`s say there was a street rally held for victims of crime in West Baltimore or in west side of Chicago or a neighborhood that had been beset by gang crime, there was a rally for victims of crime and the local prosecutor got up at that rally and said I`m here to fight for you and some people in the crowd were victims of family members, or family members of victims whose assailants were being prosecute at that moment, no one would call that a conflict. They would just call that the prosecutor doing their job, right? DOUG GANSLER (D), FORMER MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes. So there`s no conflict of interest here. The question is whether there`s a conflict of interest in the terms of being -- conflict being a prosecutor and a politician. This is a woman who, you know, six months ago was working in an insurance company. She ran for state`s attorney, it`s a very seasoned, incumbent state attorney in Baltimore won that race, just coming off an election, and at this time once your politics is done, the sentiment that you`re hearing is maybe she should go back and start to think about the court of law instead of the court of public opinion, i.e. politics, and that I think is where the issues rest, and there was conflict of interests. HAYES: Doug, I`m sorry, that strikes me as deeply disingenuous. I have covered prosecutors running for office at numerous levels. I have watched ad after ad of every prosecutor that`s ever run for office who will come to the voters and tell them all the terrible thugs and crooks and rapists and murderers they have put away. That is how prosecutors get elected. It is how they get re-elected. It is what they do when they call a press conference to announce a big indictment, when they go out into a neighborhood and say their gang task force is taking down these terrible people. That is what prosecutors do. GANSLER: The piece about the press conference to announce an indictment is the difference. All the rest of it is sort of, you know, bluster and accomplishments. When you`re talking about a specific case that`s pending, what people say is the prosecutor is supposed to not issue any facts that are not public, not rush to judgment, not say I`m with you, I`ve heard your voice, therefore I`m going to prosecute, but do the right thing for the right reasons in every case. And in this case what happens was from the day she came out and made that press conference and, by the way, the flip side is there were riots going on and they stopped once that press conference happened. The question then, of course, do you keep going to the concerts and so forth? But even that day in her statement, should she have given facts that were not public? Should she have said I`ve conducted this independent investigation when the police had actually done the investigation? And should she have charged somebody with second-degree murder? I think that`s really what got people going, to charge somebody that drives a paddy wagon with second-degree murder like they intended to kill somebody, some people think might be over the top. HAYES: Two things, one, I was there in Baltimore. The riots had stopped before she gave that, just as a sort of factual matter of the time line, right? They happened on Monday. She gave it on a Friday. There were three intervening days in which there had not been violence, first of all. GANSLER: Yes, but there`s been tension growing towards this Friday when the facts were supposed to be made public which is all misinformation because they weren`t supposed to be made public. That was kind of the point. HAYES: Also, what information do you have that she didn`t actually conduct an independent investigation? GANSLER: Well, I`m sure she did. I`m sure she read the police report and all that. You know, it actually goes to conflict of interest. You know, the police do the investigation, the prosecutors make the assessment of how those facts apply to the law, and in this case, just like every other case, the police did their work and then the prosecutor makes their assessment. Now it sounds like she had other people do some witness interviews as well. But the very next day after she got the compilation of the police investigation to announce charges, some people thought that was premature. Certainly it`s atypical. It doesn`t happen a lot. Now the flip side of that is, yes, the rioting had slowed down and even almost stopped but there was great anticipation about the police finishing their investigation and was somebody going to be held accountable? She came out and said they would be held accountable before the weekend. HAYES: Final quick question here, you were a prosecutor. Did you ever hold a press conference to announce an indictment? GANSLER: Yes, but I only read public statements by a public official publicly. Yes. HAYES: All right. Doug Gansler, thank you for joining me. I appreciate it. Up next, the fallout from the deflategate decision to suspend Tom Brady. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Last week I visited a police training facility in New Jersey to try a state of the art virtual reality simulator designed to help police make better split second decisions when they face a potential threat in the field and they have to decide when and if they have to deploy their weapons. And one simulation, I had to try to talk down a woman who had arrived at her ex-lover`s house with a gun. Here is some of what happened. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: I want to you drop that weapon. Open the door, put your hand -- UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Hands up, don`t shoot, I`m going to throw my gun out. HAYES: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I`m unarmed. HAYES: Okay. Stay right there. Stay right there. Stay right there. (Bleep) Stay right there. (INAUDIBLE) (Bleep) Stand back. Get up. Get up. Get up and -- (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: A full report on that simulator will air tomorrow night right here at 8:00 p.m. Trust me, you do not want to miss it. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Well, Pat`s fans aren`t taking the suspension of their price quarterback Tom Brady lying down, they`re taking it sitting down. A handful of dudes associated with the Boston`s Sports blog staged a sit-in, yes, at the NFL`s headquarters in New York this afternoon handcuffing themselves together in -- I couldn`t tell if it was real or mock protest. They were eventually removed by police, no word yet on any potential charges. Joining me now from outside Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts, our own Steve Kornacki. Steve, I understand the author of the deflategate report Ted Wells who was hired by the NFL to investigate the allegations had some harsh words for Tom Brady`s agent today. STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: Yes, and just more specifically I think the generally the response that the Patriots organization and Tom Brady`s agent have given to the investigation, to the punishment. I know a lot of people outside New England won`t believe them. Won`t believe this. But when you talk to people inside the organization, and I did tonight, they say they were dumbfounded by the investigation, by the results, by the punishment and they say they are adamant that they believe that basically the fix was in when it came to this investigation and this punishment. That`s certainly the spirit of their public comments and Ted Wells, the lawyer who put that report together commissioned by the league to do that, he had a conference call today and he had a very simple message for the Patriots. He said, if you think you can undermine the credibility of this report, think again. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TED WELLS, NFL DEFLATEGATE INVESTIGATOR: This is the first time that after I`ve issued my report that I find somebody is questioning my independence and someway suggesting that I was influenced by the league office and I think that was wrong. But for those personal attacks I will be candid with you, I would not have responded but I think those attacks are out of bounds and unfair and just plain wrong. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: And, Chris, just to be a little more specific about what Wells is referring to, he basically pointed to two things that he said point most directly to guilt on the part of maybe Tom Brady. And perhaps the Patriots organizations in covering this up a little bit or not implying with the investigation, he said, number one, Jim McNally, he`s the guy who had access to the balls, the footballs before the game for the Patriots, the Patriots` refusal to make him available for a follow-up interview after Wells says he received these texts, he found these texts in which McNally calls himself the deflator. He said, that`s number one. And number two, that Tom Brady has refused to turn over text messages from his own phone even though Wells says he offered a deal to Brady`s camp that you don`t have to turn over the phone itself. You don`t have to give us access to that. We`ll basically threat this on the iron system. You give us the texts that you think are relevant and we`ll accept that at face value and enter those into evidence. And as they said they refused that offer and that made it even more suspicious. HAYES: All right. Steve Kornacki live at Pats Stadium in Foxborough, Mass. Thanks, Steve. Up next, a look at the startling new report on the decline of self- identifying Christians in the U.S. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Something I learned today from the big new Pew report on religion that I should have known before is that the United States is home to more Christians than any nation on earth. I mean, we are a Christian nation. Even as the report shows, a very significant decline in the percentage of Americans who call themselves Christians down to 70 percent, the lowest level ever recorded at the same time the number of people who are unaffiliated, secular or agnostic is shooting up sharply. In other words, in the absolute sense, American is dominated numerically by Christians. But in the sense of trends, well, it looks like Christianity is on the decline in the U.S. particularly something called the religious middle. Joining me now to discuss this. Reverend Dr. Jacqui Lewis, senior minister of the Middle Collegiate Church here in New York City. Michael Hout, professor of Sociology at New York University who studies the changing perceptions of religion in this country. Great to have you both here. So fascinating stuff here. Between 2000 and 2014, we see a decline in Catholics and a declining main line Protestants, right? We see a significant increase from 16.1 to 22.8 percent unaffiliated. This is a fairly seismic shift when you`re talking about a period of just seven years in terms of the religious composition of the U.S., right Michael? MICHAEL HOUT, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Absolutely. These are continuation of trends that started around 1990 and going at a very, very steady pace surprising some sociologists. We expect it to start to level off. But it continues upward as evidenced in this report. HAYES: Why was there an expectation that would level off? HOUT: Well, we thought it would just spend itself. The main driver was the way in which politically liberal members of conservative denominations sort of wandered away from their churches, quit identifying with it and we thought, well, that`s kind of spent. But now it`s getting a second boost from the demographic change where younger people who haven`t been affiliated with anything as adults aren`t taking up religion at the same rate that they did in the past. HAYES: There used to be a kind of, sort of effect as people age. They would age into church. Right? They would be raised in the church, they would sort of leave the church, and then they would have kids. Right? I mean, I`m sure you`ve seen this, Jackie, firsthand. Right? JACQUI LEWIS, MIDDLE COLLEGIATE CHURCH: That`s exactly right. And in fact, what I`m also noticing firsthand is that the churches where people are attending, I mean, this is bad news, but the good news is that the churches that are staying stable are the black church. The so called traditional black church. Why is that? I think it`s because traditionally the black church has been a place and understood, Chris, that there was something about the relationship with God but also the relationship with the community so you heal your soul but you also heal the world. And my church, middle collegiate that you know, has doubled in size in ten years. So, all these bad news that`s happening, we`ve doubled. HAYES: Okay. So, there`s two places where we`re seeing evangelicals have remained fairly certain -- LEWIS: That`s right. HAYES: -- and the black fairly stable, the black church has remained stable and thriving. What has really declined is what some people call the religious middle, particularly the old main line Protestant denominations and you`re saying there`s a political aspect to this, Michael? HOUT: Not to their decline. That`s a demographic story. They haven`t reproduced themselves since the baby boom. You have two people have one kid, can`t do that for too many generations. HAYES: You`re saying that basically Baptists don`t have enough kids - - (CROSSTALK) HOUT: Presbyterians. That`s what they call the middle. LEWIS: I think it`s a theological reason, Chris. And here`s what I think it is. I think the theology that works for churches to grow is really simple. It`s God is love. God is love. And if God is love, that means that religion is about working for justice. And so the churches that are growing, my church is working on economic justice, a true living wage. HAYES: Okay. But evangelical megachurches that are growing are not working on that stuff. They are comprehensive in the totality of people`s lives. Right? I mean, they have all sorts of things. But in the idea that like working for racial justice or economic justice is I think driving Christian worship or growth seems to me not supported by the data particularly -- LEWIS: It`s supported by my particular study said that Robby Townsend (ph) right, from Public Religion Research did a study about millennials. So, let`s talk about millennials. HAYES: Yes. LEWIS: Millennials are pro-gay. And so churches that are anti-gay are going to die. Millennials are pro-Muslim and Buddhist and their friends are multiracial and multicultural. So, yes, the racial thing does matter. And what I`m noticing right now is young people of faith are deeply involved in this Black Lives Matter movement. It really matters to them. So they were both down in Washington working on gay marriage hoping that their churches will stand in as the justices explore a testimony about this. And also working for racial justice and working against police brutality. So, I think these justice issues put meat on the church and we walk our walk. And I think people want something that`s real and substantive. And if that`s I think it works. So, the evangelical sense with substantive is I am an evangelical and this is my world of view. And a progressive way -- HAYES: And there`s a million things they do as well. Right? LEWIS: Exactly. Exactly. Yes. HOUT: The demography is actually the key their growth too. They do have children. Right. And more than other denominations in that has been fueling their growth. LEWIS: But since we`re not going to be able to necessarily grow our churches by having more babies -- HAYES: Right. LEWIS: What I`d like to do is to encourage the church to hear the message from the young people, let`s get real. Let`s open our doors to an inclusive understanding that God is, A, speaking to everyone not just to Christians. Two, God is on the side of love. Three, let`s be pro-gay families and let`s be pro-racial justice and economic -- HAYES: There`s this whole argument that I`ve heard from folks particularly theologically conservative folks in the Catholic Church. I was raising the Catholic Church. My father was a Jesuit seminarian. I was brought up in a sort of social justice Catholic left tradition. Right? But you will hear from conservative Catholics that, you know, basically look at this sort of the most wishy-washy liberal denominations. Those are the ones declining. It`s the most ardent of evangelical, the strictest, the ones that embrace orthodoxy and discipline the most -- HOUT: Yes. That was the standard line 20 years ago and it`s been completely disproven by the last 20 years of experience. LEWIS: Absolutely. HOUT: The polarization of American religion, the polarization of everything has, in fact, driven out members of the conservative denominations. And I`ll include Catholic there. HAYES: Right. HOUT: They stand very conservative on these social issues and that`s why they`re losing membership. Most of this change is among people who are politically liberal and they`re leaving the church of their origin. HAYES: So, that is where we`re seeing -- HOUT: They`re not finding anything. LEWIS: They need to put -- I`m going to go to church downtown and find a place where everyone is welcome. HAYES: Okay. I`ll come on a Sunday. I`ll bring my kids, my family. LEWIS: We`d love to see you. Thanks for having us, Chris. HAYES: All right. Reverend Dr. Jacqui Lewis and Michael Hout, thank you both. LEWIS: Thanks. HOUT: Thank you for having us. HAYES: That is ALL IN for this evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts now. Good evening, Rachel. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST, "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW": Recruited live on TV, Chris. HAYES: That`s right. You know, always be closing for God. MADDOW: That`s right. LEWIS: Well done. MADDOW: And well done for her. Well done. LEWIS: That`s right. MADDOW: All right. Thanks to you. And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. It is a busy night tonight. It has been a very busy news day today. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END