All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 05/20/15

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN -- JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: That`s what the president did when he abandoned, when he left Iraq, I think it was -- it was wrong. HAYES: Jeb Bush attempts a pivot on Iraq, a day after a CIA official admits the Bush White House misled America into war. MIKE MORELL, FORMER CIA DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Look, I`m just telling you what -- CHRIS MATTHEWS, HARDBALL: He just admitted it. (CROSSTALK) HAYES: Former Ambassador Joe Wilson and Senator Chris Murphy are here with reaction. Plus, Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders on the Rand Paul filibuster, Hillary Clinton`s master stroke on immigration, the secretary of energy on today`s climate change address from the president, and we now know where Osama bin Laden was on global warming. ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from Washington, D.C. I`m Chris Hayes. After taking a beating on the campaign trail last week over his position on the Iraq war, Jeb Bush declared today it`s time to change the subject. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: We got a little bumpy, but all is well now. The ship is stable. Here`s the bigger question as it relates to -- because the circumstances are different between -- the world is radically different. So, the focus ought to be on knowing what you know now, Mr. President, would you -- should you have kept 10,000 troops in Iraq? (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Seizing on the recent fall of a major Iraqi city, Ramadi, to ISIS, which today also seized control of the Syrian city Palmyra, Bush blamed the current state of affairs on the Middle East on GOP hawks favorite culprit, President Obama. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: ISIS didn`t exist when my brother was president. Al Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out when my brother was president. There were mistakes made in Iraq for sure, but the surge created a fragile but stable Iraq that the president could have built on, and it would not have allowed ISIS or ISIL. And now you think about the family members who lost our blood and treasures in Ramadi, and they won. They won that battle. It was hard fought, and that stability now has been lost. So, I totally get the past being an issue. I think the focus now is what strategy do we have to take out ISIS? (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: There were mistakes made in Iraq now with the passive voice. And we probably shouldn`t have gone in the first place. But according to Jeb Bush, it all turned out OK by the time his brother left the White House. A pretty convenient position for a likely presidential candidate who shares a last name and a foreign policy team with former President George W. Bush. And so, is Jeb Bush`s eventual admission, they wouldn`t have invaded Iraq knowing what we know now, that his brother`s administration, including some of those same advisers, were duped into a war they had every intention always of waging. Joining me now, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, famously debunked the Bush administration`s claim that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium in Africa. Ambassador, your reaction to the sort of arc of the trajectory of the argument over knowing what we know now, and Jeb Bush`s attempt to sort of pivot to the question of what was done in 2009? AMB. JOE WILSON, FORMER DIPLOMAT: Well, I would be delighted to hear what Mr. Bush proposes we do in the future, since that`s what he wants to talk about. I think he ignores if you want to go back to 2009, the fact that it was George Bush who negotiated the withdrawal of American troops, which I think was a good thing to do at that time. And it was Prime Minister Maliki who decided he would go ahead and honor that agreement, that the United States would leave in 2011. What is Jeb Bush going to do? What are the Republicans going to do? Which Arabs are they going to kill this time? After having overthrown a Sunni regime in Baghdad, and essentially allied themselves now with the Shiite militias supported by Iran, are they going to go out and kill more Sunnis, thinking that`s going to help us? It was Sunni extremists I would remind people were responsible for 9/11. So, are we going to kill all Arabs we find on the streets? And if we can`t kill them, are we going to torture? You have to take a look at Mr. Bush`s foreign policy advisers and that`s it seems to me the conclusion you come to. HAYES: The claim, he famously had this interaction with a college student who said, your brother created ISIS essentially. He took some pains to say, ISIS didn`t exist when my brother was in power, which is true in the sense of the entity itself with that name. But what we know is there`s a tremendous continuity between al Qaeda in Iraq under Abu Zarqawi into what we now have as ISIS. WILSON: ISIS is a child of al Qaeda in Iraq. And al Qaeda in Iraq came about as a consequence of the vacuum created, as a consequence of the conquest occupation of Iraq and the disbanding of the Iraqi military. ISIL is the tip of the spear of what is a much broader Sunni rebellion against the Shiite government in Baghdad. And it is devolving into an all out civil war between the Shiite and their Iranian allies and the Sunni tribes and their al Qaeda -- ISIL extremists. HAYES: Does it strike you that the campaign debate over the last week, while in some ways important and clarifying, also seems remarkably removed from the depth of the problem that has been created by what we did in 2003? WILSON: Indeed, it does, and it also strikes me that a lot of people are trying to use this to point fingers, political fingers rather than really address the depth of the crisis in which the Middle East now finds itself. And there is little on any side that is being discussed about a way ahead. HAYES: Do you think there is a way ahead? I mean, we get a lot of rhetoric about Jeb Bush talks about how we`re going to take out ISIS and things of that nature. There`s been calls for ground troops, there`s been calls for a more muscular response. It`s all very hard to come up with something more concrete than lots of American troops back in Iraq. WILSON: Which I think would be an absolute disaster, even as trainers, we could see from how the Iraqi army has performed how good our training has been over the years. I actually think the best thing we can do is take a deep breath. Understand we`re not going to make any friends over there by military action, work with the neighbors who are most directly involved by the overthrow of violence and do everything we can to alleviate the suffering of those who have been displaced by this current fighting. HAYES: I finally also want to get reaction to the former CIA deputy director, Michael Morell, who was on "HARDBALL" with my colleague Chris Matthews last night, talking about this intelligence question, very specifically. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MORELL: We said he has chemical weapons. We said he has a biological weapons capability. MATTHEWS: Sure. MORELL: And we said he`s reconstituting his -- MATTHEWS: That`s not what Dick Cheney said. MORELL: I`m telling you. MATTHEWS: You`re briefing these guys to no effect then. You`re telling them one thing, and they tell a country what sells their war. MORELL: Chris, I`m telling you what we told the American people. MATTHEWS: Was Cheney telling the truth? MORELL: I -- you got to tell me exactly what they said, and I can tell you whether -- MATTHEWS: Just before the invasion of March of 2003, former Vice President Dick Cheney said that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted nuclear weapons, here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: We know he`s been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has reconstituted nuclear weapons. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: He has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons. Was that true or not? MORELL: So, we were saying -- MATTHEWS: Is that true? MORELL: We were saying -- MATTHEWS: Can you answer that question? Is that true? MORELL: No, that`s not true. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: It seems weird that we have to come back and relitigate this 12 years later. But your reaction? WILSON: I thought Chris Matthews was far too easy on Mr. Morell, but I`m glad that he finally got the right answer from him. People knew at the time that it wasn`t true. All you needed to do was go back and take a look at the U.N. inspectors` reports from the 1990s to know that it had been dismantled. As well as listen to what the other intelligence people were saying around the community, including the Department of Energy on the aluminum tubes, and the State Department`s office of intelligence and research. HAYES: All right. Ambassador Joe Wilson, thank you very much for your time tonight. WILSON: My pleasure. HAYES: I found the debate on the campaign trail about Iraq back in 2003 clarifying and useful. But I also think people are eager to join in it because it`s a lot easier than talking about what`s happening in Iraq now, and the consequences of the disastrous war we initiated in 2003. Here is where things stand -- we`re nine months into a war we`re waging in Iraq using American military forces, some of whom are on the ground as trainer. There doesn`t seem to be a lot of positive progress, as ISIS has taken over major cities while we`ve been doing it. And there seems very little map forward in a region that seems absolutely aflame in every direction you look. In that respect, it`s much easier to talk about what an obvious disaster 2003 was, than what the heck to do now. Joining me now, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I mean, I -- all of the rhetoric about, we have to be stronger, there should be U.S. troops on the ground. I see no way out, no way out. And I can`t find anyone to persuade me otherwise. SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: I think to your first point. There`s something going on here. We`re not relitigating the Iraq war simply because it`s easier than talking about what happens going forward. It`s because the mainstream Republican candidates for president have made it pretty clear that they support a reinsertion of American ground troops back into the Middle East, which is just a replication of the problem that got us into this mess in the first place. So, we`re relitigating the Iraq war in part because despite the fact that the Republican candidates say they wouldn`t have gone into Iraq now, after hemming and hawing for days and days, when they actually talk about what they do going forward, they`re talking about massive ground troops again. And so, we have to make sure that we understand how catastrophic this was to remind the American people that you want to put someone back in the White House who`s going to make this mistake again. But going-forward, we`re seeing the same script play out right now with a body that we saw with al Maliki on a smaller scale. What happened in Ramadi was in part due to the fact that a body did not stand up, a capable Sunni military presence in part because he`s afraid of what it might mean for his Shiite majority. And so, if we want to figure out how to fix this problem going-forward, we`ve got to start saying to Abadi, we`re not going to protect you, we`re not going to continue to put American troops in harm`s way, unless you actually empower the Sunni population in your country to fight back against ISIS. HAYES: The case that people make against the policy of the U.S. government in 2009-2010 that seems the strongest to me, although I remain somewhat un-persuaded on it. People like Dexter Filkins (ph) had made the case that essentially the presence of American troops would have acted on a check of the excesses of the Maliki government in creating this kind of majoritarian Shiite state run amok that persecuted Sunnis that in some senses ordered in troops when there were nonviolent protesters, et cetera. Does that ring true to you? If that is the case, then what is the solution now to reign in the current Shiite-dominated government? MURPHY: Well, I think there`s three ways to look at that. First, you have to look at what happened. The president actually made a persuasive case, put in a lot of work to try to keep 10,000 troops there. But Maliki, for political reasons, didn`t want American troops there, and he had a veto power, because he would not give us the legal protection for our troops that they would be exempt from Iraqi law, that we needed in order to keep them there. So, we tried to keep them there, Maliki said no now. Filkins and some others make the case that Obama should have tried harder. The problem is that there`s no real insight in date. If it is necessary to have a large number of American troops to stop somebody like Maliki from killing Sunnis in his country, then when does that end? It`s essentially an invitation for a permanent large scale presence of American troops in the Middle East. That`s untenable as well. And so, you`re back to where we are today, which is again, I think drawing a hard line with Abadi, who needs our presence there. Tell him, you have us so long as you make a commitment that you have a military that`s made up of Shiite and Sunni. And if he doesn`t do that, tell him that we`re leaving. HAYES: Well, but then, this is the problem, we keep coming back to the question at the heart of this is which, are you going to genuinely create an Iraqi state that`s stitched together at the highest levels between Sunni and Shia? And will that be a functional state in which everyone feels like they have the protection of the law? And it strikes me that no amount of American leverage can bring that to be the case. No matter what we say, they`re still going to be there, they`re still going to worry about their affiliations, their loyalties, who has their back, whether we`re there an hour or whether we`re gone tomorrow. MURPHY: And Bush and others are right, in that for the very small period of time in which there was a modicum of stability, there was a massive presence of American troops and, by the way, a massive presence of American money, Which was paying off Sunnis throughout the country in order to fight against then al Qaeda in Iraq, now ISIS in Iraq. So, if you want to commit billions of American dollars and thousands of American troops, then, yes, perhaps we can get some stability. The American people aren`t going to support that. It`s a long way of answering your question in the affirmative, Chris. This is such a catastrophe that it is incredibly hard to figure out how this gets solved moving forward. And it is a lesson for why we should never put somebody in the White House that is so cavalier about the intrusion of the ground troops in the Middle East. HAYES: All right. Well said, sir. Chris Murphy, thank you very much. MURPHY: Thanks, Chris. HAYES: Still ahead, the president warns of a new threat to national security. We get a look at the contents of Osama bin Laden`s bookshelf. Spoiler alert: my book did not make an appearance. Presidential hopeful Rand Paul announces a filibuster, kind of, against the Patriot Act. And Hillary Clinton makes a bold hire for her presidential campaign. We`ll tell you who that is, ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Bin Laden`s bookshelf has been released. That`s the moniker given by the office of the national -- director of national intelligence to some of the documents recovered in the May 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden and just released to the public today. Material includes actual books found at his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Including several conspiracy books about 9/11, books critical of America and its economic system, and such as "Bloodlines of the Illuminati", which reported to be an expose of the secret society that controls the world. There`s also an al Qaeda job application, asking questions about past jobs, career objectives. Questions like, do you want to execute a suicide operation? And, who should we contact in case you become a martyr? There`s even a document purportedly written by bin Laden himself, which refers to his concern about the, quote, "massive consequences of climate changes" -- about certain subjects even the morally depraved can be factually correct. The very real dangers of climate change to global security, ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: There comes a time in the history of nations when fear and compliancy allow power to accumulate and liberty and privacy to suffer. That time is now. And I will not let the Patriot Act, the most unpatriotic of acts, go unchallenged. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: With that, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky began what he calls a filibuster, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Seven hours later, he`s still going, his aides say Senator Paul, quote, "will speak until he can no longer speak." Right now, he`s technically eating up time that was already set aside for discussion on a trade vote, that`s for TPP. If he keeps going past midnight into the early morning hours, he could be delaying action on legislation, in what is currently just a really long speech would then become a filibuster. We`ll be keeping an eye on how Senator Paul is doing, as he continues on his epic journey right here. Joining me now, 2016 presidential candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders, a man who has used the filibuster itself at certain times. Patriot Act seems perfectly teed up for Congress to do what it does best, which is do nothing, right? You guys have this one, it`s a fastball pitched in the middle of the plate. You got a sunset clause on the Patriot Act, and all you folks have to do is not do anything. And yet, that`s not going to happen, right? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Well, who knows what will happen? Let me just say this: you know, Rand Paul and I do not have a lot in common on a whole lot of issues, but I think on this issue, we`re coming from the same page. Chris, I worry very much about the United States moving rapidly into an Orwellian type of society. And, you know, it`s not just that the NSA is collecting virtually avenue phone call made in America, has access to the Web sites that you visit, the e-mails that you send. It`s the private sector knowing what books you`re buying, what food you`re eating, your medical records, banking records -- this is really scary stuff. And technology has significantly outpaced legislative ability to protect our privacy. HAYES: So, are Senate Democrats are going to come together around an alternative? I mean, what is basically -- what`s going on in your caucus right now in terms of this legislation? SANDERS: OK. I should tell you, I voted against the original Patriot Act and the reauthorization of the Patriot Act for all of those reasons. What`s going on right now is my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has a reasonable bill. He`s trying hard and he`s trying to work with the Republicans, essentially among other things, to get the phone records, the metadata out of the NSA back into the private phone companies. He believes that I agree the phone company should not have that information. And that`s a step forward. I don`t think it goes far enough. HAYES: But I mean the end game is, there`s this sort of clock ticking on the deadline. SANDERS: Right. So, one of two things will happen. HAYES: You`re going to -- I mean, you`re going to pass something, right? SANDERS: Maybe, maybe not. HAYES: I mean, it would be amazing if it`s sunsetted I guess is my point. SANDERS: You know, it may, it may. There may be enough votes to say, we have got to take a thorough look at the issue of constitutional rights in this country. Look, everybody agrees that terrorism is a real threat. I certainly do. But I think we can protect the American people without undermining the Constitution and the privacy rights of our people. So, to answer your question, whether the Leahy bill passes or not. We`re not certain, if it doesn`t, it`s quite possible that the Patriot Act makes sense. HAYES: You have been one of the critics in the Senate of the Trans Pacific Partnership. SANDERS: You got that right. Absolutely. HAYES: One of the most outspoken along with Senator Warren and Senator Brown. Can I ask you, just the informational question? What do you guys see? There`s a question about, what is it? What is it? Do the people get briefed, and they can`t talk? What did you see? How do you know -- SANDERS: Here`s what the process is, can I walk into the top secret room, which is probably more top secret than the NSA. Can I walk in there and read the document? I can. Can I write gown information and take it out? No, I can`t. Can I in a highly technical and legal document of many hundreds of pages bring in my staff lawyers to help me better understand the document? I cannot do that either. So, I have not given credibility to this process. There is virtually no transparency, and that is one of the many reasons to vote against -- HAYES: I want to reiterate this for the folks because I think this is one of the sticking issues, right, because people talk about the agreement and the president says, they can see if they want -- there`s a room that Bernie Sanders can go to. SANDERS: Yes, correct. HAYES: In that room there`s a document that`s presented out that is a draft agreement thus far, right? Things that have been hammered out. SANDERS: Correct. HAYES: It`s highly technical. It`s like reading all of the Affordable Care Act, right? SANDERS: Probably worse than that. HAYES: It`s a highly technical document? What can you do is you can go in and read it, commit it to memory. SANDERS: Yes. HAYES: And walk out. SANDERS: If I had a photographic memory, it would work just great. HAYES: But you can`t have stuff, you can`t fake notes, you can`t do any of that? SANDERS: Right. HAYES: That really does seem absurd. SANDERS: Of course, it`s absurd. You know, the reasons that many of us are opposed to this agreement in my view, it continues the disastrous trade policies of NAFTA/CAFTA, permanent normal trade relations with China, which have led to the loss of millions of decent paying jobs. HAYES: But then you say that, but who knows? Maybe there`s great stuff in there. I mean, that part -- this is part of the chicken and the egg, right? You just told me, it`s sitting there, it could go, but -- SANDERS: Well, we know enough about it, I don`t think there`s great stuff. I really don`t think so. HAYES: Bernie Sanders, senator of Vermont, will be formally kicking off his campaign -- SANDERS: In Burlington, Vermont next Tuesday. HAYES: Next Tuesday. It`s a pleasure. Good to see you. SANDERS: OK. HAYES: All right. Still ahead, another Republican presidential hopeful and fan of the filibuster now hanging his campaign on a pro- deportation stance. I`ll ask his campaign spokesperson about that. But, first, the 2016 hopeful that hired a DREAMer for the campaign team, that`s next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: When Hillary Clinton appeared at a rally to campaign for Maryland gubernatorial candidate Anthony Brown last fall, she was confronted by one of the most well-organized militant and effective group of organizers in the country. The so called DREAMers. Those are the young people brought to this country as children without legal papers. Over the last few years, they`ve galvanized a political and influential youth movement. In 2003, they confronted Speaker of the House John Boehner over immigration while he was eating his breakfast. In the spring of 2012, Lorella Praeli, one of the most visible faces of the movement, put pressure on the administration to grant them a retrieve from deportation. According to "New York Times", at a meeting with White House officials in a Washington church, since illegal immigrants could not enter the White House, Valerie Jarrett, the president`s senior adviser, and Cecilia Munoz, domestic policy adviser, insisted that Mr. Obama had no legal authority to issue an order granting deportation protection. "With all due respect," Ms. Praeli replied, "I disagree." Well, a couple of months later, Obama announced his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program or DACA. And today, Lorella Praeli was hired by Hillary Clinton as their Latino outreach director. The campaign saying in a statement, "To bring Lorella into our campaign is the next step in making sure families aren`t living in fear of deportation and that any comprehensive immigration reform ensures full and equal citizenship." Now, as to whether the 2016 hopefuls on the Republican side stand on their connection to Latinos, we`ll talk to the communications director for one of those Republicans, the son of an immigrant himself, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS; Amnesty is wrong. Amnesty is fundamentally unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who followed the rules and came here legally. Amnesty is fundamentally unfair to the 92 million Americans who aren`t working right now. Amnesty is fundamentally unfair to the African-American community that is facing historic unemployment. Amnesty is wrong. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Ted Cruz has promised that his first act as president of the United States would be undoing President Obama`s executive orders on immigration, what he calls amnesty. This would mean ending a program that has allowed hundreds of thousands of so-called DREAMers, undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children to remain in the U.S. without fear of deportation. In fact, making sure DREAMers, the young immigrants who were brought to this country without status can be deported has become for Cruz a, quote, top priority. Joining me now is Rick Tyler, the national spokesperson for the Ted Cruz for president campaign. Rick, it`s good to see you. First, I want to get your response to the hiring of Lorella Praeli, a DREAMer activist, by the Clinton campaign? RICK TYLER, SPOKESPERSON FOR THE TED CRUZ CAMPAIGN: Well, I don`t have much comment other than she`s got herself a good job in a presidential campaign. And so congratulations to her. HAYES: There is a group of people that are being protected by the president`s first order, DACA. And I just want to make sure I sort of understand the senator`s position on a variety -- obviously the senator would repeal the most recent executive action. The senator, my understand, also opposes that DACA executive order from 2012. Is that correct? TYLER: The problem with DACA, it`s constitutionally questionable. And Senator Cruz believes it`s not constitutional the way it was put into place. Second of all, it is unfair. You can`t have the president declare by fiat people -- give them temporary legal status in the United States. It`s not how the system works, it`s not passed by congress, and it should be put before the congress. And to be fair, congress should deal with this issue. They should deal with legal immigration -- illegal immigration, but they have to do it first by securing the border. Because the problem with DACA is, without securing the border, then you just have the next set and the next set and the next set, and this story will go on forever. HAYES: Let me sort of divide that out. So, if congress were to deal with it, let`s say that the executive order were dropped and the president said when legislation is passed that executive order will be phased out. Would President -- would Senator Cruz or as president support legislation that would create a path to citizenship statutorily for the same group of hundreds of thousands of people who were again brought here as children through no fault of their own? TYLER: I think what you have to do is first demonstrate trust to the American people. Look, the American voter does not trust the congress on this issue. They`ve been lied to about this issue over and over again. They say we have a good deal. We`re going to secure the border. We did this from 1986 on. And until we secure the border and demonstrate trust to the American people, it seems sort of ridiculous to explain what we`re going to do with the illegal immigrants who are here now until we get serious about securing the border. And it`s not just rhetoric. The senator has proposed legislation to triple the border security, to erect a 700 mile fence. By the way, that`s the same length of the fence between Israel and Egypt, which has reduced illegal immigration, or illegal entry into Israel by 99 percent. So fences do work. And then you have to increase surveillance along the border. And then we have got to have some sort of a biometric -- a biometric is, you know, Chris, you know what a biometric is -- here`s my iPhone. I push the button. That`s a biometric. And we figure out who`s here in the country and who leaves. Most people who are here illegally have outstayed their visas. I think upward of about 60 percent. HAYES: That`s why the obsession with the border always strikes me as a bit odd, because most of the people are actually not coming over that border. But to return to the original question, because it is a policy question, would the senator support -- either as senator or president -- statutory language that would grant a path to citizenship for those group of DREAMers? TYLER: Senator Cruz said that anybody who broke the law would not be eligible for citizenship, and he will not grant amnesty, no. HAYES: OK. Hillary Clinton also said that there is no one in the field right now, in the Republican field, who has supported a path to citizenship. Jeb Bush has kind of come the closest to it. Marco Rubio, of course, supported the comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have given a path to citizenship, has stepped back from it. Is that your understanding of where the state of the field is? Is there is no one who supports a path to citizenship? TYLER: Look, I`ve heard a lot of things from a lot of different politicians. From the beginning -- from previous to the campaign until now, I think the only person who has been consistent on it is Senator Ted Cruz. But I might note that Hillary Clinton, it shouldn`t surprise anybody that Hillary Clinton would embrace a disrespect for the law. I think her husband Bill Clinton, President Clinton had it right, when he said, there`s two sets of rules, one for the Clintons and one for everybody else. So, remember, Hillary Clinton has changed her own position on this issue, and now all of a sudden, she`s pro illegal immigration. And by the way, I think it`s cynical. The Democrats had a chance to fix immigration when they had the majorities in the House and the Senate and the presidency. They did nothing. And so we have lots of great stories from DACA and they`ll keep coming. But they use this brew... HAYES: This is a very weird argument for Republicans to make, that -- because there is a bill that`s been sitting in the House that could pass tomorrow. So all the things about cynicism, why don`t they just bring the bill up for a vote? It passed out of the Senate by a huge majority. Bring it tomorrow. TYLER: Because they want to attach citizenship to people who have broken the law. HAYES: ...if you think it`s cynical, bring it up tomorrow. What`s that? TYLER: You can bring it up tomorrow, but we tried comprehensive immigration reform before, and it doesn`t work. You have got to it do in a step by step process for the people -- where you can get buy-in from the American people. That`s the way it`s supposed to work. The people who buy into border security, then they`ll buy into some sort of a verification system, whose here and who`s not. And then they`ll buy into a system of who gets to work and who doesn`t. But when you try to do it all at once, that`s just not going to work. And you won`t get anything past, and you won`t get anything done. That`s what happened the last time. So, it`s not going to work this time. HAYES: Well, it passed the senate by a tremendous bipartisan majorities. And it would pass the House tomorrow. We can evaluate whether it worked or not. TYLER: It`s not the law. HAYES: Thanks so much for being here. Appreciate it. Up next, the Fox News decision that could be very bad news for certain 2016 hopefuls. And the president warns of a national security threat from climate change. I`ll be joined by one of his cabinet members ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: The first Republican presidential debate is scheduled for August 6 on Fox News. We learned today Fox plans to limit the field based on which candidates place in the top ten in an average of the five most recent national polls in the run-up to the debate. That would mean a maximum of ten candidates on stage with the possibility of a couple more if there is a tie in the polling. We also learned today CNN, which hosts the second GOP debate on September 16 plans to divide its debate into two with one segment for the top ten candidates, according to public polling, and a second segment for the remaining candidates who get at least 1 percent in the polls. There are expected to be at least 15 major candidates in the race by August, which would mean some big names are going to be left out of both the Fox debate and the main CNN debate. As of right now, those outside the top 10 include Governor Bobby Jindal who once offered the GOP response to the State of the Union, Rand Paul antagonist and longtime Senator Lindsey Graham, and the only expected female candidate on the GOP side, Carly Fiorina. As for those who might make a cut? Well, according to the average in the last five national polls that NBC News recognizes, Donald Trump will be on the debate stage if he were to run. No women and one Trump. Good luck with that, guys. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: President Obama took aim at climate change deniers during a commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut today calling climate change an immediate risk to national security, arguing those who ignore its impact are engaging in a dereliction of duty. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; Make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act, and we need to act now. Politicians who say they care about military readiness ought to care about this as well. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The president told graduates climate change has already damaged military facilities and it is directly shaping how they will serve. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Around the world, climate change increases the risk of instability and conflict, rising seas are already swallowing low lying lands from Bangladesh to Pacific islands forcing people from their homes. Elsewhere, more intense droughts will exacerbate shortages of water and food, increased competition for resources, and create the potential for mass migrations and new tensions. All of which is why the Pentagon calls climate change a threat multiplier. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now, Admiral Thad Allen, former coast guard commandant who helped lead the federal response to the DeepWater Horizon oil spill, Hurricane Katrina and other disasters. Admiral, it`s really good to have you here. ADM. THAD ALLEN, COAST GUARD: Good evening. HAYES: This is something I think that you`ve given some thought to, the way that climate will shape the kinds of situations that members of the coast guard and other services encounter. When did you start thinking about it? ALLEN: Well, I think we thought about this for a long time. You know, weather and climate has been intertwined with military operations for centuries. The exact timing of the D-Day landing was all based on weather. So changes in climate and changes in weather necessarily have to be taken into account by military planners and leaders (inaudible) capabilities, operations and the effect on operations. HAYES: Is there -- it seems to me that there`s a significant amount of brain power being devoted inside the armed services to this question, partly because of the disposition toward planning, which is a huge part of military culture, and partly because of the magnitude of the global nature of what we are going to be looking, facing starting now in the next 50 years. ALLEN: Well, I think it affects the operating environment, it affects the threats and challenges that the military will have to face, but it also makes the difference in the type of capability you want to acquire. You know, the depth, the salinity and the temperature of water affects how sonar and acoustic systems work. And that`s changing. HAYES: Explain? ALLEN: Well, sonar waves travel through in the density of the water, based on how cold it is and the salinity changes actually the waves -- the sonar waves that are produced and the feedback back to the sensor. And when the climate changed, it changes the way the sensors operate, and that`s probably true of the rest of the climate as well. HAYES: So, there`s like very specific kind of equipment changes that one would need to make to adapt. ALLEN: That would be one. That would be one, yes. HAYES: Is there a lot of energy going into thinking about this -- the major adoption that`s going to have to happen? ALLEN: Well, I think there is, because one of the things that military forces want to do is operate in what we would call a permissive environment. In other words, you want to have freedom of movement to carry out your operations to do what you need to do to the extent that climate change or weather affects that. You need to factor that in to the capability and the tactics and the procedures you`re going to use to actually carry out your operations. HAYES: There`s been a long record in recent history of people talking about the security threat of climate change. I feel like there`s always an expectation that that`s going to be the thing that breaks through and makes everyone take notice and it never seems to happen. ALLEN: Well, I think it`s always been there. I mean, if you look at the security issues related to crop failures, fish stocks declining, the instability that comes from that. Regions of the world become less governed or lawless, and the opportunity for terrorism or other forms of illicit trafficking to spring up there. I think it`s always been there. The question is, can we localize and understand what`s going on, and be able to respond to it. You can call it climate adoption, climate change, whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is our threats out there are evolving and some of that is related to climate. HAYES: Do you have a response to the parts of the political system that seem to be incapable or unwilling to acknowledge what the science is about this issue? ALLEN: I testified before congress several times on the reduction of sea ice in the Arctic. They were trying to pin me down on scientific questions. And obviously, you know, I`m not a scientist. What I would tell them was there was water where there didn`t used to be, we`re responsible for it, and we have to operate in it. It`s a reality in day to day lives of military operations and where the folks live in these areas have to live and we have to understand that it`s there, and we have to operate and we have to carry out our duties. HAYES: It was really fascinating to me in the trove of bin Laden documents that was publicized today, one of them was an undated document apparently written by bin Laden discussing the massive consequence of climate change, a phenomenon he describes as having more victims than wars. You know, it strikes me as, you know, if your enemies -- if you want to deny something`s happening, that`s not going to stop your enemy from denying something`s happening and planning for it as well. ALLEN: Well, that`s correct. And I think there`s been a lot of discussion about whether or not climate related crop failures in the Middle East might have something to do with the arrest that started several years ago. We`re seeing manifest itself right now and the unrest that`s going on in the operations device. HAYES: There was a historic drought in Syria right before the uprising. A lot of discontent directed at Bashar al-Assad. There`s a very plausible connection to him failing to deal with the effect the drought was having on farmers in Syria. ALLEN; You can probably say the same thing for parts of sub-Saharan Africa as well. HAYES: Thank you very much. Admiral Thad Allen, really appreciate it. ALLEN: Thank you. HAYES: All right, still ahead, the man deemed Obama`s secret weapon and what his detractors don`t get about the Iran nuke deal will join me live next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: A nuclear physicist, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz emerged this year as President Obama`s secret weapon in the Iran talks for his role in negotiating the technical details crucial to getting a deal. Moniz is also responsible for overseeing America`s nuclear arsenal and guiding the energy policy in the age of climate change. And I`m thrilled to tell you he joins me now. Dr. Ernest Moniz, U.S. Secretary of Energy. Nice to have you here. ERNEST MONIZ, U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY: Good to be here, Chris. HAYES: We`ll start today with something that is in the news, which is this big oil spill in California. It is a spill from a pipeline. It looks like it`s rather large, or nothing on the scale say the Valdez. We are told all the time how safe pipelines are. You look at this, and you think, well, how safe are pipelines really? So, how safe are pipelines? MONIZ: Well, by and large, pipelines are quite safe. If you have a measure of how much fluid goes through them, and the amount of spill. But unfortunately, we do have occasionally these kinds of major events. It really points to an issue that we`ve been addressing at the Department of Energy recently, which is the whole issue of energy infrastructure -- pipelines, wires, you know, transmission grids. We have a lot of old infrastructure, a lot of investment made in the 60s and 70s, we`re talking 40, 50 years old. And our theme right now, and I know climate change has been on your mind as well, our theme right now is that we have to really be investing to rebuild our infrastructure, but we have to rebuild it now in a way that really makes sense for the challenges ahead. One of those challenges is the kinds of extreme weather that we have been seeing, we expect to see more of, and we need to have all of our infrastructure more resilient to a whole set of risks. HAYES: Right. So, that`s not even on the mitigation -- that`s on the adaptation side, right, that`s not even on, you know, dealing with fewer emissions, that`s just recognizing a reality that we`re going to have more extreme weather? MONIZ: Well, extreme weather obviously, yes, is on the risk side, but I should emphasize that modernizing the infrastructure applies in both dimensions. HAYES: Right. MONIZ: ...mitigation and adaptation. For example, modernizing the electric grid will provide opportunities for more renewables to come in, provide opportunities for more energy efficiency. So, that`s the mitigation side. Then, of course, comes the resilience to extreme weather. But also cyber threats and other kinds of risks. HAYES: You know, I was looking at the sort of portfolio at the Department of Energy. And basically two-thirds of it has -- is about the nation`s nuclear arsenal, right? I mean, you are the person who oversees - - and, you know, it just occurs to me, in some ways it`s fascinating that was the center of our politics for so long, it was a center of national discussion, and now it`s like, oh all right, we still have got all those nukes. And like occasionally there will be Rachel covers it very well, and, you know, there will be some treaty that we have to get through congress and we negotiate, but I guess the question is, how is the arsenal doing? How are America`s nukes? MONIZ: It`s actually doing very well. I might add it`s doing very well without having a nuclear test since 1990 -- `92, excuse me. So, basically, the Department of Energy in our laboratories, we`ve invented a whole new way, we`re literally inventing new science to be able to understand the nuclear weapons, so that we can maintain them safe and reliable, even as we draw down the numbers pretty dramatically. And as you know, the president has committed to continue that. And in fact, not so long ago, from the table the possibility of yet an additional one-third reduction, which our Russian partners have not yet decided to take up. HAYES: Speaking of bilateral or multilateral diplomatic agreements, nuclear weapons, you were part of the talks in Iran. It occurred to me when the framework was announced, you know, I like a lot of people have read in enough to get some sense of how you weaponize and how long the breakout time is. You as someone who really knows this stuff, do you feel like there`s a gap in understanding between people who are trying to get a read on this who are sort of international relations experts and the folks that actually really know the granular science of nuclear weapons production? MONIZ: Well, I have found that actually when you sit down and you talk through it, it`s a story that we can tell, and I think frankly our work in the -- with the congress has been very, very helpful in terms of the congress. Obviously, mostly are not scientists, but very, very engaged in this issue. And I think it`s gone well. I would be happy to go through the four pathways to a weapon in Iran. HAYES: Yeah, please. MONIZ: Oh, OK. Well, one is plutonium production through a reactor, and there what you really have to know, bottom line is, that we have agreed that they will redesign their reactor to produce far less plutonium. But then the fuel that contains it, will be sent out of the country anyway. That`s blocking them. Then there are two involving enrichment to make high-enriched uranium for weapons, and there in the agreement, they will dramatically reduce the number of centrifuges that operate. There will be no enrichment in the underground facility, but very importantly, the stock of uranium they have will be reduced by 97 percent, 98 percent. HAYES: OK, so that`s one, two and three. What`s the last one. MONIZ: The fourth one is the so-called covert approach. And there the issue is to have very, very extraordinary verification measures, international inspectors, new technologies and visibility into the entire supply chain of uranium. HAYES: On plutonium, two uranium, one covert, that`s the pathways. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, thank you so much for your time. MONIZ: Thank you. HAYES: That is All In for this evening. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END