All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 05/27/15

Guests: Dave Zirin, Jeremy Schaap, Matt Welch, Cristina Beltran, ChuckTodd, Xeni Jones

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN -- LORETTA LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL: They corrupted the business of worldwide soccer to serve their interests and to enrich themselves. HAYES: The United States takes on the most powerful sports organization in the world, arresting over a dozen men for bribery and corruption. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Greed that drove them to use and exploit their positions for cash. HAYES: Then, a set back for the president`s immigration policy provides an opportunity for Hillary Clinton. While presidential candidate Rand Paul takes on his party`s war faction. SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately. HAYES: Plus, the photographer who sold other people`s Instagram photos as art. And my interview with Rashida Jones about the documentary she produced about porn, the Internet and the girl next door. RASHIDA JONES, ACTRESS: It`s a cultural society which allows for like any girl to feel like it`s a good choice. HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. It is massive multibillion dollar organization that runs the most popular sport on the planet, and tonight, it is at the center of the unprecedented global corruption prosecution, suggesting it is effectively been functioning as an international criminal syndicate for years. FIFA, the powerful organization that runs global soccer, has long been viewed as wildly corrupt under long-time president Sepp Blatter, with rampant allegations of bribery and shakedowns involving top FIFA officials. But despite a widespread perception of flagrant and barely veiled corruption, FIFA has long been able to operate with near total impunity and almost zero accountability. That is, of course, until now. This morning, newly installed U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, along with officials from the FBI and IRS announced racketeering, conspiracy and corruption charges against 14 people. Including an official alleged to have taken more than $9 million in bribes. A total of nine FIFA officials were indicted, along with sports marketing executives alleged to have paid them bribes and kickbacks. (BEGIN VIDO CLIP) LYNCH: These individuals, through these organizations, engaged in bribery to decide who would televise games, where the games would be held, and who would run the organization overseeing organized soccer worldwide. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Early this morning, Swiss law enforcement officials entered the five-star Baur Au Lac Hotel in Zurich, Switzerland, and arrested six top FIFA officials who were staying at the hotel ahead of FIFA`s annual meeting. At about the same time, in the U.S., FBI raided the Miami headquarters of FIFA`s confederation that oversees soccer here in North America. Its president, Jeffrey Webb, is among the indicted. And U.S. officials saying their investigation has just begun. There`s widespread speculation about a potential indictment for the 79-year-old Sepp Blatter, the FIFA president in power for 17 years who`s been described by detractors as a dictator. Blatter was widely expected to be re-elected to a fifth term on Friday, and FIFA says it does not plan to delay that election despite today`s indictment. In a statement today, Blatter said, quote, "We welcome the actions and investigations by the U.S. and Swiss authorities and believe it will help to reinforce measures that FIFA has already taken to root out any wrongdoing in football." Questions are also being raised about the 2018 World Cup, which FIFA awarded to Russia, as well as the 2022 World Cup, which FIFA awarded quite controversially to Qatar, despite searing heat and the fact that stadiums are being built by migrant workers in slave labor conditions, hundreds if thousands of whom have died already. Separate from the U.S. led investigation, the Swiss have seized FIFA documents and open criminal proceedings in connection with allocation of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. At a press conference following the indictment today, a FIFA spokesman said the plan to hold those events in Russia and Qatar had not changed. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WALTER DE GREGORIO, FIFA SPOKESMAN: The World Cup 2018 and 2012 will be played in Russia and in Qatar. Russia and Qatar will be played. This is what is fact today. I don`t go into speculation what will happen tomorrow or after tomorrow and so on. This is what I can tell you. Not more and not less. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Figure the center of all this, the most powerful sports figure in the world, Sepp Blatter, is a subject of a searing new documentary from Jeremy Schaap of ESPN`s "E60", which details many of the charges leveled against Blatter and FIFA and features interviews with those who say they have witnessed bribery firsthand. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I witnessed the team offering different members money in exchange for their vote. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You were there? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was there in the room, yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How much money? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: $1.5 million. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Per? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Per vote. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To three different -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To three different members. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Three different members. What did they say? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The members? Oh, they agreed. They agreed I mean, there wasn`t -- they didn`t take much convincing, let`s put it that way. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The reporter of that, Jeremy Schaap, will join me in a moment. First, joining me now, Dave Zirin, sports editor for "The Nation", who`s also done some amazing reporting at FIFA, who wrote a great book, discusses Brazil`s World Cup experience, "Dance with the Devil". So, the big surprise here is not the allegations embedded. The shock is that it`s happened. That some accountability has been brought to the organization, right? I mean, that`s the thing that everybody around the world -- I mean, around the world tonight and all day, people going, I can`t believe they did it, they`ve arrested these people? DAVE ZIRIN, THE NATION: Exactly, because it`s become a cliche over the last two decades about FIFA being corrupt. It`s an eye roll. I mean, people in the International Olympic Committee look at FIFA and say, damn, you guys are corrupt. And Sepp Blatter is so identified with this corruption. Chris, this was the headline of "The New York Times" today. FIFA officials arrested on corruption charges, Sepp Bladder isn`t among them. It had to be made clear by "The New York Times" in the headline form. And so, the surprise to me is two things, the first is that FIFA, any -- frankly, any multibillion dollar global corporation is actually being held to account for their corruption -- that in and of itself is a shocker, something that drops the jaw. The second part, though, I think we need to look at is that they were able to keep this so secret and do this in a way that even leading members of FIFA said, that they thought this year`s FIFA Congress would be, quote- unquote, "boring" or even more boring than usual. And yet, the United States was able to pull off a transatlantic sting involving Swiss authorities, using anti-terror statutes given to the Justice Department after 9/11 to go after FIFA. I mean, this isn`t just a crazy story. I mean, this is a movie for goodness sakes. HAYES: Yes, I want to -- I want to be clear here, there`s so many things to unpack here. But, first, just to reiterate the human stakes here, at some level -- you know, I`m a sports fan, I`m not a huge soccer fan, but I heard about FIFA forever. It took me a while to get it, about -- you know, OK, well, they`re bribing each other about where they build their stadium. I want to show you the statistics about worker deaths that was published in "The Washington Post" today, comparing the death toll -- that`s one worker death for various international sporting events. London, Vancouver, South Africa, Brazil, Sochi, Beijing -- that is Qatar, that`s the 2022 World Cup. I think it`s almost 2,000 if I`m not mistaken. ZIRIN: Yes. HAYES: Those are human beings, basically in situations of slave labor who are being driven to build stadiums in the desert, essentially on this rush job, because it appears or possibly they were bribed -- FIFA was bribed into awarding them the games. I mean, that`s the real human stakes here. ZIRIN: Yes, you could not imagine a worse country to host the World Cup than Qatar, a place that`s 125 degrees during the summer. They`ve already said they`re going to play the World Cup in the fall, which is going to disrupt all of the leagues throughout Europe. But that`s not even the most serious part. The most serious part is that the World Cup in Qatar is being built by slavers, basically. I mean, it`s being built under conditions of slavery, conditions that are so dire, that as Robert Silverman wrote today in "The Daily Beast", after the recent environmental catastrophe in Nepal, they`re actually preventing the workers from going home for funerals, not giving them their passports, forcing them to stay and do their work. I mean, we`re talking truly monstrous acts. I`ll put on top of that, everything I`ve witnessed in Brazil over the last two years. The 250,000 people displaced. The entire communities that were shunted aside to build stadiums. I mean, FIFA is a neo-liberal Trojan horse that goes into different countries and does whatever they need to do, there are interests in those countries that benefit greatly, while populations get so slammed, that you even had people in Brazil by the millions protesting FIFA. HAYES: Right. ZIRIN: I had a friend in Brazil who said to me, the word FIFA was as awful as the word FEMA in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. HAYES: Yes. ZIRIN: So, that is -- that`s the steaks that we`re looking at, is that FIFA`s corruption has a real human cost. HAYES: Yes, that`s important to keep in mind the story. Dave Zirin, always a pleasure. Thank you. As promised, joining me now, Jeremy Schaap, host of "E60 Reports" on ESPN. First, Jeremy, I just want to say, kudos for just phenomenal reporting on the story, you`ve been doing it for years. The "E60" story is fantastic. Let`s start with a basic question, this gets to the heart of it, we were talking today like what is FIFA, in a legal sense. What is this entity? Is it a corporation? Is it a nonprofit? Is a global club? Like what is it? JEREMY SCHAAP, ESPN: It is a nonprofit. It is registered as such in Switzerland, along with 65 other international sports organizations, Chris, and local organizations and regional organizations in Switzerland. And one of the problems here is that the Swiss system does not allow for vigorous oversight of organizations such as FIFA, when we were recently in the Swiss capital to conduct interviews for our show on FIFA and Sepp Blatter, we spoke to a Swiss parliamentarian, (INAUDIBLE), who is working to affect change in this regard, he wants FIFA to have his designation switched, from what it is now, a nonprofit, that enjoys the same kind of status, and lack of oversight as a yodeling organization, as he memorably put it in our interview, to something more befitting a global billion dollar behemoth, which is what FIFA is, of course. HAYES: So, you`ve governance procedures design to oversee a yodeling club that are fit on a billion dollar enterprise. It has tons of -- creates tons of value, has tons of values and it appears from the allegations and some of your reporting that essentially has been basically selling off what it has to the highest bidder in the case the American charges here, this is actually about broadcast rights. Am I right about that? SCHAAP: Well, it`s about many things. You know, we`re talking about selling off the rights to play host to the World Cup, because they talked about 2010 in South Africa, extorting money from South Africa, so it could play host to the 2010 tournament. We`re talking about corruption allegations surrounding the 2011 presidential election at FIFA. Sepp Blatter at that time was re-elected for a fourth term and there were a lot of corruption allegations swirling not around him in this case, but around his opponent, Mohamed bin Hammam of Qatar. But we`re also talking about those television rights, the marketing rights, the sponsorship rights, all the kickbacks from marketing firms that want to prophet from official FIFA sanction events. This isn`t the first time this has happened by any means. In 2001, there was a scandal involving ISL, a Swiss marketing company. And after a 7-year investigation, the Swiss authorities determined that ISL executives had paid off sports officials at FIFA and other organizations tens of millions of dollars, including more than a million and a half dollars to Sepp Blatter`s predecessors, the president of FIFA, (INAUDIBLE) of Brazil. HAYES: OK. So, Sepp Blatter who you just mentioned. Your -- the piece you did for "E60" sort of opens with him. Reciting at Oxford, a litany of the most caricatured view of him as essentially an internationally Bond villain. SCHAAP: Yes. HAYES: He is really seen that way. I mean, every thing about him almost -- the big question today, and you heard Dave talk about how "The Times" had to note that he had not been indicted, is what happens to Blatter. He`s the guy at the center of this. Can he quarantine himself from this investigation? SCHAAP: Well, that`s what he`s done for a long time. Now, we reported a few weeks ago that he had decided it would be unwise to set foot on U.S. soil. And he`s said, well, maybe I`ll come to the United States next year, when perhaps the statute of limitations might have expired on some of the charges that might be brewing with this investigation. He attended 7 Gold Cup finals in a row in the United States after being elected president of FIFA in 1998. He skipped in 2013 after the federal investigation started and he`s said that he`s going to skip this year. That being said, he`s done a very good job over the years of not being caught with his hand in the cookie jar. And I think one of the good reasons for that is frankly that I don`t think he`s had his hand in the cookie jar. People, even his most persistent critics, will tell you, he`s not someone necessarily interested in personal enrichment, in lining his own pockets, he lives very nicely indeed in Zurich, he`s paid a lot of money, probably about $5 million U.S. dollars a year. He doesn`t pay for anything, he loves power, like a true Bond villain, he`s done everything he could to perpetuate that power. That being said, I`d say his position is more precarious than it has ever before been. HAYES: And I want do ask Jeremy about the Qatar games, there`s a lot much speculation, you saw the rep for FIFA saying, look, we don`t know. As of now, they`re going to go on in Russia and Qatar. But they`ve already moved the games once in terms of the scheduling for Qatar. You`ve got the death toll. You`ve got this insane unsustainable situation that you have done incredible reporting on. And there`s a real question now, is this the straw that breaks the camel`s back? Do they say, we`re yanking the game`s from Qatar? SCHAAP: I think it`s a fair question, Chris. If you`d asked me last flight at this time, I would have said 100 percent, 2022 is going on in Qatar, as Sepp Blatter has vowed repeatedly. He`s said words to the effect, over my dead body is 2022 going to be anywhere other than Qatar. But I think the landscape has shifted a little bit, certainly in the last 24 hours, and there might be a stronger movement afoot now to actually have a revote. Certainly, there are provisions within FIFA`s charter that would justify a revote. Whether the pressure becomes something that Sepp Blatter responds to, that`s an open question. HAYES: Jeremy Schaap, thank you again. And excellent work on this. It`s just been great reporting. SCHAAP: Thanks, Chris. HAYES: All right. Still ahead, a blow to President Obama`s immigration initiatives open up a window for one of his would be successors. Plus, Rand Paul attacks his party`s war hawks even as the Republican base grows more hawkish. First, a brand new contender joins the presidential campaign. Just don`t Google him. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHAEL STEELE, FORMER RNC CHAIR: Let`s just make it 15, because that`s before 16. HAYES: That`s right. I like your strategy, I like the way this is -- this is how you round the RNC. OK. Ready? Oh. We got Santorum. ANNOUNCER: Rick Santorum, the sweater vest days are over. He`s back with a new look and probably some new ideas, we`re really not sure. All I know is, don`t Google him. He`s former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. HAYES: That will work. You got it, you`ll take it? STEELE: That`s going to have some legs. HAYES: Will Rick Santorum appear in any debates or not? STEELE: Yes. HAYES: He will? STEELE: Many. HAYES: You heard it first. STEELE: Rick, I`m calling you, baby. Many. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Michael Steele was a confident man when he drew Rick Santorum in our draft. That confidence was at least partially born out this evening with Santorum making the official announcement that he`s running for president once again. That`s another 100 points on the board for Michael Steele, who`s already got a pretty strong lineup with Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders. It`s enough for him to pull into the lead with the grand total of 300 points. We`ll still a long way to finish line. The more candidates the GOP has to fit on the debate stage, the more things are guaranteed to get interesting in our own fantasy draft. We`ll keep you posted on all the developments from the campaign trail in our fantasy candidate draft, you do not want to miss it. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: So, Rand Paul has a problem, OK? He`s not polling particularly well in the primary race. Most recent national poll puts him in sixth place. And he`s self-proclaimed iconoclasm often makes him an outlier in the GOP field. While Senator Paul may paint that as an asset, some of his most iconoclastic views on the risk of U.S. interventionism now appeared to be out of favor with the GOP base he`s courting on the trail. In the latest NBC News/"Wall Street Journal" poll, 27 percent of Republican primary voters said national security terrorism should be the government`s top priority ahead of the deficit, job creation and economic growth. That problem for Rand Paul is only likely to grow, as ISIS continues to take territory and expand its reach throughout the Middle East, and the more hawkish candidates crow about how it`s a result of American weakness. Now, enter Rand Paul`s new book and his current book tour -- the perfect opportunity to introduce himself to the American public and GOP voters. And the center has seemed to moderate his anti-interventionist stance in recent months -- today, he pulled no punches. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately and were snatched up by ISIS. ISIS is all over Libya because the same hawks in my party loved -- they loved Hillary Clinton`s war in Libya, they just wanted more of it. But Libya is a failed state and a disaster. Iraq really is a failed state or a vassal state now of Iran. So, everything that they`ve talked about in foreign policy, they`ve been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal perhaps seeking to remind everyone he exists, hit back at Rand Paul, calling him, quote, "Unsuited to become commander-in-chief, has become impossible to imagine a President Paul defeating radical Islam and it`s time for the rest of us to say it." Interestingly, that statement came from the state of Louisiana`s office of the governor, not from a political group like Jindal`s presidential exploratory committee. With Chris Christie today slamming Paul`s efforts to reform NSA surveillance, and Lindsey Graham giving the impression he`s getting into the race solely to troll the Kentucky senator, Rand Paul may find himself very unpopular on the Republican debate stage. Joining me now, Matt Welch, editor of "Reason" magazine. So, I`m fascinated by how Rand Paul is playing this, because I think he`s got a dilemma, which is that his foreign policy views are what distinguish him from the rest of the field. At the same time, if that -- if Rand Paul style foreign policy was a stock, the price on that would be trading down year over year quite a bit among GOP primary voters, don`t you agree? MATT WELCH, REASON: Year over year, yes. But let`s not forget what happened last week, right? All the Republican candidates, with the exception of Rand Paul, were stumbling all over their tongues trying to figure out how to answer a simple question of, was the Iraq war justified and have to do it, right? HAYES: That`s a good point. WELCH: I mean, the assumption that the Republican base is more hawkish, this is true compared to a year ago, but it`s not very deep. You can say, you can foreground that security is the most important thing right now, but what to do about it is actually the most important next question. And Republicans, and especially hawks haven`t had good answers about that. The attacks on Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, compared to Bernie Sanders today, all this kind of stuff, they almost all don`t talk about what we should be doing. HAYES: That`s right. WELCH: They know we`re against American weakness. We`re against Iran. We`re against Vladimir Putin. But how do you get to the next step? Rand Paul is saying, the next steps that these people have come up with have backfired by and large, and they don`t have a particularly good answer to that. So, I think you place this, because it`s him against the hawks, one against ten, he can differentiate himself. And this will help in early states like New Hampshire, where you have a lot of live free and die people who are sick of war. As Americans, I think they`re pretty war weary right now. So, he`s betting he can differentiate himself, when you have a sea of Lindsey Grahams out there who are coming out and trying to take out his knees. HAYES: Well, that`s what I found interesting about these comments. In the trajectory of him, right? It seemed to me, as you had the kind of rise of ISIS and this more hawkish mood sweep over the United States Congress. Members of both parties frankly, and the Republican party, you saw him, I think sort of trim his sales a little bit, triangulate, I`m for the air strikes against ISIS, we have to defeat them, which itself was a little bit of a deviation from what I would have expected from him. This to me signals the kind of doubling down, a kind of like, OK, let`s have this fight. Let`s have this debate, this policy disagreement in the Republican primary? WELCH: Well, let`s keep in mind also that the provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire on Monday, and this is because of Rand Paul. So, the fight was happening anyways over an issue that he`s -- he came to office talking about -- he`s been talking about it since his first day. So, if you`re going to be having a fight about the Patriot Act anyway, you may as well lump it all in right bow, because it`s a fight that he has always led. I interviewed him two years ago, during the height of the Syria deliberations, which he basically led the opposition to the Syrian war and was victorious in that, and he put it to me, on any given day, 80 to 20, he`s outnumbered in the Senate in percentage-wise among his Republican colleagues when it comes to foreign policy. But when he talks to people in Kentucky and elsewhere, it`s 80/20 in the other direction, including among military personnel, who are sick of war. So, that`s the gamble, and you`re right, it is a gamble, but it`s also the main differentiating factor of him, besides the fact that he`s actually a radical libertarian when it comes to cutting government in ways that most Republicans have stopped being years ago. HAYES: That I think is true. But I also think that what`s happening with the Patriot Act right now, is particularly fascinating. It may actually last. I mean, it is surprising it`s gotten to this point. It`s been mismanaged by a lot of people who wanted to keep it going. I think they had the worst side of the argument frankly on things that, for instance the courts have stepped in and said are frankly unconstitutional, like bulk collection of all the cell phone metadata. But do you think he`s winning that argument in the Republican primary, or has he simply outmaneuvered his opponents? WELCH: That`s a good question. I think -- Andrew McCarthy from "The National Review", who is on the opposite of this from Rand Paul and me and I suspect you, had a piece a few days ago, saying Rand Paul has won this argument. HAYES: Yes. WELCH: I think the argument is wrong in his point of view, but broadly in the culture, he`s won the argument. A majority of conservatives, a majority of Republicans are against bulk surveillance, bulk metadata collection. So, it`s -- the people who want this to keep going on are in Washington. HAYES: Yes, Matt Welch, always a pleasure. Thank you. WELCH: Thank you. HAYES: All right. Still ahead, how a court case just opened up a campaign opportunity for Hillary Clinton. But first, my interview with actress Rashida Jones. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JONES: It`s like "The Hunger Games". (LAUGHTER) HAYES: Exactly. It totally is "The Hunger Games". JONES: Except it`s not food. It`s -- I don`t know. HAYES: What is it? JONES: Movies? HAYES: Fame. JONES: Fame. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: More people visit porn websites in any given month than Netflix, Twitter and combined. And while pornography maybe big business in America, it is not particularly lucrative for most of its participants. The documentary Hot Girls Wanted dives into the decidedly unglamorous world of amateur porn following several late teens in search of fame and fortune. I sat down with one of the film`s producers Rashida Jones to discuss the changing role of pornography in our society. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: In some ways this movie is about show business. It`s about, like -- if a Hollywood blockbuster is the top of show business in payscale and fame and status, then this movie is about people making pro-am -- professional-amateur pornography at what I think is fair to say, the lowest rung on the ladder of show business? RASHIDA JONES, FILMMAKER: I was thinking about it in terms of like what it must be like for an 18-year-old girl to go to her parents or not go to her parents or to just leave and say, I`m going to pursue this thing. And I feel like it was probably similar to people leaving in the `60s and `70s and going do L.A. to act, right, because it wasn`t really considered like a prestigious legitimate thing to do after high school, right? HAYES: It was disreputable in some ways. Like it required a conversation with mom and dad. JONES: I think that there`s a lot of reasons it`s become okay to pursue this kind of thing now. But I do think it`s all about the same things that Hollywood is about -- it`s like glamour, fame, quick cash, success, access. HAYES: When you watch this film, or when you watch cuts of it, like what was your relationship to what you were seeing? Did you want to pause and say, please stop, please don`t do this? I found myself kind of wanting to do that at a number of points. JONES: Yeah. I mean, I think you know the filmmakers did a really good job of continuing to push your comfort level throughout the course of the film. I mean, not so much like you know they`re very delicate about -- actually there`s not really nudity in the film. I mean, there`s maybe like one topless shot. Sorry, that`s probably a disappointment for some people, but yeah, I wanted to understand the psychology of young women who would do this and then what you kind of realized through the course of making the film is there isn`t a psychology, it`s not like there`s a -- there`s one kind of girl who does this, it`s the cultural psychology which allows for any girl to feel like it`s a good choice. HAYES: What is that cultural psychology? JONES: I think I`ve been vocal about the conflation of pop culture and pornography. And, you know, I think it`s like, it`s no longer marginal, it`s no longer subversive, it`s no longer taboo to be in porn, to work in porn. And like there`s a lot that`s good about that. But the bad side of that is that you just don`t have a ton of information how you get from point a to point b, which is a successful porn star. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Documentary Hot Girls Wanted debuts on Netflix this Friday. We`ll have much more of my interview with Rashida Jones then. Up next, how one person`s Instagram photo can become another person`s art without any kind of permission. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: An exhibition at an art fair here in New York this month has created something of a stir on social media, because the works of art in question, you see them there reportedly being sold for $90,000 each, consisted solely of giant screen shots of other people`s Instagram photos used without permission. Richard Prince, well known as an appropriation artist, commented on Instagram photos, then took screenshots of them, enlarged them and printed them on canvas. A woman in one of the photographs spoke out, where, but Instagram, of course, after learning that a picture of her had been sold for $90,000. She wrote in part, quote, it`s just a screenshot, not a painting of my original post. No, I did not give my permission, and, yes, the controversial artist Richard Prince put it up anyway. For years, Prince has been making slight adjustments to other people`s stuff and calling it his own. In 2008, he was sued by photographer Patrick Cariou for copyright infringement after Prince took Cariou`s images of Rastafarians, made some alterations, and put them into his own exhibit. Prince`s image is the one with the electric guitar. Though Prince was initially ordered to destroy his pictures, he eventually won an appeal for most of the works in question, because, as the New York Times reported in 2013, the appeals court found that Prince`s work manifested an entirely different aesthetic from Cariou`s pictures. Last year, Prince and Cariou reached a private settlement for the pieces that remained in dispute. All this got me thinking about the stuff I post on Instagram and the fact that I have no idea who owns it. I`m sure I checked a box agreeing to some terms of service, but of course I didn`t actually read those terms. Joining me now, Xeni Jardin. She`s tech editor -- journalist and editor at So, first Xeni, what do you think of this from a sort of I`m torn here because I think -- you know, us in the sort of world of creative commons and Boing Boing obviously has a view on intellectual property that`s fairly expansive. But this also seems kind of a jerk move, frankly, on the part of Richard Prince. XENI JARDIN, BOINGBOINB.NET: Kind of a jerk move really sums it up, Chris. I mean, whether or not this is legally fair use is to me kind of beside the point. It`s okay to be a jerk on the internet or in the art world, but it is a cardinal sin to be a boring jerk. And in my opinion that`s kind of what Richard Prince is here. You know, he became famous, and perhaps rightly so, in the 1970s for appropriating images like the cowboy smoker from the Marlboro man ads. People of our generation understand what that means and we know that back then the big, iconic, cultural images of the day were all controlled by gigantic corporations, right. And that`s not the case now. I mean, anyone with an Instagram account and an internet connection can become an artist. HAYES: That is the point is that it`s a difference between punching up and punching down, right. I mean, or sort of sending up -- it`s like, well, here`s this giant multimillion dollar tobacco company, and here`s some random Instagram user who I`m not going to make money off of. And it got me thinking of the fact that in some senses, right, there`s a little bit of a thin line between what he`s doing and what all social media companies are doing, which is they`re all running restaurants in which we come in and bring the ingredients and cook the food. Like that`s what social media is. It`s like all the content, all the stuff you look at is just the people who the customers are making. JARDIN: You know, to Instagram`s credit, they could have licensed these images to Richard Prince under the terms of use of their service, but they didn`t. And Richard Prince, I just -- it seems like a ripoff, when somebody who`s an established well known artist who`s 65 years old is selling things for $100,000 or so -- photographer Clayton Cubit (ph) I think said it best on Twitter, watching Richard Prince try to do Instagram is like watching your dad try to rap. And unless your dad is Dr. Dre or Ice-T or Kanye West or something, it`s just going to look awful. Did you see how the Suicide Girls responded to that, though, the Suicide Girls are these grouped of kind of edgy alt models, some of whom were appropriated in the Richard Prince exhibit -- the model you referenced with the blue hair I believe is a Suicide Girl. They`re now selling copies of Richard Prince`s prints for 90 bucks instead of 90,000 bucks. HAYES: It`s a hall of mirrors. Can I go back to something you just said, which is important, key here? Instagram could have licensed these. I mean, this is a key point here, right? JARDIN: Yeah, it is. HAYES: Under the terms of service, they actually did have the intellectual property title on these images, because you pass them over when you take them and post them on Instagram, right? JARDIN: Yeah, if you read terms of service carefully, there`s definitely plenty of wiggle room for them to have done this, but it would have been complete suicide, no pun intended. Richard Prince is trying desperately to remain relevant using techniques that made a lot of sense in the analog time when he became famous. But they don`t make a lot of sense now. And he`s making these kind of creepy old grandfather comments on the prints that were in the Gogosian show (ph), or were in the Gogosian show (ph). And these women have no way to respond to that. It`s kind of like picking on somebody who can`t respond to you. And that`s what feels so wrong. The beauty of the internet is that everyone has a voice. And Richard Prince is kind of taken their voices away. I think the best thing we can do is just ignore him entirely. HAYES: Do you think we`re going to see a situation develop in which more content, whether it`s photos or things people write, posted on large platforms like this, end up being sort of reappropriated or end up being used? I know there were ad campaigns at one point that were grabbing images off of Facebook, and there was sort of litigation around that. It seems to be the case we will head toward more confrontations like that the more there are images and other contents being uploaded? JARDIN: Yeah. I mean, we`re entering a whole new world of copyright here. But I think for those of us who are interested in experimenting in different kinds of intellectual property law, it just really stinks to have somebody like Richard Prince become the fair use story that everybody is talking about. It`s just lame work, Chris, I`m sorry. HAYES: Xeni Jardin, thanks for joining us. JARDIN: My pleasure. HAYES: Still to come, how Hillary Clinton is seizing an opportunity from an Obama administration set back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: There are any number of ways to get on stage at a concert -- you can know the artist, know someone who knows the artist or you could just tweet. That was enough to get Entertainment Weekly`s Chris Ratcliffe a serenade by MariahCarey earlier this month. His employer, I`m sure, helped as well. It all started at the Billboard Music Awards when Ratcliffe, a Mariah Carey superfan, tweeted out from Entertainment Weekly`s account, "watch Mariah Carey deliver a career spinning performance at the BBMA`s." To his surprise, she tweeted back, "thank you, I enjoyed the moment. Seizing on his moment, he responds, "we`re in the house for your Vegas show tonight, too darling, would love to have a festive moment after the show." Bold but rewarded. A few DMs with team Mariah later, next thing he knows two young women in maid outfits, of course, suddenly appeared, I was blindfolded, placed in pink fuzzy handcuffs, and instructed to get on the circular bed on stage. I couldn`t see anything, and I could barely move, but I could hear the crowd erupting. And Mariah`s sweet voice serenading me to "Touch My Body." Lucky for Ratcliffe, there is a picture and a tweet of the magical event that way he knows his serenade wasn`t just a vision of love. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Federal appeals court dealt the Obama administration another setback to its executive action on immigration, although possibly just a temporary one. OK, the U.S. court of appeals for the fifth circuit up held a lower court`s decision to delay the implementation of President Obama`s immigration action while the merits are its legality are being litigated up through the courts. But as noted by the New York Times, quote, the decision by the fifth circuit to leave the Texas judge`s injunction in place does not necessarily mean the Obama administration will lose the larger case, that is whether they have the authority to do what they`re doing. The full consideration of the underlying case on whether the Obama administration exceeded its authority in its immigration plan announced last November, will be heard by the fifth circuit on July 6. And in fact the Justice Department has decided not to appeal the fifth circuit`s interim ruling of the Supreme Court, an indication, perhaps, it still sees a good chance of success on the substantive issues in the lower court. Nevertheless, the right saw the fifth circuit`s temporary ruling as a big defeat for the Obama administration. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In fact, the fifth circuit court came court came down on the side of the public interest and said, it is not in the interest for these kind of top-down fiats to be imposed on 26 states that have objected to the costs and consequences of unfettered open borders. HAYES: Then there is presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who may have easily refrained from commenting either way on the fifth circuits decision since the final legal ruling is yet to be made. But instead, interestingly to me, the former secretary of state chose to insert herself into this fight. Tweeting, "fifth circuit is wrong on immigration. POTUS followed precedent, took steps for families, when GOP House wouldn`t. Must continue to fight. And that`s just one piece of a much larger Hillary Clinton strategy, which is very clearly focused on maintaining and growing what you might call the Obama coalition -- people of color, single women and younger voters. The director of Latino studies at New York University, Cristina Beltran, and the moderator of Meet the Press Chuck Todd join me right here at the table after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: All right, joining me now, moderator of Meet the Press Chuck Todd and Cristina Beltran, director of Latino Studies at NYU. Great to have you both here. Great to have you both here. Great to have you here in New York, Chuck. So, here is what I found fascinating about this. If you go back to the time machine, obviously times have changed, right. And you think about Bill Clinton facing a similar thing in `92, when the entire strategic class of the Democratic Party was like, stay away from wedge issues, win back those white working class -- the idea that he would have gone out of his way to tweet that, about a fifth circuit decision is just -- it is incomprehensible. CHUCK TODD, MEET THE PRESS: Right, this is the guy, the only wedge issue they did was the death penalty. HAYES: In the other direction. TODD: In the other direction. These were the type of wedge issues. But it all goes to the point you made just before the break, which is -- this is a simple number`s game. And if Hillary Clinton wins north of 65 percent of the Hispanic vote, it`s game, set, match. You cannot lose states like Colorado, Florida, frankly, Virginia, and people forget that it`s a growing Hispanic population, that has helped move Virginia from its lean red area to being a full fledged right down the middle swing state And so that`s what this is all about pure and simple. HAYES: Just to get a look at the exit polling, Obama took 71 percent of the Hispanic vote, 44 percent spread against Romney. This also seems to me like an issue -- it is a wedge issue in reverse, right where you can tell she thinks she`s got the better part of this issue, and she`s pressing at every opportunity? CRISTINA BELTRAN, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Yeah, no, she`s going to run with this. And it makes a lot of sense for her to do that. I mean, it`s really interesting because people forget that in 2008 during the primary, Hillary Clinton did a lot better with Latino voters than Obama did. HAYES: In fact, there was a big question in that primary. BELTRAN: Would they shift over. TODD: Well, we went through this whole African-Americans versus Hispanics issue... BELTRAN: And that ended up being really a myth, but there was certainly, because people have a history with the Clintons, they felt a confidence in their economic policy. So, she has a base that she`s trying to build on. And I think also because among Latino activists and Latino -- people involved in the immigrant rights movement, those folks are angry at Obama, and disappointed at him, and they know that the only reason he`s doing a lot of this is because of activist push back on him. So, they know that they want to get him to sort of do this. Hillary doesn`t have the baggage of Obama, so she gets a pickup on the larger Latino support and then try to parley that without having his baggage. I mean, that`s her hope anyway. TODD: Well, yes, but don`t forget she`s been very slow on this issue. HAYES: She has been. TODD: Don`t forget... HAYES: The drivers licenses. Remember that moment. TODD: Right, candidate Hillary Clinton was so nervous about the politics of this issue that literally she was trying to take a poll during the debate. And you can watch her, she was flip-flopping all over the place. And that`s what this is. BELTRAN: But this says so much about the fact that look at what the Latino politics condition is right now. The amount of anti-immigrant sentiment has become so radical and so intense that just to be not actively hostile constitutes a fairly... HAYES: But here`s the things that`s so fascinating about the political competition, it is so intense among the people it is intense with. But the calculation that was made by this White House and the calculation that is being made by the Hillary Clinton campaign is that it is deep, but not wide, right. The people that are worked up against this... BELTRAN: Are never going to support her. HAYES: Are -- deeply don`t like it, but are fairly narrow part of the electorate. That`s the bet they`re making. TODD: Well, it is not only that, it throws a grenade into the Republican primary, which is, you basically have the Marco Rubios, the Jeb Bushes and even a Scott Walker who really do not want to have immigration as an -- now Scott Walker has made a political calculation now to move to the right on immigration. HAYES: Right, he sort of renounced his previous. TODD: He is -- basically, he is pulling the Mitt Romney and saying, well, look this is the path to the Republican nomination, you can`t do this. But what it does is it puts then the Republican Party has this intense debate about immigration over here, maybe some loud voices end up being the face of some of the rhetoric that the eventual nominee is going to wish wasn`t there, like, you know -- or the eventual nominee slips like a Mitt Romney does and says self-deportation becomes this rally cry. And no one thought Mitt Romney was really this anti-immigrant guy eight years ago. HAYES: That was not his identity. TODD: That was not who he wanted to be. HAYES: It got forced in the primary... TODD: Correct, the primary created that. BELTRAN: And I mean, that`s fundamentally really critical to how this whole thing is going to play out, because right now what`s interesting is, people like Rubio and Jeb Bush have the story, but Hillary has the policy. I mean, Hillary can get up and actually talk about her support for immigration reform. I don`t know what Jeb Bush plans on saying right now, or Rubio. HAYES: Oh, I tell you if Jeb Bush wins the next day he will come out in favor of CIR. I think there`s not a question. TODD: Neither Jeb -- and I tell you, this going to be an interesting question for Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, do they roll it back? If this policy that the president is trying to do after it gets litigated and... HAYES: On the merits, right. TODD: And let`s say it gets implemented, then would they roll it back? I don`t think Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush would roll it back, I don`t think they would, I don`t think a Rick Perry would. I mean anybody that has governed or represented a large Hispanic population isn`t going to do it, But it`s tough politics. HAYES: Right. And as you and I were saying in the break, that litigation on the merits -- right now we`re talking about the stay and whether people are going to get these temporary, you know, to start the process when it`s legally unclear whether they`ll actually be able to do it, that`s all going to happen in 2016. TODD: That Supreme Court ruling and decision about the executive power of the president to do this, happens in the middle of the presidential campaign. HAYES: All right. Chuck Todd and Cristina Beltran, thank you both. That`s All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END