All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 05/29/15

Guests: Paul Butler, Brian Darling, Jason Bailey, Erin Ryan, Dana Stevens,Rashida Jones

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN -- REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: It`s surprising I think that would be a universal response. HAYES: Bombshell revelation. A federal law enforcement official tells NBC News that former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was making payments to a man to conceal sexual contact they had while that man was a high school student. We`ll have the latest details. DANA PERINO, FOX NEWS: There are some, there`s going to be a strain that will agree with Rand Paul, but the vast majority of Republican voters are not going to agree with him. HAYES: Then, it`s Rand Paul versus the field, as key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire. Plus, more of my conversation with Rashida Jones. RASHIDA JONES, ACTRESS: There isn`t a psychology. It`s not like there`s one kind of girl who does this. HAYES: The actress discusses her new documentary on young women in the porn industry. And ALL IN the movies. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The people behind these robberies are extreme athletes. HAYES: The summer of the great American reboot is here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look who made it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, dad. HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening. From New York, I`m Chris Hayes. A bombshell scope today from the Tribune Media Company shedding light on the mystery at the heart of the federal indictment of former House Speaker Denny Hastert, Republican from Illinois. The indictment centers on a $3.5 million that Hastert allegedly to agree to pay a person, identified as only individual A in order to compensate for and conceal alleged prior misconduct against that individual. Today, journalists of the Tribune Company citing two anonymous law enforcement officials report that Hastert`s alleged misconduct was sexual in nature. One of those officials said the person was a man, and Hastert`s alleged actions date back to his time as a high school wrestling coach and teacher at Yorkville, Illinois, which ended in 1981. Federal law officials confirmed to NBC News that Hastert was making payments to a man in order to conceal sexual contact they had while the man was a student at Yorkville High School. Joining me now, NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams. Pete, you`ve been reporting this all day. Everything here still seems a bit fuzzy in terms of what happened but it seems like we`ve learned quite a bit to narrow down the source of the mystery at the core of the indictment yesterday. PETE WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the indictment that came out from the grand jury raised two big questions, which is what was the misconduct and who was individual A? The strong suggestion in the indictment that the individual was someone who was a student at the school. Today, federal law enforcement officials confirmed that in fact the payment was made to a man who was a student at the time that there was sexual misconduct at the high school involving Dennis Hastert and this man. That`s the extent of what we know. It`s well to remember two things about this. One is Dennis Hastert is not charged with sexual misconduct. He is charged with violating two federal laws, one that is sort of one step removed from the law, the law that says that banks have to report any large financial transactions. And then one step removed from that, if you try to frustrate the bank`s ability to do that, that`s also illegal and that`s the first thing that the government says Dennis Hastert did in making these payments. And secondly, they say when the FBI asked about it, he claimed that he kept the money himself. So, there`s no charge of sexual misconduct and there won`t be because this conduct happened so long ago that the statute of limitations have long since expired. Another thing that I think is becoming a little clear here that many people have wondered is, well, why isn`t individual A charged with extortion if this was a shakedown of Dennis Hastert, and what law enforcement officials say is that it was close to that they decided but that it was more on the side of an agreement they had, that Mr. Hastert would make this payment and that in return the man would not reveal what happened. But that it was not a full-up case of extortion that they felt they could prosecute. HAYES: Yes, that`s a really important point. I mean, under the law, two individuals can enter into a contract with each other in which one compensates the other for harm done, the other agrees not to talk about that harm. That can be a lawful exchange. Obviously, we don`t know the details here about what exactly went down but it is conceivable to imagine that. WILLIAMS: That`s right. And there are -- there is an indication that the federal authorities talked to more than one person here in putting this case together, but they decided just to make the case about the financial arrangement and the way that the money was withdrawn to in their view violate the financial reporting rule. So, that`s the essence of the case, that and what he told the FBI. HAYES: NBC News Pete Williams -- great reporting as always. Thank you very much. WILLIAMS: You bet. HAYES: It`s been a while since the name Dennis Hastert grabbed headlines. This man was the longest serving Republican speaker of the House in our nation`s history, 1999-2007. The man who enforced GOP unity in the George W. Bush era, using the informal policy that now bears his name, the Hastert Rule, which holds that no legislation shall reach the House floor without a majority of the majority. Hastert ascended to power after previous speaker, Newt Gingrich, resigned under pressure, and his would-be successor admitted to having an affair. Hastert`s own final years in office was marred by another scandal, one that many are revisiting in the light of today`s news, the sexually explicit messages sent to former congressional pages by then Congressman Mark Foley. Joining me now, former Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, now an NBC News contributor. Obviously, you served with Dennis Hastert. BARNEY FRANK, NBC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I did. HAYES: I guess, just -- I mean, today`s news is upsetting and sad. Your response to it? FRANK: Well, one, I was totally surprised. I know there was this tendency for people to say I knew that. HAYES: Right. FRANK: I don`t think anybody knew that. Look, being openly gay, I had been 1987, serving in the U.S. House, if there was any scuttlebutt about that, I would have heard about it, if there were any rumors. So, this comes as a total surprise. The most important point that I want to stress is once again the hypocrisy of it. Obviously, there`s an age question, I don`t know -- HAYES: And again, the conduct is alleged. I just want to make sure we say that. FRANK: You can say that. The fact is I don`t know how old the allegee was but there`s a hypocrisy issue. Dennis Hastert was a member of the House who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. He subsequently as speaker twice put before the U.S. House of Representatives a constitutional amendment that would have cancelled retroactively all the same-sex marriages that had taken place legally. So, if this is accurate, and I`m pretty sure that it is, the first point is the rank hypocrisy of this man using his power to persecute other people for doing what he was doing. Secondly, it is relevant to note in terms of the hypocrisy area -- you mentioned Gingrich had to quit. It turns out Gingrich was having an affair with the woman he now married was an employee of the House Agricultural Committee. And then, Livingston, who was supposed to replace him had to quit because he was having an affair, not just with the women, but with a lobbyist who was lobbying him. So, then, in the effort to get somebody they could -- HAYES: We need someone clean. FRANK: They get Hastert. The point is all this was happening while they were impeaching Bill Clinton for having oral sex. I think it now looks like if you take Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert and Robert Livingston, Clinton`s a choir boy. And that`s another example of hypocrisy. So, you know, I would like public policy about public issues. But there`s been this effort by the Republicans to say, we`re for family values, the Democrats are corrupt. This ought to just drive a stake through the heart of that nonsense. HAYES: Well, and I also got to say, you know, when the Mark Foley situation broke, very quickly, it went about being about Mark Foley to a scandal that centered around the speaker`s office, because what it centered on was there were people who were saying to the speaker`s office, people in the speaker`s office, Mark Foley is doing inappropriate things, he`s having inappropriate communications with, again, underage minor boys, and there was a real question about what did Dennis Hastert`s office do? And there was a real consensus I think he did not do enough. FRANK: He did not do enough to protect those young people. And, again, you contrast that with this rhetoric about being the party of morality and (INAUDIBLE). I must say, I don`t think it`s coincidental, but as I have obsessively watch TV news about this, about every loop of Dennis Hastert, there is a shot of him shaking hand with Mark Foley. I don`t think that was randomly selected by the people who put those things together. HAYES: You know, the last thing -- the thing I keep thinking about today, not knowing again the full story here, but just thinking about going through your life as a politician, ascending from this sort of story, incredible story, wrestling coach becomes speaker of the House, three heartbeats away from the presidency and knowing on some level, there`s this deep, dark secret, the deepest, darkest secret -- FRANK: I agree. I got to say, maybe this is my mindset, when you said heart beats away from the presidency, I thought you said three harpies away from the presidency, which would also have been accurate given Gingrich and Bill Clinton and what happened. But, yes, look, I went through some of that myself. I was -- during the period when I was closeted and I was concealing my own irresponsibility, I was more careful about keeping my head down. I don`t know what sense of impunity led Dennis Hastert knowing -- and I will say this -- again, I will abide by your alleged frame. If in fact it happened, I am certain it did not on happen once. I don`t think anybody in the history of the world has only had sex once of any kind. So, it would be for Hastert not simply the case he had this one person out there but several. HAYES: That`s the question. FRANK: And I`m struck by it. I would say this -- the one issue, I didn`t know about this, had no indication, but when I read the indictment, I was pretty sure it was a gay thing, for a simple reason, it was the careful avoidance of gender in the indictment. It wasn`t John Doe, it wasn`t Jane Doe. Having for years been in the closet and worked very successfully at avoiding gender identities, once I read that gender neutral identity, I knew. HAYES: Former Congressman Barney Frank, always great to have you here. I`m joined now by Georgetown law professor Paul Butler, who`s a former federal prosecutor. It was such a strange indictment yesterday, because -- well, first of all, let`s start with this -- the crimes that he is being insight p dieted for, you might call them meta crimes, right? They are crimes of concealment. And there are two things. It`s lying to federal agents, which is a federal felony and this structuring, which is -- explain what structuring is. PAUL BUTLER, GEORGETOWN LAW PROFESSOR: So, there`s a rule if someone takes more than $10,000 out of the bank, the bank has to file a currency transaction report. They have to tell the government what you`re doing with your money. So, if you try to evade that in what`s called a structured transaction, like you take out $9,000 rather than $10,000 -- HAYES: And a bunch of those in a row, right. BUTLER: Your bank says, hey, what`s going on? If they think something fishy is going on or it`s happening over a period of time, they report you to the government. HAYES: OK, there`s -- what`s so weird about this, right, is here he -- indicting a former speaker of the House is a big deal. OK? BUTLER: It is, yes. HAYES: This indictment drops tomorrow. They`re on crimes of concealment. The underlying act is the thing everybody wants to know. That is we hear reporting say taken out of the indictment at the request of the lawyers, that struck me as very weird. BUTLER: It`s bizarre. So, if the congressman had taken out this money in $50,000 increments and then when the FBI asked him why you`re doing that, he said it`s an agreement I have with someone -- HAYES: I`m paying someone -- BUTLER: Yes, yes, it`s like an informal contract. He wouldn`t be in trouble. He wouldn`t be indicted. So, in a sense it`s always the cover-up. But in this case, when you read the indictment, it`s not really the cover-up that they`re so concerned about. The congressman is right. The indictment reads like this veiled threat telling congressman if you don`t plead guilty, then all of this is going to come out and whatever it is, we don`t know. But whatever it is, congressman, you don`t want this to come out. HAYES: Well, that`s the other thing I found strange and made me a bit quite uneasy as we tried to figure out how we were going to report on this today, because you have the indictment which very, very ostentatiously -- does not say what the misconduct is, and then leaks coming left and right from sources familiar with the investigation saying what it is in dribs and drabs. BUTLER: Yes, that`s a little strange, because first of all, this is an administration, the Obama administration, that has a bad attitude about leaks. And the Justice Department, I was a prosecutor there -- they rarely have these kind of leaks. So, you know, should the lawyer have expected that details were going to come out? Maybe. But in a sense it wasn`t unreasonable for him to think that the dirty laundry wouldn`t be aired this soon. HAYES: The thing that Pete Williams said also -- I mean, if indeed the reporting today bears out what has been corroborated by so many sources I`m inclined to believe it will, again, alleged sexual abuse, sexual misconduct -- I want to be clear too just in terms of what Barney Frank was saying, we`re talking about a non-consensual -- some nexus of non-consensual sexual activity with a minor probably, we don`t know it`s a minor, but that`s the way it appears no, just to distinguish between consulting adults, that if this bears out, it feels like Al Capone for tax evasion, right? It feels like someone started catching wind to this, it waves red flag, federal investigators come down, they find out that there`s past thing that happened, and they can`t get him for that because of the statue of limitation and they end getting him on this. BUTLER: Yes. So, again, it`s not this kind of technical, dry, white collar offenses that they`re really concerned about. They`re going after him for what they have evidence to get him on. You know, the first allegation happened literally 50 years ago. So, again, statute of limitation problems with bringing a case against what may have actually happened. HAYES: And a little bit of news you can sue. If you ever find yourself face to face with a federal investigator, lying to them is a felony. They will prosecute for you. You should either tell them the truth or get a lawyer. That`s my advice. BUTLER: You should absolutely get a lawyer. HAYES: Get a lawyer. All right. Paul Butler, thank you. BUTLER: Great to be here. HAYES: Still ahead, presidential candidate Rand Paul, highly critique, sometimes oddly ignored over at the network hosting the first GOP debate, FOX News. And coming up, ALL IN the movies and the trailer that had my laughing like I was 16. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: There`s the opposite of love fest going on at the right`s favorite network with regard to presidential candidate Rand Paul. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PERINO: President Obama and Rand Paul have a similar world view. They want off the world stage. President Obama agrees. I`d cut the ad right now and say, a vote for Rand Paul is a vote for Obama`s third term. CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS: Obama`s foreign policy has collapsed. And whatever name you want to put on Paul`s position, isolationist or noninterventionist, he is without a doubt the one Republican who would be running who is the closest to Obama in his view of foreign policy. Arguably. he`s to the left of Obama on NSA, on surveillance, on the use of drones, essentially on the war on terror. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The very special predicament Senator Rand Paul presents to the Republican Party in his bid to the presidency. We`ll talk about why Paul is fighting off attacks from conservatives, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: All right. I want to show you some new polling in the Republican presidential race as reported by FOX News. Here`s a screen grab from the Web site Rare of FOX`s coverage of the poll out yesterday from Quinnipiac. You got your Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, your Mike Huckabee, even your Donald Trump. Do you notice anyone missing? Think for a second. Maybe a certain Kentucky senator? Because in that Quinnipiac poll, Rand Paul got 7 percent support, better than half of the candidates shown there. Yet, FOX kept them off their graphic, while including five potential candidates who did worse than Paul did. Now, hey, maybe that was just an oversight. Except it`s not the first time this sort of thing has happened. Two weeks ago, Rare noted, FOX News did not even include Paul in its own poll of head-to-head matchups against Hillary Clinton. Though there was room for long shots like Carly Fiorina. The exclusion of poll may have something to do with the fact that he is public enemy number one for many on the right, right now, and many of his critics have been making their case on FOX News. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s completely off the wall. There`s no way the Republican Party is going to nominate somebody like that. The question is, how much damage is he going to do in the meantime? And the answer apparently is quite a lot. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Now, Paul has never been particularly well-liked in the GOP, but the antipathy has really boiled over for two reasons. One, Paul`s claim on this network that Republican hawks are to blame for the rise of ISIS, and two, he`s partnering with progressives to try to roll back the Patriot Act, three key provisions of which are set to expire at midnight on Sunday. Paul seems to be relishing that fight, raising money off battles with his, quote, "spy state apologists", and telling the cheering crowd today there`s a little bit of a war in Washington between Paul and the establishment he casts as unconcerned with personal freedom." This week, the Senate will gather for a rare Sunday session to try to extend those Patriot Act provisions, and Paul in turn plans to stand on the way. The pro-Paul super PAC is certainly pumped for the fight. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Defender of freedom Senator Rand Paul versus the head of the Washington spy machine, Barack Obama, and his so-called conservative accomplices, the capitulating Canadian Ted Cruz. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Expiration of the Patriot Act provision, including the most controversial so-called provision 215 which the NSA has used to collect millions of Americans` phone record was unthinkable just two years ago. Today, President Obama warned that letting them expire could be disastrous, and potentially mean the failure to prevent a terrorist attack. Joining me now, Brian Darling, former senior communications director and counsel to Senator Rand Paul. All right, Brian, this is the big test case that I think is fascinating here, which is how much of a constituency is there in modern conservatism, in the modern Republican Party, for this fight on the Patriot Act, right? You can look at it in a certain way and you can say, look, conservatives, small government, skeptical of government overreach, like the Bill of Rights, et cetera, they should be all in on this, that`s not the way sort of mainstream conservative outlets are treating it. What do you think ends up being the result of this? BRIAN DARLING, FORMER COUNSEL TO SEN. RAND PAUL: I think Rand Paul is a leader of a movement and he`s leading the charge on the Fourth Amendment and making it so the American people understand that the conservatives love the Second Amendment, the First Amendment but also the Fourth Amendment, the right to privacy -- the right to have privacy in your home, the fact that the government can`t just issue one general warrant and spy on all Americans. I think that resonates with conservatives. Conservatives believe in limited, small government. HAYES: But this is the problem, I had these arguments with folks who are sort of on this side of things all the time. This is a No True Scotsman problem, because you can say, well, conservatives believe in this, right? But actual real conservatives have no problems with stop and frisk when there`s a battle over stop and frisk in New York City, which is a massive violation of the Fourth Amendment, to my mind. The actual real conservatives here were the ones on the side of, quote, "law and order in stop and frisk." The actual real conservatives out there, that is the people in America who call themselves conservatives and vote in Republican primaries don`t actually seem to be bothered by this. DARLING: I think they are. I disagree. I think average Americans are bothered by this. They`re bothered when in Ferguson when you have military -- it looked like the military is being rolled out in an American city. I think conservatives are now talking and Rand Paul is leading on criminal justice reform and trying to push back and roll back some of the things that were supported by Republicans and Democrats. Let`s not forget that Bill Clinton pushed through legislation and signed into law -- HAYES: Absolutely. DARLING: -- a bill that was very harmful for a lot of African-Americans. HAYES: So, let me ask this question, too, because part of the issue here is if Paul is going to sort of wage this campaign, you talked about him leading a movement, which I think may be true but that doesn`t necessarily get you to a plurality of voters, there`s this question of how long you can say -- and I thought there was an interesting piece from "Politico" about the fact there`s no big billionaire rising to the fore to essentially be the backer for Paul, which I`m sure someone could sort of turn around and take as a badge of pride, but there is a funding issue, particularly when you got all these other candidates who do have essentially sponsors that can keep them in it for the long run. DARLING: Yes. But money isn`t going to win it. You can have billionaires running super PACs, but it didn`t push Rick Santorum over the finish line in the last election cycle. It didn`t push Newt Gingrich over the finish line. There were billionaires behind those guys. Bottom line is, you have Rand Paul who`s leading a movement of small donors. He`s going to have a huge universe of donors, just like his dad. But they`re not going to be as big. But that`s not necessarily a bad thing, it`s a good thing. I think that he is a leader of this large movement and the American people are starting to roll in behind it. Don`t mis -- don`t denigrate his chances. I mean, he`s doing very well in the polls. His dad did very well in Iowa. He got over 20 percent in Iowa. His dad got over 20 percent in New Hampshire in the last election cycle. He can build off that and he can win. HAYES: The question about his dad is precisely the issue, right? Because what I see the Republican field and FOX News doing right now, particularly in the way they`ve gone after that ISIS comment to Joe Scarborough the other day, is to put Rand Paul in the position of his father, which was Rand Paul would be there and, sure, he had a lot of money and supporters but he would get up and say these things on foreign policy that made sense to a lot of anti-imperialists around the country, but not a lot of sense to a lot of Republican primary voters and they would beat the crap out of him on stage. And I can see the other Republicans salivating on that. DARLING: I don`t see that. Rand Paul was the only -- he`s the only member of the Senate that`s put together an Act of War resolution and declare war against ISIS, because he believes that the Constitution says that Congress has a say, Congress needs to authorize these wars. I think you have to look at it in two ways. One way is there`s a Republican fight, a battle over the future of the party, but it`s also a battle of the establishment Democrats. You know, we have Barack Obama engaging in many of the same policies that he criticized President Bush for engaging in. HAYES: Yes, it`s interesting. And the super PAC ad, right? The question is, how much mileage he can get out of the fact that President Obama is now the president and I think ultimately sort of the fear factor about this stuff is going to trump it. We`ll see. Brian Darling, thanks for coming on. DARLING: Thank you. HAYES: Still ahead, my interview with actress Rashida Jones on her documentary about women working in porn industry. And next, the latest from FIFA president Sepp Blatter now that he`s been reelected, despite the scandal exploding all around him. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Today Sepp Blatter was re-elected to his fifth term as the president of FIFA, just 48 hours after several of the organizations top officials were arrested on corruption charges. Blatter, who run FIFA for nearly 20 years swept to victory despite charges that the multi-billion dollar soccer organization under his watch has effectively been run as an international crime syndicate. Blatter, who ran unopposed in the last two elections, defeated his opponent, Jordanian Prince Ali bin al-Hussein 133-73 in the first round of voting. While that wasn`t a large enough margin to sustain a second round of voting, the prince then withdrew from the race. After today`s win, Blatter will serve another four years as leader of the embattled institution. And in a long and rambling victory speech, he promised to return FIFA to its former glory. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEPP BLATTER, PRESIDENT OF FIFA: Ladies and gentlemen, I told you at the beginning or when we started for this election, I like you, I like my job and I like to be with you. I`m not perfect. Nobody`s perfect. But we will do a good job together I`m sure. So I thank you so much. I thank you for the trust and confidence, trust and confidence. Together we go. Let`s go FIFA! Let`s go FIFA! Thank you. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: I like you, All In viewers. Now If I were Sepp Blatter, I wouldn`t spend too much time celebrating, because for FIFA, the arrests this week seem to be just the beginning. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Over the past decade, the porn industry, like almost every other industry, has been forced to adapt to changing consumer habits. The wide availability of content and ease of distribution has been a boon to one particular niche, amateur porn. The new documentary Hot Girls Wanted follows the lives of several young women who work in that very industry, women like Carly, a 19-year-old girl from Covington, Washington who comes to Miami in search of work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KARLY, PORN ACTRESS: I don`t actually have sex other than when I do porn. So I haven`t like done anything since I was here in October. So this is really the first time I`ve been intimate with a guy in like three months. So it`s just -- it`s nerve-racking and it makes me nervous, but at the same time, I know I like doing it. And the guys treat you like you`re a princess. It`s... UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know, that`s true. If only that would transition outside of shooting. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: This week I sat down with Rashida Jones, the producer, to discuss how changing norms have affected the industry. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) 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. HAYES: OK, so there`s a lot to unpack here. Let me push on the first part, right, because there is a really interesting, very vibrant debate among feminists, particularly people online, about this question, right. About, like, OK, we`ve removed the taboo. I think it`s unquestionable we have removed a very significant societal taboo that used to hover around pornography. JONES: Yes. HAYES: It has entered the mainstream. It`s some accessible than ever, and there are people will say that taboo was a tool of the patriarchy that did all sorts of terrible things to people and consenting empowered adults can do what they want, labor contracts. And there are some people who say, well that taboo also had to do with, like, images of women that are part of the patriarchy, which is that are only valuable insofar as they are sex objects. JONES: Yeah. I mean, I think you can`t disregard the idea that pornography is part of the patriarchy when you see that 40 percent of porn is violent against women. Like it`s hard to argue against that. HAYES: To me the most interesting aspect of this film was actually it as a documentary about capitalism in the 21st Century America and the way this industry has shifted, because what`s fascinating about porn is it is simultaneously ubiquitous and there`s no money in it. Like, there`s no real, real money in it. JONES: Not for the participants. HAYES: But even -- like there`s a stat that shows up on the film where it talks about like the top three amateur sites are worth a combined $50 million. $50 million is a lot of money, but like that`s not Uber money. That`s, like, you have -- there`s such an endless supply of competitors in the space that it can be everywhere and like... JONES: Well, then -- but that is -- there`s something about that -- I mean, I don`t know if it`s -- it is capitalistic. Everybody can make money off of it. so, even it`s not like one person hoarding all the money, it`s still anybody can be a porn producer, anybody can have a website, so you know, it is -- there`s something about it that is -- that is like it`s just like sheer money. HAYES: And now you`ve got this -- like it`s just -- the scene down there was bleak. Like in the movie it`s bleak. It`s like this house is kind of run down and people are just like working this job the way you might have gone and worked in a frickin` mine out west someday. JONES: The difference is, though, that bleakness, the fantasy of what`s going to happen... HAYES: Yes, totally. JONES: I don`t think you`re ever mining and you`re thinking I`m going to be a huge star. That`s the -- something`s been promised to them along the way, which they obviously are complicit in, that`s probably never going to come true. And so that`s the -- it`s the disparity between the reality and the fantasy that`s like the most bleak part. And in a weird way, I mean, Hollywood is that way as well but this is even worse because if you go to do amateur porn at 18, you`re kind of washed up by 18 1/2. HAYES: Right, that`s my question. There`s a great moment where they sort of talk about the typical life spans in the film and there`s these very short ones, you know -- maybe, you know, if she does all right, she lasts a few weeks, medium is a few months. At first you`re like, ooh, that`s rough, people get burned out quickly. And my other thought was like, yeah, people make dumb decisions, or not even dumb decisions, they make decisions at 18 they wouldn`t make at 38. I say this as someone who is 36, right. I make decisions. So then they make the decision they want to try this and then they`re like, not for me, this is kind of bleak. I`m out. I`m going to go back to school. I`m going to go be a doctor. I`m going to go be an accountant, whatever. The question, then, becomes like what do we do with the screen evidence? And what does that mean for their life in terms of how all of us have social expectations about whether that taints you or not? JONES: From what I understand, the girls in the film, they`re less concerned about the eternal existence of them being filmed having sex than they are just feeling humiliated they made the choice or regret about making that choice to begin with. Not anything they can`t recover from, but had they had that choice again, maybe they wouldn`t. And then there is evidence of that choice. So... HAYES: Right, there is evidence of it. JONES: It`s more of that... HAYES: But here`s the thing, and you`ve I think made this connection yourself and the film makes this connection about kind of the world of ubiquitous social media, selfies and constant posed performance for some lens, whether it`s on my smartphone or at this party or -- that in some ways everybody bad decision that every 18-year-old makes now is recorded forever. JOENS: Totally. Everybody is a celebrity and everybody has no privacy. But that being said, the thing that concerns me, maybe the onus is on us to change our expectation of what people have done in the past and how it`s going to affect their future, but for me the most disconcerting thing is the kind of like feminist part of it, which is, yes, there`s a lot of things that are sex positive and empowering but does having such a strong imagery, such a strong message about how sexual everybody has to be all the time, does that limit women`s choices? Does it mean you have to be sexy to do anything? Like everybody`s sexy at the time. They`re like at the supermarket. You know like, why? You`re just buying food. Why do you have to be sexy all the time? Why do you have to look like you want it all the time? HAYES: I don`t know. I always feel a little bit like I`m not the person to intervene in these debates, even though I follow them closely, because what do I know. But it`s hard to watch. Like that in the abstract about what sex positive whatever is in a theoretical sense, and then there`s the actual jobs, labor relations embodied people. And then and like it`s hard to feel the environment that is producing this universe is like a super feminist friendly space I think it`s fair to say. JONES: Right. Well, yes, absolutely. That`s just again back to capitalism. HAYES: Which is not to say that the women in question aren`t themselves feminists. JONES: No. And there are women who are producing porn for women, they`re directing porn for women, but it`s a supply/demand thing. Like, lots of guys -- it`s mainly guys who watch and buy porn. So, that`s who they are going to make it for, you know, teen is the most searched word in porn. I don`t think it`s women who are searching the word teen. I mean, maybe it is, but probably more men. I`m just speculating. So, they`re just giving the people what they want -- I`m just, you know, I`m making -- what do they call it when it`s like an educated -- it`s an educated guess, I don`t know. But I don`t -- I mean, I think the patriarchy is so deeply institutionalized everywhere, it`s not like you can`t just pull one thing out. I like the intention of trying to co-op things as empowering. I just worry that it`s sending a little bit of a confusing message to young women. (END VIDEOATPE) HAYES: The documentary Hot Girls Wanted is now available on Netflix. It really a fascinating, fascinating film. I highly recommend it. Up ahead, All In in the movies. The latest fictional catastrophe to hit the highly disastrous California coast. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: It`s been more than 30 years since the Griswalds arrived at Wally World to only find out it was closed. There was no internet, then, so how could we know. But next month the Griswalds will try to return to Wally World in a brand new vacation movie. Why I am super excited about that movie and why so many new movies aren`t really new ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Last week in our inaugural addition of the weekly feature All In the Movies, our discussion lingered on the new Mad Max movie Mad Max Fury Road. I was so taken by that conversation, I did something the following night I almost never do,considering I have a three year old and a one year old, I went to the movies with my wife and we saw Mac Max in a movie theater in 3D. But before the movie started, I saw this trailer, which I had so many feelings about. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This family is in a rut. We`ve got to shake things up. We`re driving to Wally World. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My trip to Wally World when I was kid was the best time I ever had. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, you want to redo your vacation from 30 years ago? UNIDENIFIED MALE: This will be completely different. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ve never even heard of the original Vacation. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doesn`t matter, the new Vacation will stand on its own. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: My feelings are, a, I will 100 percent see this movie. B, my wife said that I will almost certainly be seeing this movie without her. C, I laughed all the way through the entire trailer. And D, why is it that all Hollywood has to remake or reboot everything, including what is perhaps the greatest movie in movie history Point Brake? I mean, why stop there. Why not remake Citizen Kane? In tonight`s All In the Movies, we`ll tackle why everything that`s old in Hollywood is new again. And that`s next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: All right, joining me now in the special "All In" movie theater, Dana Stevens movie critic at Slate and co-host of the Slate Culture Gabfest, Erin Ryan, managing editor at Jezebel, and Jason Bailey, our good friend, film editor at Flavorwire. OK, so we talked about Mad Max last week. Jason was here, the other two of you were not. But I need to talk about it again because I actually saw the movie. It`s a fun thing to talk about movies that you`ve seen, rather than have just read off like a Dana`s Stevens review, which is usually what I`m working off of. I loved it. But it really resonated with me this thing that was writing in I09 about what a miracle it is that it got made. Miller was given a massive $150 million budget. More insanely, he seemingly also had complete creative control. Shouldn`t have been possible. Hollywood executives are paid to prevent this sort of potential disaster from ever happening. Yet, somehow one 70-year-old man who had been stuck directing children`s movies for two decades, created a legitimate masterpiece of the action genre. And do you feel the same way about it? DANA STEVENS, SLATE: Well, I`m not as passionate about it as you are. I completely agree that it`s a miracle that it got made. HAYES: That part of it, yeah. RYAN: And the role that it plays -- I mean, I think of a huge part of the pleasure for me in seeing it was just that it was George Miller at 70 returning to a 36-year-old franchise and still having the energy, originality and inventiveness, that it felt nothing like the sort of tired reboot or I`m going back to my past glories, it was a true new step along the insane path that he was already on. JASON BAILEY, FLAVORWIRE: I think what`s interesting about a lot of the raves that I`ve read is how much of it is just people praising him for getting basic, action directing things right like composition and geography, and editing and tempo. Yes, and it`s like it speaks to the fact that he has been that long since we`ve made a live action movie that he hasn`t been working during the Bayization, if you will, of action cinema to where this is a guy who actually knows what he`s doing and is bringing all of that to a genre that`s kind of forgotten how to do it that clearly. ERIN RYAN, JEZEBEL: Well, I -- you know, I watched it and I really liked the first -- the original three Mad Max, even Beyond Thunderdome, even though (inaudilbe) But I liked... HAYES: I mean, Tina Turner in football pads. RYAN: She was amazing. But I liked those movies despite like the violent misogyny inherent in them. And after I saw this Mad Max, I remember leaving the theater and being like I feel so energized and it was because I wasn`t spending energy ignoring misogyny in like an action movie and it was like this amazing... HAYES: You didn`t have to like wall off part of yourself. RYAN: Exactly. I didn`t have to like, just okay, ignore that, ignore that, that was gratuitous, that was gratuitous. It was all just enjoyable for me. HAYES: OK. So, the other thing about the Mad Max movie -- like when I first saw it, I was like really, they`re making another Mad Max? And Jason and I were having an email exchange earlier today about like the category of films that come out in the summer, which all have some relationship in some way to some previous thing. But, like, there`s a spectrum, right, Dana. So there`s like -- there`s a straight-up remake -- like we`re going to make this movie again. STEVENS: Right. Well, then there`s also just the continuation of the franchise, right. I mean, maybe that`s like bedrock level. HAYES: Right, yeah, so like the comic book movies, for instance. STEVENS: right, just the one that`s a sequel to a sequel to a sequel, right. HAYES: So, there`s sequels to sequels to sequels, there`s remakes, and then there`s kind of like reboots, I guess you can call them, right? I guess my feeling is Mad Max to me showed that like there`s a lot more creativity possible in... STEVENS: Right. Well, all those phrases they`re just such downers, right. Both reboot and remake to me that`s just such a deflation notion that that`s what a movie is going to be. HAYES: Right, yeah. STEVENS: And the Mad Max movie does not really feel like it fits into any of those categories, I would say. HAYES: Right. And based on the trailer, I`ve got to say like I saw that - - I sat there through for that Vacation trailer and like I love the original Vacation movie. I think like every person of my age and gender. And -- although maybe it has a more universal appeal than I think it does. But I saw that and I was completely psyched to see it. And it seems like it basically is just going to be like a dumb -- like an equally dumb version of the first one. BAILEY: Well, it`s weird because you`ll have things that are technically one of those sort of sub sub-sub-genres but feel like another. Like, this is technically a sequel. You know, Ed Holmes is playing Rusty grown up... HAYES: Which, by the way, how -- what was the call between Anthony Michael Hall`s agent and Anthony Michael Hall when that casting decision happened? It`s like they got someone else to play you when you`re grown up. You`re right here, Anthony. BAILEY: Yeah, but in all fairness, it`s the third time that`s happened. So it`s a conversation they`ve had before. RYAN: But I have to just sweep in and say that Anthony Michael Hall, the adult Anthony Michael Hall, is in another movie that`s premiering this weekend called Results, which I thought was really good. BAILEY: And he`s really funny in it. HAYES: Is he good in it? RYAN: He`s got a small, comedic role. He`s really good. And could not be more unrecognizable from Rusty Griswald. BAILEY: Totally. So, in that regard, you know, it`s Chevy Chase is back in the same role, Beverely D`Angelo -- so, it`s technically a sequel. But it feels like a reboot, because it`s the same story, or a remake. And it`s got the same title again. So, in a lot of ways what I think we`re seeing in a lot of these films that are rebooting or sort of ignoring sequels are things like that is just the general idea of filmmakers trying to assure a core audience we`re going to go back to our roots, forget about those George Lucas prequels, forget about the second and third Jurassic Park, let`s put those -- no, we`re going to get back to our roots. And we`ll make a movie like the one that you loved. HAYES: It`s like trying to wipe the slate clean. RYAN: It`s a cover song, basically. It`s not anything new. It`s like I know this song, I know this song, but it`s different. STEVENS: But the more precious the original is, the more difficult that reboot is, like Superman. Nobody has gotten it. Not one remake. HAYES: Well, this brings us to the weirdest remake ever, which is Point Break, which I don`t know the feeling here about Point Break? Are you... RYAN: Well, no. HAYES: I love Point Break. OK, so I love Point Break. STEVENS: I venerate Point Break. HAYES: Venerate Point Break. STEVENS: Don`t care about Vacation very much, but venerate Point Break. HAYES: I almost actually got one of the president`s masks that they used, but I thought that would be way too creepy. But like why would you remake that movie? It`s not like -- that I can`t even understand the logic of. Like, the original is there. You love it or don`t love it or feel somewhere in between. But it doesn`t have some huge franchise pull. It`s not like... RTAN: Well, I mean -- and like the way that they`re redoing it is almost regressive. Like Catherine Bigelow directed the first one and this time they have this random Scandinavian dude who has only got one credit. And they made up a fake bombshell lady role and there`s another hot lady and it`s a sausage fest the rest of the way. And honestly from what -- I usually don`t watch trailers, but I watched it to try to gather some sense of Point Break remake why? And it almost seems like they just used it to get the cool title. I mean, it seems very vaguely related. There are some extreme athletes that do some cop activities, that`s about the... HAYES: Right, so it`s not actually the same movie. BAILEY: Well, you`re getting to the essence of the entire sort of reboot culture, which is that all Point Break is, is a brand. It is a recognizable thing. It`s a thing from the 90s that people remember and that is what it takes to get a green light in Hollywood right now. It`s like the entire studio slates look like a Buzzfeed listical. It`s just, this was a thing. You remember this thing? You`ll go see this thing. HAYES: Yes. STEVENS: Where`s my Married With Children reboot? HAYES: I guarantee you there will be a Married With Children -- did they ever make a movie of that? STEVENS: I don`t know. HAYES: There was never... BAILEY: You`re giving people ideas, Chris Hayes, I need you to shut it down, shut it down! RYAN: That`s a terrible idea. They should not do that. HAYES: They should definitely not do that. All right... RYAN: Although Christina Applegate will be in your beloved vacation. So there`s a little taint in there... HAYES: That`s right. She`s going to be great. Dana Stevens, Erin Ryan and Jason Bailey, thank you for joining us at the movies. Have some popcorn. That is 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