All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 07/22/15

Guests: Marq Claxton, Andrew Ritchie, David Cay Johnston, Ezekiel Emanuel,Sabrina Siddiqui, John Stanton

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN -- POLICE OFFICER: Get out of the car now. Or I`m going to remove you. HAYES: Texas police released the Sandra Bland dashcam arrest video. POLICE: I will light you up. Get out! SANDRA BLAND: Wow. POLICE: Now! HAYES: Tonight, breaking news regarding the arresting officer. Did law enforcement go too far? Then, Trump attacks Perry. DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He put glasses on so people will think he`s smart. And it just doesn`t work. HAYES: Today, Perry strikes back. RICK PERRY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Donald Trump is the modern day incarnation of the know-nothing movement. HAYES: Plus, David Cay Johnston with our first official look inside the Trump vault. And why this man owes a $153,000 hospital bill after taking a selfie with a rattle snake. ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. The dashcam video of the arrest of Sandra Bland who died three days later in a jail cell hanged to death has produced an instant debate about whether her arrest was lawful and proper. The interaction between Bland and the officer has become a Rorschach test about what rights citizens have in the face of police authority. We will play extended portions of that dashcam video in a moment. But first, fast moving developments in this case. Sandra Bland`s official state autopsy is complete but is not expected to be released until tomorrow. The Waller County sheriff`s office released a mental health evaluation in which she checked a box saying she had considered suicide, writing that it was in 2014 because of a lost baby. Under the question how, she wrote "pills". However, on the medical evaluation form, she answered no on the occasion of attempted suicide. Today, Waller County District Attorney Elton Mathis said he is investigating whether the arresting officer, Brian Encinia, violated any criminal laws during the arrest. Today, Bland`s sister Sharon Cooper said the family had been working expeditiously on getting her bond to get her out of jail before her death. The Bland family lawyer denied that Bland had issues with depression. The Texas State Senator Royce West said she never should have been taken into custody, while Texas State Representative Helen Giddings noted Bland should be alive today. And while there was concern the dashcam video provided by the Texas Department of Public Safety had been edited, they said they were they were technical issues caused during transfer and a newly released video solved the problem. Now, for a closer look at that dashcam video. Officer Encinia having finished another traffic stop in which he issued a warning begins approaching Bland`s car from behind. Bland`s car is the white one see there. It is not long before Bland`s car makes a lane change without signaling, a matter which becomes a key part of the interaction. About two minutes and 30 seconds after Bland pulls over and after the officer has asked for her driver`s license and returned to his car, Officer Encinia goes back to Bland`s vehicle and the following exchange takes place. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) POLICE OFFICER: Are you okay? BLAND: I`m waiting on you. You, this is your job. I`m waiting on you, whatever you want me to do. POLICE OFFICER: You seem very irritated. BLAND: I am, I really am, I (INAUDIBLE) getting a ticket for, I was getting out of your way, you were speeding up, tailing me. So I moved over and you stopped me. So, yes, I am a little irritated. But that doesn`t stop you from giving me a ticket. So -- POLICE OFFICER: Are you done? BLAND: You asked me what`s wrong and I told you. POLICE OFFICER: OK. BLAND: So, now I`m done. Yes. POLICE OFFICER: OK. Do you mind putting out your cigarette, please, if you don`t mind? BLAND: I`m in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette? POLICE OFFICER: Well, you can step out of the car. BLAND: I don`t have to step out of my car. POLICE OFFICER: Step out of the car. BLAND: Why am I -- POLICE OFFICER: Step out of the car. BLAND: No, you don`t have to - no, you don`t have the right. POLICE OFFICER: Step out of the car! BLAND: You do not -- you do not have the right to do that. POLICE OFFICER: I do have the right. Now step out or I will remove you. BLAND: I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself. POLICE OFFICER: Step out or I will remove you. BLAND: I am getting removed for a failure to signal? POLICE OFFICER: Step out or I will remove you. I`m giving you a lawful order. Get out of the car now, or I`m going to remove you. BLAND: And I`m calling my lawyer. POLICE OFFICER: I`m going to yank you out of here. BLAND: OK, you`re going to yank me out of my car. POLICE OFFICER: Get out. BLAND: OK. All right. Let`s do this. POLICE OFFICER: Yes, we`re going to. BLAND: Yes, don`t touch me. POLICE OFFICER: Get out of the car. BLAND: Don`t touch me. I`m not under arrest. You don`t have the right to take me out of my car. POLICE OFFICER: You are under arrest. BLAND: I`m under arrest for what? POLICE OFFICER: (INAUDIBLE) BLAND: For what? For what? POLICE OFFICER: Get out of the car! Get out of the car now. BLAND: Why am I being apprehended? You`re trying to give me a ticket for failure -- POLICE OFFICER: I said get out of the car. BLAND: Why am I being apprehended? You just opened my car door -- POLICE OFFICER: I am giving you a lawful order. BLAND: You opened my car door -- POLICE OFFICER: I am going to drag you out of here. BLAND: So you`re going to -- you`re threatening to drag me out of my own car. POLICE OFFICER: Get out of my car! BLAND: And then you`re going to stun me? POLICE OFFICER: I will light you up. Get out! BLAND: Wow. POLICE OFFICER: Now! BLAND: Wow. POLICE OFFICER: Get out of the car! BLAND: All this for a failure to signal. You`re doing all of this for a failure -- POLICE OFFICER: Get over there. BLAND: Right. Yes. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Bland gets out of the vehicle and soon questions why she is being arrested. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) POLICE OFFICER: Put your hands in your back and -- BLAND: Why am I being arrested? POLICE OFFICER: Turn around. BLAND: Why can`t you tell me why -- POLICE OFFICER: I`m giving you a lawful order. I will tell you. BLAND: Why am I being arrested? POLICE OFFICER: Turn around. BLAND: Why won`t you tell me that part? POLICE OFFICER: I`m giving you a lawful order. Turn around. BLAND: Why will you not tell me -- POLICE OFFICER: You are not complying. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The war of words escalates further. Bland uses expletives. She also said the officer is hurting her. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) POLICE OFFICER: You`re getting a warning. Until now, you`re going to jail. BLAND: For what? For what? I`m getting for what? POLICE OFFICER: You stay right here. I said stay right here. (EXPLETIVE DELETED) BLAND: I swear on my life (EXPLETIVES DELETED) for a signal. What a (EXPLETIVES DELETED) You`re about to break my (EXPLETIVE DELETED) wrists. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: You hear her say you`re about to break my wrists there. About a minute after that, a female officer was part of the interaction and the following exchange takes place. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) POLICE OFFICER 2: I got here. BLAND: I know that this makes you feel good. You`re a real man now. You just slammed me and knocked my head into the ground. I`ve got epilepsy, you (EXPLETIVE DELETED). POLICE OFFICER: Good. Good. (CROSSTALK) BLAND: Good. Good, good, good. All right. All right. Yes, this is real good. Real good for a female, yes. Y`all strong. Y`all real strong. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Sandra Bland was arrested on charge of assaulting a public servant. The statement filed by Officer Encinia said that Bland began swinging her elbows at me and kicked my right leg in the shin. The Department of Public Safety has identified violations of department procedure. The officer is on desk duty and there are three ongoing investigations. Joining me to sort through this, Marq Claxton, director of the Black Law Enforcement Alliance, a former NYPD detective, and attorney Andrea Ritchie, Soros Justice fellow, and expert on women and policing. There`s so much discussion of what happens in this. And we should say this is what happens in this interaction is distinct and separate from which the means by which Sandra Bland would ultimately die, which is still under investigation. I want to separate out those two. Can we start just with the pulling over to begin with? There`s been lots of literature of what are called pre-textual stops. We saw in the case of Walter Scott, a man who had three taillights, two of which were working, one which was not working, is pulled over. He was a man gunned down to his death in North Charleston. Here it really does seem that she does move over. She does fail to signal which is a violation of Texas law. She moves over to let him out of the way. That`s what she says. Andrea, what was going through your mind when you saw that as the initiation of this stop? ANDREA RITCHIE, SOROS JUSTICE FELLOW: Well, what`s going to my mind was that it was outrageous. Obviously, officers have a tremendous amount of discretion in determining when they`re going to enforce traffic laws. There was a study that show most of us break a traffic law every three blocks. I`m sure any one of our viewers has failed to signal a lane change at some point -- particularly when you see lights in your rear view mirror when you see a police officer. The thing you want to do is get out of the way. That`s what the law requires you to do. So, to forget to turn on your turn signal at that point is certainly understandable. It is technically a violation of Texas law, but for him to exercise his discretion to pull her over, give her a ticket and then begin to really escalate the situation and harass her over a minor infraction that put no one in danger was in fact about her trying to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle or police vehicle is truly outrageous. HAYES: Mark, from your perspective as a police officer and, obviously, you were a detective. You are not a state trooper. You were not tailing people around. But is this a good stop? Is it a legitimate stop just from the beginning? MARQ CLAXTON, DIRECTOR, BLACK LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE: Well, from the beginning, you have to realize whether or not the police officer was right in stopping or taking action on this infraction that he allegedly observed, whether that`s, you know, in play or not, the fact is we`re talking about a violation of law. Not even a crime. So, you have to engage and interact with the civilian population with human beings in a particular way based on what it is you`re investigating. If there`s a question about a crime, a violent crime, you may approach and discuss and interact one way. So, we`re talking about a traffic violation. Not a crime. So, it calls into question about the police officer`s ability to interact and engage verbally, and whether or not this particular police officer actually exacerbated the situation, increased tensions, was provocative in his demeanor and his language. And that really is disturbing based on what we`ve seen in the video. HAYES: Let`s talk about that, the place where this interaction explodes which is to exchange about the cigarette. Let`s play that little bit right now. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) POLICE OFFICER: Do you mind putting out your cigarette, please, if you don`t mind? BLAND: I`m in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette? POLICE OFFICER: Well, you can step out of the car. BLAND: I don`t have to step out of my car. POLICE OFFICER: Step out of the car. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: OK. Andrea, let`s talk about the law here. Two questions: if an officer orders you, or asks you to put a cigarette out, are you compelled by the law to put the cigarette out in your car? A. And, B, if an officer orders you out of the car, are you compelled by the law -- does he have the legal and constitutional authority to order you out of the car? RITCHIE: So, the answer to the first question to my knowledge is no. I`m aware of no law that prohibits you from smoking a cigarette in your own car, as you`re waiting for a police officer to run your driver`s license and your insurance and make sure that everything`s clear on that front during a traffic stop. You can tell from his tone of voice, that he is being very sarcastic at that point. I felt that he just really was unnecessarily prolonging the detention. He had what he needed. He was writing her a ticket. He asked her a question about being -- whether she was annoyed or not. She answered calmly and truthfully. If he wasn`t prepared for the answer, he shouldn`t have asked it. And it is clear that at that point, he decided that he was going to dig into her. And he did. At that point, she had had enough. She was frustrated by the basis of the ticket where again, people fail to turn signal all the time. I saw ten people fail to do on it my way here to the studio and none of them got stopped. It`s highly discretionary who gets stopped. Obviously. And the next -- sorry. HAYES: Just that second question about the law. Because this becomes a debate about what actually the Supreme Court has said about a cop ordering you out of your car. What does the law say about that? RITCHIE: I mean, my understanding is that the police officer has the right to order you out of your car. During a -- once the officer has probable cause to believe you committed a traffic stop. The rationale for that is that the officer should be able to protect his safety, make sure that you`re not going to reach for a weapon in the car, make sure you`re not going to drive away and escape. At that point, she had been pulled over for quite some time. There`s no indication that there was any physical threat to him. He never mentioned once in the video tape that he thought there was a weapon. He believed there was a weapon. So, really, at that point, he was ordering her out of the car and exercising control simply for the sake of exercising control over her, clearly. And so, whether he had technically the legal right to do so or not is kind of not the point. He was doing it for -- it was completely superfluous at that point for the purposes of the stop. HAYES: That does seem clear. But, Marq, but it does seem to me that in some ways it is the point, because the question is, how are officers trained about what authority and leeway they have those interactions? He says get out of the car and at one point, she basically says why are you ordering me out of the car? He says I am issuing a lawful order. It seems clear to me he had been trained. The Supreme Court has weighed in and said, you do have the authority to order someone out of the car. As a police officer, that`s a tool in your tool kit if you want to use it in this situation. Is that something you`re familiar with as a police officer? CLAXTON: Very familiar. Let`s be clear: we learn this about the Fourth Amendment, the right for people to feel secure in their persons, their homes, their properties, their effects. And that is very relevant here. But there also have been additional decisions that come forward. One that really pops out in my mine is Pennsylvania versus Mimms which deals directly with the ability of a police officer to stop or order a person out of their car during even a routine traffic stop. I think what is necessary for that to be valid is that there has to be some reasonable fear for that individual police officer`s safety. And that`s the key word that`s missing in so much of this discussion that we have. HAYES: Right. CLAXTON: We often talk about the police officer was afraid for his life. That`s not good enough. The police officer was fearful. That`s not good enough. There is a standard. And that standard is reasonable. It is unreasonable, for example, for a police officer to see a straw in a person`s mouth and they say I was in near for my life because that straw could have been shot into my eye and into my brain, et cetera. That`s not reasonable. HAYES: Right. CLAXTON: We should be dealing with what is reasonable along with what is legally constitutionally correct. HAYES: OK. So -- RITCHIE: Absolutely. And what is reasonable when you are clearly she was speaking in a calm voice. She was explaining her irritation but she was speaking calmly. He never, ever suggested that she pose any kind of physical threat for him. And for him to go straight from a verbal command to leave the car to threatening to light her one with a taser is going from zero to what`s supposed to be only a substitute for lethal force -- so from zero to a thousand in less than a second. And his voice goes up very high, very quickly. And in terms of what`s reasonable under those circumstances, it`s clear that he is acting in a way that is completely unreasonable and unjustified by anything the case law contemplates when giving a police officer the right to take someone out of a car. HAYES: And, Marq, she asked, I think (INAUDIBLE) at Fusion had watched the tape and reported that she asked 14 different times in the duration of the tape, "Why I am a being arrested?" Were you trained as an officer that you have to give an answer to that? She never gets -- Sandra Bland never gets an answer to that. She keeps saying, I can`t believe thought is happening over a failure to signal. What was your training? What`s your understand of what an officer is obligated to say in that situation? CLAXTON: No obligation at that point, to the point of the arrest itself to indicate to the person, you`re being arrested for A, B, C or D. The only obligation to indicate what the specific charges are for the police officer to a prosecutor`s office. Now, that`s what the book says. But in reality, if you are interested in making sure that you de- escalate situations, that you present this professional image, that you keep the scene calm, that you maintain control, you should afford the person an indication of what it is that you`re holding them for. That`s just basic decency. And that, in so many ways, that`s missing in so many cases in law enforcement. And what we`ve begun to see is that because we`ve second as a nation for police officers, police agencies, individual police officers to operate under the color of law, these abuses continue to happen. That`s what is happening in this case and so many others. HAYES: All right. Marq Claxton, Andrea Ritchie, thank you for taking time to walk through that. A lot of extremely strong feelings about what is shown in that tape. That was very, very clear. Thank you very much. CLAXTON: Thank you. HAYES: Still ahead, the latest on the plans of a former police officer who was going to wear black face to raise funds for the six Baltimore police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray. You heard that right. Plus, the guy who tried to take a selfie with a rattle snake and ended up with a $153,000 hospital bill. But, first, a long-awaited disclosure from presidential candidate Donald Trump. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: I have to be myself. Look, I built a great company, a great empire. It`s phenomenal success. I don`t want to read Teleprompters. Reading Teleprompters would be much easier. I went to the Wharton School of Finance. I was a good student. Reading Teleprompters is easy but you don`t learn about a person. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Republican presidential candidate, Senator Lindsey Graham, had a pretty clever response today to Donald Trump who yesterday, in a speech in Graham`s home state of South Carolina, called Graham both a total lightweight and a stiff. In a moment of near perfect Trump-ness, read Graham`s personal cell phone number out loud. Graham really wants to get into the top ten in national polls, and be on stage for that first GOP presidential debate in two weeks. And he must know at this point, the best way to raise your profile in this Trump dominated media environment is to hit back at the Donald. So, Graham teamed up with a Web site called Independent Journal Review, a kind of conservative "BuzzFeed" to produce this legitimately funny video about getting rid of his cell phone after getting Trumped. It shows Graham chopping his phone with a butcher`s knife, putting it into a blender and taking a swing at with it a golf club among other forms of destruction. (VIDEO CLIP PLAYS HAYES: That was the funniest response to a Trump attack today. But there was another response to Trump from another presidential contender that was completely unprecedented in its ferocity, including the words toxic, nonsense and cancer. Stay tuned for that. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: So, everyone figured, oh, keep Trump out of the debates, because he`ll never file his financials, because he doesn`t want to see, he doesn`t want people to see that may be he`s not as wealthy as people thought. Well, it turned out I`m much wealthier than people thought. I built a great company. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAEYES: The moment you expected has finally arrived. Donald J. Trump, a man who`s famously both hyperbolic and aggressively vague about his network, actually filed the financial disclosure form required by the Federal Election Commission to run for president. Today, that document was released to the public, coming in at a whopping 92 pages, it confirm what Trump himself asserted in a statement last week, this report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump`s massive wealth. Listing over 500 corporations and other business entities in which the mogul holds some kind of position, the form shows Trump has at least $1.4 billion in assets and at least $265 million in liabilities. But for all Trump`s fetishization of wealth and his own success story, this is a guy who was born on third base claiming he had a triple. His father, let`s remember, Fred Trump, was one of the biggest real estate developers in all of New York City. When Donald Trump graduated from college, he already had a net worth of $200,000, mostly in real estate in Brooklyn and Queens. When he joined his father`s company in 1968, it was a vast empire valued at $40 million, according to "The New York Times". In other words, Donald Trump is to the world a business what Jeb Bush is to the world of presidential politics. Not exactly a Horatio Alger success story. Joining me now, David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who covered Trump for many years, as reporter for "The New York Times" and "The Philadelphia Inquirer". And, David, having looked at this disclosure form, what strikes but what we`ve learned from it? DAVID CAY JOHNSTON, JOURNALIST & AUTHOR: Well, the single biggest thing is that his production company which does "The Apprentice" only shows $4 million of revenue. Now, four years ago, Donald claimed that his new deal for "The Apprentice" with NBC was going to bring him $130 million over I think it was two seasons. And clearly, that figure does not support this. So, we don`t -- unless there`s something else that we don`t know, it certainly suggests a lot less money. It also shows that Donald`s fees from the big hotel on the Chicago River in Chicago are really quite modest for a hotel of that size. And, of course, we don`t know today what Donald`s net worth is, because as he himself said, and you pointed out, these forms were not designed for him. We know he`s worth at least $1 billion, based on these forms showing both his debts and his assets. HAYES: Now, the other part about this that I always find fascinating -- this is true about the sort of Mitt Romney`s financial disclosures of 2012, is it`s a window into the legal tax architecture of people at the very tip of the sphere, the very top of the pyramid in the kind of inequality laden country in which we live. And you`ve written about this copiously that, you know, those financial tomorrows don`t look like ordinary people`s financial forms. And, in fact, they`re designed entirely around reducing tax liability as much as possible. JOHNSTON: That`s right. And I think it is entirely possible based on my few hours of analysis of the documents, that Donald may not pay income taxes. We know that three years into his career, his income went negative and he stopped paying income taxes. This was back in the early `70s. There`s a special law Congress passed in the early `90s, that if you`re a full time real estate professional, you can take unlimited paper losses for your real estate to offset your earned income. All the rest of us are either limited to $25,000 if we make under $100,000, and nothing if we make over $200,000. So, Donald appears to have enough losses that he could live tax-free. And you haven`t seen him offering to put out his tax returns. Now, Jeb Bush put out years of his returns. We have Hillary Clinton`s returns going back to long before her husband was president. Mitt Romney only gave us two years of his returns. And I particularly pointed out, he was trying to minimize his wealth. And that as a private hedge fund manager could benefit from a rule that would have allowed him to go years and years and years not paying income taxes, perfectly legal. HAYES: Yes, let me make sure I understand this. There was a law passed specifically for real estate developers. So, when you took a payment loss, right, meaning you didn`t sell it as a loss. It just means the value declined of some asset. You could take that decline in value as a loss against income for that year`s taxes? JOHNSTON: Yes. Actually, his properties are rising in value but you`re allowed to depreciate them on the theory that they`re wearing out the way a machine wears out. HAYES: Right. JOHNSTON: And we know in many years in the past, Trump, actually -- at lunch, he and I discussed this once. He had $3.4 million in losses. I pointed out to him a dollar is -- as valuable as 3.4 and he should reorganize his finances to sell the other $3 million to his partners. He thanked me. (LAUGHTER) HAYES: There is a deal with -- he has managed to kind of obscure the story of the fact that this is at least in the beginning, an inherited empire. I mean, his father was one of the great real estate barons and was a real up by the boot straps story. This is a guy who started a real estate business if I`m not mistaken at the age of 15, started wheeling and dealing, buying and developing huge properties, far out in the outer boroughs in New York, built up this empire. Donald Trump inherited a huge amount of this. JOHNSTON: Right. Yes. Fred Trump was a self-made man. When Donald did his first big deal, converting the decrepit Commodore Hotel next to Grand Central Station into the Grand Hyatt, Fred Trump`s very good buddy, Mayor A. Beam arranged to funnel $400 million of tax money to Donald. You know, pretty easy to make a big fortune if on top of inheriting money because you were born with a platinum spoon in your mouth, the taxpayers forked over $400 million to you when you`re in your 30s. HAYES: Yes. This is meritocratic America at its best, an inherited real estate empire, a tax code that lets you take depreciation allowances against actual real earned income, and, of course, all of the various ways that municipalities can back-door subsidize real estate development. You put all that together, it turns out you can make a lot of money. David Cay Johnston, thank you very much. JOHNSTON: Thank you. HAYES: All right. Still ahead, the harshest response yet to Trump from former Texas Governor Rick Perry. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PERRY: Let no one be mistaken: Donald Trump`s candidacy is a cancer on conservatism and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised and discarded. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Police supporters in Baltimore were planning a fundraiser this fall for the six officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray. And one of the scheduled entertainers, not even the police union, was happy about it. 67-year-old Bobby Berger, himself a former Baltimore cop, was set to perform as the event as Al Joelson, a white entertainer from the 1920s and 30s famous for wearing black face in minstrel shows and movies like The Jazz Singer. Berger, seen putting on his makeup in an old news segment, was fired from the police department in 1982 over his performances, according to the Baltimore Sun. After being reinstated, amid a decade long legal battle, he eventually left the force years later. While Berger told The Sun there`s, quote -- and I`m quoting here -- not one iota of racial overtones in his performance, some of the people he planned to raise money for saw it a little bit differently. A lawyer for Sergeant Alysia White (ph), one of the six officers in the Freddie Gray case, said his client wouldn`t accept any funds from the event calling it, quote, racist and in poor taste. An attorney with the Baltimore Fraternal Order of Polie likewise said they wouldn`t take any of the money. While the FOP president reportedly sent a letter to all of the state`s union lodges, letting them know, his lodge wasn`t supporting it. Berger didn`t seem to be having any trouble selling tickets, telling the Sun he`d already sold about 600 at 45 bucks a pop in just the last ten days. But now, according to a report in the last hour, that event has been canceled by the venue. The venue, Michael`s 8th Avenue in suburban Baltimore posting a statement on its website, "no contract was signed with Mr.Bberger, Michael`s does not condone black face performances of any kind. Michael`s regrets any concerns the discussion of this may have caused in the community." (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Earlier this month a man named Todd Fassler (ph) was bitten by a rattlesnake while trying to take a selfie. Then he sent video of the aftermath -= oh my god -- then he sent video of the aftermath to his local San Diego ABC affiliate KGTV. Fassler he eventually recovered after a five-day stint in the hospital but only after depleting the anti-venom supplies at two local hospitals according to KGTV. (BEGIN VIDOE CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My whole body was shaking, was gyrating. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Soon after the rattlesnake bit him... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He literally paralyzed my whole body. UNIDENTIIFIED MALE: Todd Fassler`s (ph) body started to shut down. UNIDENITIFIED MALE: My tongue was stuck out of my mouth, my eyes were off to the side. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All becuase Fassler (ph) was trying to get a selfie with the snake. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: OK, Protip here: no selfies with rattlesnakes. You want to do whatever you can to avoid being near them as Mr. Fassler learned. Now the San Diego local was lucky enough to have medical care. But the drugs and care that saved his life did come with a shockingly hefty price. After first reporting on the rattlesnake selfie snafu, KGTV reporter Dan Hagarty tweeted a picture of the hospital bill he says Fassler sent him. His bill, a grand total of $153,000. The majority of that, $83,000, coming from pharmacy costs, meaning the cost of drugs. The bill of over $150,000, due July 27, 2015, less than three weeks after he left the hospital. Now, we don`t know if Fassler has insurance. It is more than likely that even if he did, it wouldn`t be asked to pay the full amount. But the $153,000 snakebite bill is a window into what the U.S. health care system so distinct and so dysfunctional, the insane way the U.S. health care system prices drugs and services. Joining me now, Dr. Zeke Emanuel, MSNBC contributor, chair of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania. All right, what is going on here with this bill? How do you, as someone who has spent a lot of time studying this system makes sense of this? EZEKIEL EMANUEL, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: This is just funny money, it`s what in the field is called charges. It`s what hospital charges. They`re totally made up. They bear no relationship to reality. They bear no relationship to how much effort is needed to care for a patient. I would note there, Chris, that $40,000 roughly of that bill is for five nights in the hospital, $8,000 a night. You could virtually rent a Caribbean island for that kind of price. HAYES: You can stay at the nicest place in all of America. EMANUEL: The whole world. HAYES: But then explain to me why -- I have to... EMANUEL: So we call those charges. And then there`s costs, which are really what`s going to be paid. And of course, there is no such thing as a cost, because commercial insurers like Aetna or United, they pay one rate, Medicare pays a different rate, typically lower, Medicaid pays a different rate, typically even lower than that. The only people who pay that kind of bill are people paying full price, Chinese billionaires or oil sheikhs, really no relationship to reality. The problem is, the guys who run the hospital, they don`t know how much of that really costs them in terms of effort, activity and supplies. They`re just guestimating it. And then they rack up the numbers. And they really go into a bathroom and negotiate with the insurer`s about the prices and Medicare tells them what they`re going to pay. HAYES: So here -- you have put your finger on something that drives me insane, just personally, in my own life, right. I consider myself a fairly smart individual. I consider myself relevantly erudite. EMANUEL: You don`t have to prove it, Chris, we agree. HAYES: Well, let me tell you this, I cannot make sense out of hospital bills. For months and months and months after my second child was born, things would show up in the mail and it would be this inscrutable nonsense spreadsheet that I would devote all of my cognitive capacity to and come up completely empty about what the heck was going on, who was charging who, who was paying for what. It`s nonsense. EMANUEL: Chris, if it makes you feel any better, I`ve been getting some physical therapy for a problem I have with plantar fasciitis. I get virtually the same things week after week, and the bill varies by hundreds of dollars, and I can`t make any sense of out it. And I`m a kind of expert in this field. So, they bear no relationship to reality. And, look, the hope is, my hope certainly, is that as we move further into the reform effort, as we pay doctors and hospitals differently, these bills, this kind of funny money is going to go away. The most progressive places in the country -- ironically not far from where this guy got treated for his rattlesnake -- they actually have done what are called tie motion studies (ph), they know what it actually costs to deliver care and they can tell you that. And then they can put all the price together and give you actually a price that reflects the actual cost of caring for someone. Now that`s not to say the actual cost of caring for someone is any more rational. One of the points I like to make is $153,000 for five days -- five nights in the hospital, that is three times the average income in America, three times the yearly income of the average person in America. That is an insane amount of money. We don`t -- I mean, they could have done all of that... HAYES: Here`s my question. So, then, what is the forcing mechanism? One of the bit critiques of the Affordable Care Act, and this is a critiques some people who are not sort of -- don`t want to see it burned to the ground, are generally sympathetic to it -- one of the more sophisticated critiques, is that due to the political exigencies when it was passed there`s not enough in the bill to basically force out all the funny money and all of the kind of cost padding that happens. Are you confident that we`re going to see real reform on this side? EMANUEL: Confident. First of all, there are lots of mechanisms in the bill. The most recent several announcements that the Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell made, that we`re going to have a target of moving doctors and hospitals off fee for service, 50 percent of the payment by Medicare by 2018. The new most recent proposal on bundled payments for hip replacement and knee replacements that are mandatory in 75 metropolitan areas, those are very important mechanisms that are going to force this change, and these sort of funny bills out of the system. And that I think, all the powers that allowed her to do those things were in the bill. The real issue is to -- first of all, use the full powers of the Affordable Care Act to actually push payment change fast and therefore, change how we deliver care. And second, we do now need to begin thinking about what I like to call as health care reform 2.0. There are some additional things we all recognize ought to be done. And I think hopefully once we get passed the 2016 presidential election, we`ll be able to focus our attention on those next steps. HAYES: All right, Doctor Zeke Emanuel, thanks for joining me. Appreciate it. EMANUEL: Thank you. HAYES: Up next, the man Trump called a, quote, hypocrite, who, quote, puts on glasses so people think he`s smart, as some words for The Donald. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICK PERRY, FRM. GOVERNOR OF TEXAS: My fellow Americans, beware of false prophets. Do not let itching ears be tickled by messengers who appeal to anger, division, resentment. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: This show has been called a lot of things. You can Google some of them. But no one has ever said it was Emmy nominated until today. All In with Chris Hayes was honored today to win two Emmy nominations. One of our All In America report on the new frontier in women`s health care in Buffalo, New York, and another for the Fifty Year War, a show on the changing face of poverty in America, which I co-hosted with NBC News special anchor Maria Shriver. You can find links to those segments in the All In with Chris Facebook page. We are so honored to be nominated. And I want to congratulate everyone on this great team who works extremely hard every day to produce this show for you every night. We`ll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Former Texas Governor Rick Perry is currently polling in tenth place among GOP presidential candidates, putting him right on the bubble to make the first debate two weeks from now in which only the top ten candidates will be allowed on stage. Perry has been locked in a feud with the leader of the pack, Donald Trump who recently tweeted that Perry should be forced to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: I see Rick Perry the other day. And he is so, you know, he`s doing very poorly in the polls. He put glasses on so people will think let`s he`s smart. And it just doesn`t work. You know, people can see through the glasses. But he`s got the glasses, the whole deal. Trump. I say he did a lousy job on the border. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Trump, who has infamously cast undocumented immigrants as rapists and criminals sent to the U.S. by the Mexican government, will visit the U.S.- Mexico border tomorrow heading to Perry`s home state of Texas for a tour with border patrol agents in the town of Laredo, which incidentally is 96 percent Latino, so that should be interesting. As for Perry, he knows his best shot at the national media coverage he needs to stay in that top ten and make the first debate is to go after Trump. And today he completely unloaded on the current front runner offering up a blistered broad side that is pretty unprecedented in recent presidential politics, although, then again, so is Trump. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PERRY: Donald Trump the candidate is a sower of division, wrongly demonizing Mexican-Americans for political sport. Donald Trump is the modern day incarnation of the know nothing movement. He breathes the free air thousands of heroes died protecting and he couldn`t have endured for five minutes what John McCain endured for five-and-a-half years. When he would seek to demonize millions of citizens, when he would stooped to attack POWs for being captured, I can only ask as Senator Welch did of Senator McCarthy, have you no sense of decency, sir? Let no one be mistaken, Donald Trump`s candidacy is a cancer on conservatism and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised and discarded. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: When we come back, we`ll talk about Perry`s incredibly harsh attack. And how Trump has effectively destroyed the best laid plans of the Republican Party. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PERRY: He offer as barking carnival act that can best be described as Trumpism, a toxic mix of demagoguery and meanspiritedness and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition if pursued. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now to talk about the Trumping of the GOP presidential race and Rick Perry`s flourish with the vocab there, the backlash our Guardian political reporter Sabrina Siddiqui and John Stanton, the Washington, D.C. bureau chief for Buzzfeed news. I think this fight is interesting, because there is actually a really profound substantive context to it, which is of course what happened to Rick Perry the last time he ran for president? Everyone remember, Sabrina, the oops moment. But it was before that that he had this moment. I want to play this. This is him defending his signing of a law that allowed undocumented immigrants in Texas to pay in-state tuition, the Texas DREAM Act. And this is him defending it. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PERRY: If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they`ve been brought there by no fault of their own. I don`t think you have a heart. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That`s what did him in. I mean, there is a back story here about him dying once on this issue in a Republican primary. SABRINA SIDDIQUI, THE GUARDIAN: There is. And I think that Rick Perry throughout his political career has sought to strike this balancing act when it comes to being a hard liner on border security, but still seeming amenable to forms -- to broader immigration reform, and wanting to, at least, present a sympathetic tone to those who are here illegally but have not committed any criminal activity. You know, he not only defended providing lower in-state tuition to qualified undocumented immigrants, but he has also repeatedly said that something needs to be done about the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, although he hasn`t exactly come out in favor of a pathway to citizenship. And then at the same time you will remember he took a very hard line deploying as many as 1,000 national guard troops to the border during the migrant crisis of last summer. So he has clearly taken steps to I think present himself as being a hard liner, but he also doesn`t want to alienate the sizable Latino population not just in the state of Texas, but then of course nationally as he runs for president again. HAYES: But that is a well articulated how, in some ways, he`s trying to have it both ways. But John, as to the border posturing, let`s look at this picture of Perry and Sean Hannity during the child migrant crisis. Take a look at this. This is them. That`s the gun on the boat. These were children, 2-year-olds and 3-year- olds coming over with their moms, fleeing some of the most or horrified violence in the western hemisphere. And I`m sorry, but you can`t detach this, quote, cancer from that kind of posturing. That`s precisely part of the cancer that you`re describing. JOHN STANTON, BUZZFEED: Yeah. And also it is a bit like actually Trump saying that the Mexican government is sending people here. You know, I mean, the kids that were coming over last summer were -- they were turning themselves in, right. I mean, they weren`t sneaking across the border, they were getting taken to border patrol agents and then to border crossings, official border crossings so that they could get picked up on purpose. It was -- they were looking for asylum. And so, you know, it -- you know, you can`t -- I don`t know, it`s interesting to watch him do this, because I also think, frankly, he is the only, one of the only folks that really seems willing to say, like the really angry part of party, I`m going to write off probably because they`ve already kind of written him off to a certain degree on immigration. But he is definitely saying, there`s no chance I`m going to try to win these people that are supporting Trump back now. HAYES: That is the tactical calculation that I think is interesting here, because so much of it revolves around this calculation people making, particularly about that constituency of the Republican base on this issue, Sabrina, which is why to me, there is profound substantive resonance to this whole thing. Because the folks that are telling pollsters, 60 percent plus of Republican voters that they agree with his comments on immigration have effectively held a veto on immigration policy in the country for ten years. That`s what this theatrical visit to the border tomorrow is all about. SIDDIQUI: It is indeed. But I think that what separates Rick Perry in 2016, for example, from 2012 is that this time there are more candidates in this ever crowded Republican field who are more moderate on the issue of immigration and learning the lesson from Mitt Romney`s resounding loss among Latino voters in 2012. You have Jeb Bush and you have Marco Rubio, two candidates who on record have supported immigration reform. Marc Rubio remains open to a pathway to citizenship he said. So I don`t think that Rick Perry believes this time he is going to have the same pushback that he did on the debate stage from Mitt Romney who went on to be the nominee and learned the hard way that actually he probably should have taken Rick Perry`s approach back then and ultimately faced long lasting consequences. And when you have Donald Trump of course distracting from the message and the inroads Republicans are trying to make with Latino voters, I think they want to continue and condemn him because whoever the nominee is on the Republican side, he or she will be judged for how they responded to Donald Trump. HAYES: On a policy perspective here, I should say that Bush has essentially sworn off the path to citizenship. He said it is not happening, that happened a few days ago. John, there is a debate breaking out about whether what we`re seeing now in the polling with Trump is similar to the Herman Cain phenomenon or the Michele Bachmann phenomenon, these kind of the merry go round rides we saw the last time around or whether there is something bigger and more enduring here because of the generousness of Trump himself. STANTON: Yeah, I think he`s different than they are in that sense, he can basically fund this indefinitely as long as he wants to. And unlike, you know, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann who tried to sort of have some talk about policy issues and be substantive in some manner, he doesn`t really care about that right now, I don`t think. And maybe during the debate he might, but certainly right now he doesn`t. And so I think -- so long as he can come up with new and creative ways to say things that make people go, oh, my god, I can`t believe he said. I think he`s going to still be in the race. HAYES: Yeah, that`s right. If you stay away from policy, that`s the case. Sabrina Siddiqui, John Stanton, thanks to you both. That is All In for this evening. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END