All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 09/01/15

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN -- JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is not a guy who`s a conservative. HAYES: Jeb Bush begins fighting the Trump onslaught. BUSH: If you look at his record of what he believes, he supports Democrats. HAYES: But is it a fight he can win? Then, the assault on the Clinton campaign reaches "Onion" level parody. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is this a joke? It feels like a prank. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is this a joke? No, this is not a joke. HAYES: Tonight, James Carville on nothing burger e-mails, James O`Keefe, and the prospect of a Biden campaign. Plus, why an Arizona congressman is apologizing to a second grade class for fear-mongering over the Iran deal. And Black Lives Matter are here to respond to this. BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS: They`re a hate group, and I`m going to tell you right now, I`m going to put them out of business. HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. With the summer of Trump looking more and more likely to keep on going into the fall, establishment Republicans are reportedly floating a new candidate to take on the insurgent frontrunner. You may have heard of him, Willard Mitt Romney. According to "New York" magazine`s Gabe Sherman, Romney insiders say the poor performance of candidates like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, whose White House bid is ostensibly what led Romney to stay out of the race months ago is causing the 2012 nominee to reconsider his decision. One senior 2012 staffer told Sherman, quote, "Mitt wants to run. He never stopped wanting to run." Romney news comes as Jeb Bush faced with ever declining pull numbers is putting all his chips on the strategy of aggressively attacking Trump. In a new poll out today from a liberal leaning firm, Public Policy Polling, Bush`s numbers with Republican voters are -- well, they`re pretty grim. He`s in third place with just 7 percent behind Trump and Ben Carson, and in a head-to-head matchup, Bush only gets 34 percent compared to 59 percent for Trump. After the Donald released a racially inflammatory video yesterday attacking Bush for his supposed lack of toughness on immigration, Bush put his aggressive new strategy in action today, firing back on Twitter with a video of his own. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Hillary Clinton, I think, is a terrific woman. I mean, I`m a little biased, because I`ve known her for years. Yes, I know her very well. She`s very talented. I live in New York. She lives in New York. And I`ve known her and her husband for years and I really like them both a lot. WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Do you identify more as a Democrat or a Republican? TRUMP: Well, you`d be shocked that in many cases, I probably identify more as a Democrat. INTERVIEWER: Why are you a Republican? TRUMP: I have no idea! I lived in New York city, in Manhattan all my life. So my views are a little bit different than if I lived in Iowa. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: After, Trump returned fire again tying the Bush family to the Clintons. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: We recognize the commitment of someone who has devoted her life to public service. I want to say thank you to both Secretary Clinton and to President Bush. INTERVIEWER: What does that make Hillary Clinton to the Bush family? GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: My sister-in-law. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: And after visiting with students at a school in Miami this morning, Bush expanded on his attack against Trump in some pretty impressive Spanish. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (BUSH SPEAKING SPANISH) (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: While Bush was going after Trump in Spanish, Trump was busy trying to woo members of the Latino community who have been alienated by his comments about immigrants. He met today with Javier Palemaris, CEO of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce who will be here to tell us about it coming up. Trump also tweeted a response to Bush`s comments, yet another weak hit by a candidate with a failing campaign. Will Jeb sink as low in the polls as the others who have gone after me? It is a valid question, especially given a Republican primary electorate that seems to care much more about giving a metaphorical finger to the establishment, and about upholding supposed conservative orthodoxy. We`ve seen it not only with Trump, but the rise of Ben Carson, another political outsider who`s tied with the front-runner at 23 percent at one recent Iowa poll. Not only has Carson like Trump never held elected office his entire life, but according to Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight, Carson has had about 60 times less news coverage than Trump, 60 times. Completely and totally out of view of at least the mainstream media, yet somehow he`s still astoundingly popular. Jeb Bush`s argument that Donald Trump is insufficiently conservative looks like a losing one. Conservatism doesn`t mean the same thing on the ground to actual voters that it appears to mean at say, a Washington think tank or inside the kitchen table of the most famous family in Republican politics. Not necessarily coherent set of principles, in this election, it seems to be more about taking on political correctness, talking tough, sticking it to President Obama and the Republican establishment in equal measure. Joining me now, Charlie Pierce, writer at large for "Esquire" and a contributor to Grantland. And, Charlie, when I read the Gabe Sherman piece on Romney today, I flashed back to that sort of famous "SNL" skit in 1998, where, you know, Dana Carvey, as George Bush, doing a terrible job of debate, and John Lovett as Michael Dukakis saying, I can`t believe I`m losing to this guy. Like, you get the image of Romney sitting around with his advisers, what is happening? Why am I not in this race? CHARLIE PIERCE, ESQUIRE: But let`s remember, the primary reason Donald Trump is where he is, and I remember everyone that it`s august, OK? Everybody calm down. HAYES: September, Charlie. It`s September! PIERCE: The reason he is where he is is because as you pointed out in your introduction, he makes haymakers at very humorless people, like Jeb Bush. Is there a more humorless person this side of the faces on Mt. Rushmore than Mitt Romney. Do you understand what a target-rich environment for somebody like Donald Trump Mitt Romney would be? My goodness. HAYES: This is an excellent point. We could only imagine the fun Trump would be having with Romney, were he in it. But what`s striking to me about the way Jeb Bush has decided to go after Trump is, A, it`s almost identical to how Rand Paul went after him. And what it stresses is orthodoxy, right? This guy likes Hillary Clinton and he`s not -- he doesn`t have our same principles. And I think it just massively misreads the mood of the base, that principles or orthodoxy are what they`re interested in, as opposed to talking tough and being strong and not being weak and taking on political correctness. And all of these kind of attributes as opposed to belief systems or policies. PIERCE: I think -- well, first of all, let`s all stipulate that personally, financially, professionally, Donald Trump is an oppo researchers` dream. I mean, all you have to do is spend three days in the morgue of the "New York Post" and you`ll have enough to run commercials for the next ten years. HAYES: Right. PIERCE: The problem is, you`ve got to be a really good politician in order to make that strategy work. And right now watching, Jeb Bush try to do is like watching Willie Mays play for the New York Mets at the end of his career. HAYES: This is the New York (INAUDIBLE) on Romney. Some Romneyites are only too happy to talk up the prospect of their man jumping into the race if the establishment stops to fail Trump, whose support in Iowa and New Hampshire is currently greater than Jeb Bush`s, Scott Walker`s, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich`s combined. And what I always, what I keep looking at, the metric I keep looking at isn`t just necessarily Trump, it`s the Trump-Carson cruise bloc of votes, and that has consistently been at half or over half of this GOP electorate. When you look at that bloc of people, that is the bloc of primary voters saying, essentially, screw you, to anything related to the Republican establishment. PIERCE: Well, we all know what the very first thing out of Donald Trump`s mouth is going to be if Mitt Romney jumps into the race. He lost twice! He lost to Barack Obama! He`s a loser! Which, by the way, in this case, would be an undeniable point. HAYES: Well, he loves talking about how Mitt Romney choked. Although one of the things that`s coming through in these Romney folks talking to Gabe Sherman is a little bit of schadenfreude, which is, hey, guys, it`s a lot harder than it looks. And there is something to that. I mean, no one, I think, no one, it doesn`t matter, Democrat, Republican, someone who`s been in elected or not, is prepared for what this campaign, the modern campaign machinery looks like in the year 2015. PIERCE: Oh, it`s a meat grinder, but it`s also made more difficult on that side of the aisle, because you`ve got a political party that`s gone insane. The Iowa caucuses are a freakish mechanism that had been controlled since about 1988, by a freakish minority of a freakish Republican Party. They`re not a measure of anything, really. And if you don`t believe me, you can ask President Santorum about that. So, I mean, I can see a surprise in the Iowa -- again, back to my original point, it`s August -- HAYES: September, Charlie. PIERCE: But I could see an out of nowhere winner like Ben Carson in the Iowa caucuses, which will come to mean nothing within a week and a half. HAYES: All right, Charlie Pierce, thank you very much. Always a pleasure. PIERCE: Thanks. HAYES: And back when Donald Trump first announced his presidential candidacy, his comments about Mexican immigrants being rapists and criminals, some of them probably good people, drew widespread condemnation, leading a number of corporations and other entities, including our parent company, NBC Universal, to cut ties with the soon-to-be front-runner. That effort was organized in part by the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, which decided not to hold any gatherings with its 3.2-million-member of businesses at Trump hotels. Chamber`s president and CEO, Javier Palomarez, talked about that decision right here on ALL IN. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAVIER PALOMAREZ, U.S. HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: As we stand, immigrant-owned companies contribute over $780 billion to the American economy. And the facts go on. So, I think the facts speak for themselves. It is concerning that I see an element of the Republican Party that appears to be buying into this. And I think that`d be a disastrous, frankly. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Today, however, we saw the start of what could be something of a reconciliation between Trump and the USHCC. This morning, Palomarez met for over an hour with Trump, who also agreed to participate in a public forum, hosted by the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on October. Joining me now, is Javier Palomarez, president and CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. What was the meeting like? PALOMAREZ: How are you, Chris? You know, I have to say, first and foremost, this meeting is no way to signal any kind of endorsement or support of Donald Trump or his views. For about three weeks or so, his team had been reaching out to my mine about potentially putting together a private conversation. Given his bombastic statements in the past, given the fact that we represent 3.2 million Hispanic-owned firms that contribute $486 billion to the economy, I felt it was important, our association, felt it was important to give him at least an opportunity to explain his views in further detail. In that context, I was in New York today. He happened to be in town today. We met for an hour and a half. It was actually -- I was very surprised. The Donald Trump that I met today and that I sat with today was very different from the Donald Trump that I saw in the media. HAYES: What do you mean by that? PALOMAREZ: The Donald Trump I sat with today was hospitable, he was a gentleman. He listened much more than he spoke. He asked questions. We continue to disagree, particularly on the wall. We agreed on this notion of mass deportation of 11 million people. And we continued to agree on the fact that we will not use Trump properties. But, by way of example, when he asked, would you consider using Doral after our discussion, and he said no, because of the situation as it stands right now, he said, yes. And he said, Javier, I understand and I respect your position. HAYES: So, here`s the thing, right? We`ve got this great reporting last week about a meeting he had with DREAMers. You know, he was -- and at that point, he was trying to work out some business deal, so he meets with the DREAMers, he`s convinced me and we see what`s happened. I mean, essentially, are you getting rolled here? PALOMAREZ: Yes. Well, you know, that`s certainly a concern with Donald. But the reality of it is, I feel that the man that I spoke with today has come to the realization, certainly, his team has, that he`s not going to see the White House without getting at least 50 percent of the Hispanic vote. So like him or not, whether he agrees with me, whether he agrees with the views of my community, whether I agree with his views, the reality is nobody, Republican, Democrat, male, female, is going to see the White House without getting at least 50 percent of the Hispanic vote. And I think Donald has come to that realization. HAYES: So my general perspective. Sometimes we`ll have people on the show and people will say, I can`t believe you had that person on the show. And I`m like, having him on the show isn`t an endorsement. I want to talk people. That said, let me argue against myself. Is there an argument for a kind of social sanction of Donald Trump? That the things he`s been saying have been so inflammatory. I mean, that video yesterday was ugly. It appeals to the ugliest instincts in people, around race, around immigration. Not to even meet with him. I mean, to basically say, this is out of bounds. This is off the table of the acceptable. PALOMAREZ: You know, the reality of it is, whether I agree with his views or not, my view is not the issue here. What we have done today is to afford Donald Trump the same courtesy we`ve afforded everyone else. The same opportunity that we`ve afforded every other candidate to include, you know, Senator Ted Cruz, to include Senator Bernie Sanders, to include Governor Martin O`Malley, to include Governor Jeb Bush. Next month, to include Governor Kasich. The reality of it is, he needs to explain himself and his views to the Hispanic community, and my constituency deserves to hear directly from the candidates about any position, however distasteful that might be, the reality of it is, this dialogue, I think, will help clarify some things. And he will either make it or break it with the Hispanic vote, in that forum where it`s just me and him in front of the cameras. And I want to let my constituency be both judge and jury and decide for themselves whether Donald Trump has a future with the Hispanic community. HAYES: That`s going to be interesting. Is it worse or better if this is all an act? PALOMAREZ: You know, I don`t see any way that this is better. You know, we have gone to a place in America today that, frankly, I`m embarrassed by. I spent a lot of time talking to international heads of state, and Donald, to a very large extent, has made a mockery of this process. And, we can`t go back from that. You can`t unring the bell. We`re hoping to move forward from here. HAYES: Javier Palomarez, thank you very much. Appreciate it. PALOMAREZ: Appreciate it. HAYES: Still to come, we`ll have an update in the manhunt for suspects in the fatal shooting of police officers this morning. Plus, President Obama`s single foreign policy initiative is just one vote away from crossing the finish line. We`ll have the latest on the Iran deal. And later, a big deal for Clinton scandal chasers with the release of private e-mails and this undercover sting video where the Clinton campaign sells a t-shirt. Those stories and more, ahead. (COMMERICAL BREAK) HAYES: At this hour, a massive manhunt continues for three suspects in the fatal shooting of a police officer near Chicago. Charles Gliniewicz, a married father of four and a 30-year veteran of the force, was shot and killed this morning on a routine patrol after stopping three suspicious men, according to police. Right now, the FBI, U.S. marshals and ATF are all searching for the suspects described as two white males and one black male. Today`s fatal police shooting comes less than a week after a Texas sheriff`s deputy was shot and killed in a Houston suburb. That has been viewed by some as an opportunity to criticize the Black Lives Matter movement -- and we`ll have more on that, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: The manhunt continues for three suspects in the fatal shooting of an Illinois police officer, Charles Gliniewicz, 30-year veteran of the force, was shot and killed this morning after approaching suspects during a routine patrol. He is the 24th officer to be shot to death in the line of duty this year, according to Officer Down memorial page, a group that tracks police fatalities. His death comes less than a week after the fatal shooting of a Texas sheriff`s deputy in a Houston suburb. Authorities initially said their assumption was that the deputy was attacked because of his uniform. Harris County sheriff later condemned what he called dangerous rhetoric. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RON HICKMAN, HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF: So any point where the rhetoric ramps up to the point where calculated, cold-blooded assassination of police officers happen, this rhetoric has gotten out of control. We have heard black lives matter. All lives matter. Well, cops` lives matter too. So why don`t we just drop the qualifier and just say, lives matter? (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The man charged with the capital murder of the Texas deputy had a criminal record and a long history of mental illness. Both the sheriff and the district attorney have acknowledged, they actually do not know anything about his motivations. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: You had some strong words on Saturday about the -- some of the rhetoric around the country related to law enforcement. Do you still believe that has any connection to this case? PROSECUTOR: I have no idea whether it does or not. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Right now, in many U.S. cities, the murder rate is rising. "The New York Times" reported today, an increase in violence in cities like Baltimore, Milwaukee and New Orleans, along with these two high-profile police shootings in a four days have created a backlash against calls for criminal justice reform and the Black Lives Matter movement. A chant captured on video this weekend at a march in St. Paul over the weekend has added fuel to the fire. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`REILLY: Just hours after Deputy Darren Goforth was murdered in Houston, allegedly by a black man, there was an anti-police demonstration at the Minnesota state fair by Black Lives Matter. PROTESTERS: Pigs in a blanket, fry `em like bacon! Pigs in a blanket, fry `em like bacon! (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That video picked up on FOX News and elsewhere led to criticism the movement was advocating violence against law enforcement. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TV ANCHOR: Kevin, why has the black lives movement, the Black Lives Matter movement not been classified yet as a hate group? O`REILLY: I think they`re a hate group. They hate police officers. JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, they have strong feelings about -- O`REILLY: No, they hate them. They want them dead. Pigs in a blanket is dead. They`re a hate group, and I`m going to tell you right now, I`m going to put them out of business. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now, Trahern Crews, he`s an organizer for Black Lives Matter-St. Paul, a Green Party candidate for the St. Paul City council ward 1. Mr. Crews, I want you to respond first to that chant that was captured on tape there. What is your reaction? There are people who see that and say it`s incitement, it`s a call to violence, it`s dehumanizing at the very least. Do those activists, do you, do Black Lives Matter activists hate police officers? TRAHERN CREWS, BLACK LIVES MATTER, ST. PAUL ORGANIZER: No, not at all. And I want to put that chant in context. We had a great demonstration that day. It was very exciting. It was so exciting that I think the police who were along escorting the marchers wanted to be a part of the march or a part of the demonstration. So on the way back, the officer leading the parade kept talking into his microphone and saying things to the crowd, like, stay off the medium, do that, he was laughing and joking with the marchers, so then the marchers kind of started chanting that towards him. It was more playful than anything. So -- HAYES: So that was -- you`re saying, that was in a playful context, that chant? CREWS: At that particular demonstration, yes. That was. Because -- and the officer was laughing and joking along with the protesters. HAYES: People -- CREWS: And he -- the officer also said, when they started chanting, he said back into the microphone, everybody loves bacon. HAYES: So people have been watching the Black Lives Matter movement unfold. And there are two things that I think have -- Black Lives Matter movement has really raised awareness of police brutality, officer-involved shootings, et cetera. There`s also been, I think, increased awareness of police fatalities, these two in the last days. And also, there`s been an eye towards crime increases, particularly murders in these big cities. What do you say to people who are going to make the argument, already making the argument that cops are now tentative, because of activists like you and because they`re tentative, crime increasing and that blood is on your hands? CREWS: No, not at all. I don`t think it`s fair at all for people to connect any police murders to Black Lives Matter. But -- and we -- you know, we send the condolences out to the two police officers who were killed over the weekend, but you cannot connect those murders to Black Lives Matter, but we can connect Marcus Golden`s matter, who was killed here at St. Paul by the St. Paul police, we can connect that murder directly to the St. Paul police department. We could connect Tamir Rice`s murder directly to the Cleveland police department. We could connect Eric Gardner`s murder directly to the New York police department. So I think there`s a big difference with what they`re trying to say about -- say right now. HAYES: Are you prepared for the sustained -- can the politics of this movement be sustained amidst the kind of increase in violent crime, like we had seen, particularly in, say, Baltimore and St. Louis, which have also been two sites of a lot of protests, uprising, and agitation? CREWS: Absolutely. As long as we stay on the -- you know, keep focusing on the conditions that are leading to violent crime and police murder, we can`t -- we have to -- police brutality is an extension of institutional racism. Police brutality enforces institutional racism. So, we have to start dealing with institutional racism to deal with black-on- black crime. HAYES: Trahern Crews -- CREWS: Black-on-black crime is a result of institutional racism. HAYES: All right. Trahern Crews, thank you so much for joining me tonight. Still to come, CIA director, David Petraeus, has some ideas on beating is, and according to with "The Daily Beast" article, it starts with al Qaeda. I`ll explain, ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: The headline was shocking. Petraeus: Use al Qaeda fighters to beat ISIS. The report published by "The Daily Beast" yesterday citing anonymous sources, including one who spoke directly with retired General David Petraeus, says that the former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have been quietly urging U.S. officials to consider using so- called moderate members of al Qaeda`s Nusra front to fight ISIS in Syria. Petraeus` strategy, according to The Daily Beast, would involve gaining the support of some of these al Qaeda members in Syria. In a statement to CNN today, Petraeus said he attempted to clarify his position, saying that the U.S. should not try to co-opt Nusra, but should pick off its members, that it might be possible at some point to peel off so-called reconcilables who would be willing to renounce Nusra and align with the moderate opposition supported by the U.S. coalition to fight against Nusra, ISIL, and Assad. We should consider the possibility of trying to defeat radical groups in Syria, not simply by killing or capturing the entirety of their membership, but also by splintering their ranks. As the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Petraeus used a similar strategy for the 2007 surge in Iraq when the U.S. persuaded Sunni militias to stop fighting with al Qaeda and instead to work with the American military against them. That`s well enough and good, but let`s take a step back from the immediate crises and immediate wars and think about all of this in the broad sweep of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world. Remember that in the 1990s, the U.S. began giving tens of millions of dollars in weapons and supplies to anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan, the Mujahideen, who included a man by the name of Osama bin Laden. In the `90s, the Taliban was formed by an Afghan faction of the Mujahideen, the Taliban then gave refuge to al Qaeda, which was co-founded by Osama bin Laden. On 9/11 in 2001, al Qaeda attacked the U.S., which led to the American war on terror, first in Afghanistan and then a couple of years later in Iraq. It was the war in Iraq and the violence there that created the conditions that gave us al Qaeda in Iraq, which gave rise to a splinter group called ISIS. We`ve now declared war against them, and now here`s Petraeus with the idea of aligning with al Qaeda fighters to defeat ISIS. What could possibly go wrong? (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. CHRIS COONS, (D) DELAWARE: A very hard choice between either rejecting the agreement and taking on the uncertainty of compelling a return to sanctions and negotiations, or a path that accepts the positives of this deal and attempts to manage and minimize the short and long-term consequences of its flaws, I choose the latter. I will support this agreement and vote against any measures to disapprove it in congress. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: And with that, the president is just one vote shy of protecting one of the most consequential objectives of his presidency: the Iran nuclear deal that is right now before congress. Earlier today in a speech at the University of Delaware, that was Senator Chris Coons, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announcing his support for the president`s nuclear deal with Iran becoming the 33rd Senator to publicly back the deal. A short time before that, in an 8,000-word explain, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania announced his support of the dealing stating, quote, this was one of the most difficult decisions of my public career. The deal is now just one endorsement away from 34 votes, that`s the magic number of votes need to keep Republicans from killing it. I got a chance to speak with former senate majority leader George Mitchell, and as someone who served as special envoy for Middle East peace and for Northern Ireland, I began by asking him how he ranked and evaluated the Iran nuclear deal. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE MITCHELL, FRM. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: I think this agreement is unique in several respects. And I think, therefore, the president deserves widespread support to gain this agreement`s approval and implementation. This is not just the United States and Iran. This is the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France, and Germany, six of the largest, most important countries in the world, who negotiated an agreement with Iran, which is desperate for relief from the economic sanctions that are having such a disruptive effect on their economy. That is what`s enabled this agreement to come into being. Now, Iran wants relief from the sanctions. The sanctions have been very effective, because they are universal sanctions, not unilateral by the U.S. The argument by the president`s critics that we should walk we, increase the sanctions, and force Iran to come crawling back is a fantasy, because China and Russia have already made clear they wouldn`t agree to continue or increase the sanctions and neither will the others. So what has happened, and it`s interesting, this started under George W. Bush. It was president George W. Bush who began the process to pull together a group of nations that would negotiate from strength with Iran and reach an agreement, prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, through diplomacy, rather than through war and that`s a crucial point. HAYES: Well, having, you know, when you think about saying, Northern Ireland, right? I mean, it strike me when that when you have these high- stakes diplomatic settlements or non-violent resolutions to conflict, there are always internal domestic political opponents who accuse you of selling out, who accuse you of being weak, who accuse you of appealing, of appeasing. How familiar does this rhetoric sound to you? MITCHELL: It`s very familiar. The opponents of this agreement want to focus the debate entirely on a comparison between this agreement and a theoretically perfect agreement, knowing, of course, that no agreement is perfect, particularly one negotiated over many years by adversaries, as had this one. The real debate, though, has to be, what are the alternatives to this agreement? Because every human being makes decisions in life, individuals and society. And almost every major decision includes an analysis of what are the alternatives to what is being proposed? And when you look at it in that context, it really isn`t even a close call. HAYES: Dick Cheney has -- is going to give a speech against the deal. He`s been doing interviews now with Liz Cheney. He said that this is going to inaugurate an arms race in the Middle East, this deal. What do you think of that? MITCHELL: I think precisely the opposite is true. If the United States congress rejects this agreement, an agreement that includes, on our side of the table, six of the largest, most important countries in the world, an agreement that has been unanimously approved by the United Nations Security Council members, an agreement that has support of almost every country in the world that has declared an opinion on it, if the congress rejects that, Iran will then move aggressively towards weaponization, and that more than anything will trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. HAYES: You just mentioned, almost every country that has expressed an opinion on it. Of course, the major exception to that would be Israel. For many members of congress, for many citizens, for many interest groups, you know, they`re -- people say, well, I`m not a nuclear disarmament expert, right? I`m sort of listening to different people, and it carries tremendous weight with me when AIPAC, or you know, both Labor and Likud in Israel say, this deal is bad for Israel. What`s your response to that as someone that is intimately familiar with the region? MITCHELL: The concern of the government and the people of Israel is a legitimate one. A nuclear-armed Iran poses a direct threat to Israel`s existence, and we should keep that in mind at all times. However, when you watch television in this country, no offense to you, three opinions are presented. Obama`s for it, the Republicans in congress are against it, and Prime Minister Netanyahu is against it. That omits the fact that there is a substantial body of opposition within Israel against the agreement. HAYES: Including former Shin Beit (ph) officers, very high-ranking security... MITCHELL: The two most recently heads of Mossad, their CIA equivalent, Efram Halabi (ph) and Mire Degane (ph), one of the most respected, iconic intelligence officials there, are strongly in support of the agreement. Now, that doesn`t mean they`re not worried about Iran, they`re very worried about Iran, but they think this is the best way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And there`s a fifth opinion, it`s the rest of the world. That ought to at least be considered, when we consider what to do. Because let me tell you, this doesn`t mean that Iran won`t cheat. This doesn`t mean that the possibility of military force to prevent Iran from getting a weapon is off the table. That time may come, if Iran foolishly and unwisely tries to cheat on this. But, we would then have a far better prospect for organizing an international coalition to take whatever action is necessary, including military force, if we have gone through the agreement, and they have been exposed to the cheating, then we will, if an agreement that has broad support, never takes effect, because the congress rejects it. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Part of my interview with former senate majority leader George Mitchell on the Iran deal. Still to come, hard-hitting journalist catches the Clinton campaign being nice to a Canadian. Democratic strategist James Carville joins me to talk Clinton scandals and much more, ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Opponents of the Iran deal have apparently gotten so desperate, they`re now trying to scare the daylights out of second and third graders. Congressman Matt Salman (ph) decided to drop by a local elementary school in Arizona last week, a cause for excitement among the youngsters and their parents, one would imagine. But in imparting a civics lesson to future voters, the congressman decided to use the Iran deal as an example of legislation. According to the school principle, the congressman shared a bill that would be going through the process with regards to nuclear warfare down to the terrorist trained and the age of the kiddos that are trained. One parent says the congressman even started talking about child suicide bombers. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know what a nuclear weapon is? Do you know that there are schools that train children your age to be suicide bombers? (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That kind of talk not surprisingly upset some kids. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After school, by daughter was very concerned and said to me that she actually didn`t even know, really, what suicide was. And was very afraid. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Congressman Salmon (ph) personally called to apologize to that family and several others after his staffers met with concerned parents yesterday. The spokesman telling The Washington Post, quote, the content of those remarks wasn`t anything beyond what children could expect to see or hear on any timely TV or radio newscast. It was never Congressman Salmon`s intention to offend any parents present so our office was happy to meet with them and discuss their concerns. We`ll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Today just might be the day that we have finally reached the beyond parody level of the Clinton scandal industrial complex. Today`s two big worse than Watergate stories are, low-level Clinton campaign staffer takes pity on nice Canadian. And the other one is, Secretary of State asked staffer time of favorite TV show also needs skim milk for tea. That first headline comes via Jurnatroll (ph) James O`Keefe, and sadly it is a real story in which an O`Keefe videographer finds an alleged Canadian trying to buy a Hillary for president t-shirt. The Hillary staffer would not allow the alleged Canadian to buy the t-shirt, complying with laws governing donations from foreign nationals. But the plot thickened. Let`s dip into the O`Keefe bombshell. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIIFED FEMALE: Sorry, we can`t take contributions from anyone that`s not a citizen of the United States. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But she traveled all the way from Canada to support Hillary. You could give her -- she`s paying cash. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you serious? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can I give her the money? She`s American and she can buy for me. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She can make a donation. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will you buy it for me? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure. I`ll buy it. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She`s buying it. JAMES O`KEEFE, VIDEOGRAPHER: The Canadian woman wanted to support Hillary`s campaign and Molly Barker broke the law by allowing our journalist to become the middleman. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: O`Keefe played an extended version of that to journalists today who were, let`s say, largely mystified and somewhat skeptical, about its newsworthiness. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My first reaction is, this is about buying a t- shirt. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Seems pretty trivial. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know who this Canadian person is? Do you have her name? O`KEEFE: we do not. My response to the Hillary campaign is, did you see the video? I mean, did you see what they said? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is this a joke? This feels like a prank. O`KEEFE: So, it could get worse. Many of you might want to talk about, you know, me and my tactics and whether I did something wrong, but sometimes it just works this way. These are not amateurs. We have sort of like SEAL team 6. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: We`ll look forward to further exposes from O`Keefe`s SEAL team 6. The second story comes via the latest batch of Clinton emails having been released from the State Department. 7,000 payments of emails, one of them discussed gefilte fish transportation, another email from Clinton to an aide literally involve Clinton asking for skim milk for her tea, requesting a copy of the Human Rights Watch report on women`s rights in Afghanistan, and also asking for times for two TV shows "Parks and Recreation" and "The Good Wife." We`ll talk to Democratic Strategist James Carville about why the secretary of state has such poor Googling skills, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: As the Clinton email story, or non-story, chugs along, it was time to speak to a true Clintonite. So earlier today, I spoke with Democratic strategist James Carville who obviously has a long history with the Clintons and has been witness to a slew of scandal mongering. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: The emails we got today, as bad as Watergate or worse than Watergate? Your thoughts? JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: My question is, will this rise to the level of scandal as the White House Christmas card list back in the `90s that had 140 hours of sworn testimony. This is the great gefilte fish day. HAYES: I -- wait a second, we were doing a series, at some point, of Hillary Clinton for Millennials about the sort of various faux Clinton scandals. I had forgotten the Christmas card list. Which one was that? CARVILLE: I just was reminded, as they came on, that there was 140 -- the Clintons sent out Christmas cards to supporters and friends, and that congress spent 140 hours of sworn testimony. I don`t know how much people had to pay in legal fees, and god knows whatnot, but that ranks up there at the top. And the question is, will this email scandal rise to that level? And so far, today, it looks like it probably won`t. It`s kind of petering out every day. HAYES: Okay, you -- the reference to Christmas cards brings up the fact that for several decades in American life, whatever Bill and Hillary Clinton have done has been followed by ceaseless accusations of wrongdoing, malfeasance, corruption, coverup, deception, scandal, illegality et cetera. And the big central question is, is this because of their enemies or is it because of something they do? Is it really your position that it`s 100 percent their enemies that we find ourselves in these situations? CARVILLE: 100 percent, maybe 97.2 percent. I don`t know. I think that the Clintons basically are better people than their enemies. Look at their number one enemy, Ken Star, who is, you know, now has a hell of a problem with rape down there, Baylor or whoever he is. You know, he used to be a cigarette lawyer. And he was the great icon of the Washington establishment. Well, we kind of know about that. Bill Clinton is going to be probably one of the most successful post-war presidents, I guess, the third, second most popular human being on the planet now. And we go through these things all of the time. And of course The New York Times and The Washington Post and the cocktail party, the dinner party crowd, they get all out of breath and screaming and yelling at each other and turns out to be nothing. Whatever happened to Benghazi? Which was, you know -- I haven`t heard that word in I don`t know how long. HAYES: Yeah, that was something that got tremendous amounts of congressional investigation, there`s Trey Gowdy`s committee. Ultimately, I think, every iteration of investigation has said that there were genuine security failures and a horrible tragedy and basically that is it. CARVILLE: And Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering said that right away. We haven`t learned a single new thing. You know, in the entire Bill Clinton administration in eight years, one person was ever convicted of anything, and I think it was a deputy, a chief of staff or secretary of agriculture that involved Super Bowl tickets. And that`s all that they have at the end of the day. But it`s not going to stop them from taking Trey Gowdy, who is a tool of the Koch Brothers, just feeds The New York Times stuff and they put it in the paper, just like the neocons fed The New York Times a bunch of bunk that they put on the front page of the paper basically helped start is a war. You would think at some point people who are supposed to know better would learn their lesson. But they never do, and so therefore, I have to keep coming out of retirement to point this kind of stuff out. HAYES: Well, let me ask you this. One thing that does come through in the emails that we`ve seen is just the degree to which, if Hillary Clinton has a life and career that is so distinct, so abnormal, in certain ways, partly because it`s so accomplished and extraordinary, but there is just this universe of people through 30, 40 years in public life and politics around the Clintons that are popping in and out of the inbox. You`ve been in that circle. I wonder sometimes how you manage the internal politics of Clinton world? CARVILLE: I guess some people have been there. I`ve been with the president Saturday night. But it tends like people have been around them for a long time People that they trust over a period of time, like anybody from politics, I suspect any Reagan famously had Michael Deva who actually a good friend of mine -- his daughter worked for us in the `92 campaign. Ed Meeks (ph) -- and anybody in politics, anybody in business, and in life, generally has people that they like, that they trust, and that they`ve been with for a long period of time, and the Clintons being no different. That`s not -- it would be remarkable if it was otherwise. If you look at the people around former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, they`ve been with her forever. They are very, very loved people. They`re crazy about her. And I think it says a lot of good about her as a human being. But if somebody wants to make the observation that she has a lot of longtime friends that she`s stayed loyal to, I think that`s an imminently fair observation to make. And if someone thinks it might be a criticism, that`s a fair criticism to make. I don`t think it is, but I could see -- if what you say is demonstrably true. HAYES: Joe Biden, they just announced he`s going to be a guest on Stephen Colbert next week, I think, in the first week. You were a longtime savvy observer of American politics. Do you think he`s going to get in? CARVILLE: I don`t know. And I mean -- like most people around politics a long time, I know the vice president, fairly well, you know? And he`s generally -- I mean, almost universally in democratic circles, a lot of Republicans, he`s a well-liked guy. I don`t know. I have no idea. It`s always been an assumption of mine that when people run for president once, that they`re probably likely to do it again. It has a high recidivism rate. And if Bob Dole thought he had a shot, he`d get back in. But I don`t know. And if he does, you know, Mrs. Clintons is going to have to work hard for the presidency. It never comes easy. It`s a high office. And I can`t blame people for wanting the job also. It`s a hell of a job. HAYES: Well, James Carville, we`ll be looking for you in that 2020 race along with Kanye West. CARVILLE: there you go. HAYES: Out of retirement. James Carville, thanks so much. That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts right now. Good evening, Rachel. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END