IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 11/30/15

Guests: Mike Walrond, McKay Coppins, Robert Costa, Rebecca Traister,Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, Tony Dokoupil

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN -- DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (via telephone): I have a great relationship with the black pastors. HAYES: Donald Trump abruptly cancels an event that was planned to feature endorsements from black pastors. TRUMP: Probably some of the Black Lives Matter folks called them up, saying, oh, you shouldn`t be meeting with Trump because he believes that all lives matter. HAYES: Tonight, he shares the stage with Herman Cain. HERMAN CAIN (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Who`s the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan. HAYES: Then, can a big New Hampshire endorsement distract voters from Chris Christie`s actual record as governor? GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R-NJ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Sit down and shut up. HAYES: Plus, as a suspect from the Planned Parenthood shooting appears in court, politicians draw their own conclusions. SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He was a man who registered to vote as a woman. HAYES: And President Obama kicks off the Paris climate summit with a bold prediction. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Here in Paris, we can show the world what is possible when we come together. HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. We`re looking at live pictures of a Donald Trump event in Macon, Georgia, tonight. Over five months since he entered the presidential race calling Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists, you would think observers would stop being surprised by Trump`s capacity to make stuff up and offend people. But you would be wrong. After his response to the Paris attacks earned him the F-word, "fascist" by some Republicans on the record, Trump`s rhetoric has continued to reach new lows, especially on the subject of Muslims and terrorism. In an interview this morning, he was asked his opinion of Islam in general. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think that Islam is an inherently peaceful religion that`s been by some small percentage as you just said, whatever the percentage is, perverted by some, or do you think that Islam is an inherently violent religion? TRUMP (via telephone): Well, all I can say, John, is there`s something going on. You know, there`s something definitely going on. I don`t know that that question can be answered. It can be answered two ways. It could be answered both ways. But there`s something going on there. There`s something that there`s a lot of hatred coming out of at least a big part of it. You see the hatred. I mean, we see it every day. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: This comes as Trump refused yet again to back off his claims of having seen Muslims in New Jersey celebrating on 9/11 even though there`s zero evidence it actually happened. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP (via telephone): I saw it on television. I saw clips. And so did many other people. And many people saw it in person. I`ve had hundreds of phone calls to the Trump Organization saying, "We saw it. There was dancing in the streets." CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS: This didn`t happen in New Jersey. There were plenty of reports and you`re -- TRUMP: It did happen in New Jersey. Chuck, it did happen in New Jersey. I have hundreds of people that agree with me. And by the way -- (CROSSTALK) TODD: But they want to agree with you. That doesn`t make it true. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: After New Jersey governor and fellow 2016 contender Chris Christie said today the celebrations definitely did not take place, standing up for his home state of New Jersey, Trump responded that Christie, quote, "really needs to be careful about what he says" -- something to consider. The controversy over Trump`s claim has also resulted in a dust-up between the candidate and a reporter named Serge Kovaleski which is now being used as fodder for an attack ad by one of Trump`s other opponents. You see, last week, Trump tweeted a "Washington Post" article from September 18th, 2001 insisting it substantiated his claim about New Jersey Muslims, even though the article mentioned only that law enforcement detained and questioned some people who were allegedly seen celebrating the 9/11 attacks. Now, after one of the reporters, Kovaleski, now at "The New York Times," revealed that his reporting never bore out those allegations, this was Trump`s response. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: And now, the poor guy you`ve got to see this guy, ah, I don`t know what I said, ah, I don`t remember. He`s going, like, I don`t remember, maybe that`s what I said. This was 14 years ago, he still -- they didn`t do a retraction. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: You`ve got to see this guy. That`s how he starts that. Trump was widely interpreted to be mocking Kovaleski, who has a condition that restricts joint movement. And while Trump defended himself in a statement saying, quote, "I had no idea who this reporter Serge Kovaleski is. If Mr. Kovaleski is handicapped I would not know because I do not know what he looks like." Well, there`s increasing evidence that has emerged that the two knew each other as far back as the late `80s when Kovaleski was covering Trump for "The New York Daily News". Today, John Kasich released an online attack ad -- his second in two weeks -- suggesting Trump`s behavior is unworthy of the Oval Office. And today, Trump`s campaign hit a bit of a snag over an event that was billed as a big endorsement by more than 100 black religious leaders. Although Trump still held a private meeting with the group his campaign abruptly canceled the planned press conference after some people listed as attendees publicly said they weren`t actually supporting Trump. The multi- event`s organizer told "Politico" it was nothing more than, quote, "miscommunication" with Trump`s campaign staff. This was the candidate`s explanation. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: I think what happened probably it gets publicity unfortunately as everything I do gets publicity. And probably some of the Black Lives Matter folks called them up saying oh, you shouldn`t be meeting with Trump because he believes that all lives matter. I believe black lives do matter but I believe all lives matter. Very strongly. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Even though that event fell short of the outright endorsement Trump was looking for, after the meeting, he flew to Georgia to be introduced at his rally by pizza magnate and 2012 Republican candidate Herman Cain. Joining me now Pastor Mike Walrond. He`s senior pastor at First Corinthian Baptist Church here in East Harlem, New York. Pastor, you`ve been fairly critical of let`s say the optics surrounding this. Candidates meet with pastors all the time. What`s your beef? PASTOR MICHAEL WALROND, FIRST CORINTHIAN BAPTIST CHURCH: I think in some ways, there`s a part of me, Chris, that wants to rebel against the tendency by some to paint African-Americans and maybe even African-American clergy as this kind of monolithic -- HAYES: Yes, exactly. WALROND: -- group, and that is not the case. I respect those pastors who wanted to meet with Trump today, those who endorse and those who did not endorse. For me, though, we understand what the optics mean, especially for candidate and what the appearance gives. So, I think, in that regard, it troubles me a little bit because I come from a particular tradition of social justice engagement and prophetic engagement and there were those who said they needed to hear what Mr. Trump had to say to determine whether or not they would endorse him which I thought was strange. We`ve heard a lot from Mr. Trump already. And things that disturbed me that we`re at a critical time in the history of this country, where there`s so much division and there`s so much bitterness and we see it in the events that have taken place over the past year and a half, especially around race. To see someone who has a platform that is increasingly I think divisive and gives the hint of racism, even fascism as some have stated, is troubling to me. But on one hand, I don`t dismiss it at all. Not just because of his high numbers and ratings he`s getting, but I don`t dismiss it because clearly Mr. Trump is hitting something, is hitting a nerve. He`s representing the ideas and the feelings and the sentiments and the emotions of a large population of our country. HAYES: You know, the point you started out with struck me as an important one. I want to play a little bit of an account of what this meeting was like, I thought it was sort of interesting of Trump actually not speaking for himself in the meeting. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We had a very productive, constructive meeting. We made history today because we had meaningful dialogue with Mr. Donald Trump and we voiced concerns that were sensitive to the African-American community and we asked questions and the questions were answered. We were all satisfied with the answers and we`re a unified front right here -- wonderful time, wonderful dialogue, wonderful fellowship, wonderful action. It was a great day. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That was Dr. Darryl Scott, pastor in Cleveland. I`m sorry, not the clip I was talking about. But that was Dr. Scott in Cleveland sort of talking about what a great event it was. Omarosa over her shoulder who I don`t believe is a pastor in any way. WALROND: She is. HAYES: She is a minister. WALROND: Yes. HAYES: I learn something new every day. So here`s my question to you -- your point about people not being monolithic. Millions of African-Americans. And there`s tens of thousands of African-American preachers, people of different political opinions. Can you imagine any world in which Donald Trump got significant African- American support? WALROND: No. I think the polls show that 70 percent of -- 75 percent I think of African-Americans are opposed to what Mr. Trump represents. And I think there will be a population of persons. There are African-American Republicans. There are African-American Democrats. There are African- Americans who are independent. He will have a following. There will be people who support him. I believe the majority of African-Americans will not. For me personally, again, it is the language. It is the divisiveness. I am part of a tradition that believes in dealing and standing with and for those who are oppressed. When you begin to denigrate immigrants, and you begin to make fun of women and then you make fun of someone who`s disabled, he`s showing you who he is right now. HAYES: You know, it was interesting to me, too, the way this played out which this poster got leaked and all these folks. It seemed to me an interesting moment in terms of just sort of -- when you talk about not being monolithic. There was some backlash before this meeting ever happened. WALROND: Oh, yes. HAYES: And you could sort of see it as it unfolded. We`re going to do this meeting, maybe we`re going to endorse, maybe not. And then this sort of crescendo backlash people started walking back. Do you think the dynamics are different now around a meeting like this than they would have been ten years ago? WALROND: I think it might have been the same, even if ten years ago. I think the issues that African-Americans face in this country have not shifted very much in ten years we`re talking about. So the issues that are critical, whether it`s issues around education, housing, poverty, those are real in the community. And I think this meeting would have had the same kind of backlash ten years ago. I mean, because there are people who just do not find themselves drawn by Mr. Trump`s rhetoric. And there`s nothing galvanizing about those who want to see a different kind of America right now. And in fact, his words really can strike terror in some people`s hearts because of the way he`s speaking and who he represents, and the fact that he`s leading and winning. HAYES: We`re going to see how long that lasts. Pastor Walrond, really a pleasure. Thank you for coming in. WALROND: Thank you. HAYES: All right. Joining me now, McKay Coppins, senior writer of "BuzzFeed News", author of the new book that drops tomorrow, "The Wilderness: Deep Inside the Republican Party`s Combative, Contentious, Chaotic Quest to Take Back the White House". MCKAY COPPINS, BUZZFEED NEWS: Alliteration. HAYES: Alliterative. And Joan Walsh, MSNBC political analyst, national affairs correspondent for "The Nation" magazine. Well, I thought that the three things that we sort of cued up here, right? You got this insistence that he saw this thing happen which everyone says didn`t happen. It didn`t happen. You saw Chuck Todd -- I thought he had a great line in that exchange where Trump says, well, all these people agree with me. And Chuck says, well, just because they agree with you doesn`t make it true, which is in some ways -- (CROSSTALK) COPPINS: They want to agree with you, which I think is a key point, right? HAYES: That in some ways is the kind of reality distortion field that has kind of become the vortex around this -- around which this race kind of circles. COPPINS: Yes. In my book when I write about Donald Trump, the chapter that focuses on him is called "Into the Fever Swamps." And the reason is because unlike any -- you know, all the other Republicans that I profile in the book, basically unlike any other Republican presidential candidate that`s maintained this kind of lead, he really laid the foundation for his entire political career with -- by spreading widely debunked conspiracy theories. HAYES: About Barack Obama. Yes. Right. Let`s remember. COPPINS: And this is funny because people kind of have forgotten this because it`s been so many other things that he said that people -- JOAN WALSH, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: He`s the birther in chief. COPPINS: Right. The birther crusade was what made him famous on the right. And it started with kind of this fringe, right? This was a fringe idea that he then mainstreamed -- he helped to mainstream in the party. And what I think is fascinating about all the things that Trump has been saying about Muslims and African-Americans, all these crazy things are that what he does is he helps create this kind of mirage that -- in the fever swamps and when then conservatives see it, when fellow conservatives see it he uses that as proof that it`s true, right? And it`s this circular thing that keeps happening. Hundreds of people have been calling and saying that they saw it too, which they didn`t because it didn`t happen, but because he keeps saying it so much he`s convincing people that they saw it. HAYES: Well, the other day, you know, on this thing about this thing with -- it`s also to me a testament to someone who just can`t admit ever they`re wrong. It`s sort of -- WALSH: And they love him for that too. HAYES: Right. It`s like I`ve been caught dead to rights. But no, I saw it anyway. We`ve all met people like that in our lives and usually those are just profoundly destructive people to be around, destructive for any institution they occupy and destructive in any family they occupy. This is not like an unknown personality type to people, right? And these people tend to be very troublesome individuals. That said, the other day he retweets an Info Wars link about the celebrations happening. And I joked on Twitter, we are about 48 hours from Bush knocked down the towers from Donald Trump. He is so off the normal kind of four squares agreed to reality. WALSH: Well, I think there are a couple different categories. We did a taxonomy of his lies and what his supporters think about them because there are some that belong to the category of I don`t care if he`s right or not, he could be right, there were people celebrating in East Jerusalem -- well, it could have been east, you know, Jersey City. (CROSSTALK) WALSH: Paterson. HAYES: Right. WALSH: You know, it could have happened. Then there`s the category of I like that he says stuff like this because the world is too politically correct. So, I`ve actually seen people say, who cares if he mocked a reporter for being disabled, which is disgusting. We were all raised not to ever do that. But people were like, oh, we`ve gotten too soft and sensitive. But then there`s a third thing going on -- which is it is taking place against the backdrop, let`s admit it, of a Republican primary that is not distinguished by its love for the truth. I mean, you`ve got Ted Cruz, you just showed it, saying a transgendered leftist activist is responsible for the Planned Parenthood shootings. You`ve got Carly Fiorina -- HAYES: You`re going to force me to defend Ted Cruz`s context. (CROSSTALK) HAYES: I want to note for the record, for the people doing the transcript that the full context of that isn`t quite that. But continue. (CROSSTALK) WALSH: He did say it. Carly Fiorina continues to lie about the Planned Parenthood video. The entire field has defined amnesty as the 13- year track including fines to a pathway to citizenship. And Jeb Bush told us that George Bush kept us safe. So, there`s -- the whole campaign is taking place in this bizarro world where facts still matter. HAYES: Do you agree with this thesis that essentially this is a difference in degree and not of kind when you`re talking to Trump which is basically -- WALSH: It is. HAYES: -- the theory you`re advancing. COPPINS: No, because I think there`s a difference between what Carly Fiorina said about planned parenthood which was untrue but was clearly rooted in some existing video that she was just miss -- WALSH: But when she`s coop fronted with it she continues to say it happened even though reporters and fact checkers said, no, actually we`ve walked the whole -- COPPINS: But can you really say that that`s the same thing as saying Barack Obama wasn`t born in the United States when there`s literally, I mean -- or Muslims are cheering on 9/11? I mean, I just think it`s -- (CROSSTALK) COPPINS: And I think also that many of the things that Trump has latched on to are rooted in this kind of toxic nativist fringe that`s always existed on the American right, from the John Birch Society newsletters to world government chat rooms, right? HAYES: Right. COPPINS: But what we`re seeing now is there`s been -- in the Obama era with democratized media and deregulated political money, you`ve seen a huge flow of cash and clout and political influence to that fringe -- HAYES: To those corners, right. COPPINS: -- which has created kind of a counter-establishment, right, that`s amplified these voices and made it actually worthwhile for politicians to latch on to. WALSH: I really understand what you`re arguing and I basically -- I mostly agree with you but I do want to say, we routinely leave out of our definition of this lunatic fringe the anti-abortion -- the violent anti- abortion right that believes absolutely crazy things. And so, when you have -- when we`re talking about Donald Trump`s lies and we`re not talking about -- well, he also said this weekend, he also told Chuck lots of people are really mad that Planned Parenthood is selling baby parts. They`re not selling baby parts. And this entire focus on demonizing Planned Parenthood is -- that comes out of the fever swamp, too. HAYES: Right. And yet that occupies a slightly more mainstream position even within the kind of controversial world of Trumpism. COPPINS: No, and I understand where Joan`s coming from. I think the difference is that there are pro-life -- there are social conservatives who are against abortion who are not violent at all, right? There are not that many people who avidly agree or believe that Muslims were cheering on 9/11, that Obama was born outside the United States, that are also kind of just totally reality -- based in reality and understand what everything is going on. That said, that is changing. And with Donald Trump -- HAYES: Well, that`s the question. COPPINS: -- holding the megaphone, right? HAYES: And how much he`s actually -- the question with Trump, right, is that how much he`s a reflection of this stuff and how much he`s actually constituting a kind of new constituency for himself. McKay Coppins and Joan Walsh, thank you both. COPPINS: Thank you. WALSH: Thank you. HAYES: Still ahead, when Donald Trump turns his rhetoric against a fellow candidate, it`s generally a sign they`re gaining some traction. Why Chris Christie is now in his sights. Plus, should the attack on Planned Parenthood we were just discussing be considered an act of domestic terrorism? We`ll take a look at the rhetoric and the classification around the shooting. Later, the first trial begins in the case of Freddie Gray over seven months after his death in police custody. Those stories and more, ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Today, one of the most -- New York`s most powerful politicians, former Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, was convicted on federal corruption charges that included bribery, extortion, and money laundering. Prosecutors showed Silver had accepted nearly $4 million in illegal payments in various quid pro quo schemes. Silver spent nearly 40 years in the New York state assembly, serving as speaker for more than two decades -- one of the most powerful men in New York politics, until he was forced to resign following his arrest this year. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said the case made it clear the show-me- the-money culture of Albany has been perpetuated at the very top of the political food chain. Silver who is now 71 faces a maximum sentence of 130 years behind bars. And you can bet his conviction today has a whole lot of politicians in New York in both parties very, very nervous. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TODD: Tell us how you started -- you cut the field to get to the point where you decided to pick Chris Christie. He was among a group of how many that you were seriously considering for the endorsement? JOE MCQUAID, THE NEW HAMPSHIRE UNION LEADER: I think we were really looking just at the governors. It was left with Kasich, Bush, and Christie. And from that myself and my editorial writer and some people that I respect in the community, we looked and Christie is the guy who can take the fight to Trump, Hillary, ISIS. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie got some good news and some bad news over the weekend. They both came in the same package. First the good news. He picked up the much sought-after endorsement of the influential newspaper "The New Hampshire Union Leader." In a piece titled, "For our safety, our future: Chris Christie for president," the paper`s publisher wrote, "Chris Christie is a solid pro-life conservative who`s managed to govern in liberal New Jersey. But the one reason he may be best suited to lead in these times is because he tells it like it is and isn`t shy about it." The endorsement comes as Christie`s favorability rating among New Hampshire Republicans is at 54 percent according to a recent Monmouth University poll. That`s a 16 percent increase from just two months ago. But likability and electability are two very different things, which brings us to the bad news, which is that prior presidential hopefuls endorsed by the "Union Leader" include Newt Gingrich, Steve Forbes, and Pat Buchanan twice. Still, the paper`s endorsement and the endorsement of former speaker of New Hampshire House of Representatives Donna Sytek, which is expected to be announced tomorrow, appears to be part of a reaction to the Trump phenomenon, a major push by the Republican establishment for a viable alternative in the wake of Jeb Bush`s reduced status as a candidate. While establishment lawmakers and donors see Christie as one anti- Trump option, another is of course Marco Rubio, who`s already collected endorsements from 18 members of Congress. That includes Representative Darrell Issa, who announced his support for Rubio today. Joining me now, Robert Costa, national political reporter at "The Washington Post." All right, Robert, here`s my feeling about what`s happening with Chris Christie. I feel like I am watching the media and a certain part of the political establishment and the donor class will a Chris Christie rebirth narrative that as of yet has not materialized in the actual polling. ROBERT COSTA, THE WASHINGTON POST: Let`s stick to the reporting, right? It has not started to materialize at all in the polls. But he is certainly having a moment when it comes to media attention. I think "The Union Leader" endorsement, as you say, it guarantees nothing in terms of its political capital but it does bring renewed attention to Christie. The problem for Christie is he`s still fighting a complicated crowded race in New Hampshire. The same type of politician, a mainstream Republican hawk, Kasich, Bush, Rubio, they`re all out there banking on New Hampshire. HAYES: The other thing about Christie is this campaign season is so long -- we were just talking about Donald Trump and his sort of birtherism which seems many, many chapters ago. I mean, part of the problem Christie had is that he`s really not particularly popular in the state he`s governing and there`s lots of people who think he`s done a bad job governing it. And I say that as sort of reflective of conservative opinion. This is his 39 percent approval rating in New Jersey, 67 percent say Christie should drop out of the race. And 5 percent of New Jerseyans would choose Chris Christie as GOP candidate. That strikes me as that still remains the biggest obstacle that guy has. COSTA: And his rivals have yet to bring up the bridge scandal. That could be a problem for Christie on the horizon. The reason Christie is having a bit of a moment, why he`s getting a boost is really simple. One, post-Paris you see someone with his prosecutor profile, someone who`s been a former U.S. attorney, tough talk. He`s rising with the Republican hawks in New Hampshire. And he is a political talent. HAYES: Right. COSTA: When it comes to holding the town hall meeting, he`s pretty good. HAYES: Yes. I mean, that`s one of the things I think we`re starting to see on display more. You see it in Ted Cruz, some of the videos that come out of his events. You see it with Chris Christie. Just as sort of a descriptive matter of their political ability to work a room, talk to a crowd, you can see that I think in the case of both Cruz and Christie, and you`ve been on the trail a lot, these are two people that really -- that are good at that. They have a kind of innate talent when it comes to that. COSTA: They do, and Cruz especially in Iowa. He`s connecting in a serious way. He has the organization there. But for Christie, it`s a more complicated path because the Republican establishment, as you said, the donor class, Washington officials, they see Rubio as a voice for the next generation. Rubio is someone who doesn`t have as many problems. So, if Jeb Bush and Kasich, aren`t seen as someone who could win that establishment lane -- looks like Rubio`s ahead of Christie even though Christie is surging in his own way in New Hampshire. HAYES: Is that how you would handicap it right now? It was interesting to watch as these endorsements flow in. And if you actually go back, FiveThirtyEight`s been doing a good job of tracking this. Rubio has really been racking up a lot of endorsements. There`s a real division between his polling performance and his endorsements. He`s gone up a little in the polls, but he`s nowhere near the front, but it does feel like the momentum toward him from these folks who are looking for a kind of establishment vessel continues. COSTA: And look at the map. Christie`s putting all of his chips on New Hampshire. He`s running a different race than Rubio. Where`s Rubio this week? He`s going to be in Alabama, part of that March 1st Super Tuesday primary. Rubio`s running much more of a national campaign. Christie`s banking on New Hampshire. HAYES: And does Rubio have the kind of infrastructure and funding to play out a long game strategy? COSTA: He doesn`t have Bush-type money when it comes to the super PACs, but Rubio is running a national operation. He has a large team in South Carolina. He has people spread throughout the Super Tuesday states, getting them on the ballot. The Rubio play is do well in Iowa. He`s been there a lot as well, more than Christie in a sense. Try to come out of the top, the first few races in the top three, be in it for the long haul. Christie in his way is trying to get a big bounce out of New Hampshire. HAYES: All right. Robert Costa, thanks for joining us. COSTA: Thank you. HAYES: Still ahead, a look at the political tiptoeing of some 2016 candidates when asked to talk about the Planned Parenthood shooting. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: The suspect in the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood attack made his first court appearance today. Wearing a protective vest and appearing via closed circuit TV, Robert Dear was informed he faces first-degree murder charges, which could bring the death penalty. He was held without bond. Dear barricaded himself in the Colorado Springs facility Friday and allegedly shot and killed three people, including a police officer, and wounded nine others. Although Dear`s full motives are not completely known, the phrase "no more baby parts" has been attributed to him by two senior law enforcement officials speaking to NBC News, along with a rant including mention of President Obama. The "baby parts" phrase seems to be a clear reference to a series of heavily edited videos released by anti-abortion activists that purported to show Planned Parenthood, quote, "selling parts for profit," which would be illegal and which Planned Parenthood has argued persuasively was not happening. The political fallout since Friday`s attack has been very intense, and the president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains pointed to the heated rhetoric that has become a daily fact of the abortion debate, particularly over the past few months. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) VICKI COWART, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD ROCKY MOUNTAINS: We`ve experienced so much hateful language, hateful speech, such a negative environment has been created around the work that Planned Parenthood does. I can`t believe that this isn`t contributing to some folks, mentally unwell or not, thinking that it`s okay to target Planned Parenthood, or to target abortion providers. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Anti-abortion politicians in the GOP have either steered clear of comment or condemned the shooting, while also attempting to dismiss any possible link between rhetoric and violence. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CARLY FIORINA, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So what I would say to anyone who tries to link this terrible tragedy to anyone who opposes abortion or opposes the sale of body parts, is this is typical left-wing tactics. Any protesters should always be peaceful, whether it`s Black Lives Matter or pro-life protesters. Protesters should always be peaceful and respectful. BEN CARSON, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Obviously, you know, any hate crime is a horrible thing, no matter from where it comes, and should be condemned very strongly. PAUL RYAN, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: This murder that occurred in Colorado, is tragic. It is a criminal act. We don`t fully know the motivations of this deranged individual. We know that he was a man who registered to vote as a woman, and the media promptly wants to blame him on the pro-life movement, when at this point there`s very little evidence to indicate that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was reported he said, "no more baby parts" as he was apprehended. RYAN: Well, it`s also been reported that he was registered as an Independent and as a woman and a transgendered leftist activist. If that`s what he is, I don`t think it`s fair to blame on the rhetoric on the left. This is a murder. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Just to be clear, there`s no evidence, by the way, the suspect was a quote, "transgendered leftist activist." I`m not quite sure where that came from. Some Democrats, including DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have called the attack an act of terrorism. There`s certainly an impulse by many, widely shared to insist that we call this an act of domestic terrorism, particularly since that word has such political power. I think that`s a bad idea. I`ll explain, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Regardless of why he did it, what he did is domestic terrorism, and what he did is absolutely abominable. Especially to those of us in the pro-life movement. Because there`s nothing about any of us that would condone or in any way look the other way at something like this. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now, Rebecca Traister, writer at large from New York Magazine, and Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, she`s executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. So, here`s my argument about domestic terrorism. I think there`s an impulse to label things domestic terrorism as a means of saying this is an act of political violence and it`s important, important and we should marshal the kind of concern over it that we marshal over, say, the Boston Marathon bombing, right? Which, let`s be clear, killed less people. Fewer people. But it also strikes me that going -- calling lots of things terrorism is not really a long-run political solution to any of the kind of violence we face, and in fact, lots of things we label terrorism we don`t go about combating in a particularly useful way. REBECCA TRAISTER, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: I agree. It kind of repeats the sin. HAYES: It`s a way of sort of leveling everything up, without sort of taking them on. Will this actually solve the problem? TRAISTER: I think a lot of the clamor for it comes from, here is an instance in which this terrible event hits at a number of facets of what have been expressed in Republican extremism as extreme rhetoric, right? It is certainly -- it seems to be about abortion. It certainly took place at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Whatever his motives are, all we know is that he was muttering about baby parts. I mean, this hits hard at a right-wing talking point over the last few months. It hits at issues of gun control. It hits at the way that Republicans have been talking about the dangers of letting Syrian refugees enter for fear that they`re going to do violence, right? It hits at a lot of these things. And I think there`s a hunger on the part of people on the left to hit back, right? And say look at what this is. And that`s where that impulse toward calling it an act of terrorism comes from. JESSICA GONZALEZ-ROJAS, NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: And I think we have to remember that this doesn`t happen in a vacuum, but the years and years of anti-choice activist, legislatures and organizations repeating hate speech, violent hate speech, that this fuels and breeds this kind of action. So I think we need to recognize that, who`s responsible. HAYES: Okay, but let me push back on that. I think the argument that people in the anti-abortion camp will make is look, there are millions of Americans who are morally opposed to abortion, who conduct themselves, they go to the March for Life, they do all this stuff, they vote for politicians, and there`s this horrible violent murder, alleged, right? And he has nothing to do with us. In the same way that I remember when that guy murdered two cops in New York City, right? He had a hashtag of -- about Black Lives Matter or something. It was very evident to me that had nothing to do with the Black Lives Matter movement. Is that a fair distinction or is it something different? TRAISTER: Yeah, I think that`s very fair. I think people can go too far, and there have been suggestions that the bitter rhetoric voiced by some in the anti-abortion movement and by Republicans, you know, it gets a little nervous to make the allusion too close between that and the actions of one violent individual who has committed a mass murder and mass injuries. I do think that there are some stronger links. For example, Ted Cruz, who was one of the first Republican candidates to come out and condemn the attacks, and I was glad to hear him do it because they`d been silent for about a day, earlier in the week he had celebrated the endorsement of an activist who has directly advocated for violence, and who has written in a book that he supports the execution of abortionists. That`s a guy whose endorsement Ted Cruz was celebrating several days before. That`s a pretty direct link. That doesn`t mean that Ted Cruz was advocating-- HAYES: No. Right. TRAISTER: But it`s a link between somebody who`s advocating actual violence. HAYES: And Jessica, as you say right, I mean, since 1977, eight murders, 17 attempted murders, bombings and arson. There`s a history here, in fact, there was a bulletproof vest in a safe room in that Planned Parenthood. GONZALEZ-ROJAS: And I think we have to pull it out from the individual people and look at the systemic issues. Words have consequences. When you spew hateful rhetoric, when you spew dehumanization of women providers, clinic staff, that leads to this kind of action. And I think we need to look at it much more systemically than the particular action of particular people and call it what it is. HAYES: Well, what is it, then? GONZALEZ-ROJAS: Well, it is domestic terrorism. HAYES: You think it is? GONZALEZ-ROJAS: Yeah. And I do think that we have to look at the consequences that we need to face in terms of prosecuting and pursuing the dangers this individual has put -- that the lives he`s put in jeopardy. And the violence that providers and clinicians and people have faced in just receiving the services for themselves, their health, their family, their future. So, I think it`s really critical to call it what it is and ensure that we`re advocating for the safety of our community. And I`m so grateful that Planned Parenthood is continuing to provide services, because it doesn`t spark fear. It actually galvanizes so many in our community to ensure that women and families are able to get the care that they need. TRAISTER: I think you made such an important point about some of the philosophy behind language, and one of the things that has happened in the debate over abortion in recent decades has been the dehumanization of the women who require reproductive health services, the doctors who provide them, with the focus entirely -- the moral focus having been shifted by abortion opponents to the fetus. HAYES: And the other thing that strikes me here is that this is a little window into the fact that if you -- just how, you know, we hear abortion is murder, right? That is very frequent. They`re killing babies. Right? This is the common rhetoric. That`s mainstream anti-abortion rhetoric. To think for a second about what that would mean if you believed that, if you took that seriously, right? I mean, America is undergoing essentially a mass slaughter, a Holocaust, right? I mean, there are millions of abortions in America every year. If you think that is -- if you think that it`s murder and you think that the entire institutional structure of American life is essentially complicit in this ongoing murder, that`s a pretty intense thing to think about the state of America. GONZALEZ-ROJAS: I think that no matter how you feel about abortion, it is shown and the polling shows that people support woman`s ability to get the health care that she needs. So, that`s a strong value for the Latino community that we work with, to show support and to not judge someone who`s not ready to become a parent. So that`s an important value no matter how you feel about abortion. HAYES: Right. I mean, but that gets to the point that people can abstractly say one thing about their feelings about abortion, and then when you sort of drill down and push on that polling, you end up getting different results. GONZALEZ-ROJAS: Mm-hmm. TRAISTER: Yes. And that`s very true. The other thing is that I`m not sure that even the most heartfelt personal beliefs that abortion is murder leads us logically to the justification of other murder. Right? In part -- HAYES: One would hope. TRAISTER: One would hope. HAYES: Because I think there are millions of Americans who do believe it is. TRAISTER: Right. You can call -- you can describe the intensity without it helping -- without making this make -- or make any more sense. HAYES: People should read my colleague`s (inaudible) interviews with a bunch of people in the movement who flirt with essentially outright justification. TRAISTER: They pretty much do justify it. HAYES: Rebecca Traister and Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas. Thank you very much. Coming up, the first of six back-to-back trials started today for the officers charged in relation to the death of Freddie Gray. What happened inside that courtroom, ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: In the wake of the murder in Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, we`ve actually been working on a long feature about abortion rights in this country, about some of the rhetoric directed at abortion providers, the threats that one abortion provider in particular faces, and the ways in which the anti-abortion movement has managed to restrict access to abortion in a way that almost mirrors what it was like for women before the landmark Roe V. Wade decision. We`re going to bring you that report tomorrow night. You don`t want to miss it. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Today, seven months after 25-year-old Freddie Gray died from injuries sustained in Baltimore police custody, jury selection for the first police officer to go on trial in connection with his death began. Officer William Porter, who`s been charged with manslaughter, assault, misconduct, and reckless endangerment is accused of failing to get Gray medical help while he was in a police van following his April arrest. He has pled not guilty to all charges. Porter`s is just the first of what will be six back-to-back, high- profile trials for the officers charged in Gray`s death. Earlier today, as protesters gathered outside the courthouse, dozens of potential jurors, who will remain anonymous, were questioned about their knowledge of the case. That process is expected to take several days with the trial itself wrapping by mid December. Prosecutors have said that they are trying Officer Porter first because they consider him a "material witness" against two other officers, according to the Baltimore Sun. The trials come at a time when the city of Baltimore is still experiencing a tremendous amount of tumult following the unrest in April. And today, the city girds itself for what will likely be a very tense several months. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JUSTIN FENTON, THE BALTIMORE SUN: I think that what happened that day in April where things boiled over, I think that`s a very sort of organic, you know, unusual incident. I don`t see that happening again. But, at the same time, I think that this trial and these trials as they continue, there`s a sense in the community of uneasiness and, you know, what might happen. We don`t know what could happen based on the way these trials go. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Next month we`ll be going back to Baltimore for an in-depth look at what led to the unrest in April and what it`s meant for the city in the months since. You don`t want to miss that. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For I believe in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that there is such a thing as being too late. And when it comes to climate change, that hour is almost upon us. But if we act here and if we act now, if we place our own short-term interests behind the air that our young people will breathe and the food that they will eat and the water that they will drink and the hopes and dreams that sustain their lives, then we won`t be too late for them. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Today, Barack Obama joined world leaders in Paris for one of the most high-stakes, important negotiations of his entire presidency. The climate talks in Paris, which kicked off today, will, simply put, help determine whether or not the international community manages to put in place a system of binding, accountable system to keep the planet`s temperature rise in a non-catastrophic window. And across the world the negotiations are being watched extremely closely. In the Philippines protesters yesterday marched calling for swift action on climate change. In Yemen people gathered on the streets of Sana`a on the eve of the Paris talks. In Indonesia thousands took to the streets of Jakarta in the name of climate justice. Meanwhile, in Paris over 100 people have been arrested after clashes with police over the weekend during an action leading up to the beginning of the climate gathering. Back here at home, congressional Republicans are readying an attack on the president`s climate agenda in anticipation of the international climate talks. Both senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and house majority leader Kevin McCarthy railed against the president`s climate policies. Tomorrow, the house is scheduled to take the rhetoric one step further, voting on two resolutions that would undo the administration`s landmark carbon emissions standards for power plants, which is the crown jewel of the president`s climate agenda thus far. Joining me now, Tony Dokoupil, host of Greenhouse on MSNBC, and a man who`s headed to Paris very soon. Okay. So, I don`t know anything about -- let`s say I know nothing about the climate talks. What are they talking about? What are they doing? TONY DOKOUPIL, MSNBC POLITICAL REPORTER: You have to know that every now and then, we on this earth do something to really, really damage the place and we have to take action. Back in the `80s we had a big hole in the ozone layer, we had to fix that. Then, in the `90s we had an acid rain problem, really problematic, we had to do something to fix that. Now, we have this global warming problem. We keep putting stuff in the air and it`s making it get really, really hot, and storms are getting stronger and ice is melting and oceans are getting further into our property. It`s a problem and we have to do something now, and if we don`t, it`s going to be a bigger problem for our kids and even bigger problem for their kids. HAYES: Okay. I want to start with those first two (inaudible) because I think this is so important for people to understand. When I hear oh, climate talks, I think like who are we -- they`re not going to do anything. It`s all hopeless, it`s not going to work. All these people are going to get together, nothing`s going to come out of it. But the ozone problem, right, we were putting these CFCs in the air, they were putting a hole in the ozone layer that was bad, all these different countries had to come together. We actually did have like a binding treaty that completely worked. DOKOUPIL: Totally successful. HAYES: 100%. Countries came together and they actually did fix it. DOKOUPIL: But there are about 20 reasons to doubt success this time, and those 20 reasons are the 20 prior climate talks that have occurred since 1992, where nothing has resulted. Emissions, which caused this warming, have gone up 60% since we first started talking about it. So the opposite of what you would hope. And yet, this time is different. For the first time we have over 150 countries already coming to the table saying we know it`s a problem and we`re going to pledge to make a difference. They`ve already said that. You don`t have to like twist their arms to get that deal at the end. They`ve already said we get it, we`re going to change. HAYES: One of the things you see in American political discourse around this issue, and you see it particularly from the right, is this idea that like climate change is this like boutique issue for kind of like affluent liberals who like whole foods. And, it`s so disconnected from how central this issue is across huge swaths of the world. DOKOUPIL: It`s about the habitability of the planet going forward. Literally it`s on that scale of a problem. And Obama was mocked again by people on the political right today for comparing the terrorism threat to the climate threat, and saying climate change is a bigger threat. And that is not ridiculous because that`s what his military leaders are saying. The Department of Defense puts out this big priority report every four years about what we`re scared about, and climate change is in there as a threat multiplier. I`ve personally sat with the chief combat climatologist in the air force and I was like, what are the generals asking you? And they`re like, they want to know where the next starvation zone related to climate change is going to be. Where the guys with the machetes are going to come through because they don`t have the resources they used to have. Hot spots develop because of heat and then they become hot spots in terms of human conflict as a result. HAYES: So, we`ve got this huge collective action problem. All these countries are going to have to come forward. And you`ve got an issue where basically you want everyone else to try to pick up the check. It`s like -- DOKOUPIL: It`s like a dinner. HAYES: Ari Shapiro did a good piece. I should credit Ari Shapiro at the NPR where he sort of used this metaphor where you kind of want to -- like, if you`re there long enough and maybe you ordered an appetizer and you`re one of three people, but like maybe you can sort of get away with like getting everyone else to pay for your appetizer. That`s the basic dynamic at these talks, right? DOKOUPIL: But it`s a little more complicated. You have to pay for the food now but there`s still going to be more food coming out and you have to decide who gets it. This is an issue of all the oil -- the problem here is oil and gas and fossil fuels. We`re burning it. That`s causing the pollution. That`s why everything`s heating up. We have a lot of that stuff in the ground. We can`t burn it all. If we burn it all the planet will become uninhabitable in many areas. So now we have to decide, okay, all you countries of the world, who gets to burn the remaining fuel? It`s kind of like, we`ve got two bottles of wine coming, but not everyone gets to drink it. HAYES: So here`s a useful term. You have like a carbon budget, so let`s just say for simplicity, there`s a hundred units of carbon left that we can safely burn, and then the question becomes a classic distributional question, which is who gets what out of that budget. Right? How much does Kenya get and how much does Japan get? DOKOUPIL: So, here`s what`s really scary right now. The pledges in Paris right now are so minor that America, China, and the EU combined take up the entire world`s budget in the next three decades. HAYES: Let`s just look at what emissions look like so people get a sense. Basically, it`s China, the U.S., and the EU are the sort of biggest emitters. You see India, Russia, Japan. Everyone else in the world that are not named countries there -- DOKOUPIL: Billions. HAYES: Billions of people are 30%, right? So, we`re going to have to figure out a way of both getting accountability and some sort of distributional justice. Tony Dokoupil who`s going to Paris. We`ll be checking in with you next week I suspect. 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