ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
October 25, 2013
Guest: David Stockman, Michael Bernan Dougherty, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Carl
Hart, Tom Matzzie, Ronan Farrow, Jesselyn Radack, Roger Cressey
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST OF "ALL IN" SHOW: Good evening from New
York. I am Chris Hayes. And, tonight Senator Ted Cruz is doing a fund
raising there in Iowa with about 600 of that states conservatives.
Tomorrow, he plans to take part in Republican Congressman Steve King`s
pheasant hunt.
All these and their attempt to sell himself to the true conservatives
in a state that kicks off the presidential nominating contest. But, the
problem for Senator Cruz and for everyone else in the conservative moment
these days is, that it is getting harder to tell who really is the true
conservative, anymore.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES (voice-over): As the purges that swept through Russia after
the revolution of 1917, and the guillotine used by the Japanese. The
French revolution can attest that no one is ideologically pure enough that
revolution is over. Intraparty factions start going after each other.
JOHN CLEESE, AS REG/WISE MAN #1 IN THE "LIFE OF BRIAN" MOVIE: Right.
You`re in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the
fucking Judean People`s Front.
PEOPLE FRONT OF JUDEA: Yes.
SUE JONES-DAVIES, AS JUDITH IN THE "LIFE OF BRIAN" MOVIE: Splitters.
PEOPLE FRONT OF JUDEA: Splitters.
MICHAEL PALIN, AS FRANCIS IN THE "LIFE OF BRIAN" MOVIE: And the
Judean Popular People`s Front.
PEOPLE FRONT OF JUDEA: Yes. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters.
ERIC IDLE, AS STAN (LORETTA) IN THE "LIFE OF BRIAN" MOVIE: And, the
People`s Front of Judea.
PEOPLE FRONT OF JUDEA: Yes. Splitters. Splitters.
CLEESE, AS REG: What?
IDLE, AS LORETTA: The People`s Front of Judea. Splitters.
CLEESE, AS REG: We`re the People`s Front of Judea!
IDLE, AS LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
CLEESE, AS REG: People`s Front!
HAYES (voice-over): The Tea Party finds itself in the purge face of
the revolutionary cycle.
MIKE LEE, (R) UTAH JUNIOR U.S. SENATOR: It was an all out attack on
Ted Cruz and me.
HAYES (voice-over): Ron Johnson, a son of the Tea Party revolution is
being attacked by the Tea Party allies.
MARK LEVIN, HOST OF AMERICAN SYNDICATED RADIO SHOW: Senator, let me
tell you something. If 46 of you people, you Republican senators, had
stood up shoulder-to-shoulder -- the outcome might have been slightly
different.
HAYES (voice-over): Former Tea Party darlings like Kelly Ayotte
lecturing Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee.
KELLY AYOTTE, (R) NEW HAMPSHIRE SENATOR: And to my Republican
colleagues in the house and to some in this chamber, time for a reality
check.
HAYES (voice-over): Even Paul Ryan isn`t safe.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: Conservative activist, Erick Erickson,
retweeted this, quote, "It seems like Paul Ryan has successfully -- well
we`ll say angered the right.
HAYES (voice-over): And reinforcement for the right on right fight
are gathered.
SARA PALIN, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: I`ve been saying for years that
robust, competitive primaries make for a better political system.
HAYES (voice-over): And, now, even Grover Norquist, the president of
American`s for tax reform, creator of the infamous Taxpayer Protection
Pledge is being targeted for speaking out against Ted Cruz`s shutdown.
GROVER NORQUIST, CREATOR OF TAXPAYER PROTECTION PLEDGE: Cruz pushed
all the republicans out into traffic and then he wandered off. He told
them it would be safe, it wasn`t. He told them it would work, it didn`t.
He needs to go apologize to all the republicans who he misled.
HAYES (voice-over): That did of descend was enough for Glenn Beck
this week to declare all out war on Norquist.
GLENN BECK, POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN TELEVISION AND RADIO HOST:
I started talking to people and they all said, "Oh, no, he is really spooky
guy. Don`t take him on Glenn while you are taking on George Soros. So,
things have to be done now, don`t they? This is just a beginning of this.
We plan on doing quite a bit on Grover Norquist.
HAYES (voice-over): The focus affects attention that Norquist is an
operative for the Muslim brotherhood.
BECK: He is the guy responsible for a lot of the Muslim brotherhood
stuff that goes on in the White House now.
HAYES (voice-over): It`s an old smear pedaled by right-wing activist,
Frank Gaffney stemming from the fact Norquist`s wife is Muslim. But, for
Beck this is about more than a conspiracy theory. It`s about silencing
descent.
BECK: If you are for the constitution of the United States of
America, that is our divided line and there are too many in the Republican
Party, so let`s clean out our own house first.
HAYES (voice-over): The purges will continue, Tea Party will realize
just as the movements before them have, eventually there will be no one
left to purge.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Joining me now is former Congressman David Stockman,
republican for Michigan. He was the director of the office of management
and budget during the Reagan Administration. He is the author of the Great
Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America. And, Michael Brendan
Dougherty, contributing editor to the American Conservative, editor of the
"Slur" daily baseball newsletter.
And, David, I want to start with you. You are someone who has kind
of been in and out of the conservative movement. You were kind of a purgee
in certain ways. There is this very famous profile of you in during your
time in the Reagan Administration. You have also tangled with Grover
Norquist.
DAVID STOCKMAN, FORMER REAGAN ADMINISTRATION OMB DIRECTOR: Well, this
is not surprising. The republicans are no longer a political party. They
are a gang, a coalition of ideological games. You have the neo-cans, the
tax cans, the social cans and the just cans. And, on the fiscal issue --
HAYES: Hey, what are the just cans?
STOCKMAN: Just cans are the fakers.
(LAUGHING)
HAYES: They are the one you want to purge.
STOCKMAN: Right. But, the point is on the fundamental fiscal
issues, they don`t agree at all. It is totally factions. The neo-cans
want a bigger defense budget. We have a $650 billion war machine. They
didn`t get the memo the cold war ended 25 years ago. There`s a few
thousand terrorists left. They don`t need a war machine.
By the way, when Clinton left the White House, it was $400 billion in
today`s dollars. So, they are arguing we can`t do the Sequester. We ought
to be cutting much more. So, that divides the party. Then you have the
tax problems, who still believe in the magic napkin. Just grow your way
out of it. We have had 30 years to prove they can.
We have the social cans and social-issue people we don`t care. And,
then all the republicans have been talking about big spending won`t stand
up and take on Social Security, means testing, not cutting the people the
means testing. We heard Ryan talking about --
HAYES: No one is going mean --
STOCKMAN: OK. The Social Security and Medicare, a trillion by the
year and you don`t have the republicans who are the so-called conservatives
standing out for main steps.
HAYES: The reason -- believe me.
STOCKMAN: Yes.
HAYES: Look, I would like nothing more as someone who does not want
to see main steps in precision care, but I would like nothing more than the
Republican Party to take your advice and come out for means that I think
Social Security.
STOCKMAN: I`ll tell you. You should be foreign. Now, I will tell you
why. You can go to Florida today, people living retirement communities --
HAYES: No.
STOCKMAN: -- 50,000 a year for Medicare and Social Security.
HAYES: They earn benefits.
STOCKMAN: They didn`t earn it. They did not earn it.
HAYES: They did earn it. It`s part of the --
STOCKMAN: No one earned close to that.
HAYES: No, no. They earned it. No, they did not earn it in a dollar
sense. They earned it in a citizenship sense. They earned it in a sense
that we have all agreed to have this universal benefit and let me just say
the durability -- the history shows very quick thoroughly the best
functioning social insurance is universal benefit. Everyone draws out. In
fact, in fact, right now as we see people go through the --
STOCKMAN: I mean give me a chance.
HAYES: OK. Go ahead. Go ahead.
STOCKMAN: We have to cut something. The idea that we are out of the
woods on the deficit is totally wrong. It`s real. It is massive and it is
now. If you take rose`s scenario out of the picture, I know Rose`s
scenario because I created it. You take that out of the picture over the
next ten years, you`re talking about a trillion a year of deficits and
that`s if not really goes wrong in the world. You can`t live with that.
You have to address it.
HAYES: I disagree with you and I respectfully disagree on this. I
think that with all the constraints the deficits of the United States,
which prints with all the reserved currency is essentially inflation and
interest rates, I think neither those are an issue in the near or even
median turn. I think health care costs are an issue, but here I want to
ask Michael this question.
MICHAEL BRENDAN DOUGHERTY, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR TO THE AMERICAN
CONSERVATIVE: All right.
HAYES: Because you mentioned the social cans and you sort of cast
them aside who don`t seem to be participating those. Those are the part of
the party that I feel like you know best and they also seem like more and
more marginalized. The Tea Party`s whole turn was a turn for a battle for
fiscal issues. And, so, Mike -- but at the same time, it is still the same
base voters, right? It still conservative religious folks who make up the
base of the Republican Party.
DOUGHERTY: That is absolutely right. And, there`s a real sense of
frustration and urgency on their part that if we don`t do something now, on
these sues, we are losing forever. I mean they see the demographic trends.
They see the difficulty republicans are having winning on a national level
and so that is why there was an all out kind of -- they went for this all
out tactic or sold themselves as a dream if they could somehow stop
Obamacare long after it already passed --
HAYES: Right.
DOUGHERTY: -- and had been launched.
HAYES: Why though?
DOUGHERTY: Why --
HAYES: Why did they sell themselves?
DOUGHERTY: Well, you know, there`s an entirely parallel political
structure for this type of conservative, right? I mean, they can`t
exercise power in Washington, but there are all these factions in the media
in think tanks and elsewhere where you can exercise some power or at least
draw a salary.
I mean 150 years ago, if you wanted to draw a salary from politics,
your party had to get elected --
HAYES: Right. Now --
DOUGHERTY: -- then appoint you to something --
HAYES: Right.
DOUGHERTY: -- But now, you can just be one of those people
denouncing the sell outs and that is a permanent position.
HAYES: David.
STOCKMAN: I`m saying this is a huge problem and in January, Obama
extended the Bush tax cuts to the top half of the population.
HAYES: Yes.
STOCKMAN: That is $4 trillion that was taken out of -- you know, the
fiscal equation. It`s a huge hole. Why did he do that? The democrats,
the progressives, campaigned for years against it.
HAYES: Right.
STOCKMAN: The lower 47% doesn`t pay income taxes. Romney told us
that. So, why can`t we ask --
HAYES: Well, they pay a lot of taxes.
STOCKMAN: -- They don`t. I know they don`t. I`m not complaining
about it. Why couldn`t we ask the upper half of America to contribute to
paying the bills of this country? Why did we have to --
HAYES: I agree. And, the reason --
STOCKMAN: You were for extending the Bush tax cuts.
HAYES: No, I wasn`t. Don`t tell me what I was for. I was not for
the budget --
STOCKMAN: -- should have been. OK, but why did your progressive
president extend the Bush tax cuts, digging on Social Security and do
nothing about the fence? He was the piece candidate --
HAYES: Wait a second. Wait a second. Wait a second. David, you
just said two very contradictory things --
STOCKMAN: No. I`m not.
HAYES: First of all -- Yes. You did. First of all, defense
spending is coming down. In fact --
STOCKMAN: Tiny. Tiny as a pinprick.
HAYES: -- Well, it`s going to be more than a pinprick comes January -
-
STOCKMAN: Well, even that is a pinprick.
HAYES: But, second of all -- Yes, I agree about the tax cuts, right?
But, the extension of them was the conditions under which -- was this
entire work of a right that unified, which could not unified anything --
STOCKMAN: It has nothing to do --
HAYES: -- Let me finish what I am saying.
STOCKMAN: All right. But, then let me talk --
HAYES: Let me finish what I am saying. The Republican Party could
not unify on anything, no thing except the one thing that Grover Norquist
who we began -- told them to unify around and the thing that unify around
and we all saw them stand up there on the stage when asked the question
about 10-1 on raising taxes, that they would taxes under no circumstances
and it is the point against, which he was negotiating was a point of
maximalism in regards to one specific issue, which was preserving the tax
of very wealthy people.
STOCKMAN: At one point, OK? They expire January 1. Your president -
-
HAYES: He is our president, David.
STOCKMAN: -- Our president.
HAYES: He is our president.
STOCKMAN: He could have said don`t send me in extension to Bush Tax
cuts for anybody or I will veto it and it never would happen. The
republicans would have rant and raved and waved their arms, but we would
have that $4 trillion in revenue --
HAYES: I would love to get the 4 trillion back.
STOCKMAN: All right.
HAYES: Former OMB Director, David Stockman, Michael Bernan Dougherty
from the American Conservatives, thank you both. Coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BARNEY FRANK, FMR. (D) MASSACHUSETTS CONGRESSMAN: One of the
causes I have been pushing is to legalize the smoking of marijuana and
apparently, that may be more widespread among the republican house members
than I had thought because that`s the only explanation I can think for this
particular extreme mellowness that they are --
HAYES: It is remarkable. How mellow they are in defeat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: That was former Congressman Barney Frank joking around on
this show the night the senate and the house voted to open the government,
lift the debt ceiling. But, it`s like D.C. was listening. I`ll tell you
why in just a few minutes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: That time of night where you weigh in on Facebook and Twitter
with Tea Party on Tea Party whining for. In fact, no conservatives are
safe. So, my question for you tonight is who is next to be purged and for
what crimes against conservatives? Tweet your answers @allinwithchris or
post it to facebook.com/allinwithchris. I assure you a couple will be on
the show. Stay tuned. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: I want you to take a look at this. What you see on the screen
before you is a pair of pie charts and on the left is the racial breakdown
of the population of Washington, D.C., which is you can see is about half
white and a half black.
Now, on the right, you are seeing the racial breakdown of people
arrested for marijuana possession in Washington, D.C., which as you can
see, is nine tenths black. And, we know based on other available data that
the disparity that you are seeing here is not based on black people using
more marijuana than white people. In fact, black and white people use
marijuana at roughly the same rates.
Black people are not smoking more pot than white people. They are
just getting arrested more for it, a lot more. And, that grows disparity
is very likely behind a major political move on marijuana policy this week.
The mayor of Washington, D.C. announced his support on Wednesday for a
measure to decriminalize possession of small amounts of pot.
Right now, possession of less than an ounce is punishable in D.C. by
six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. D.C. lawmakers want to make it more
like a traffic ticket. Punishable only by a small fine. The measure
already gets the support of ten of the district`s 13 council members and
it`s expected to get a vote in the next few months.
But, the news from D.C. is just the latest from the frontlines of a
battle that is shaking up to be one of the most rapidly transformational in
all of American politics. Polling gate out this week from gallop shows
that legalizing marijuana, not just decriminalizing. Legalizing marijuana
is now for the first time, a majority position among Americans.
It has already been legalized in Colorado and Washington State. The
feds have made it pretty clear they`re not going to interfere with those
new laws. The legalization activists are not taking this, encouraging few
and setting their sights on a whole host of other states. Joining me now
is Carl Hart, a neuroscientist who specializes in setting the effects of
drugs. He is the author of the fantastic book, "High Price: A
Neuroscientist Journey Of Self Discovery That Challenges Everything You
Know About Drugs And Society."
Dr. Hart, I was curious to get your reaction to this precisely
because having read profiles of you, having grown up, I believe in Inner
City Miami during the era of the crack epidemic -- I grew up in the Bronx
during the crack epidemic. And, I remember going on marches banging pots
and pans to get the drug dealers out.
And, I think there is still the sense in many in inner city
communities of trying to rid the scourge of drugs from the neighborhood as
a key policy goal. And, so, I`m curious to your reaction to this kind of
transformation in Washington, D.C.
CARL HART, NEUROSCIENTIST, SPECIALIZED ON DRUG EFFECTS: Well, I think
one of the things that you said that is important is that people in the
community were concerned about what was happening in the community.
Problem is that they were just misled about the causes of all the problems.
HAYES: Yes.
HART: You know, the causes are as I lay out in the book, "High
Price" related to things like unemployment, lack of skills, a wide range of
things that are little more complicated than blaming a substance like
crack-cocaine or marijuana. So, now, I think with my book, "High Price"
Michelle Alexander, a number of sort of books and readings and attention to
this issue, people can`t be fooled as readily. And, so I think this is one
of the reasons as you nicely point out, that the population are saying that
we need to do something about locking up all of these black men
particularly.
HAYES: You just said can`t be fooled so easily. There is a whole
mythology around drugs, not just marijuana. Drugs more broadly and you
tend to study methamphetamine and crack. There`s a mythology around them
that you have taken to puncturing empirically. What are the things were
told about drugs that are not born out your research?
HART: Yes. So, when you think of something like crack-cocaine or
methamphetamine, the crack cocaine says you said you grew up in the Bronx
where now I live. One of the biggest myths was that one hit of crack,
you`re addicted.
HAYES: I remember hearing it all throughout elementary school.
HART: Exactly. And, so that`s just simply not true. In the
laboratory, we don`t see that in the laboratory nor do we see it in the
epidemiological data. The vast majority of people who use crack cocaine do
so without a problem. They are not addicted. The same is true for
methamphetamine, where now the myths are being transferred to
methamphetamine.
But, whenever you have people -- a small number of people using a
drug and the majority of the people in the population don`t use the drug,
you can say incredible things about that drug and be believed. Today, you
can`t say those incredible things about marijuana because nearly half the
population has used marijuana. But, in 1937, you certainly could say those
things about marijuana and be believed.
HAYES: So, one of the things that comes from your book is that from
the research you`ve done, as a neuroscientist that we understood,
particularly the crack epidemic and going back to reformedness, the drug is
the source of the ill. The drugs is like this virus that gets injected
into a community and it spreads as a contagion and it causes the symptoms
and you have -- your research has led you to be very skeptical about
theory.
HART: Absolutely. Because when you simply look at the fact that the
majority of people who use crack-cocaine pay taxes, go to work and so
forth, you can`t blame crack-cocaine. And, when you say a small percentage
of those people who uses crack cocaine have all of these problems, it
requires us to look deeper and try and figure out what`s the major sort of
problem that these people are facing and when you do that, it`s clear.
They have no skills. They have no sort of jobs. A wide range of
things. They have no alternatives. A wide range of things, but it
requires you to think just a little more deeply than we like to when we
have these political discussions.
HAYES: It`s almost as if we have been told that -- you know, drug
addiction substantive and the scourge and cycle of drugs is what causes
poverty. And, your research suggests that it is poverty actually -- it is
the other causal direction. It is poverty that preconditions people to be
addicted. Carl Hart from Columbia University, thank you so much for your
time tonight. I really appreciate it.
HART: Thank you for having me.
HAYES: Coming up.
CHIWETEL EJIOFOR, AS SOLOMON NORTHUP IN "12 YEARS A SLAVE" MOVIE: I
was with my family -- and my home. Now, you tell me all is lost. Don`t
know who I am, that`s the way to survive? Well, I don`t want to survive.
I want to live.
HAYES: That was Chiwetel Ejiofor playing the lead role of "12 Years A
Slave." Absolutely breathtaking new film based on the true story of a free
man who was kidnapped and sold into slavery. And, he will be my guest,
next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: I thought I told you to commence in
putting clabbers --
CHIWETEL EJIOFOR, AS SOLOMON NORTHUP: That is what I am doing about.
These have all been replaced.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Didn`t I tell you to get crank in the
nails --
EJIOFOR, AS SOLOMON NORTHUP: Sure I did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: [EXPLICIT WORDS] I thought you know
something.
EJIOFOR, AS SOLOMON NORTHUP: I did as instructed. If there`s
something wrong, there is wrong with the instruction.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: You damn black bastard. You are damn
black bastard. Strip your clothes. Strip.
EJIOFOR, AS SOLOMON NORTHUP: I will not.
HAYES: "12 Years A Slave," a powerful film about America`s quote
peculiar institution. The slavery was once called in this country. It is
a film that almost did not get nape. Few studios wanted to tackle the
films brutality or its bleak, yet true story about a free black man from
the north who was kidnapped and sold into slavery in the south.
The film opened in limited release last week on just 19 screens
across the country, pulling in close to a million dollars. A remarkable
first screen performance showing that there is a lot of pent up demand for
this movie.
Today, it opened in wider released to roughly 100 theatres and is
quickly merged as one of the most talked about film in years, then haled by
critics as a master piece and an instant American classic. And, joining me
now is the man who transformed himself into the lead role in the film
Chiwetel Ejiofor. It is a great pleasure to have you here.
EJIOFOR: Thank you. Pleasure to be here.
HAYES: It is an incredible performance. Really incredible
performance.
EJIOFOR: Thank you. Thank you.
HAYES: As an actor, there are high status character as you play and
most of the status characters, one may play and they have different
physicalities, and in the telling of the tale of this man, you go from
being a relatively high status of free man who is sort of master of his own
domain to being a slave. How did you play that? How did you think about
playing that transformation?
EJIOFOR: Well, I suppose in a way some of it is instinctual, you
know? That you -- you know, one of the things that I was very fortunate to
have, of course, was this extraordinary book. This extraordinary
autobiography of Solomon Northup and in that, you know, he details his
psychological journey and so -- and, I felt that I was -- as I was reading
the book, that I became totally immersed in this story.
I find it very kind of -- a complete experience as if I was right
with him there. So, it is sort of felt natural to over the course of that
time to find different sort of points of his restrain on his physicality
and -- you know, he was a real battle for his mind so as a strain in his
psychology as well.
HAYES: There`s a tremendous amount of restraint that he has to
constantly show that you do an amazing job of portraying the film, of
essentially hiding his true nature -- so that he is not found out so that
he doesn`t further endanger himself.
EJIOFOR: Yes. I mean it is more -- You know, it`s one of the most
extraordinary things about the story is that because it`s kind of this
first person narrative, you are able to get a real understanding from
really inside the slave experience, which is not something that I have ever
seen on film before.
And, what that allows you to do is to see the real details, you know,
that you wouldn`t be aware of without somebody being able to tell you this.
Calling out over 160 years to tell you this was the experience. So, you
know -- the ideas of how complicated getting a piece of paper and a pen
are. How long that can take.
HAYES: Yes.
EJIOFOR: Some of the ramifications of one of the characters just
getting a bar of soap, you wouldn`t know those things if you just looked at
the period objectively as a kind of historical piece. But, if you are
inside the story with Solomon you will get a real understanding.
HAYES: Women are front and center in this film in a way that I think
are often obscure at sometimes when talking about these stories and the
relationship you have to women who are slaves and the very complicated
relationship between them and masters and yourself. There`s a sense in
which the title characters masculinity has been robbed from him and he
cannot get it back. And, it struck me how much that was a true line.
EJIOFOR: Yes. Well, there`s different forms of masculinity I suppose
--
HAYES: Yes.
EJIOFOR: -- and there`s the one I guess it`s the traditional one
that he starts with this kind of you know the sort of this -- he has this
kind of a wonderful kind of set up, a wonderful kind of middle class setup
with his family, his wife and his children. And, he enjoys the freedom and
privileges that we all do -- then he slips into a place where that is
absolutely taken from him.
He is no longer a person with anything and of course, that is kind of
crushing to his sense of masculinity, but he also finds different ways of
addressing that in a way. This is so much about a person`s psychology and
sanity and his ways of resistance, even survival becomes defiance, you
know, at a certain point and that is the kind of incredible journey that he
goes through.
HAYES: What was the biggest psychological discovery you made about
the interior life of someone in this situation while you were doing the
film?
EJIOFOR: Well, I think that there were so many discoveries, you know?
I mean it`s sort of hard to answer. It was, but I felt that there was
something about the different kind of worlds and universes within the
plantation. Solomon was on three different plantations and I always
thought of slavery just as one, sort of -- but it was so interesting to me
that the differences on the plantations where there was timber, the
differences on the plantation are sugar cane, the differences on the
plantation are picking cotton, it`s so humungous, it`s so huge and affect
the nature of what is happening on those plantations affect absolutely
everything that goes on there. You know, and who people are within that
context.
HAYES: And the particularity of that come through so clearly in the
film, it`s one of the triumphs of what is a -- actor Chiwetel Ejiofor for
the film, "12 Years a Slave." You should absolutely go see this out in
theatres now. Thank you.
EJIOFOR: Thank you.
HAYES: We will be right back with click 3.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: The guy who ran the most secretive agency in the entire
government under the Bush administration, the one that eavesdrop on
millions of Americans. He got a small taste of his own medicine on an
Amtrak training yesterday. First, I want to show the three awesomest
things on the internet today. We begin in an inescapable truth, the 2016
presidential race is really underway. Ted Cruz is in Iowa is a sure fire
Republican caucus favorite but in order to provide voters with a more
biographical information, he did a Q and A with a Des Moine register which
included this nugget. Do you have a favorite movie?
Answer. My favorite movie is "The Princess Bride." Cruz didn`t say
why, but maybe it`s because it was directed by noted Tea Party radical Rob
Reiner or maybe it`s because Cruz is an affinity for the avenging sword
fighter Inigo Montoya. All we know for sure is that everyone reacted with
exactly the response you would expect. Tweet after tweet, internet
politicals were quick to point out how inconceivable Cruz` answer was, but
considering "The Princess Bride" is a classic movie by millions, I think
this is the proper response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I do not think what you think it is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: In hindsight, it`s a miracle we didn`t get any Princess Bride
dialogue during Ted Cruz`s fake filibuster.
The second awesomist thing on the internet today, stop motion mini
masterpiece. A filmmaker Adam Pesapane and who goes for the name PES works
almost exclusively in stop motion animation. He directed the academy award
nominee, the short film "Fresh Guacamole" has become known in film circles
as one of the most unique animator working today. It`s the original and
instantly recognizable style. One of his films called the deep uses
various common place objects to create a stop motion deep sea universe. It
was made in 2010, but until now, it has not been available for the public
to view. Now, the full 90-second film is up on the PES page, it serves a
great reminder of what happens and push the boundaries of creativity one
small movement at a time.
And the third awesomist thing on the internet today, solidarity
through art. These are troubling times for the members of the LGBT
community in Russia with protest over anti-gay laws growing around the
globe. One group of artists has put together a statement of unity and
defiance with the art speaks louder than words campaign. Illustrator Anna
Goodson wrote, we hope you will all share and post illustrations and help
make this a better and more tolerant world to live in. Forty eight
illustrations created for the gallery are powerful in their own ways. From
a hunting and their depiction of discrimination. Others are defiant in the
face of oppression and all of their politically provocative.
But my absolute favorite is this one from artist Paul Blow. If you
ask me, Stahlen should be wearing suspenders all the time. You can find
all the links for tonight`s click 3 on our website, AllinwithChris.com.
We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: Former NSA Director Michael Hayden was defending himself
today saying he did not in fact criticize the Obama administration. Why
the former spy chief felt compelled to say this is truly fascinating.
Pictures these strangers on the train, specifically on a train outside
Philadelphia. These weren`t just any old strangers. One man was the
previously mentioned Michael Hayden talking on the phone on background to
reporters about the Obama administration. And Mr. Hayden was overheard by
Tom Matzzie, who previously worked for Moveon.org.
Here are just some of Mr. Matzzie`s ensuing tweets. "Former NSA spy
boss Michael Hayden on Acela behind me blabbing on background as a former
senior administration official. Sounds defensive. On Acela, former NSA
spy boss Michael Hayden just ended last of handful interviews bashing
admin. On Acela, phone ringing, I think the jig is up. Maybe somebody`s
telling them I`m here. Do I hide?" Indeed the jig was up Hayden
approached Matzzie and asked, would you like a real interview? Matzzie
replied, I`m not a reporter and Hayden retort everybody is a reporter.
The two men took this picture and of course tweeted it. Hayden later
issued a statement, "Had a nice chat with my fellow Pittsburgher. Not sure
what he thinks bashing the administration means. I didn`t criticize the
president, I actually said these are very difficult issues. Aside of
political guidance, too, that limited the things that I did when I was
director of NSA. Now, that political guidance is going to be more robust.
It wasn`t a criticism."
This is of emblematic of a larger phenomenon. The surveillance state
can no longer protect itself from being surveilled and in the broader
sense, we already know this to be true. The actions of NSA whistleblower
Edward Snowden, let me show that in the end, watchers are having a hard
time escaping being watched.
Joining me now is Tom Matzzie -- edition of being the former walking
director of Moveon.org. He`s the current CEO of ethical electric, calls
itself America`s first socially responsible home energy supply company.
Tom, that conversation that happened with him when he came over, what did
he say?
TOM MATZZIE, FOUNDER, ETHICAL ELECTRIC: Yes. Just like you said it,
Chris. He said would you like a real interview? I said, I`m not a real
journalist. He said everybody`s a real journalist, and then he sat down
and we had a conversation. And it was interesting conversation for sure.
We talked about the fourth amendment. Warrantless wiretapping, surveilling
foreign leaders, the kind of spying on our allies. Interesting part about
the conversation is he talked about kind the kind of that, what I would
describe as overreaches of the last, you know, ten plus years as a pendulum
and he said these things kind of swing back and forth.
There are times when you know, I`m paraphrasing now, there`s more of
this and there`s less of this. By this, I mean, the spying. I thought
that was an interesting perspective. I`m not sure I completely disagree
with him. I think that, you know, we`ll look back on this as kind of a
dark period in our history. I assume with all the spying, much like, you
know, kind of the suspension of habeas corpus. The internment of, you
know, Japanese Americans during World War II.
HAYES: So, one of the things that I found fascinating with this
episode, was not only you have this guy who was the chief spy and
eavesdropper in America who doesn`t practice enough off set to keep his off
the record phone conversations from being tweeted on a train, but also that
it was a perfect curtain pulled back on the way, the kind of D.C.
journalism works. Which is here, it`s just costless for anyone to get on
the phone and give these interviews and not have to attach their name to
it.
MATZZIE: That`s an excellent point. I mean, let`s first focus on
what he was saying which is, you know, don`t use my name if you quote me, I
am quote, use this moniker. Former senior administration official.
HAYES: Any of thousands of people literally.
MATZZIE: Yes. Although in this case, interestingly enough, it
should not be Michael Hayden.
HAYES: Right.
MATZZIE: He was not a member of the Obama administration.
HAYES: Right.
MATZZIE: He was replaced by Leon Panetta.
HAYES: Oh, that`s a good point. If anyone read that in the paper, as
former senior administration official, they would come away with the
conclusion, this was someone inside who had been an Obama administration
official now bashing the administration.
MATZZIE: Yes, that`s right. Which is even bigger politics in some
ways. Now, of course, yes, he was the head of the CIA for a couple of
days. Literally days after President Obama was formally sworn in, but it
was announced that he was going to be replaced by Leon Panetta 15 days
before the first inauguration of President Obama. So, I think it`s a real
reach to say he was a member of the Obama administration.
HAYES: I`m curious also as someone who was very active in organizing
on the fight defensive security in the antiwar movement and with move on.
You talk about this pendulum. There`s going to be this big rally tomorrow
in Washington, D.C. Stop watching this coalition. How do you as an
organizer, as a former organizer, if you ever become a former organizer,
understand how you kind of create mass mobilization around an issue that
can seems abstract as some office somewhere might be possibly reading some
stray e-mail of mine.
MATZZIE: Well, it`s hard work. I think the first thing is you can`t
do it alone. The kind of first obligation of any organizer is to bring
other people into the movement to get other people involve. And, you know,
it`s through that sort of building of community, bringing people together,
you know, forming kind of a coalitions and that you build power eventually.
That`s the basics of organizing.
HAYES: Do you think that we`re going to see more of this? I mean, I
think the line that Hayden said about everyone`s a reporter was deeply true
in a certain sense. Twenty years ago, this overheard conversation would
have been an awesome story that you got to tell at a bar. Now, it`s on the
"Today" show the next day and there`s a degree to which everyone is
listening to everyone else is increasingly a baseline truth of American
life.
MATZZIE: Yes, and it`s interesting. I would have to ask is that are
you returning to something? Are we moving towards something? I mean, I
think there was always time when you know, things were more private, but
there are also times in our history when we were much more in communities
than we`ve been, you know, in recent decades. You know, you didn`t gossip
about people because there was accountability. There was none of this kind
of bs and --
HAYES: And blind quotes -- the sort of town square in the gossip is
social media. Tom Matzzie. Thank you so much for your time. I really
appreciate it.
MATZZIE: Thank you.
HAYES: We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: Earlier in the show, I asked you who is next to be purged,
and for what crimes against conservatism, we got a ton of answers posted to
our Facebook and twitter accounts including Duane Day from Facebook says,
"The next to be purge is Tim Woodsman (ph) for having a heart." John
Morrissey says, "Rubio for immigration reform." And Tom David on twitter
says, "Who is next to be purged who still left."
Thanks, we`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: Well, it`s too soon to call it a diplomatic crisis, but there
is some big news in the relationships between the U.S. and its allies.
Germany and France have proposed the United States agreed to transatlantic
rules on intelligence after a new revelations unfolding on several
problems, the U.S. has been spying on world leaders and world leaders among
its allied countries. German Chancellor Angel Merkel has accused the
United States of eavesdropping on her phone conversations. She spoke with
President Obama about her concerns.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, the president assured
the chancellor the United States is not monitoring and will not monitor the
communications of the chancellor. But that non-denial declined to say the
U.S. has never done it. And not just Merkel, the latest revelation from
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden documents shows the National Security
Agency monitored the phone conversations of 35 world leaders after being
given the numbers by an official in an another U.S. government department.
This comes on the eve of a rally against the mass surveillance stake in
Washington, D.C. organized by a cross ideological coalition calling
themselves stop watching us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OLIVER STONE, DIRECTOR: Every American is at risk for getting caught
up in the NSA dragnet.
JOHN CUSACK, ACTOR: Including average citizens not suspected of a
crime.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We have been misled.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on
millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: No, sir.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Joining me now, Ronan Farrow, lawyer, former special adviser
to the secretary of state in the Obama administration. He`ll be hosting
his own show here on MSNBC starting early next year.
RONAN FARROW, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Good to see you,
Chris.
HAYES: Good to see you. Jesselyn Radack, National Security and
Human Rights director for the Government Accountability Project. And NBC
News terrorism analyst, Roger Cressey, member of the U.S. national security
staff, also senior vice president at Booz Allen Hamilton.
And Jesselyn, I want to start with you. It seems like there have
been two acts to the Snowden revelations. In the first act, it was largely
about domestic surveillance and it was largely a series of revelations that
indicated that the spread of that surveillance was far greater than we had
been confirmed before, that we have been led to believe and deeply
problematic from a constitutional perspective. The most resent rounds of
revelations have seen to focused on foreign surveillance. And my question
to you is, there are people saying, why is this a problem? What threat to
liberty is it? There is no constitutional protection for Angela Merkel.
This is what we want for our surveillance agencies to do is to go out and
get foreign intelligence about other parts of the world.
JESSELYN RADACK GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT: Right. Countries
have always of course spied on each other whether friend or foe. But this
is quite different. To be spying on the personal cell phones of world
leaders of our allied nations and I would actually argue that it hurts us
in the war against terrorism because we rely on our other partner countries
to help us in that fight and to erode the trust in that kind of way by
monitoring the personal devices of world leaders, can you imagine if
someone monitored Obama`s personal blackberry or that of his children? It
would be, they would be prosecuted if they were here in the U.S.
HAYES: Well, but is it, Ronan, is the problem the activity or the
disclosure of the activity?
FARROW: That is an excellent distinction to draw. You know, my own
experience, I was in this administration when the initial Wikileaks hit for
instance. And we divided State Department officials into 24 hours rounds
on a task force to sort through all the documents. I saw that the damage
was in fact, while it was not direct, it was real to some of those
relationships that we were navigating diplomatically.
And the thing that caused the damage was the lack of disclosure, not
the policies themselves more often than not. I think that`s the case here.
I think that we need a come to Jesus moment in these relationships where we
explain exactly what`s off limits and what`s not and, you know, there`s an
easy precedent for that. We have the five eyes, these countries that we
already have clearly defined anti-surveillance packs with that could be
expanded at a little cost.
HAYES: Roger, it does seem to me, I mean, it seems, it does seem to
beg our belief that the personal cell phone of Angela Merkel is being
tapped by the NSA and also, and one of the most troubling parts of this
document is the notion that U.S. government officials engaged in diplomatic
activities are also working to surreptitiously get the phone numbers of
foreign officials so that they can then be targeted by the NSA. That
suggests a level of duplicity and espionage going on in our routine
diplomatic engagements, that if I were somewhere else in the world, I would
be pretty angry about it.
ROGER CRESSEY, TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, Chris, first, clarification,
I`m no longer working for Booz Allen.
HAYES: OK.
CRESSEY: So, when I talk about Edward Snowden, I talk about it with
my own personal view.
HAYES: OK. Thank you.
CRESSEY: Any by the way, in my view, he`s a traitor, not a patriot.
But that`s a separate conversation for another day. So, it should come as
a shock to nobody that within the agency, information is shared between
departments and sometimes, it might include e-mails and phone numbers et
cetera. I`ll tell you, there was no surprise on the part of the
intelligence services. In England and France or the other five eyes as
Ronan has mentioned, that there is spying going on amongst us. There are
rules of the road right now that we have followed for years now, the issue
here of course is that foreign intelligence services always spy on each
other. Couple of years ago, Chris. The Department of Defense said
publicly, there were over 100 foreign intelligence services actively trying
to penetrate the DOD network. Now, I got a pretty good idea about who our
adversaries might be, so that means we have a friends and family problem as
well. This just means we all try and gather information on each other.
HAYES: OK. But there is a distinction here. And this is the
distinction. The internet is routed through America. The internet runs
through America, the domain registration system and basically, the
architecture that allows URLs (ph) to be generated that runs through
America. The U.S. has this kind of corner stone role it plays in the
national, in the sort of international informational architecture. And
Ronan strikes me that that is going to be questioned at some point because
how can people trust that the U.S. isn`t essentially abusing that central
role.
FARROW: That central role is usually significant. I would also point
out that public opinion within the United States is influential and public
opinion on the ground in continental Europe is influential. And those
factors are changing. While it is true as our friend here has said, as
President Obama has said when he was met with this criticism earlier in the
summer, this is something everybody does. It`s happened for a long time.
However, the world around these old school surveillance practices has
changed radically and the expectations are different.
Sixty percent of young Americans now think that these NSA leaks were
a good thing, that they were in the public interest. You know, similarly,
we`re seeing more and more of them. So, the realities are in tandem these
leaks are going to happen more and more, so secrecy is less feasible and
there`s just tolerance. And that will mean that leadership here and
leadership abroad is adapting and is going to call for changes in the
status quo you described.
HAYES: Jesselyn, you are part of Stop Watching Us Coalition, you were
in the video, and you met Edward Snowden in Moscow, you have been very
active with other whistleblowers from the NSA actually who have come
forward, some of whom been prosecuted by these administration. Do you
think there`s a distinction in terms of how we think about this activity,
between revelations of domestic surveillance and international? I mean,
what is the whistleblower rationale for letting a foreign government know
that the U.S. is spying on them?
RADACK: Well, I think, because the U.S. is violating, NSA is
violating not only domestic laws like the Patriot Act, but also foreign
domestic laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but in the
case of spying not on other intelligence groups but on other world leaders
personally, the international covenant on political and civil rights to
which the U.S. is a signatory. I mean, obviously, if people were listening
in on Obama`s personal device, I think he would take umbrage of that. I
think these leaks are obviously these disclosures are incredibly important.
We`re having not only a domestic conversation, but a worldwide conversation
in the European parliament, you know, just --
HAYES: Right. Yes, there`s going to be some international action and
Roger, one of the complaints from the French is revelations that we are
spying on French citizens and this seems to me also a crucial distinction.
Right? It`s different if we are listening in on the Armed Forces of some
other -- or the intelligence apparatus of some other country. It`s a
different thing if just every citizen of a country is getting sucked up in
our surveillance activities. Isn`t there a distinction there?
CRESSEY: Well, but Chris, it`s not like we`re listening in on every
conversation. I think this is where the debate since Snowden has released
all these documents, has gone off the rails. The Intelligence Committee of
the United States has tremendous technology at -- it vacuums up an enormous
amount of information. Trust me when I tell you, they do not spend their
day listening in on every inane conversation going on around the world.
HAYES: And that I think is a distinction between what they collect
and what they listen too. But there is very, there`s a lot of reason to be
worried about the scope of the collections. Soon to be MSNBC host, Ronan
Farrow, Jesselyn Radack from the Government Accountability Project. MSNBC
terrorism analyst Roger Cressey, thank you all.
FARROW: Thanks, Chris.
HAYES: And that`s ALL IN for this evening. The Rachel Maddow show
starts right now.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END
Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
All In With Chris Hayes, Friday, October 25th, 2013
Read the transcript from the Friday show