Skip navigation

'Up w/Chris Hayes' for Saturday, March 9th, 2013

Read the transcript to the Saturday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

UP WITH CHRIS HAYES
March 9, 2013

Guests: Laura Murphy, Maya Wiley, Tim Carney, Kiron Skinner, Chris Skovron, Jeff Smith, Nan Aron, Dan Baum


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Good morning from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.

A suicide bomber hit the Afghan defense ministry overnight killing nine
civilians just hours after U.S. secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, arrived
in the country.

And Nicolas Maduro who served as Venezuela`s vice president under Hugo
Chavez was sworn in as acting president on Friday. We`ll have more on
Venezuela and the Chavez legacy on tomorrow`s program.

Right now, Kiron Skinner, director of Carnegie Mellon University Center for
international relations and politics, research fellow at Stanford
University`s Hoover Institution. She also served at the Bush defense --
department`s defense policy board as an Iraq and Afghanistan adviser. Tim
carney, back to the program, senior political columnist of the "Washington
Examiner," visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Maya Wiley, founder and president of the Center for Social inclusion, a
social justice non-profit. And Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU`s
Washington legislative office. Great to have you all here.

All right. On Thursday, the senate voted 63-34 to confirm John Brennan as
the next director of the CIA. It both came after a dramatic nearly 13-hour
talking filibuster led by Republican senator, Rand Paul, of Kentucky,
spurred by the response Paul received from Attorney General Holder earlier
this week when he asked the administration`s views about whether quote,
"The president has power to authorize lethal force such as a drone strike
against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial."

Holder responded saying, "It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an
extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate
under the constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the
president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the
territory of the United States."

Holder`s response seems to crystallize the worst fears of many of the
critics of the administration`s targeted killing policy and the broad
assertion of presidential power that undergirds it. Paul seized on that
Wednesday summarizing his exchange with Holder on the floor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RAND PAUL, (R) KENTUCKY: When I asked the president, can you kill an
American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It`s an
easy question. It should have been a resounding and unequivocal no. The
president`s response, he hasn`t killed anyone yet. We`re supposed to be
comforted by that.

The president says I haven`t killed anyone yet. He goes on to say, and I
have no intention of killing Americans. But I might. Is that enough? Are
we satisfied by that?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: On Thursday, Attorney General Holder responded to Paul`s filibuster
by clarifying the administration`s position. "It has come to my attention
that you have now asked an additional question, does the president have the
authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in
combat on American soil? The answer to that is no."

The response from Holder was viewed (ph) as a major victory by Republicans
and Paul, himself, who said he was satisfied with the answer and even went
on to vote for John Brennan`s confirmation.

But it`s important to note that while the filibuster did force the
administration to answer a very specific question about the drone program,
whether it can be used against U.S. citizens not engaged in combat in
United States, it failed to hold the administration accountable on some
larger questions regarding both the drone program and Brennan`s
confirmation as a whole.

Namely, what was John Brennan`s role in the CIA`s torture program while
he`s at the agency? And crucially, what is the legal reasoning being used
by the administration, the office of legal counsel in the Department of
Justice to justify the drone program and targeted killing more broadly.

So, after a brief turn of the spotlight for Rand Paul and the broader logic
of American counterterrorism, what exactly has been accomplished? That`s
the question.

So, let`s start off with this -- I love hypotheticals just because I was a
philosophy major. And -- so, I love hypotheticals anyway, because I feel
like they`re useful for reasoning. And politicians hate hypotheticals.
Like, every time anytime you`re in a hearing, a committee hearing, as a
journalist, you come up with some great hypothetical you have, they`re
like, I`m not going to answer hypotheticals.

But that was sort of remarkable in some ways conceptually about the 13
hours was it was an extended rift on the hypothetical, right? The Jane
Fonda sitting in a cafe somehow became the hypothetical. Did we learn
anything, Laura, did we learn something substantive about the
administration`s legal position on what are the binding constraints on how
they view their executive authority in terms of targeted killing?

LAURA MURPHY, ACLU: I think we learned a lot. And I think it started with
the Brennan nomination and it started with the Senate Intelligence
Committee asking for the office of legal counsel opinions that justify the
drone and the vast killing program that the president has put in place.
And so, I think this was a tipping point of sorts like Lieutenant Dan Troy,
chaining himself to the White House gate. That there is a sense --

HAYES: Over "Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell?"

MURPHY: Over "Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell." There`s a sense of frustration that
Congress cannot engage in its proper oversight ability without having these
memos. And also, the president vows to follow the rule of law. But what
are the rules?

HAYES: Right.

MURPHY: And so, we can`t be in this democracy without knowing that there
are proper checks and balances in place to make sure that the president is
not overreaching, that he is operating within the rule of law.

MAYA WILEY, CENTER FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION: Yes. I agree with Laura. And I
think one of the problems that we`ve had is, you know, Eric Holder just
spoke at Northwestern also after this, which is I think even an additional
amount of information that we got solely by virtue of the fact that he was
giving a speech about how they interpreted the president`s power. Now, we
haven`t actually had a full discussion about whether they`re right.

HAYES: Right.

WILEY: So, I think that`s a little bit problematic, but it`s a little bit
like these dribs and drabs of getting these interpretations.

HAYES: Yes. I think there`s an op-ed in "The New York Times" this morning
and a number of other commentators who said, actually, we don`t know what
not engaged in combat means?

(LAUGHTER)

TIM CARNEY, WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM: And this White House and every White
House, is famously slippery with words.

HAYES: Right.

CARNEY: And Eric Holder is a lawyer.

HAYES: Right.

CARNEY: And so, I mean, I`ve dealt with President Obama saying something
that the natural interpretation of it was one thing. But clearly,
afterwards, he said, oh, well, when I said that, I was doing -- and it was
some possible bizarre interpretation of words. Not engaging in combat, it
could mean somebody who`s not currently trying to do an attack, an imminent
attack.

Or they could say, well, we call you an enemy combatant because we think
down the line, you plan on doing that. So, you could be sitting in a cafe
and fit in the category of what Holder calls engaged in combat.

HAYES: But isn`t Kiron -- isn`t there some sense in which -- I mean, it`s
funny. When I first read the Holder response about extraordinary, I can
imagine some extraordinary circumstances and being name checks (ph) in 9/11
and Pearl Harbor.

My first thought was like, actually, this is kind of a nothing (INAUDIBLE)
-- in the sense that yes, one can imagine a rebellion against the United
States that started in some, you know, compound in which people took up
arms insurrection and there was military force order to use them and I
don`t think we have expectations and due process.

Obviously, that happened in the civil war and there was a huge amount of --
so it seemed to me like, yes, there`s some -- yes, you could always
construct some plausible scenario under which, under particularly
extraordinary circumstances some kind of military force is needed, and yet,
it was interesting to me that that was the thing that set everybody off.

KIRON SKINNER, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY: Well, I think it`s a little bit
deeper than that. And, we`re a decade or more than a decade now into
basically two wars of which Americans have served and lost their lives.
And literally, thousands of allied supporters have lost their lives and
Iraqis and Afghans.

And I think we have a new type of war that`s different than what we have
experienced for most of our history. And we really don`t have the morality
of the new war, irregular war fare, transnational actors that are
terrorists. We`re fighting a different type of war, but we don`t have
really the rules of the types of wars that we`re now fighting, both at the
international level.

We`re kind of developing international norms and laws as we go. And we`re
trying to figure out what`s consistent with our own values. So, I thought
what happened this past week was a deeper question about who we are in the
world. How do we fight wars with an asymmetric environment? And how do we
help generate our concerns at the international level?

HAYES: OK. All of you have very kind words to say about this whole thing.
So, let me take the opposite side of this which is that this is like
preposterous grand standing, OK? I mean, first of all, there`s a
tremendous amount of disingenuousness here, "A." "B," there`s also -- it`s
not an accident that the hypothetical that`s constructed is you, American
citizen, watching there, watching here, because there are actual people
actually getting killed in actual cafes in the world.

And those cafes are in Waziristan and there in Yemen. And you know what,
I`m sorry, but the Republican Party has not been like rising to the --

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: No, no, no, no. There are people --

HAYES: All right. I`ve got a reaction out of all of you.

MURPHY: -- that came to the floor, mainly the younger senators, Rubio,
Cruz, Flake.

CARNEY: Mike Lee.

MURPHY: Mike Lee from Utah. And, they came to the floor and it was sort
of a changing of the guard. And it represented the divisions taken (ph)
the Republican Party. And Democrats, Ron Wyden, Udall --

HAYES: Right.

MURPHY: -- Senator Leahy who`s chair of the judiciary committee have
expressed concerns about what the rules are. Why can`t we know what the
rules are for this vast killing program?

CARNEY: And it`s very important to note that those aren`t just younger
senators. All of those senators, Rubio, Paul, Lee, and then Toomey, and
Ted Cruz, they all came into the Senate by disobeying and defeating the
establishment of the Republican Party.

HAYES: Right --

CARNEY: These are Tea Partiers --

HAYES: Right.

CARNEY: -- and they go out and they don`t care what the party leadership
means.

(CROSSTALK)

SKINNER: But I also think what`s important that happened this past week,
not to put a completely positive spin on it, but there was something
important about democracy at work whether you think the actors were genuine
within themselves. There is a civil war going on in the Republican Party
and that`s kind of what you`re referring to.

And, I think it was showing up this past week in very important ways not
just generational, but also, about these fundamental issues of who are awe
and what`s the real base and who do we speak to.

HAYES: So, that is the question. You just set a new guard. You noted
that the people that stood with rams to invoke the hash tag were largely
Tea Party of recently elected. And you`re saying there`s a certain civil
war in the Republican Party. I would like to dig deeper into that, because
I think that`s been the story that came out of this, but I am deeply
skeptical. Let`s get into that right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Maya Wiley, the proposition being debated, is this some kind of
changing of the guard of the Republican Party, some massive epochal fissure
in the politics and national security within the conservative coalition?

WILEY: I don`t think so. And I think what`s really important to note here
is I think your point about political grandstanding is in part right. So,
while I agree with Laura very much so that it`s been critically important
to have this information surface and that there`s no question that the
filibuster helped it to surface because the administration`s not been
sufficiently transparent which is a problem.

But at the same time, you know, the issue was whether Brennan should be CIA
chief. And, you know, I think as Kiron said, he got a pass, because we
kind of got deflected on this highly hypothetical issue which we should
debate. By the way, Congress has many mechanisms to debate, short of a
filibuster that actually takes on both the constitutional questions and the
questions of the War Powers Act and things that actually we should be
discussing.

HAYES: I mean, what I would say, the Paul -- I thought the Rand Paul
filibuster was at its best when he got to the broader issues about how long
should we be in the war on terror, maybe then -- and he actually, to Rand
Paul`s credit, introduced something in the Senate to repeal the Iraq
authorization of military force.

In the house, Barbara Lee has introduced a bill to repeal the 2001
authorization use of military force which is, of course, cited in the white
paper that we got for targeted killing. It was cited by the Bush
administration throughout. I would love to see Rand Paul following up on
this rhetoric by introducing an AOMF repeal in the Senate.

WILEY: And ask a hypothetical question, if Anwar al-Awlaki was in the
United States sitting in a cafe --

HAYES: Right.

WILEY: -- as an American citizen, not Yemen, would the --

HAYES: Government be able --

WILEY: -- be able to go and kill him?

HAYES: Tim.

CARNEY: So, on the question of Republican Party.

HAYES: Yes.

CARNEY: We do not now have a dovish Republican Party. Rand Paul did not,
you know, suddenly convert the whole party, but did move within the party,
the bounds of permissible decent. In 2002, 2003, as a conservative in good
standing, I and my boss and Bob Novak (ph) opposed the Iraq war, and it was
pretty tough thing to do.

My boss got called unpatriotic for doing it. And so, but now, Rand Paul
going out and doing that. And then, because Twitter provides this
immediate feedback mechanism, all these Republican senators say, wait a
second, what he`s doing is popular. And some of them that went down to the
floor, went down there because their staffer (ph) said, you should see
what`s happening on Twitter. So, now, it`s now acceptable at least.

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: -- in the Olympics of disingenuousness, we have the gold, silver,
bronze here. This is Michele Bachmann stand with Rand for his historic
filibuster against President Obama`s attacks on our liberties by signing my
card. Jennifer Rubin, Jennifer Rubin, who basically thinks that
Ahmadinejad is Hitler and that we should, you know, essentially, support
preemptive war against Iran.

Rand Paul`s big moment, 12 hours 51 minutes worth, why he and Rubio stand
above the crowd. And Laura Ingraham, Mr. President, it`s not food
poisoning. That burning in your stomach is your civil rights legacy on
fire. I mean, give me --

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. There`s nothing against
grandstanding. Barack Obama does it. Every politician does it.

There`s nothing wrong with it, but what we`ve been trying to do for five
years, at least, at the ACLU, is to get the government to release the OLC
memos to tell us what their rationale is for targeting an American citizen
and his 16-year-old son who was killed, who is not accused of any
wrongdoing. What are the internal checks and balances? What is the policy
based on?

HAYES: Sure. And I`m supportive of that throughout.

MURPHY: I know, but if we didn`t -- if Rand Paul didn`t have that
filibuster, we wouldn`t be here having this --

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: First of all, that is -- factually, I don`t think that`s true in so
far as. The agreement came from DOJ, from the White House, to release the
-- to let the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee see those memos
from OLC which had been heretofore on release.

MURPHY: Only five out of the 11.

HAYES: Right, but I`m saying that happened -- in time, that happened
before the Rand Paul filibuster.

MURPHY: I know, but I`m saying the public awareness of that would not
exist.

SKINNER: I think what`s going on here is really important. When you have
someone from the ACLU who is basically in concert with the stance that Rand
Paul took, I think it suggests that we`re going to see a different kind of
coalition arising in the United States about issues of war and peace (ph),
how we execute wars.

You`ve got human rights activists who are also asking some of the same
questions that Rand Paul in his best, during the filibuster, if you take
the grandstanding away, there were some important philosophical issues that
he was asking.

MURPHY: Absolutely.

SKINNER: And it opens up the public debate, does it matter who does it?
The fact that we are now talking about how long we`re going to be in the
long war. Are we in a war on terror? What does that mean? It wasn`t
happening to the administration that had said we were going to really scale
back --

HAYES: I totally agree. I totally -- I just want to be clear on my
position, right? I`ve been talking about this issue since we got the show,
right? We`ve had as many shows about targeted killing on the show, I
think, is anywhere in cable news, right? I absolutely 1,000 percent agree.
They haven`t been transparent.

I want an end to the war in terror. I think we should repeal the 2001
AOMF. I don`t think we should be in war everywhere all over the globe,
killing people like -- and I absolutely agree with you. This has brought
focus to it. So, all of that is true substantively. But I`m in the both
end camp, which is I`m not just going to like -- I don`t want to be overly
sanguine about what this means for American politics.

I mean, a lot of this is just opportunistic opposition. Now, opportunistic
opposition can have incredibly salutary (ph) consequences in the short-term
and that`s fine and that`s great and let`s embrace it. But let`s not get
ahead of ourselves about who control the foreign policy operatives (ph) of
Republican Party and the political establishment on both parties in
Washington which is still absolutely 1,000 percent viewing to the status
quo.

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: And let me just say, the thing you need to know about it is that
Rand Paul voted for John Brennan after this whole thing. The guy got
confirmed.

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: -- because what`s the opposite of grandstanding? I mean, sitting,
because that`s what --

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: And so, when Rand Paul tried to move it since the Senate, non-
binding resolution to say it`s unconstitutional to kill an American
citizens on American soil --

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: -- objected and said, we will not even allow a vote on this non-
binding resolution. So, that was --

HAYES: I agree with you.

CARNEY: And so, the Democratic Party, some people say, oh, the Democrats
should be freaking out about this with the Republican president. I think
that gives the Democrats too much credit. I think they`re just as much
pro-targeted killing as a --

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: Oh, that is absurd. Because why then Udall on the Senate
Intelligence Committee asked for these documents --

CARNEY: I think those guys are minority. Rand Paul is a --

MURPHY: No. I don`t think they are --

SKINNER: But if the administration --

MURPHY: Leahy signed a letter with Grassley, asking for the documents
saying these raise grave constitutional concerns.

HAYES: He voted against Brennan, too, I should say.

MURPHY: And Wyden is talking about the due process caucus, including
Republicans and Democrats. And so, a new caucus is forming around these
national security issues. So, I don`t think the Democrats were missing in
action at all.

(CROSSTALK)

WILEY: You know, it misses the point that, you know, this was in context
of filibuster. And I don`t think we can miss the fact that if I was a
Democrat, I`d be sitting here thinking I agree with having this debate and
I don`t think this is the way we should have it.

(CROSSTALK)

WILEY: I`m just saying. I think it`s a little bit over simplistic to say
that because they didn`t go and stand and do grand stand --

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: But let me say this. I just want to say we`re talking about where
the real Republican Party is, right? And where -- or just -- I just -- I
completely -- I want the space to open up. I`m just being cynical about
whether the space is, in fact, opening up. And here`s two examples of
that, one is John McCain and Lindsey Graham the next day on the floor.

There are two ways you can interpret the sound that I`m about to play for
you. One is you can interpret it as their reasserting their control over
what serious people think about all these issues. And the other is that
they`re actually kind of threatened. And I want you to take a look. We`re
going to take a break. When we come back, John McCain and Lindsey Graham
tearing into Rand Paul on the floor.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) ARIZONA: I don`t think that what happened yesterday
is helpful to the American people to allege that the United States of
America, our government, would drop a drone hellfire missile on Jane Fonda.
That is -- that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about
U.S. policy to the realm of the ridiculous.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: To my Republican colleagues, I
don`t remember any of you coming down here, suggesting that President Bush
was going to kill anybody with a drone. Here`s what I worry about. That
al Qaeda who`s killed 2,958 of us is going to add to the total if we let
our guard down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That`s Lindsey Graham and John McCain reasserting their dominance
of what the sort of Republican foreign policy line is and rebelling against
it. And it gets to this point about whether we`re seeing some kind of
change, right? And here to me is the test case, OK. I agree. There was
something sort of dramatic and remarkable.

And again, I want to be clear, it was good that he did that. We should
have that conversation, right? My skepticism of the motives of some of the
people involved doesn`t negate the fact that that was an important,
important moment, right? But here`s the real test case. We have
apprehended Sulaiman Abu Ghaith. He is the son-in-law of Osama Bin Laden.
He is accused of being part of the plotting of both before and after 9/11.

He was apprehended in Turkey. He`s been brought to the United States where
he will face a trial in an Article III courts. Under the constitution of
the United States and accorded the due process that United States
constitution accords not just the citizens but to everyone tried in
American courts, OK?

What is the Republican Party going to do about this? Well, the Republican
Party is going to say it`s an outrage that he`s being tried in an Article
III court, that he`s been accorded constitutional to due process, and
here`s Mitch McConnell, who Mitch McConnell just earlier in the week, was
coming down to the well of the Senate to congratulate Rand Paul on his
filibuster when we apprehend someone, and actually, instead of killing
them, right, instead of targeted killing, the apprehend and we`re going to
try them in court for crimes they committed.

This is Mitch McConnell. "The decision of the president to import Sulaiman
Abu Ghaith into the United States solely for civilian prosecution makes
little sense, and reveals, yet again, a stubborn refusal to avoid holding
additional terrorist at the secure facility at Guantanamo Bay despite the
circumstances."

"Abu Ghaith who sworn to kill Americans and he likely possesses information
that could prevent harm to America and its allies. He is an enemy
combatant and should be held in military custody."

So, this is the test for me. Do we see the same motivation in the same
call (ph) with Mike Lee and Rand Paul and Rubio and Ted Cruz, do they come
to the well of the floor of the Senate to say, you know what, the
administration is right on this. We should be trying him in court, in
concert with our constitution? And you know what, I can -- and this sense
for you, none of them will say that. And until they`re saying that kind of
thing, then this is all just nonsense.

SKINNER: But I don`t know, but it has to be them saying it. I think there
are other Republican voices, conservative voices, Democrats, independents
who are saying that and coming together. And I think if we just look at a
small number of senators or leaders in Congress, we`re not going to get the
broader scope of what`s happening in the political party.

HAYES: I would take the "National View" editorializing in favor of trying
Abu Ghaith in civilian courts. Forget the senators. I`ll take the
"National View" editorializing in front of it to show me there`s some real
change happening in conservatism.

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: Look at what Stanley McChrystal said. He said that drones are
viscerally hated all across the world.

HAYES: He`s right.

MURPHY: Look at what Michael Hayden, the former head of the National
Security Agency said. He said that this policy is a presidential access.
And so, you`ve got lots of conservatives who are growing in concern about
how much power we give the executive.

And if you want to say it`s all partisan, fine. I just don`t believe it
is. I think that there are some principled people on both sides of the
aisle.

CARNEY: And I think it was very important the way that Rand Paul argued.
There were times when he made outreach to the left, but a lot of times, he
was basically reading Edmund Burke on the floor. And he was saying, we are
concern about government power and have to draw clear lines.

And if you don`t like -- if you`re conservative and you don`t like the idea
of Secretary Sebelius having all this broad-reaching powers, you should
also be skeptical about the power of the president to use these flying
death robots to kill whoever he thinks might be a terrorist.

MURPHY: over 4,000 people who can`t all be leader of al Qaeda.

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: Conservative principles ought to make you more skeptical. Rand
Paul said that. People listened. I think it will move some of the
conservative base and maybe a couple of conservative senators --

HAYES: But here`s my question. To follow up on that, I want to play --
let me play some sound just to hammer on that point. This is Sen. Rand
Paul making -- and you`re totally right. I mean, I thought that was, in
some ways, what was really important in terms of broadening -- to create a
constituency for real kind of -- let`s say, a peaceful, lawful posture
towards the rest of the world in our national security, right?

That Rand Paul said this about the Second Amendment, right? Imagine if the
Second Amendment were being infringed. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: Can you imagine the furor if people were talking about the Second
Amendment? Can you imagine what conservatives would say if the president
said, well, yes, I kind of like the Second Amendment and I intend to when
convenient, when it`s feasible, to protect the Second Amendment?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That`s Rand Paul. And I should note since we just play the Rand
Paul, important on-air, live, real-time correction. I said that he voted
for John Brennan. He did not. He did vote against John Brennan.
Initially, he announced that he would filibuster and then ultimately vote
for John Brennan, but he did vote against John Brenna`s confirmation. I
regret the error. And we`ll be back right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: So, there`s a number of other -- I just talked about the Sulaiman
Abu Ghaith as a sort of test case, but there`s also the when and if the
Senate is going to release an unclassified version of a massive thousand
page -- Senate Intelligence Committee massive thousand page investigation
they did into the torture regime, right?

There`s a bunch of things right now where, usually, the way this line up
against (ph) on ideological spectrum is the nation`s going to say they
should really -- the nation`s going to say Abu Ghaith should be tried in
civilian court. The "National Review" is going to say he should be sent to
Guantanamo and we should protect national security.

My question to you is, do you think we`re going to see genuine opening-up
pass this moment, right, in the broader conservative movement at CPAC in
the conservative press around these issues?

CARNEY: I think so. I think, especially while Obama`s in the White House,
it`s easier for conservatives to call for transparency. And hopefully,
hopefully, it will last and sort of we can chain people into being
conservative. First of all, if there`s a Republican president, but also,
and to demanding transparency from a republican president, too.

HAYES: Right. And do you think -- Rand Paul sort of declared victory
after this whole thing. And he`s out with a fundraising letter and said --

CARNEY: No. He shouldn`t have declared victory, I think. That was his
mistake. I think he should have just said, this is a step in the right
direction. We need more transparency.

MURPHY: I agree.

HAYES: And you`ve been working on left-right (ph) coalitions on Capitol
Hill for a while around this issue --

MURPHY: For decades. Yes.

HAYES: For decades. And so, you`re in a better position to judge whether
this is something genuinely new or not?

MURPHY: No -- well, bipartisan -- well, I think this is an important
measure of progress. And I think the fact that why we came down to support
Rand Paul on the Senate floor is very, very important. And we`ve seen
these kinds of dynamics around the Patriot Act. And people said, well, you
know, you still have the Patriot Act, but we stop patriot 2 from passing.

We stopped total information awareness from becoming under the Bush
administration. And so, these bipartisan coalitions are extremely
important. But I think now that the war is winding down, the next question
will be, what will be the authority for these drone strikes. And I think
that`s really where we need conservatives to speak up about limited
government.

HAYES: Right.

MURPHY: And we can`t be at war with everyone all the time.

HAYES: Yes. And we need Democrats, too. I mean, the other thing -- I
should just acknowledge the obvious, right, which is hypocrisy runs in both
directions. I mean, Democrats who are incredibly upset about a variety of
things under the Bush administration and incredibly silent on a lot of
things under the Obama administration.

WILEY: That`s true. Yes. And I think the Obama administration has been
indefensible on its transparency and accountability. If it wants to make
an argument for the powers that it is currently asserting, it should make
it an appropriate way so that there`s an honest and open --

HAYES: In a public way.

WILEY: -- in a public way that lays out clearly its arguments that enables
the Congress and the American public to then examine, critique, debate.

HAYES: Right.

WILEY: I mean, to Kiron`s point about really trying to understand, you
know, how are we actually maintaining our constitutional checks and
balances.

HAYES: Right.

WILEY: And I think what we want is smart government that is
constitutional.

HAYES: You know what I think is interesting. I do think there`s a degree
to which the legalism of Barack Obama and the people around him has meant
that rather than viewing things you`re doing as exceptions to the law, they
expand the law to fit the exceptions.

MURPHY: Absolutely.

HAYES: And that has produced a really perverse consequence, because
everything now has been in the four squares of the law, because you don`t
want to do things aren`t legal, and they`re all lawyers there and
constitutional scholars, and they want to make sure they`re within the
boundaries of the law. But if you expand the law to just justify the thing
you want to do, now you`ve let this massive --

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: Exactly. That white paper was just a real breach of
constitutional law.

HAYES: Kiron Skinner from Carnegie Mellon University and Laura Murphy of
the ACLU, great pleasure to have you both here. Thanks so much.

MURPHY: Thank you.

SKINNER: Thank you.

HAYES: The mystery behind virtually everything that is messed up about our
politics solved. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: One of the enduring and mystifying paradoxes of American politics
is that politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to have a much larger
appetite for conservative policies and voters themselves do. Just take the
latest series of budget fights as an example. Here`s House speaker, John
Boehner, in February calling for more spending cuts to reduce the deficit,
insisting the American people agree with him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: The number one priority for the
American people is creating jobs and getting our spending under control.
The American people believe that the tax question has been settled.
Americans know that another tax hike isn`t going to help them. What they
want is for the spending under control.

Republicans may not be the majority party here in Washington, but the
American people would agree with us on this. And, we`re going to continue
to stand with the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Stirring oration as ever from John Boehner. Actual polls say
Boehner is wrong about what the American people want. According to polls
conducted by the Pew Research Center and "USA Today" in February, 62
percent of Americans think automatic budget cuts that took effect on March
1st knows the sequester will have a negative effect on the economy.

And a lopsided 76 percent of Americans say any deficit reduction deal
should involve both tax hikes and spending cuts. So, if the appetite for
conservative policies is so limited among actual voters, why are Republican
leaders convinced that Americans agree with them. A fascinating new
working paper published by two political science graduate students this
week may provide an answer.

The working paper which we should note has not been pure reviewed or
published in an academic journal yet, found that politicians tend to vastly
overestimate just how conservative their constituents are, on the issue of
health care, for example. Researchers found that liberal politicians tend
to underestimate support for universal health care, a liberal position, by
about five to ten points. And conservative politicians do even worse.

They underestimate support in their districts for universal health care by
a stunning 20 points. The same trend holds through for a social issue like
same-sex marriage. Liberal politicians seem tend to underestimate
constituent support for same-sex marriage by about five percentage points.
Conservatives underestimate that support by over 20 percentage points.

In other words, liberal politicians overestimate how conservative their
constituents are. And conservative politicians vastly overestimate how
conservative their constituents are. So, no wonder we`re talking about,
for instance, cutting Social Security and limiting eligibility and Medicare
rather than say, raising Social Security benefits and lowering the Medicare
retirement age.

These findings explain so much about the behavior of a politicians they may
be no less than the Rosetta Stone of American politics.

Joining me now are Jeff Smith, a former Missouri state senator and
Congressional candidate, now, an assistant professor of politics and
advocacy at Milano, the new school for management and urban policy and
Chris Skovron, a graduate student in political science at the University of
Michigan, and one of the co-authors along with David Brockman of the
University of California-Berkley of the working paper of what politicians
believe about their constituents.

Obviously, I love this paper because it`s like a huge, huge hit of
confirmation bias for me. So, thank you for providing the data that match
up my preexisting biases, which is really what I look to political science
to do. Walk us through how you did this, because I think the data set this
is built on is really fascinating. So, what did you do here?

CHRIS SKOVRON, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Well, thanks for having me, Chris.
In August, we teamed up with colleagues at Duke and at Sewanee, Nick Carnes
and Melody Crowder-Meyer. We launched the National Candidate Study. We
interviewed about 2,000 candidates for state legislative office across the
country. And part of the study, we asked them to estimate what share of
their constituents support certain policies.

We then used a national sample to develop district phase to estimate for
that support, compared their accuracy and found pretty wild inaccuracies.
The data is all over the place, but there is this conservative bias that
shows up there.

HAYES: And the conservative bias is really interesting. It`s consistent
across how conservative the districts themselves are. It`s consistent
across a variety of things. I mean, it`s just like the data, again, it
hasn`t been reviewed, but the data is incredibly crisp (ph). It really
jumps out.

SKOVRON: Yes. Again, we have to emphasize that it hasn`t been peer
reviewed, but there is --

HAYES: You guys did make this all up, seriously.

(LAUGHTER)

SKOVRON: But there is this systematic trend. We looked for some things
that we might thing would predict accuracy as well as the candidates` party
and ideology, things like age, the competitiveness of the race. Those,
too, have systematic relationships. So, this is the big one that jumped
out at us.

HAYES: So, it didn`t -- systematic relationship between how competitive
your district is or how long you`ve been in that district about how well
you know where your constituents are on this kind of thing.

SKOVRON: Incumbency didn`t affect it. We also went back and asked the
(ph) respondents in November after the election, and they didn`t improve an
accuracy at that point, either.

HAYES: So, the election happens. You get the Democratic feedback, which
should be the mechanism of democratic accountability. What`s the term you,
guys, used, constituency control? The constituency control, right? That
should be the mechanism is that you run for office and you say, you know, I
hate same-sex marriage and then you lose. And you say, oh, I really got
wrong my district.

WILEY: Is this the vocal minority problem? I mean, you know, if you think
about many electives and really the way, it`s not like they have the money
available to kind of run constant polls and have constant town hall
meetings. And so, they`re gauging the political positions of their
constituents based on the few that come to them?

HAYES: And these are, we should note, state legislators. You, yourself,
as a state legislator, I think there`s one level at which intuitively we
think state legislators would be closer to their constituents because
there`s fewer of them and you`re more local. But on another level, maybe
not, because you can`t afford to run polls.

JEFF SMITH, FMR. MISSOURI STATE SENATOR: Yes. I mean, your typical
congressman or congresswoman might have sort of a war chest that they`re
keeping up with a half of million dollars, for Congressional leaders,
several million dollars. So, they`re constantly polling, you know, and
taken the polls to the electorate. An average state legislator might have
a war chest of $5,000 or $10,000.

So, they don`t have the funds to be doing that. Now, of course, you should
be knocking on doors all the time. You should always be taking a poll, so
the people but another exception to that is that a lot of state legislators
have other jobs. You know, they`ve got to make a living doing something
else.

And so, they don`t have the time to be out there, talking to voters all the
time. Now, I know, Chris, you didn`t find a difference based on whether
the state legislatures were professionalized or citizen legislators, did
you?

SKOVRON: That`s right. We sub (ph) that to just the state legislatures
that we think of as highly professionalized and the pattern held there is
still inaccuracies there, and there was still asymmetric and accuracies
between the liberals and the conservatives.

CARNEY: There`s two different things that a legislator could be responding
to. There`s all the constituents and then there`s a subset of that which
is your supporters.

HAYES: Right.

CARNEY: Now, in the Republican Party, especially today, I think that
Republican politicians are very responsive, scared --

HAYES: Yes.

CARNEY: -- of their supporters.

HAYES: Yes.

CARNEY: And so, that is, I think, calls -- counts as constituency control,
but a subset of your constituent.

(LAUGHTER)

HAYES: Of minority.

CARNEY: On the Democratic Party, I think the dynamic is the other way. I
think that a lot of times, you see the Democratic base moving with their
leaders. You`ve got -

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: -- most democrats now support the flying death row (ph) about the
drone program because Barack Obama, and now, Dick Durbin are supporting
(ph) -- so maybe Republican constituents are polling their politicians,
while Democratic voters are being polled by --

HAYES: That`s a fascinating theory.

SMITH: And I think it`s something that`s changed a lot of it in the last
several years. You know, if you look back to like 2004, you know, the
insurgents with net roots pulled the Democratic Party towards the left.

HAYES: Yes, that`s right.

SMITH: Now, in 2005, 2006, you really got a sense of that started to
change after we lost the 2004 election, yet, people like Chuck Schumer and
Rahm Emanuel running the two Senate and House campaign committees, and they
took nominees like Bob Casey in Pennsylvania and said, hey, he`s going to
be the nominee. We don`t want Barbara Hafer. We want a pro-life guy,
because he`s got a name and he can win Pennsylvania.

That started the trend, I think, within the Democratic Party. It`s more
kind of top-down control. At the same time, you see in the Republican
Party, the Ted Cruz, the Marco Rubio --

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: So, let`s talk about possible explanations for this. Let`s say
that the data does hold up. So, first of all, I want to show this because
I do think -- the first question is, is your prediction that this gap would
shrink or expand if you did this for members of Congress?

SKOVRON: You know, I think it`s interesting. I think that it`s
interesting that you`re talking about with Jeff about size of district and
connection with the constituents would make us intuitively think that they
would be closer, but the kinds of questions we`re asking, right, give us a
number --

HAYES: Right.

SKOVRON: -- you need polls to do that very accurately.

HAYES: Right, right.

SKOVRON: And so, it depends on what we value in representation, right?
Whether it`s actually talking to people or whether it`s knowing precisely
where are the median voter.

HAYES: But here`s something that I think suggests that the same trend
might be the case in -- at an actual level. This is a line graph. House
Republicans have gotten more conservative while the share of voters
describing themselves as conservative has stayed the same. In 1976, the
percent of voters who described themselves as conservative was 32 percent.
By 2012, it was 35 percent.

It`s a fairly stable group. Conservative rating of House Republicans on
the DW nominating score which we use all the time, political science, you
see it just goes straight up, right? So, there`s some -- there`s a wedge
between the two that`s happening there even if you haven`t run the data at
the level and part of the reason I find the explanatory power of the data
so compelling is precisely because we see at this natural level.

When we come back, I want to talk about what account for it. There`s a
whole bunch of theories, I think, we can throw out. I thought yours was
very interesting. Let`s talk about that when we get back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: All right. So, theories for why we have this phenomenal reserved
from the data, Chris Skovron. Maya, Tim just offered a theory which I
thought was an interesting one about basically the fact that maybe the
asymmetry is due to a conservative base that manages to exert control on
its politicians and a democratic base that is controlled by its
politicians. They follow as a --

WILEY: Yes. And I actually agree with Tim on the first part of that,
which is -- and particularly as we`ve seen, the state houses, in
particular, in this country are more polarized than they`ve been since 1923
in a lot of that is because of redistricting and hardening the kind of
constituency base within some of these districts.

So, I think, that`s true. I think there is -- I think the point about
asymmetry on the Democratic side is a little bit more complicated and part
of what I wanted to challenge is, we`re in a context particularly since
2008 in which we`ve become so ideologically polarized in how these
political debates happen, how policy debates happen. That, in a way,
there`s been so much attack that I think Democrats have been much more
protected --

HAYES: Oh, that`s interesting.

WILEY: -- as a reaction to the level of attack that has come from the
ranks.

HAYES: Let me say this, though. It seems -- the polling you have is a
constituents not voters, right?

SKOVRON: That`s right.

HAYES: So, it seems to me that the big -- the first question we need to
establish is, maybe they`re completely right about their voters, right? It
could be the case that they are absolutely nailing the ideology of their
voters, and in fact, the people that show up to vote, their voters, are
super way more conservative than --

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: They will absolutely be over and almost certainly have more money,
right? I mean, we know that about -- how plausible do you think that is?

SKOVRON: It could explain some of the variation. Not 20 percentage
points, though. You know, the non-voters and voters actually look a little
bit more alike than you would think.

HAYES: Yes. I guess, that -- yes. Jeff.

SMITH: So, David Mayhew (ph), a political scientist who wrote in the
1970s, he talked about the way that politicians kind of anticipate where
they think their voters are going to be, and they take kind of preemptive
measures to try to address those views. And I think, you know, what you
talked about, Chris, the fear of the base.

It`s really applicable here because liberals are kind of silent when
there`s a defection on things, you know? You didn`t see liberals up in
arms about Elaine Kagan`s kind of defection on the Medicaid portion of the
ACAA.

HAYES: Right.

SMITH: But John Roberts could, you know, could barely show his face at,
you know, federal society meetings.

HAYES: Right.

SMITH: You don`t see, you know, when, say like, Mary Landrieu supports oil
drilling or Joe Manchin, you know, shoots a hole in Obama`s --

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: -- people went after the Manchin Act.

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: But I also want to talk about -- I mean, there`s sort of a wave of
constituencies act, right? There`s the voter. And then, there`s the big
question which is power and wealth which I want to get to right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Hello from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.

Here with former Missouri state senator and congressional candidate, Jeff
Smith, Tim Carney from "Washington Examiner", Maya Wiley from the Center of
Social Exclusion, and Chris Skovron of the University of Michigan.

We`re talking about a working paper that Chris has co-authored with his co-
author David Brockman, about the ways in which candidates state legislative
candidates perceive the perceptions of the voters in their district.
Particularly on issues, things like universal health care and gay marriage
and the way they systematically overestimate how conservative their
constituents are. Liberals do it by a little bit. Conservatives do it by
a ton.

I think there`s a great line in the paper that fully half of the
conservative Republican candidates that you interviewed, fully, half of
them, think that their district is more conservative than the most
conservative in the country. Half of them think they`re representing a
district that is more conservative than the most conservative district in
the country. And we`re talking about the possible reasons of this
disconnect.

And I wanted to enter the idea of basically just the influence of the donor
class. And I know having been around people that run for office, if you
spend all your day talking with a certain kind of person with a certain set
of beliefs, that`s going to bleed into you. Like whether you go work at a
big law firm or end up at cable news company, whatever it is, right, like
your peers have a big effect.

And watching candidates run for office and people that I`ve known have done
it, it`s just always stunning how much the time you spent around donors.
And there`s been some work -- Larry Bartel (ph) has done research.
(INAUDIBLE) Jason C. Wright, they wrote, support for wealthy, all right,
among the general public and the wealthy. Statement, our government should
redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich.

Fifty-two percent of the general public agreed with that. Which is a
pretty like lefty sounding like, right? Redistribute wealth by heavy tax
on the rich. That`s a statement. Fifty-two percent of the people polled
agree, 17 percent of the wealthy agree, right?

So one thing that may be happening here is just a systematic skew bias in
favor of the donor class?

CHRIS SKOVRON, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Yes, that seems reasonable.

We test the issue of welfare reform. We asked the question how many of
your constituents would agree on the statement to abolish all federal
welfare programs. And the public that has a 13 percent support, the mean
estimate among our liberal candidates in the sample for their district was
about 30. Among our conservatives, it was up around 45 or 50.

So, even though the districts vary in how conservative they are, very few
of them are actually up at 50 percent on that issue.

TIM CARNEY, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: I`ve got to be skeptical of that idea on
the donor. I can see it definitely drawing Democrats towards the center in
the right direction.

HAYES: Right.

CARNEY: But you see it again and again, Republicans on social issues and
economic issues getting drawn towards the center on donor class. Social
issues, it`s obvious -- gay marriage, abortion, the wealthy donors are not
the Bible-thumping evangelicals.

HAYES: Right.

CARNEY: But even you look at what`s happening in the states where
Obamacare implementation of Rick Scott and John Kasich --

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: They`ve got the hospitals, the drug companies, all those guys want
to expand Medicaid, want to set up the exchanges. It happens again and
again, where the increase of government, the Republican donor class is
pushing the Republicans away from free markets and towards sort of the
corporatism in the middle.

JEFF SMITH, FORMER MISSOURI STATE SENATOR: It also holds with the debt
ceiling, you know? The Republican CEOs are pushing the House Republicans
towards the middle.

MAYA WILEY, CENTER FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION: I think we`re distinguishing
certain issues, right?

HAYES: Right.

WILEY: Because we`re talking about issues of welfare, and safety net
programs as opposed to corporatist models. If you look at what`s been
happening with donor investment in, say, organizing and in communities and
at state level, Democrats haven`t been doing it. And their donors haven`t
been doing it.

And, you know, on the same time, in the conservative time, there`s lots
building going into the building in that local infrastructure, building in
that organizing --

HAYES: Particularly at the state level.

WILEY: Particularly at the state level. It`s a very explicit, smart,
right strategy I think to really invest in state level -- local level
organizing and to state level policy. And, you know, Democrats haven`t
been doing that and their donors haven`t been doing that.

So, there`s a lot more mobilization.

HAYES: To Tim`s point also, I thought it was interesting you guys -- if we
can throw up the same-sex marriage line graph, because I think you`re
right, but my prediction on the donor class skew would say that there`s
less than same-sex because that`s actually placing the donor class to the
left of the Republican base and yet, the skew shows up. So that is sort of
a rebuttal to my donor class theory.

SMITH: So, Chris, to your point that politicians will tend to incorporate
some of the views of the politicians around all time, I think there`s
another perspective, which is that numerous like social psychologists,
political scientists, even business school professors who have studied the
differences between Republicans or conservatives and liberals have found
pretty consistently that Republicans tend to be more sure of their views.
Liberals tend to be a little more unsure. Conservatives tend to be less
compromising. Liberals tend to be more amenable to compromising.

HAYES: Right.

SMITH: So, maybe, the way that manifests itself, in the way that
politicians spend there is that conservatives would like to speak to their
base all the time. And liberals want to persuade people in the middle or
on the right of their position which would then skew their views of the
electorate.

CARNEY: I certainly never try to speak to a liberal audience, I know that.

(LAUGHTER)

HAYES: All you do is talk to your base.

WILEY: You know, I have an anecdote here, which is -- because we had just
run a focus group in Michigan and we had a group of white mean outside of
Detroit. And one of the issues that came up was right to work.

And, you know, it`s interesting because it`s Michigan, you know, with a
very strong union history, there`s union support, kind of across the
political spectrum, and one of the things that was happening --

HAYES: Meaning a conservative union members.

WILEY: I mean, you have conservative union members that actually feel like
the right to organize is quite important.

HAYES: Right.

WILEY: So when Governor Snyder had one -- long conversation with the head
of Amway, and decided to move in a lame duck session, you know, a right to
work law against the promise that he had made. You know, it was
interesting to see these white men who are relatively conservative
politically, I can say, based on listening to him for hours, really kind of
pissed off at Snyder.

HAYES: Right.

WILEY: Now, they`re not feeling like he was representing their interested.
So, it`s of --

HAYES: And there`s this bubble thing which I think actually ends up being
maladapted at the national level, right, which is the 47 percent problem,
which is the idea if you`re at the national level, it`s hard to be that out
of the step with where the actual public is and get elected.

I think we saw that a little bit in the national election with Mitt Romney.
I mean, I think there`s a conception that some of the views he took,
particularly in the primary were more popular, more broadly, than they
actually were in the actual electorate. And that ended up being a real
political liability I think running for national office.

I think that`s not the case in the districts. But I think it does end up
being maladapted for the Republican Party at the national level to being
wrong systematically about how conservative the electorate is.

SMITH: Although there are some politicians, you know, like a guy like
Chris Christie who`s I think pretty clearly out of step with New Jerseyans
on gay marriage, on abortion, defunding of Planned Parenthood. And yet,
you know, he`s able to retain his popularity. I know part of that is due
to Sandy, but he`s an interesting case study.

HAYES: Yes. I think that gets to the question just like -- does our
democracy work? Not to ask too profound a question, but, you know, the
basic mechanism of representation? Is it actually working? Is there a
correlation between public opinion and public policy?

I want us to answer that in six or seven minutes right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: All right. So one standard model that we think about how
democratic governance works is that there`s individual citizens. They have
policy preferences. Things they want. Those policy preferences are
aggravated in something like public opinion.

And they elect representatives who broadly more or less represent the
aggregated public opinion. And when they go off to represent their
interest and legislate, they pass laws that are roughly in sync with what
people think, right? So, that`s one way to think about it.

But, of course, people`s views on things are also often real ambivalent, or
uninformed. Or they just don`t have some opinions about specific piece of
policy. Some new copyright laws working its way through Congress, how do I
feel about it? I don`t know, right?

So political leaders can shape public opinion. I think that gets a little
bit to Chris Christie. I think it gets a little bit to Rand Paul, right?
I mean, what Rand Paul was doing on the floor of the Senate was intending
to shape conservative opinion particularly about an issue space where most
people weren`t being attentive to it, right? Civil rights.

I wonder how you think about that in terms of your results.

SKOVRON: Yes. So, the issues that we look at really were the ones we`re
expecting people to have some preference. So, we thought this would be an
easy test for constituency control. These are the kinds of the issues
where when somebody is out of sync, you might throw the bums out.

But we find -- you know, looking at which of the candidates won, there`s
sort of a gap, 50 percent to 65 percent support in the district it`s hard
to predict who they`re going to elect based on the opinion. And this maps
on to research that Jeffrey Lax and Justin Phillips have done looking at
the state level and policy outcomes. If the state is sort of in that area,
the policy is not congruent with the majority.

HAYES: Explain what that area means. I didn`t understand that.

SKOVRON: So if support is just a little bit higher than 50 percent?

HAYES: For a policy.

SKOVRON: For a policy. In our case, for these two liberal policies, that
the elected representative isn`t always in step --

HAYES: I see.

SKOVRON: -- hold the opposite. Once you get above 60 percent or 65
percent, liberal districts are electing liberals.

HAYES: So they`re responding to something that is not just 50 plus 1.
They`re responding to something that looks like 65, right? You see this in
Congress on issues where the public -- well, that`s not true. No. There`s
lots of issues that --

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: I was going to say, I think it`s tricky anytime you`re dealing
with polls that are how do you stand on a policy.

HAYES: Absolutely.

CARNEY: Because the wording is so much --

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: And on gay marriage, look at this, you ask that question, you get
those poll results. But the expansion of gay marriage in this country to
the degree it`s happened has been undemocratic. Whether you like it or
not, it`s been mostly judges putting it in. And then when legislators pass
it, sometimes, the public, even in places like California --

HAYES: Well, that is changing because public opinion is changing.

CARNEY: Thirty states have by ballot measure have banned it. So, as far
as when people show up at the election booth, they are voting against gay
marriage in general.

HAYES: Less so now that --

CARNEY: Sure, the trend is going --

WILEY: This is the first time I`ve heard a constitutional interpretation
as antidemocratic because we do have a system where we have a judiciary for
a reason. And if we followed that line of questioning, we would be
questioning what the Supreme Court did in Brown versus Board of Education.

CARNEY: You are highlighting exactly this point that democratic and good
and just --

HAYES: No, no, let it be more precise language, anti-majoritarian.

CARNEY: Majoritarian.

(CROSSTALK

HAYES: Yes, anti-majoritarian. And I agree with you, there are things
that are perfectly consonant with democratic values that are also anti-
majoritarian.

WILEY: And the Constitution, because if you had polled in 1954, the vast
majority of the American public would have said no.

HAYES: Interracial marriage --

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: Which is exactly why we have these safe guards against straight
anti-majoritarian rule.

WILEY: Exactly. So, I mean, I think to this point about -- you know, the
rule that lawmakers shaping the opinion. If you look at the Affordable
Care Act, you know, it actually -- because I want to go back to this
organizing point.

HAYES: Right.

WILEY: You know, the town hall meetings that happened that July of 2009 on
the Affordable Care Act, the polling for health care reform was at 60
percent.

HAYES: Right.

WILEY: And, literally, the polls drop precipitously during that three-
month period, down -- as a result of that.

HAYES: Because public opinion was not a firm thing on the Affordable Care
Act, you know what I mean? It`s all --

WILEY: People were firm about they should be health reform and that more
people should have insurance and the government should do something about
that, and it was the spinning of what the actual policy debate was.

SMITH: And I think the final concept we`re not really -- we haven`t really
addressed here today is not just public opinion as a linear kind of
phenomenon, but the intensity of public opinion.

HAYES: Yes.

SMITH: You know, we all know the stories about gun control, 90 percent of
Americans, even like 85 percent of NRA members who want certain gun safety
measures like trigger locks or what-have-you. But the intensity, until
there`s some event like Sandy Hook is all on the pro-gun side. And we get
-- the gun safety people get intensity for a month or two months, but it
just didn`t last.

HAYES: And this gets to the hobby where (INAUDIBLE). It`s something that
the first person I heard articulate it most cleanly was Grover Norquist who
talked about the difference between preference and intensity, right?
Preference is some pollster rings your cell phone and they say, we`re
conducting a poll, and how do you feel about the Affordable Care Act? Or
whatever, right?

And, you know, OK, fine, I like or I don`t, I hang it up, right? The
intensity is what are you going to pick a fight with your father-in-law
over at the Thanksgiving dinner table? And state legislators and all
politicians are incredibly responsive I think to the kinds of issues that
people will pick fights over at the Thanksgiving dinner table, much more
than they are when two-thirds abstractly in a poll say.

SKOVRON: Which we talked about David Mays (ph) earlier and his sort of
classic theory of Congress is that they are single-minded seekers of
reelection and to the extent that they need to be responsive. It`s only on
issues where support is intense enough that they might get thrown out
becuase of that.

HAYES: I want to thank Tim Carney of "The Washington Examiner", and Chris
Skovron of the University of Michigan -- great work on the paper. Good
luck in it getting published. Thanks for joining us.

The filibuster that no one is talking about, the one that worked, after
this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: There were two filibusters this week. Two, two, not just one, on
Wednesday night. There was the much talked about Rand Paul 13-hour
headline grabbing spectacle of a filibuster.

But just a few hours before Paul even took the floor, Senate Republicans
very quietly blocked Caitlin Halligan, President Obama`s pick for the U.S.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. It did not inspire any
trending hashtag.

Senator Paul eventually allow the vote to go on and John Brennan was
confirmed, but Halligan who was silently filibustered fell short of the 60
vote thresholds to move forwards, just like she did in 2011 when Senate
Republicans also filibuster her nomination.

And after Wednesday`s filibuster, the White House released this statement,
"Nearly two and a half years after being nominated, Ms. Halligan continues
to wait for a simple up or down vote. In the past, filibusters of judicial
nominations required extraordinary circumstances and a Republican senator
who was part of this agreement articulated that only ethics or
qualification issue on ideology would qualify. Today`s vote continues the
Republican of obstruction.

In 2005, a bipartisan group of 14 senators agree not to filibuster judicial
nominees, except under what they deemed extraordinary circumstances.

Halligan is a graduate of Princeton, Georgetown Law, former solicitor of
New York state, with the highest rating for the American Bar Association
Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary. The only thing extraordinary
about Halligan seemed to be her credentials.

Republican senators point to her representation of New York in a case in
which she signed a brief arguing the gun manufacturers could be held liable
for criminal acts committed with their guns as a perfect example of her
liberal advocacy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MINORITY LEADER: Ms. Halligan`s record of
advocacy led me to conclude that she would bring up activism right on to
the court. Because of record of activism giving Ms. Halligan a lifetime
appointment to the D.C. circuit is a bridge too far.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: It doesn`t matter during her 2011 confirmation hearing, Halligan
testified the Second Amendment protects an individual`s right to bear arms.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R), IOWA: In 2003, you gave a speech expressing
concern about federal legislation to limit the liability of gun
manufacturers. You said, quote, "such an action would likely cut off at
the pass any attempt by states to find solutions through the legal system
or their own legislatures that might reduce gun crime," end of quote. Many
who oppose the second amendment rights made similar arguments against --
after the Supreme Court incited Heller. Do you personally agree that the
Second Amendment protects individual rights to keep and bear arms?

CAITLIN HALLIGAN, FEDERAL APPEALS COURT NOMINEE: The Supreme Court has
been strong on that, yes, it does.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: D.C. Court of Appeals is considered the most influential court of
the land over the Supreme Court. Its decision in January that Obama`s
recess appointments to the National Relations Board were invalid should be
a reminder of where power sits in Washington. Today, there are four empty
seats on the 11-member court. And so far, President Obama is unable to
appoint anyone to fill them. The seat that Caitlin Halligan is up for is
John Roberts` seat from 2005 when it was vacated.

Joining me at the table is Nan Aron, president for Alliance for Justice,
civil rights organization focusing on public oversight of U.S. courts and
Dan Baum, author of the new book "Gun Guys: A Road Trip," which he
interviewed gun owners across the country.

Great to have you both here.

DAN BAUM, AUTHOR: Thank you very much.

HAYES: Let`s segue from this point that we just made, because I think this
is a perfect example of preference intensity issue, right? Gun owners and
gun rights advocates are -- have a lot of intensity in those feelings.

BAUM: Indeed they do.

HAYES: They seems --

BAUM: They talk about their guns all day, every day. You made a good
point, you call somebody up and you ask them about gun control, they`ll say
yes. In five minutes later, they forgot all about it.

HAYES: Right.

BAUM: I`m telling you, right now especially, gun owners around the
country, they are thinking about their AR-15 rifles all day every day.

HAYES: And you conducted a lot of interviews in this world.

BAUM: Yes.

HAYES: And this intensity is enduring, right? I guess the question is how
much of this is a real visceral felt thing in the life of an individual?
And how much is it the fabricated passion created by the organization of
the National Rifle Association?

BAUM: I think the second assumption is the assumption that people in your
world make all the time, and they get it wrong. This is visceral. This is
deep.

I -- this was a big surprise for me. I`m a liberal Democrat, but I`m also
a gun guy, so I straddle the fence. I`m going around the country and
talking about why do we like these things so much?

And there are two big surprises for me. I have no idea how much self-
esteem gun guys get from just being able to manage these very dangerous
things. And nobody gets hurt. They use them effectively.

And so, when people like Dianne Feinstein come along and say, I don`t trust
you with this gun. They`re like, what do you mean? You don`t know
anything about guns, and you don`t know anything about me.

And so, it really hits them where it hurts. And now -- you`re smirking.

And now they all feel like little bit players in American history, because
our ability to own guns in this country, to the gun guys, represents this
incredible trust that our system puts in ordinary Americans.

HAYES: And so --

BAUM: And it really means something.

HAYES: And so this intensity shows up in all sorts of legislative areas
around guns, right? We`ve seen this. But here it`s shown up. You have
experienced this preference intensity divide yourself as a state senator.

SMITH: I have. I have.

You know, there are a few issues where you just had such an intense lobby.
One was midwives. Another one was home schoolers. The third one was
freedom of the road riders who refused to wear motorcycle helmets.

Gun owners had a same type of intensity, even if they only comprised 10
percent, 15 percent of the country, you would hear from every one of them
in your district, whereas the 80 percent, 85 percent didn`t care enough to
write you an email or make a phone call.

BAUM: So I also think that the left buildings up the NRA needlessly. It`s
not about the NRA, these folks are there anyway.

HAYES: Right.

BAUM: The NRA has 4 million members. It doesn`t give as much money as the
pipe fitters union and nobody is cowering before the pipe fitters.

It`s not about the money. And it`s about huge membership.

HAYES: But genuine passion.

BAUM: It`s about genuine passion.

WILEY: I think both things are true though, right? There`s genuine
passion for all the reasons that you say. When we talk about gun control,
there are all different forms of gun control, right? So, what does it mean
that 70 percent of NRA would support background checks and yet the NRA is
taking a position against them?

HAYES: Or Caitlin Halligan. Here`s a perfect example, no one knows who
Caitlin Halligan is. I mean, Nan Aron does because this is what you do for
a living. But outside, like -- but NRA knows who Caitlin Halligan and they
know she signed on this brief, right?

I should say what the brief was. Basically, a bunch of states got together
and tried pursue the litigation strategy of the states that support
tobacco, in which they have to basically -- you have created this problem
that has created a huge massive cost in liabilities and threat to public
safety. And they basically applied a similar kind of legal reasoning. I`m
right about this, right?

You`re looking at this like I`m getting it completely wrong, doing this
from memory.

So they tried this somewhat novel, but not off-the-charts novel theory that
she was the solicitor general of the state of the New York. In her
capacity, she signed off on that.

NAN ARON, ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE: Right, it wasn`t even her argument. She
was representing a client.

HAYES: She`s representing a client, the state of the New York.

ARON: Exactly. But -- and it`s true that Republicans are trying to make
guns the next litmus test. And that anything that any candidate has ever
done on the issue of guns, a brief, spoken, testified, that is the new
litmus test.

We`ve gone from choice, civil rights, school prayer to now guns. But I
don`t believe that`s the reason --

HAYES: Right.

ARON: -- to choose --

HAYES: Yes, I want to stop you right there because I think that one can
make -- there`s a whole lot of other judicial nominees who have similar
fates who never signed on any briefs about guns. I want to talk about the
broader context of nominees and obstruction, right after we take this
break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Dan Baum was just doubting whether the pastries are real. It`s a
question that you at home are asking.

BAUM: I write for a living, I got --

HAYES: Yes, please.

WILEY: You`re discriminating against gluten intolerance.

HAYES: I know, I know, we get a lot of comments about that.

Nan, you`re saying it`s not about guns. It`s about this broader
obstruction strategy.

Let me show -- a percentage of judicial nominees confirmed three of the
last three presidents in the first term, Bill Clinton, 82 percent,
President Bush, 90 percent, and drops down to 80 percent for President
Obama. But I think that obscures some of the depth of the problem.

It took 98 days on average for judicial nominee to be confirmed under
President Bill Clinton, 154 days under President George W. Bush in his
first term, in President Obama`s first term, 225 days.

Vacancies went up under his first term as opposed to down as they did in
President George W. Bush`s first term. So, we`re seeing something fairly
unprecedented, it seems to me.

ARON: We are seeing the result of decades-long battle -- excuse me -- for
control of the federal judiciary. For decades now, Republicans have sought
to appoint judges who will carry out their missions, once they become
federal judges. And of course, once they`re federal judges, they`re there
for life. When Democrats are in the White House, Republicans` effort is
solely focused on keeping as few of their judges confirmed.

HAYES: Right.

ARON: Judicial nominees confirmed. And we are seeing that, really, this
battle, gone on for years, being played out right now.

HAYES: Why is there any symmetry -- why is this asymmetry of intensity?
Because let`s remember, when some judicial nominees that President George
Bush -- George W. Bush were filibustered by Democrats, there was a massive
outcry by Republican senators and they precipitated a crisis. They
threatened to essentially use the constitutional option to get rid of that.
They brought that cots, did the justice Sunday, there`s a whole organizing.

This is a montage, just to give a flavor of what that look like when
everyone agreed on the Republican side that every judicial nominee, of
course, deserved an up or down vote. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

GRASSLEY: It`s high time to make sure that all judges receive fair up or
down votes on the Senate floor.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: Any president`s nominees, whether they be
Republican or Democrat, if they have the support of the majority of the
Senate, they will get an up or down vote in the Senate.

MCCONNELL: Regardless of party, any president`s judicial nominees after
full debate deserve a simple up or down vote.

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: There should be no ideological litmus
test for nominees. If a nominee is fit and qualified, he or should be
confirmed.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

HAYES: So, what came out of that was Caitlin Halligan who was filibustered
this week I`m sure would have loved that sentiment to be broadly shared by
Republicans in the Senate these days.

And what came out of that, this gang of 14 deal. There`s only three
Republican senators left from that group. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and
Susan Collins of Maine, all three voted to filibuster. The deal was, you
only get to filibuster in extraordinary circumstances, and the three
remaining parties to that deal in the Senate this week, all voted to
filibuster Caitlin Halligan, saying that they were extraordinary
circumstances.

ARON: Do not get me started.

(LAUGHTER)

ARON: Because this deal that was entered into by Republicans and Democrats
enabled Republican nominees to be confirmed to the D.C. circuit. And we
now have the situation where we`ve got the D.C. circuit in the hands of
Republican-pointed judges. This is important because we see --

HAYES: After five years of a Democratic --

(CROSSTALK)

ARON: -- having invalidated air pollution rules, invalidated safety
packaging, warning labels on cigarette packages, invalidated SEC
regulations implement (INAUDILBE). Republicans know that their judges on
the D.C. circuit are going to do their bidding. It`s plain and simple.

And, therefore, they are going to block any candidate to the D.C. circuit.
It`s a matter of maintaining --

HAYES: So why are they winning? Why do they win? Why do they get more?

SMITH: Because Democrats are undisciplined --

(LAUGHTER)

SMITH: I mean, seriously. We just don`t bring the fight, over and over.

I think it goes back to some of the personality differences between
conservatives and liberals we talked about in the last segment.
Conservatives, study after study, tend to believe in an eye for an eye.
Democrats tend to say, hey, let`s figure out a way to resolve this problem.

So, I don`t think we should be shocked that during, you know, the Bush
administration, Democrats went ahead and found and agreement and we can`t
figure a way --

HAYES: Well, but some of them filibustered and also, I think this process
obsession, right? I mean --

SMITH: Yes.

HAYES: And you and I have had this argument debate before. Is this
problem here process or substance? It`s like, I don`t care.

Like this is will to power politics. This is like there`s a world view
that liberals have. And there`s a world view that conservatives have. And
there`s going to be judges on the court who have one of those two world
views or somewhere between.

And I want judges who have a liberal world view. I`m sorry, I`m just going
to say it. Conservatives feel the same way so you fight within any means
necessary within the boundaries of the rules.

ARON: We saw that being played out recently in the effort to revise the
rules. So as make it more difficult for Republicans to engage in
filibusters. What we saw some of my favorite senators, Carl Levin,
opposing rules formed, making it harder for Republicans to filibuster.

HAYES: We had a chance to --

BAUM: Because it`s going to make it harder for Democrats to filibuster --

ARON: That`s what they say, except for the fact that the minute
Republicans take control of the Senate, that the Republicans will do away
with the filibuster on day one.

HAYES: Broadly or just for nominees?

ARON: Oh, across the board.

HAYES: I disagree on that.

ARON: Two, all right, even on judicial nominees.

But two, you know, even when Democrats have the filibuster, they don`t
really use it that much.

HAYES: I want -- I want to talk about that deal because this was the big
moment where, again, we have the last crisis we had with filibuster was
2005 specifically over judicial nominees and precipitated and agitated by
the Republican majority, right? And that resolved in this gang of 14
solution which is not a solution.

And I mean, Miguel Estrada did not get named to the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals, so he was the kind of casualty of that, but a lot of the other
nominees got through.

And then we have this crisis at the beginning of this term and there was a
deal struck because Democrats basically wimped out. This is Dick Durbin,
when we come back, Dick Durbin lamenting the fact that the bipartisan
approach we took on the filibuster may not have the force that we wanted it
to.

Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: So, after Caitlin Halligan was filibustered, here`s Dick Durbin
lamenting to that the gentlemen`s agreement arrived to by Mitch McConnell,
Harry Reid, to reform abuse of the filibuster may not be enough. Take a
look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: I`m sorry to say it because I was hopeful
that a bipartisan approach to dealing with these issues would work. It`s
the best thing for this chamber, for the people serving here, and for the
history of this institution. But if this Caitlin Halligan nomination is an
indication of things to come, we`ve got to revisit the rules. If we are
now going to filibuster based on such weak arguments, then I think we need
to revisit the rules.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Yes, revisit the rules. That`s what we were all screaming for you
to do at the beginning of the session.

BAUM: Do you think?

HAYES: I mean, this is like -- I just can`t tell, do they wake up every
day with some sort of amnesia, like the guy in "Memento." every day is the
first day and they don`t know? Obviously this was going to happen.

WILEY: It`s Groundhog`s Day.

HAYES: That`s right.

BAUM: It`s Groundhog Day.

HAYES: He remembers. He remembers. That`s why --

WILEY: Yes, he remembers. So, you know, I think the problem here is I
don`t think the Democrats have any real expectation that this gentleman`s
agreement was really going to be honored.

BAUM: You don`t?

WILEY: No, it`s ridiculous to say that they didn`t know. But at the same
time they actually haven`t done enough to address this issue of reform.
And they have to make a strong issue. And it`s not clear that the
Republicans will go along with it. So I`m not sure if they`re going to get
real reform.

But I think that if we do have to bring it back to the issue of the way
lobbying works on this because it wasn`t just Halligan. (INAUDIBLE), who
was Harry Reid`s nomination for federal district court --

HAYES: Which historically have been if home state senators support them, a
fairly non-conversational non-ideological process.

WILEY: Because she`s a county court judge, because they`re elected, county
court judges are elected, so she actually has a long record and has to
campaign. There`s a big public record of her positions. On one forum, in
2008, she said, in answer to some gun lobby citizenry that was asking about
her record said that she did think that the law supported some reasonable
restrictions on gun ownership, right.

BAUM: Burn her at the stake.

WILEY: That`s exactly what happened. So they pulled out this one form
from 2008, Senator Heller actually used that, raised all the questions
about her. Even though she has a 70 percent approval rating in Nevada,
from the bench, from lawyers who appeared before her, on all sides of the
issues.

HAYES: Right.

WILEY: And she couldn`t even come to --

BAUM: When was this?

WILEY: It just happened.

BAUM: Right, it just happened. So it`s post-Sandy Hook?

HAYES: Yes.

BAUM: Gun guy America is at full alert right now they`re not getting
anything go by.

WILEY: Well, and Heller gets a lot of money from the gun lobby.

SMITH: We have seen a sea change on this. You know, a hundred years ago,
80 years ago, 60, 40 years ago, it was all about, if you were qualified
your ideology didn`t matter. You had the famous quote from the senator
from Nebraska, I think, Roman Hruska, who --

BAUM: Mediocre people deserved representation.

SMITH: Yes, when a judge was nominated who was thought to be mediocre, he
said, don`t the mediocre people need representation, too? It`s gone
totally away from that. As you said, the only thing extraordinary about
her --

BAUM: Of course, the right would say, we started it with Burke.

ARON: I`m glad you brought up Alicia Kadish (ph). Here`s the difference
between Democrats and Republicans. If this had been a Republican
administration, and a Republican wanted to send a name to the White House
and get that candidate confirmed, and a Democrat from the state said no,
that person would have had a hearing. That person would have been
confirmed.

HAYES: So, here`s my question to you, as someone who has been working on
this through periods of Democratic majorities and Democratic minorities,
right? Do you support getting rid of the filibuster or making it into a
talking filibuster, basically the Merkley/Udall reforms? Because you`re
the next person who is going to be in a scenario in which the next
incarnation of Janice Rogers Brown, who is the extreme, extreme
conservative who was nominated by George W. Bush for a circuit court, some
iteration of that is going to happen with a Republican president, and
Republican majority, and the argument is you`re not going to have a
filibuster.

So, I`m really curious. You, Nan, is someone who`s had to wage these
battles. Do you support it? Because if you support it, then I don`t think
there`s a reason for anyone not to?

ARON: Well, I would say that the filibuster in certain circumstances is
important. It`s a very critical tool.

However, the context is now totally different. And we have a situation
best exemplified with the judges where every nominee is filibustered.
Every nominee is blocked. It`s so preposterous that even nominees with
Republican support --

HAYES: So given that, do you want to get rid of it?

ARON: Given the situation, given the situation I would say this -- we have
a number of senators, Merkley, Tom Udall, Tom Harkin, I personally was
happy to hear Dick Durbin say what he did, because clearly last week was
the low mark on judicial nomination.

HAYES: Should we get rid of it? Should we do the Merkley/Udall thing?

ARON: I would say that if this continues, if those senators are supporting
the nucleard7 option, that is doing away with the filibuster, if they`re
willing to go to the mat, then I would be there. I should say, this is a
struggle, not just for the D.C. circuit. This is a struggle for the
Supreme Court. We may see one or two openings.

HAYES: Yes.

ARON: In the next few years. So what are Republicans doing? They`re
fine-tuning their skills and tactics.

HAYES: Right.

ARON: They`re hoping to prepare themselves so they can dictate to
President Obama --

HAYES: Who he can nominate.

ARON: Yes, who he can nominate. That`s what this is about.

HAYES: So, what do we know now that we did not know last week? My answer
is after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: So what do we know now that we didn`t know last week?

Well, we now know that there is more carbon dioxide in the air than ever
before and there was a particularly dramatic upward spike in the carbon
concentrations in just last year. According to new data released by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere jumped by 2.67 parts per million since 2011. We know that`s the
second-highest one-year jump ever recorded. It means we now have
atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that are 395 parts per million.

We know that NASA climate scientist James Hanson says that 350 parts per
million is the maximum safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the level we
have already surpassed. We know that in 2009, most of the world`s nations
committed themselves to take the necessary steps to limit climate change to
a total of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the pre-Industrial Revolution
averages.

That does not leave much wiggle room as the temperatures increase since the
mid-1800s, now leave us only two degrees from that. In the words of NOAA`s
Peter Tanz (ph), the prospects of keeping climate change below that are
fading away.

We know that the big bank`s wrongful foreclosures which have been
widespread throughout the country for years hit more members of the
military more than ever estimated. As part of the multimillion dollar
settlement, Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo
entered into with the government for endemic abuses and fraud in mortgage
servicing. But Banks had to sort through their records to identify
military families that have been wrongly foreclosed on. That instruction
was given by regulators in response to anecdotal report that service
members fighting abroad have returned to the U.S. from war only to find
banks wrongly foreclosing on their homes.

Well, after a survey of the banks` records, we now know that 700 military
members were wrongly foreclosed on during the housing crash, a violation on
the Civil Members Civil Relief Act which requires banks to obtain a court
order before foreclosing on the home of a active duty military member.

And in a separate analysis of all borrowers, we found out that in at least
20 cases, banks took the homes of borrowers who had never missed a payment.

And, finally, we know that a small measure of justice will be done for Juan
Carlos Vera. You probably don`t know the name but you likely do remember
the name James O`Keefe the third, the man who`s now agreed to pay Vera
$100,000 as part of a civil settlement.

Vera in worked in the offices of a community group ACORN in National City,
California, and has the misfortune of being a victim of O`Keefe`s
undercover video setup which violated California law by filming Vera
without his consent.

O`Keefe and his partner Hanna Giles (ph) posed as a pimp and prostitute
asking for various help in trafficking underage girls into the U.S. from
Mexico. Through careful editing, Vera appears willing to help the phony
plot. O`Keefe admits in the settlement he was unaware that in actuality,
Vera immediately contacted police when O`Keefe and Giles left.

Now, if there is just a way for Congress who voted to defund ACORN to
return lose jobs to those ACORN employees and restore lost services to the
people ACORN, we might be looking at something approximating justice.

I want to find out what my guests now know they didn`t know when the week
begun.

I`ll begin with you, Jeff.

SMITH: Well, one thing is that where everyone talks about the gridlock in
D.C. between conservatives and liberals, out in the states, one area where
people are starting to agree is prison reform. In Texas, for example,
there is the prison called entrepreneurship program, which comes into a
prison in Cleveland, Texas. And in the last eight years, they have brought
in over 400 senior executives to teach inmates how to write business plans
and start their own businesses when they`ve gotten out. And a recidivism
rate which nationally is over 50 percent for inmates is less than 5 percent
for graduates of this program. And I think it`s something that, you know,
liberals are viewing it from the humanitarian perspective, conservatives
want to be fiscally conservative, it`s a great way to solve the problem.

HAYES: Nan Aron?

ARON: I think what we know is that last week, with the defeat of Caitlin
Halligan and that faux filibuster, it really lit a firestorm. I do think
that we have always known that the right in this country cares passionately
about who judges are, and now we know, we`ve seen the Halligan stories have
been written on the pages of newspapers, the front page of "The New York
Times", people want a change, pressure needs to be exerted on the Democrats
in the Senate to stand up.

HAYES: Yes. Maya Wiley?

WILEY: So, we know that Wall Street is making record profits, and that has
had no meaningful impact on people`s ability to get jobs or create jobs in
this country. We should know that the projected jobs of the Keystone
pipeline it was supposed to create which was originally 20,000 has dropped
to below 100.

And you should also know that RNC former chairman Michael Steele is now
moving to the left, which was very interesting in a conversation that I
moderated between him and former Governor Paterson and it`s on FORA.tv if
anyone wants to see it.

HAYES: Fantastic.

Dan Baum?

BAUM: I know that this idea that drones used in the United States to shoot
a hellfire missile into a cafe is incorrect, because the CIA and the
military are very aware that those drones kill too many. So, what is being
worked on, I met a company that is working on this, is basically a flying
sniper, a small electric drone with a gun so that you can just get the guy
that you want.

So in the context of Eric Holder`s comments, this makes it much easier to
use an armed drone.

HAYES: My thanks to former Missouri State Senator Jeff Smith, Nan Aron for
the Alliance for Justice, Maya Wiley for the Centre for Social Inclusion,
and Dan Baum, author of "Gun Guys", which I am really looking forward to
reading, you guys should check it out.

Thanks for getting UP. Thank for joining us today for UP. Join us
tomorrow, Sunday at 8:00, where we`ll talk about how corporate America
writes the rules the Congress orders which former Republican Congressman
Bob Ney fresh out of prison.

Coming up next is MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY. On today`s MHP, the book everyone
everywhere seems to be talking about, Facebook`s Sheryl Sandberg`s "Lean
In," diagnose and discuss Nerdland style, "Lean In", lean forward. That`s
"MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY" coming up next.

We`ll see you right here tomorrow at 8:00. Thanks for getting UP.



THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2013 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2013 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 Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>

WATCH 'UP W/CHRIS HAYES' SATURDAY AND SUNDAY FROM 8:00A.M. ET TO 10:00 A.M. ET ON MSNBC.


Sponsored links

Resource guide