All In With Chris Hayes, Thursday, June 27, 2013

ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
June 27, 2013
Guests: Baratunde Thurston, Michelle Goldberg, Josh Barro, John McWhorter,
Evan Smith, Leticia Van de Putte

CHRIS HAYES, HOST: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Tonight,
on All In, "The Blue Revolution", I`ll tell you why the great Texas
filibuster might have been just the beginning of something much, much
bigger.

Plus, on a huge-on a week of huge victories for progressive America, the
choice for the Republican Party becomes more and more clearer. Change or
die. Spoiler alert, they don`t appear to be choosing to want to change.
And the cross-examination of Rachel Jeantel (ph), a reluctant witness in
the Trayvon Martin case, is now a reluctant subject of national
conversation.

Why what people say about her says more about them than the witness. But
tonight, we start with the uprising in the state of Texas. An uprising
that started last week when Democrats and activists there began to mobilize
against a restrictive abortion bill making its way through the Texas
Senate. And that uprising has only gained strength. And if you want to
know why right now people in Texas are rising up, and why it`s not likely
to end any time soon, let me tell you about Texas Governor Rick Perry`s
last 26 hours.

At 6:37 pm last night, the state of Texas executed its 500th-500th inmate,
a woman by the name of Kimberly McCarthy, a former cocaine addict who was
convicted of killing her 71-year-old neighbor in a 1997 robbery. It is the
261st execution Rick Perry has signed on off as governor, far and away the
most executions carried out by any governor in modern history. In fact,
Rick Perry has signed off on more executions in his nearly 13 years as
governor than any other state has executed total in the last 38 years. And
Texas, which last night reached the macabre milestone of 500 executions,
has killed more people than the next six states combined.

What a burden that must be for one man to carry, to have presided over the
deaths of so many people.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more
than any other governor in modern times. Have you .

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that
any one of those might have been innocent?

RICK PERRY, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS: No, sir, I`ve never struggled with that at
all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That was in 2011. Since then, 27 more people have been put to
death in Texas on Rick Perry`s watch. But this morning, after what was
likely a good night`s sleep, Rick Perry woke up and he headed to Dallas to
deliver the keynote address at the National Right to Life conference, where
he reaffirmed that he is going to keep pushing Senate Bill 5, the draconian
abortion restriction bill that State Senator Wendy Davis, Texas Democrats,
and a raucous group of ordinary people managed to stop Tuesday night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PERRY: What we witnessed Tuesday was nothing more than the hijacking of
the democratic process.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
And this is simply too important a cause to allow unruly actions of a few
to stand in its way. And that is the reason that I have announced I am
bringing lawmakers back to Austin, Texas to finish their business.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: If you watched this show last night, Wendy Davis made it clear that
it was Perry and his Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst who`d hijacked the
democratic process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ST. SEN. WENDY DAVIS (D), TEXAS: Governor Perry and Lieutenant Governor
Dewhurst led the charge in terms of a breakdown in decorum. They have
overridden and made a mockery of all of the rules that we run by in this
state.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: This morning, Rick Perry went out of his way to take an incredible
shot at the women-woman who led the 13 hour filibuster that stopped,
temporarily, the anti-abortion bill, Wendy Davis.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PERRY: Who are we to say that children born in the worst of circumstances
can`t grow to live successful lives? In fact, even the woman that
filibustered in the Senate the other day, was born into difficult
circumstances. She was the daughter of a single woman. She was a teenage
mother herself. She managed to eventually graduate from Harvard Law School
and serve in the Texas Senate.
It`s just unfortunate that she hasn`t learned from her own example, that
every life must be given a chance to realize its potential and that every
life matters.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The biographical details about Wendy Davis are accurate, but I have
now watched that clip, I don`t know, half a dozen times, and I still can`t
figure out what the hell he`s trying to say. Is the point that because
Wendy Davis herself didn`t have an abortion that she should oppose
abortion? Wendy Davis today responded to the governor. She said, "His
statement is without dignity and tarnishes the high office he holds. They
are small words that reflect a dark and negative point of view."

Rick Perry seems to be doing everything in his power to elevate Wendy
Davis, to transform the spark that has arisen in Texas into a strong and
committed movement. In fact, he seems to be relishing exactly that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PERRY: And just remember this, the louder they scream, the more we know we
are getting something done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Rick Perry is getting something done. Something that no one has
been able to do in Texas for the last two decades. And that is bring a
Texas Democratic party that has been comatose for years back to life. And
if that happens, if we see an insurgent Democratic party re-organized,
galvanized, mobilized, and grasp its incredible demographic potential in
the Lone Star State, well then, simply put, the Republican party as we know
it is dead. Joining me now is Texas State Senator Leticia Van De Putte, a
Democrat who represents District 26 which includes San Antonio, and if this
senator looks familiar to you, it`s because she`s the one who helped carry
Senator Wendy Davis`s filibuster over the finish line when she did this on
Tuesday night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE (D), TEXAS: Did the president hear me state the
motion? Or did the president hear me and refuse to recognize?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator, you are now recognized on the motion to
adjourn.

VAN DE PUTTE: I do not wish to make that motion at this time, Senator.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

VAN DE PUTTE: At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her
voice to be recognized over the male colleagues in the room?

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Senator, thank you for joining me tonight. And first, I just want
to offer my condolences on the tragic loss of your father in a car
accident. I`m not sure if people realize this, but you actually had to
rush back from his funeral to be there that night in the chamber for that
vote. Can you walk me through what it was like to be rushing back from
something as horribly traumatic as that into that chamber, into that
moment?

VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you so much for asking. It has been a very difficult
few weeks for our family and we had lost our youngest member, my grandson,
Rex Van de Putte, who would have been six months to SIDS just six weeks
ago, and then my father, who was very healthy, died tragically in a
horrific car accident last Friday. And so, his burial was Tuesday, and
late Tuesday afternoon, I didn`t know if I would have the courage to return
to Austin. But, after seeing what was happening, right after the funeral,
and when our family was gathering, I knew that I must return to help fight,
because my dad was such an advocate for women. And I needed to stand up
for women because my daddy always stood up for me.

HAYES: Senator, Governor Rick Perry is basically saying this. He`s saying,
"Look, the polling in Texas is on my side on this-on this bill, on SB 5.
The democratic process is on my side because this is a Republican,
conservative state, it`s elected these big majorities in both the state
House and the state Senate. It`s elected me time and time again to be
governor. And I am just executing the will of the people here and what
you`re doing is engaging in essentially, stall tactics, obstruction and
tricks to stop that democratic majority, to stop that democratic will."

What is your response to that argument?

VAN DE PUTTE: Well, you know Governor Perry. Bless his heart. As you
know, sometimes he can forget really important things, and sometimes he can
get confused about very important current events. And the polls actually
show not what Governor Perry is saying, but that 75 percent really would
prefer for our state to focus on education and on jobs and on
infrastructure, like highways and water. And to leave these divisive
issues to the wayside, to concentrate what is really important. The other
mistake that I think our leadership-the Republican leadership-because it is
a red state, has made is to assume that for years of re-districting
manipulation where the districts are so solidly Republican that the only
voters that matter are those that participate in a Republican primary.

I don`t think that they`ve realized that there are other Texans, and Texans
who are not primary voters, who were so upset at what their governor was
about to do for the health care of women, that they came in masses, by the
thousands to the capital. But their voices weren`t heard until the very
end.

HAYES: Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, thank you so much for
joining us tonight. I really appreciate it.

VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you.

HAYES: Join me now with Evan Smith, CEO and Editor-in-Chief of the Texas
Tribune, a non-profit media organization, and one of the savviest observers
of Texas politics. Evan, my first question to you is, I, you know, you and
I have talked before and I follow Texas politics relatively closely,
actually. To outsiders, that night that happened, on Tuesday night, seemed
like a really apocal (ph) moment, an amazing dramatic moment.

EVAN SMITH, CEO AND EDITOR IN CHIEF, TEXAS TRIBUNE: Yes.

HAYES: Was it that in Texas, in the context of Texas and Texas politics?
Was is that, the way it looked to us on the outside?

SMITH: Oh, most definitely. You know, no Democrat has won elections
statewide in Texas, Chris, since 1994. Democrats are in the minority, the
vast minority in both the Texas House and the Texas Senate. Republicans
have almost a super majority in both bodies. Every state wide elected
office, the state is, as you said, not just red, but blood red. Obama has
done-President Obama has done very poorly in the `08 election, worse in the
2012 election. Democrats have had no action here for a very long time.

It was the first moment, really going back to Ann Richards, that you saw
the Democratic party spring to life, the kind of periscope came up, we`re
actually here, and the first individual figure in Wendy Davis to really get
traction. Among the Democrats, it really was an amazing moment. I`ve
watched the legislature for more than two decades, it was like nothing I`ve
seen before.

HAYES: Here`s the great paradox of Texas and Texas politics, as far as I
can tell. There are about 10 million Hispanic people living in Texas,
that`s expected to rise to close to 20 million by 2040, and the number of
white people is expected to decrease slightly by 2040. So you`re looking
at a state that seems tailor made to trend in a demographic direction that
would favor the Democratic party, and yet the gap between the demographic
potential of Texas and the actual institutional state of the Texas
Democratic party could not be wider.

SMITH: Right. And the biggest issue, Chris, on that is that the turnout
at the polls by the Latino community has historically been significantly
below the Anglo community. The percentage of eligible to vote as citizens,
Latinos have very, very low turnout. So even though you`ve got this
incredible surge in population in Latino community, it`s not translating
into votes. The other thing is, to assume that when the Latino majority
arrives as it will soon, the Democrats` problems will be over, is to assume
that the Latino electorate is any more monolithic than the Anglo
electorate.

HAYES: That`s right.

SMITH: There are some many reasons to think that Latinos will vote
Democratic, but not that long ago, George W. Bush was routinely getting 40
percent or more of the Latino vote. It`s not simply about waiting for the
majority, the Democratic party in fairness has to speak to issues that
attract Latinos to the polls, get them motivated to turn out and at that
point you may begin to see the pendulum swing back.

HAYES: And they have to do proactive things and pick fights when they`re-I
mean, when you`re, you can`t win unless if you fight and I think, my
question to you is, there is not going to be another special session
staring July 1st. They`re going to ram this through, I don`t see any way
the Democrats stop it in that special session. What happens after that?

SMITH: Well, you say they have to pick issues. In some ways, the issues
are chosen for them, you know, in some way, the best argument is for the
Democrats to come back, in the minds of a lot of these Democrats is
Governor Rick Perry.

HAYES: Right.

SMITH: That the abortion issue, the refusal to expand Medicaid, the degree
to which public education has been in the decline from a funding
standpoint. You kind of go down the list, check all the boxes, the issues
that the Democrats need to galvanize their people with are being handed to
them by the other side. There is such a thing as over-reach, and I think
that the Democrats are imagining that the people in office right now may be
handing the opportunity to come back, maybe even a little bit faster than
they want.

Now you`ve got state elections in 2014, in which it`s widely assumed that
Rick Perry will not run for re-election. We`re going to see a turning of
the mulch as it were. Every statewide elected official at the top is
going to not run again, or is going to run for a different office .

HAYES: And there`s going to be a different cast of characters. A big
opportunity at that moment .

SMITH: . right, but there`s not a single Democratic candidate, other than
Wendy Davis who`s been mentioned as a possible statewide candidate.
Democrats just may not be ready to back.

HAYES: Evan Smith, from the Texas Tribune. Thanks so much.

SMITH: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: All right, if you`ve been at work all day, you`ve probably haven`t
been able to watch the George Zimmerman trial. For the past two days, a
19-year-old named Rachel Jentel (ph), a key witness for the prosecution,
has been testifying, and it`s resulted in a culture clash inside the
courtroom and all over social media. I`ll explain coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: A big new development tonight for NBC news investigative
correspondent Michael Isikoff into the ongoing investigation into the
leaking of classified information about U.S. cyber warfare. Sources
telling Michael Isikoff that retired Marine General James "Hoss"
Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been
notified that he`s under investigation for allegedly leaking information
about a massive attack using a computer virus named Stuxnet on Iran`s
nuclear facilities.

The story of the Stuxnet virus was first reported last year by David Sanger
in the New York Times. I have a lot to say about when we condemn leakers
in this country and when we don`t. Coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: For the last two days, in the trial of George Zimmerman, the
prosecution`s key witness has been on the stand. Her name is Rachel
Jeantel and she`s the last person Trayvon Martin talked to before his
altercation with George Zimmerman on the night of February 26, 2012. She
was on the phone with Martin in the moments before that altercation, an
altercation which ended with Trayvon Martin dead.

George Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder in the shooting and
killing of Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman has pled not guilty, claiming that he
killed Martin in self-defense. Rachel Jeantel is in the unfortunate
position of being caught in the middle of it, and even in direct
examination, Jeantel`s (ph) testimony got off to a rocky start.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know you grew up in a Haitian family, so make sure
that everybody can hear you, try to speak as clearly .

RACHEL JEANTEL, WITNESS: (Inaudible)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you-can you repeat what your answer was, please?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: But when defense attorney Don West began cross examination, what
took place was an excruciating, and at times, if I can editorialize,
infuriating process, by which the defense tried to impeach and impugn her.
There is little doubt that Rachel Jeantel is someone who never, ever asked
to be in this position, wants no part in the spotlight and clearly is
reluctant to be there, and has been forced to sit up there and take it.
And to be made to feel badly about herself while all of us watch.
And this is part of what that looks like.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DON WEST, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Didn`t you say that, in your statement that
the reason you got involved was because you thought it was a racial thing?

JEANTEL: What interview?

WEST: We`ll come back to that. I`m sorry that you were inconvenienced,
but we did not have the interview on Friday because of scheduling issues.
Would you agree with that?

JEANTEL: You should have put me up on the stand on Thursday.

WEST: So, you realize, then, that you were the last to have spoken with
Trayvon Martin?

JEANTEL: Yes.

WEST: But you did not report it to law enforcement?

JEANTEL: No. I thought I was supposed to call you. Call the person, I
tracked the number down, see who was the last person if somebody got shot.
Do you watch "First 48"?

WEST: I didn`t hear you.

JEANTEL: Do you watch "First 48"? They call the first number that the
victim talked to.

WEST: Remember, in the disposition, we asked about this. And we actually
played the recording for you?

JEANTEL: Yes, yes. I had told you, you listening?

WEST: Yes, ma`am. Or maybe we can break until the morning .

JEANTEL: No, I`m leaving, (inaudible), I`m leaving today.

WEST: Are you refusing to come back tomorrow?

JEANTEL: To you?

WEST: Are you refusing to come back .

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE, JUDGE: We need to keep this to a question and answer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The reaction, as you can tell, by court watchers has often been
unkind and on Twitter media, Twitter and social media, downright cruel and
flat out racist. But many have to her defense, Mychal (ph) Denzel Smith
writing in The Nation notes, "Rachel Jeantel isn`t a Hollywood actress.
She`s not a trained professional. She doesn`t testify in court regularly.
She`s a young black woman missing her friend. She showed up to court to
give all the information she had as to what happened the night he died. No
matter what, though, Rachel stood and defender herself and Trayvon and
frankly many other black youth against the condescension, against
silencing, and against the character attacks. For that, she should be
commended and thanked."

That sounds about right to me. Joining me now is John McWhorter, professor
of linguistics at Columbia University and contributing editor to The New
Republic, and John, I`m so glad you`re here because as I was watching this,
I was thinking the whole time of what John McWhorter was making of this
because you`re someone that`s trained as a linguist .

JOHN MCWHORTER, PROFESSOR OF LINGUISTICS, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: More or
less.

HAYES: And, no, not more or less, you really are.

MCWHORTER: Yes.

HAYES: And you and I have had conversations about the linguistic bounty
that is America. And what we`re watching in the courtroom over the last
few days are two people from very different cultures, very different
linguistic backgrounds, encountering each other while all of America
watches.

MCWHORTER: Exactly.

HAYES: And it has been quite an incredible thing to watch.

MCWHORTER: It`s been a little bit scary, sometimes as if she`s speaking
Hungarian and he`s speaking Cantonese. And really, what`s interesting, in
her way, she`s being quite articulate it`s just in a different kind of
English than mainstream English. She`s speaking Black English. Everything
she says where you can see the Twitter sphere or even some people I know
think she`s making a grammatical mistake, I`m thinking to myself, she`s
using a systematic rule, of her dialect, which, if a Martian came down, and
the Martian happened to be in sunbelt central rather than in Grand Rapids,
the Martian would have as hard a time figuring out how this dialect works
as any other.
She said in the clip, that, "I had told you" and maybe people were
thinking, why is she using the pluperfect. That`s Black English, my
cousins did that when I was little. It`s the narrative pluperfect.
Linguists talk about it, there`s a dissertation about it, it`s quite
systematic. And I think a lot of this willful misunderstanding .

HAYES: That`s it, willful, that`s the thing that`s (inaudible) me here, I
understand what she`s saying, like, perfectly, and it`s like .

MCWHORTER: Yes .

HAYES: And in the courtroom, let me play you this one, she`s talking about
him being over by the mailing area, which reads to me perfectly clearly.
Check out this clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEANTEL: Yeah, he`s going to leave the area where the (main) area`s at.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (Can you repeat that?)

JEANTEL: Yeah, he`s going to be where he was at.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The (main) area?

JEANTEL: Yeah, where you can (inaudible)

WEST: All right, I`ll make sure that everyone understands what you`re
saying. Did you say that he`s going to leave the (main) area where he`s
at?

JEANTEL: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Everyone understood what she was saying. Everyone`s (inaudible)
her.

MCWHORTER: Speaking Sardinian. I mean, especially now a days, when we
talk about hip-hop. Most people under a certain age and I`m at it, and I`m
close to 50, listen to black people, formerly poor ones, usually, talking
every day. It`s called a great deal of mainstream American music. She`s
quite comprehensible, it`s just that people don`t want to understand her.

HAYES: Thank you.

MCWHORTER: But that`s whole larger question.

HAYES: Yeah, and I think that`s to me, there were some kind of theatrics
here. I want bring up this other moment when in her testimony Trayvon
Martin called and said that he was chased, or tracked by, "a crazy
cracker".

MCWHORTER: OK.

HAYES: Which the defense has made a quite a bit out of. Take a look at
this.

MCWHORTER: Right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WEST: Do you understand what I mean by the culture that you were raised
in, the culture .

JEANTEL: The area? (Inaudible) Is that what you`re trying to say?

WEST: I`ll say is this way. Do people that you live around and with, call
white people, "creepy-ass crackers"?

JEANTEL: Not creepy, but crackers, yeah.

WEST: You`re saying that in the culture that you live in, in your
community, people call-people there call white people "crackers"?

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: I love the fact that she`s like, "Yeah, we call them creepy
crackers if they`re creepy".

MCWHORTER: Right. Poor girl.

HAYES: And, like, again, it was like, everybody understands-everybody
understands what this interaction is and the subtext is trying to draw out
some kind of racial grievance .

MCWHORTER: Exactly.

HAYES: For the jury.

MCWHORTER: And needless to say, I think, given how the Trayvon Martin case
went, there would seem to be some cause for at least some kind of
preliminary racial grievance for a poor boy to have had some chasing after
him for a reason that he didn`t know. And we do know that that`s how it
started. Of course, he might refer to the person as a "cracker", because
he`s a human being. And since this week, we have heard that there are
times we might have excused some white people from using the "n" word and
I`ve written about that, too. I think we can understand .

HAYES: Yes.

MCWHORTER: That "cracker" may have been an appropriate term at the time.

HAYES: John McWhorter, from Columbia University, thank you very much.

MCWHORTER: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: A lot of people are beating up Glen Greenwald (ph) for reporting on
(NSA) secrets, their silence over CNN`s Pentagon correspondent and her leak
reporting. I`ll tell you why there`s a double standard, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Imagine for a moment that you are running al Qaeda. That means
you`re spending a lot of time figuring out how to murder people. But it
also means you have kind of a hard job, because you`re trying to manage
this global terror network and you don`t want the United States, with its
vast global policing and surveillance resources, to be able to catch you.

So if your job is running al Qaeda, you have to be really, really careful
how you communicate with your employees. We know, for example, that Osama
Bin Laden didn`t even use a cell phone. He used couriers, paper messages,
because he knew his communications could and very likely would be
monitored. Of course, some of his couriers apparently did use cell phones
and that is part of what helped bring about his ultimate downfall.

But let`s say just for argument`s sake you`re heading up the new
post-Bin Laden al Qaeda and you`re also terrible at your job. And so
you`re not at all concerned about your communications being monitored.
Let`s say you were somehow not aware of the spying capabilities and
proclivities of the United States government.

Until, that is, you read in "The Guardian" and the "Washington Post"
earlier this month the NSA had been bulk collecting metadata of phone calls
or even for a time bulk collecting e-mail data, as we all learned today in
a new scoop. If you were the head of al Qaeda and never occurred to you
that American spies might be tracking your internet or phone records, sure,
yes, you`d probably read those articles and think to yourself, holy crap,
if the Americans can spy on us like that, I need to completely revamp the
way I`m communicating with my terrorist henchmen.

Let`s say you have a meeting and do just that, totally change up
your ways, you stop plotting terror over Google hangouts, you shut down
your terrorist recruiting Facebook page and start a Tumblr instead. Get
rid of your Verizon smartphones and sign up with a new carrier because you
know the American government has probably been monitoring your
communication through those means.

You want to go somewhere elsewhere they can`t see what you`re up to,
but what if someone in the U.S. government tipped you off that they know
that you`ve changed your habits. They know you`re on Tumblr now. They`re
still watching you. In fact, they`re watching you so closely and
effectively that they`re watching you change your habits as you try to
avoid being watched.

Well, that is precisely what these theoretical hapless terrorists
would have learned from reporting this week by veteran CNN Pentagon
reporter, Barbara Starr.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Now U.S. officials say other
terrorist groups reacting to these disclosures by Snowden and very quickly
also changing their communications methods.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The article accompanying that report cites unnamed anonymous
intelligence and administration officials, speaking in very specific terms
about the ways in which the American intelligence community is able to
observe terrorist groups as they change their communication patterns. The
kind of information that I would hazard to guess is almost certainly
classified.

One of these unnamed sources, in fact, goes so far as to offer an
example of exactly the kind of thing the terrorists are doing now in order
to avoid detection by U.S. spies. Quote, "The administration official
offered an example of one concern. Terrorists may be less inclined to
communicate via clean e-mail accounts that have no links to them because
they believe the U.S. government can track those."

This article not only self-servingly advances the narrative that the
intelligence community would like us to believe that the Edward Snowden
leaks have helped the terrorists, but in doing so it could be seen as doing
far more to concretely alert terror groups to what the U.S. intelligence
community knows about them and their communications than anything published
by "The Guardian" or the "Washington Post."

And, yet, somehow I have not heard members of Congress calling
Barbara Starr`s reporting dangerous or pushing for her prosecution the way
some did when Glenn Greenwald reported the Edward Snowden leaks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Greenwald says that he`s got it all and now is an
expert on the program. He doesn`t have a clue how this thing works neither
did the person who released just enough information to literally be
dangerous.

REPRESENTATIVE PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: I`m talking about Greenwald. You
have someone who blows secrets like this and threatens to release more,
then to me, yes, there has to be legal action should be taken against him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Peter King, as far as I know, is yet to call for legal action
against Barbara Starr. She`s certainly not been the subject for long,
detailed hit pieces on her past personal life. Though that is precisely
what has happened to Glenn Greenwald who reported on the Edward Snowden
leaks.

I want to be very clear here. I do not know what helps or does not
help the terrorists. I simply don`t. I am certainly not saying Barbara
Starr helped the terrorists by publishing a report. I don`t think she did.
Any more than Glenn Greenwald did. And more importantly, I don`t think the
vast majority of people that you see opining on what helps the terrorists
have any freaking clue what actually does or doesn`t.

It is a problem for this country and for the functioning of our
democracy when Glenn Greenwald`s leaked reporting is treated so differently
than Barbara Starr. When, with Glenn Greenwald, they`re not designed to
advanced Pentagon`s agenda, then we have calls for prosecution. When they
are as with the Barbara Starr reporting, radio silence.

There is a vast and growing web of secret government in this
country, and it simply cannot be the case. It is not acceptable that the
only things we know about it are the things the members of that secret
government want us to know because at the end of the day, it is on us. It
is on all of us what our government does in our name. We`ll be right back
with Click 3.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Today the Senate handed John Boehner a loaded gun and told him he
has two choices, kill his speakership or kill his party, more on that
coming up.

But first I want to share the three awesomest things on the internet
today. Click 3 is back beginning with the presidential visit to Africa as
seen through many filters. The president and the first family are
embarking on a six-day three-country tour and to kick things off, both the
White House and First Lady Michelle Obama joined Instagram, a little late
to the party but well worth the wait.

Both accounts posting photos and videos of the Obamas travels
including their incredible journey to Senegal`s Gory Island. Mrs. Obama
sharing this photo of the door of no return where African slaves passed
through on their way to North America. The solemnest of that occasion also
seen in these incredible and powerful "AP" photos, juxtaposed with the
sheer joy coming from revealers greeting the American president and his
family, amazing images all around, a reminder of how improbable and
historic this moment in history is.

The second awesomest thing on the internet today, some really
terrific news coming out of the world of scientific research. The National
Institutes of Health, the government agency charged with major biomedical
studies says it will retire the majority of its chimpanzees used for
research. Citing new scientific methods and technologies, the NIH will
retire all but 50 chimps out of a total of nearly 360 sending them to live
out their golden years in a federal sanctuary. The retirees will soon
discover the outside world is quite an amazing place.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Seeing the chimps step out into the yards for the
first time and to be kind of faced with all of this immense space where
they just sit and look up and with this awe of amazement, like, there are
no bars above me. It`s just absolutely phenomenal to witness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That got me choked up. Hooray for advancements in research. Enjoy
freedom, little fellows. The third awesomest thing on the intern today,
Wendy Davis mania has taken the world by storm. There are Wendy Davis
means, of course. There are gifts celebrating her overall bad assery.
There are gifts celebrating our reaction to her overall bad assery.

There`s Wendy Davis nail art. She`s even gotten a Taiwanese
animation treatment complete with a floating ghost of Ann Richards. Davis`
new fans have a very important question on their minds, 13 hours and no
trip to the lady`s room? It turns out Davis was equipped with a catheter.
How many other elected officials have employed the same tactics while
filibustering?

"Mother Jones" offers this very informative guide. Strom Thurmond
took the minimalist route with a bucket. One state senator used something
called an astronaut bag. And an alderwoman had aides surround her with a
sheet and table cloth while she relieved herself in a trash can. That`s
actual video of that happening. Something to consider the next time you
complain about your job.

You can find all the links for tonight`s Click 3 on our web site,
allinwithchris.com. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Today while abroad on trip to Africa, President Obama had his first
opportunity to address the week`s monumental Supreme Court decisions.
Decisions that profoundly affect the coalition of citizens that he has
woven together, I`m talking about people of color, young people, college
educated white women and the LGBT community that allowed him to overcome
deficits among older and rural white voters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I might not be
here as president had it not been for those who courageously helped to pass
the voting rights act. I think that the Supreme Court made a mistake in
its ruling. Because even though lawsuits can still be filed now after
discrimination, if you don`t have the structure of Section 4 and Section 5
in place ahead of time, the election may be over by the time lawsuits are
filed or a court rules. And oftentimes it may be too late.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: When it came to the court`s ruling on the defense of marriage act,
the president praised the decision, but somewhat remarkably lamented the
fact that it didn`t even go further.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP0

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The Supreme Court ruling yesterday was not simply a
victory for the LGBT community, I think it was a victory for American
democracy. Because the Supreme Court did not make a blanket ruling that
applies nationally, it`s my personal belief, but I`m speaking now as a
president, as opposed to as a lawyer, that if you`ve been married in
Massachusetts and you move someplace else, you`re still married, and that
under federal law you should be able to obtain the benefits of any lawfully
married couple. But, again, I`m speaking as a president, not a lawyer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: All right, after that, then today after what has already been a
whirlwind couple of days for the political legacy of the president,
including his speech laying out a plan to help combat climate change, we
witnessed historic vote in the U.S. Senate just hours ago. That approved
the most significant overhaul of the nation`s immigration laws in a
generation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The ayes on this bill are 68. The nayes are 32. The
bill, as amended, is passed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Those are yes, we can chants coming from the gallery. And this now
is where the rubber meets the road for the Republican Party. You see,
because they are now face to face with this ascendant majority, this Obama
coalition that has won two national elections by fairly significant
margins.

They can either go down this road of chipping away at people`s
access to the polls, doubling down on white identity politics or find a way
to broaden their coalition and make the grand old party nr more inclusive.
The immigration bill heads to the House PR Republicans are at the
crossroads. The values that unite the House Republican Caucus are the same
ones that threaten to confine them to permanent minority status.

Joining me now is CEO of Cultivated Wit, a company in technology,
columnist for "Fast Company" where he wrote this fantastic cover story
about leaving the internet for 25 days, which I definitely highly
recommend. I recommend both the articles and leaving the internet once in
a while. Rochelle Goldberg, senior writer for "Newsweek" and "The Daily
Beast" and Josh Barro, politics editor of "Business Insider."

Josh, we have the immigration vote today. Everybody is wondering,
what`s going happen in the House? Karl Rove has an op-ed in the "Wall
Street Journal," which I think is timed as a nudge to the House Republican
caucus where he says, "Look, the reality is the non-white voting share of
the vote will keep growing. If the GOP leaves non-white voters to the
Democrats, its margins in safe congressional districts and red states will
dwindle not overnight but over years and decades."

There`s a lot made of the census numbers that this was in 2012, the
first year when the white population decreased while other racial
categories increase. The writing is on the wall. Like, everyone
understands. Everyone understands this immigration bill is just like a
threshold issue for the Republican Party. So what choice do they make in
the House?

JOSH BARRO, POLITICS EDITOR, "BUSINESS INSIDER": Well, I don`t think they
have any really good options politically.

HAYES: They don`t. You cannot emphasize that enough.

BARRO: And I think that`s why the party looks paralyzed in the House. I
don`t know why Boehner would be out there saying he`s not going let the
thing come to the floor without the support of the majority of Republicans.
So basically they have two options. They can block it from coming to the
floor, which will anger especially Hispanic voters and other parts of the
Democratic coalition and fire them up and be bad in 2014 or let it come to
the floor and pass and then in reasonably short order you get 10 million
new immigrant voters.

HAYES: Well, not reasonably short order. I mean, decade or --

BARRO: A decade is -- these people hope to still be in Congress in a
decade. But the thing is that allowing this bill to pass is not going to
fix the Republicans` problem with non-white voters. Their principle
problem with non-white voters is on economic issues.

HAYES: Right.

BARRO: So in order to broaden beyond non-white voters, they have to evolve
on both immigration and a lot of other issues they don`t want to evolve on.

HAYES: It`s a starter, a threshold thing. If they kill it, it definitely
does not help them particularly with Latinos.

MICHELLE GOLDBERG, "NEWSWEEK/DAILY BEAST": There`s a problem with short
term and long term. They`re also looking toward 2016. To me this has
seemed like a strange fantasy they were going to pass this thing. Of
course, it`s going to die in the House. Of course, this House is not going
to pass this thing.

HAYES: I don`t think that`s true.

GOLDBERG: Really? There`s an interesting analysis in "Real Clear
Politics" that says the most reasonable path forward for Republicans in
2016 is doubling down on the white vote. They think the Democrats have not
yet reached -- he says it`s arguable the Democrats have not yet reached a
floor with the white vote.

HAYES: Right.

GOLDBERG: Basically if you increase white resentment or apathy, increase
white --

HAYES: Or white motivation.

GOLDBERG: And the apathy of minority voters.

HAYES: Right.

GOLDBERG: Or disenfranchise my minority voters, he said if the African-
American vote goes down from the levels it has in recent years, that`s how
the Republicans win.

HAYES: This is the remarkable thing, Baratunde. This is the debate
happening in conservative circles and Republican Party politics, do we
double down on the white vote or not?

BARATUNDE THURSTON, CEO, CULTIVATED WIT: I`ve never been on a program
where the word cracker and -- has been used so much.

HAYES: Cracker is a census category.

THURSTON: The level of news that`s happened this week reminds me of the
end of the school year when the professor tries to cram every lesson into
the final weeks. It`s kind of a whirlwind. The thing you talked about
doubling down is resentment is definitely something I`ve noticed. I see
the Republicans stuck with angering their inheritors. Young Republicans
have written, we suck, stop ruining it for us, don`t give us this deficit
of bad ideas we have to inherit and try to dig out of. They`ve created
this party through their media and hater campaign of very angry elect hat.

HAYES: That`s a great point. It`s not just that they are responding to
anger. They stoke it. The two things reinforce each other. They paint
themselves in a corner.

THURSTON: Words like that.

HAYES: They`re painted into their own patard. I want to talk about the
DOMA decision. I want to give you a little sci-fi counterfactual history
of how yesterday might have played out if the White House had made a
different decision, right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: We`re talking about the growing Obama coalition of voters and
problems facing the Republican Party trying to compete with the changing
elect rat. Here with Baratuned Thurston from Cultivated Wit, Michelle
Goldberg from "Newsweek and The Daily Beast," and Josh Barro from "Business
Insider."

I want to run through this counterfactual. The White House had an
opportunity when that case was filed in court. I believe in 2011. They
had defended the law, DOMA, previously on another case in Massachusetts.
And they had a decision to face. Do you defend the law or do you not? It
is a very, very big deal for the executive, for the Department of Justice
not to defend a statute that is good federal law. It does not happen that
often.

It`s a big deal when they do. The choice they made not to defend
it, if you rerun the history of yesterday in which they defend that law not
only does yesterday look different, yesterday was an unequivocal victory
for Barack Obama, the Democratic Party. They were able to tweet
celebration. He was able to comment. Nothing tainted about it.

Not only does that go out the window, but the president coming out
for marriage equality during the election year goes out the window, too,
because there`s no way he could have done that if they are in court at that
moment defending DOMA. So the entire trajectory of the relationship of
this president, the Democratic Party, and the coalition, the Obama
coalition to LGBT people is completely transformed.

GOLDBERG: Not completely clear if the decision comes out the way it does.

HAYES: That`s actually a really good point.

GOLDBERG: You know, fighting it.

BARRO: You know, I actually think that it would have been easier for the
president than you said it to switch his position around on it because
advocates of marriage equality were just so enthusiastic to have the
president on their side. It`s been completely forgotten he was against gay
marriage 15 months ago or something. If they decided to defend the law,
they could have dropped out at the appeals court level or could have
changed his position and said, gee, I wish we weren`t defending the law. I
think there was tremendous willingness to forgive and forget with the
president on this issue.

HAYES: I think it further cemented this, and it was opposite of 2008 when
everyone was incredibly ecstatic but for Prop 8 in California.

THURSTON: Awkwardness in the room.

HAYES: Exactly.

THURSTON: Even if it wouldn`t have hurt, it certainly makes a better
story.

HAYES: Right.

THURSTON: With this White House, probably with this country, and certainly
what freedom and justice needed was a good story. We had a lot of mixed
messages this week, even out of the court with the voting rights act, the
Trayvon Martin case. Courts in America and galleys have been very in flux.

HAYES: It`s been kind of a remarkable week watching the process of the
filibuster in Texas, the courtroom in which Rachel Jeantel was testifying
and the interns running out of the supreme court and the kind of, like, it
was just a very dramatic last few days in terms of, like, how democratic
conflicts and arguments get litigated. What are the processes that we have
--

THURSTON: This is national civics week.

HAYES: Do you think it`s possible, why -- is the Republican Party more or
less worried about where they are on LGBT issues or immigration? What can
they jettison more easily?

BARRO: I think they can jettison the -- I think what the Republican Party
desperately wants for this issue to go away. Every time they lose a court
decision, every time they lose a vote in that state, that means one more
state they never have to talk about gay marriage again.

HAYES: Nine years ago they wanted to put it on the table, now they`re
happy to have it off the table.

BARRO: Exactly. The immigration issue, the issue doesn`t go away once you
vote on it. The Republican base will still be angry about it. You`ll
still have ongoing policy issues.

HAYES: You`re also going to bring in 10 million or 11 million people.

THURSTON: It`s much more significant.

HAYES: Brian Fisher announced an opponent of marriage equality, "On Our
Knees For America" to pray, to pray for America. There are going to be
dead enders in the Republican base.

GOLDBERG: There`s also a sense of I think capitulation. You`re in some
ways seeing what you saw, to go really far back, the scopes monkey trial.

HAYES: Like a waterloo.

GOLDBERG: Where there was this sense of like this culture has no place for
us. It`s time --

HAYES: The history of Evangelicals in America is relaxing and waning
between interior focus and public focus. Baratunde Thurston from Cultivated
Wit, Michelle Goldberg from "Newsweek and the Daily Beast," and Josh Barro
from "Business Insider," thank you. That`s ALL IN for this evening and the
excellent "RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.

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

Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>