Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Friday, November 1st, 2013

Read the transcript from the Friday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

November 1, 2013
Guest: Jim Manley, Barry Friedman, Hendrik Hertzberg, Margarette Purvis,
Jeffrey Sachs, McKay Coppins, Karen Finney>

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

And as this week draws to a close, we are witnessing a Republican
Party embarking on a new frontier of obstruction.

Shutting down the government didn`t work, threatening to default on
the country`s debts didn`t work, and so, now, the GOP is back doing
something they said they would not do anymore. They are targeting
America`s courts.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Breaking news tonight, it`s a major court
decision impacting Texas women.

HAYES (voice-over): Yesterday, a federal appeals court reinstated
parts of Texas` anti-abortion law that a lower court had struck down. The
law, which blew up nationally during Wendy Davis` epic filibuster means as
many as 30 to 36 clinics in the state that provide abortions will have to
stop doing so immediately.

Yesterday`s appellate court ruling means millions of women in the
state of Texas will not have access to reproductive health services.

But it wasn`t the only big decision to come down yesterday.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The federal court of appeals has now blocked
changes to the NYPD`s controversial stop and frisk program.

HAYES: In New York, a federal appeals court froze a lower court`s
ruling that had stopped stop and frisk practice. And that ruling means
thousands of people of color in New York City will be stopped and will be
frisked because the court said they could be.

Both of these decisions came from the federal appeals court. The
court presided over by judges who are appointed by the president and
confirmed by the Senate. The decision of these judges have massive impacts
on all of our lives, and no one understands how important those judges are
more than Republicans, and they are hell-bent on stopping the president
from seating his own.

In five years, the president has been only able to confirm one judge
to the most important appellate in the country, the D.C. Circuit Court of

congressional Republicans cynically used Senate rules and procedures to
delay and even block qualified nominees from coming to a full vote.

HAYES: And yesterday, Senate Republicans filibustered nominee
Patricia Millet to the D.C. Court of Appeals -- not because they take issue
with her, but because the official Republican position is that the
president of the United States cannot appoint anyone to the second most
important court in the country.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One federal court in Washington, D.C. holds a
whole lot of power.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a court that can rule for or against the
executive orders of this administration.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A court that some people have called the second
most important court in the nation.

HAYES: And it is delivered rebuke after rebuke to the president`s

Today, the court overturned an Obamacare provision mandating
businesses cover their employees` birth control. This year, it invalidated
the president`s National Labor Relations Board appointments, making the
body nonfunctional. Last year, it struck down EPA rules on air pollution,
all of that from this one court.

Now, Republicans filibustering a nominee isn`t new. What is new and
dangerous is the reason.

You see, the D.C. appellate court has 11 seats, three of those seats
are now vacant. And the judges who are there reliably deliver conservative
rulings. If the president could appoint one judge, it would tip the
court`s balance. If he could fill all three vacancies, it would transform
the court and all of American justice.

But Republicans are now saying that Democrats can appoint no one to
fill those vacancies. In fact, they are now saying that appointing people
to fill vacancies is, get this, court packing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This court is not one that needs more judges. As
he`s trying to pack the court in order to affect the outcomes.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R), OHIO: Packing the court because it has
issued rulings against the administration is a cynical approach to the
judicial branch.

SEN. MIKE LEE (R), UTAH: I certainly hope that neither the White
House nor my Democratic colleagues will, instead, decide to play politics
and seek to pack the D.C. circuit with unneeded judges.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know what else you`d call it other than
court packing.

HAYES: Actual court packing refers to FDR`s attempt to expand the
size of a court with extra nominees, not filling vacancies that already

If Republicans are allowed to get away with this, they are allowed to
get away with anything. It cannot stand. And there`s a way Democrats can
end it.


HAYES: All right. Joining me now to discuss that is Jim Manley,
former spokesman for Senate majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid. He
worked in the Senate for 21 years, now senior director at QGA Public

You have been through the confirmation battles, Jim.


HAYES: First, let`s start on this. We are in new territory here with
this new position by the Republicans that filling existing vacancies is
absolutely forbidden and will not be accepted, right?

MANLEY: Absolutely. Funny how this works, back in the Bush
administration, it was all fan and dandy to fill all 11 of those seats, but
now that we have a Democratic president -- oh, no, not for them. They`re
pulling up this phony charge, which is nothing short of a lie, accusing the
president of packing the court. Which, again, as you have pointed out, the
president`s trying to do nothing more than trying to fill the current

HAYES: OK. Now, the question becomes, what do we do with this? And
I feel like this conversation is Lucy with the football, vis-a-vis
filibuster and nominations.

Here`s what happens -- Democrats get angry, Republicans filibuster
nominees, Democrats get angry. They get really angry. They say we`re
going to do something about it, we shall do something. We`re going to
change the filibuster rules, and everyone gets panicked.

And then there`s a conference and everybody talks and then they come
to a gentleman`s agreement, and then they all come out and say, well, we`re
going to let these pass and we`re at the same place two months later.

Why don`t we just get rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees?
For the love of God, Jim, tell me.

MANLEY: Well, Chris, you and I may have a slight difference of
opinion on that one.

HAYES: I think we do.

MANLEY: I`ve got a real problem when it comes to this, because if you
do away with the filibuster, here`s my worst nightmare -- Grover Norquist
is calling the shots on the tax policy. All of a sudden, there`s a Senate
-- under the rules of the Senate, you need a supermajority to pass tax

If you`re a pro-choice woman especially in light of the fact that with
a current make-up of the Supreme Court, you better damn be concerned that
you`re going to lose your right to access and safe abortion.

So, again, the fact of the matter is, you know --

HAYES: Connect those dots for me, though. Connect those dots.

Are you saying, is the argument this? That if you muck with what the
current filibuster rules are, you essentially begin to slide down a
slippery slope, which will mean in the future Republicans will muck with it
in all kinds of radical ways?

MANLEY: Exactly. You`re playing the long ball.

If you`re the Democratic leadership looking out for the institution as
a whole, you`ve got to be concerned about what may occur in the future.
Because after all, you know, you can`t guarantee --

HAYES: You`re going to be in the minority some day.

MANLEY: Yes. You can`t guarantee you`re going to be in the majority

HAYES: OK. But here`s the problem with the argument that I hear.
Right now, we`re seeing violations of all kinds of norms. I mean, the
amount of filibusters has spiked.


HAYES: It`s become completely de rigueur. You have a crazy situation
which Republicans filibustered anyone to head the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau. Now, we have a situation in which they`re saying no one
on this court.

What happens next? What if they say we won confirm any of the
president`s nominees whatsoever, we`re filibustering them all in

MANLEY: Yes, I don`t want to add further fuel to your anger, which is
well-chosen, by the way. But the fact of the matter is everything is
subject to a filibuster in the Senate right now, everything all but the
most routine piece of the legislation subject to 60-vote thresholds.

And you know this and I`m sure most of your viewers know this, but the
fact of the matter is, the requirement for 60 votes isn`t in the

HAYES: Nope.

MANLEY: And sure as heck isn`t in the rules of the Senate either.

HAYES: Nope.

MANLEY: It`s an artificial threshold these guys set up a few years
ago as they tried to undermine the entire Democratic agenda.

Something`s got to give. I`m not so sure what it is. But the fact of
the matter is, you know, the anger level as you mentioned is rising once
more in the caucus. And I`m not so sure what Senator Reid`s going to do.
But I`m confidence he`s going to do the right thing in the end.

HAYES: Well, I think the rig thing is just scrapping this whole anti-
democratic institution which loathe from the bottom of my soul.

Former Senate staffer Jim Manley, thank you so much for your time.

Joining me now is Barry Friedman, a professor at New York University
School of Law, who studies the courts and the Constitution.

And Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor and staff writer for "The New
Yorker" and colleague of mine in Senate hate.

This is just a small part of this massive iceberg, right? Which is
the routinization filibuster. But this is a new innovative use of it.

HENDRIK HERTZBERG, THE NEW YORKER: Yes, this -- well, this -- it`s
been horrible, absolutely horrible for almost a generation. And it`s
gotten much, much worse now.

And the filibuster is an obviously anti-democratic -- and I think
obviously against the spirit and letter of a Constitution. The
Constitution calls for super majorities in seven cases and for other
business, it calls for generally speaking for a majority of a quorum.
Quorum is 51 votes.

HAYES: Right. This is an important point. The Constitution, the
founders and the draft of the Constitution, who are not in any ways
infallible, we should note, but they thought about super majorities and
they specifically name places where supermajorities are necessary.
Treaties are a very good example.

HERTZBERG: And part of the whole reason they had the constitutional
convention to get rid of the Articles of Confederation was to get rid of
super majority requirements.

HAYES: This -- the D.C. court, the D.C. appellate court, how
important is it, really?

extraordinarily important, but let`s be fair, all of the federal courts of
appeal are important. And this is happening not just in D.C., but it`s
happening all over the country. I mean, we have difficult rulings from the
South, in the abortion case, here in New York in the stop and frisk case.

You know what`s extraordinary about this, is to decide not that
there`s anything wrong with the judge. We`re just not going to fill the
jobs. I mean, that`s -- it`s a government shutdown.

HAYES: OK. You study this. I`m an MSNBC host and I`m mad at
Republicans because they`re obstructing. So, stipulated, right?

But this does seem like this is off some kind of cliff. Like this is
different, this is qualitatively different than the routinization of
filibustering nominees because they represent some clients you didn`t like.

FRIEDMAN: This is beyond gridlock as usual. At least there`s usually
an excuse about the problem with the judge. In this case, we had a squeaky
clean judge, they couldn`t think of an excuse, so they announced we`re not
going to approve any judges. I mean, it`s unbelievable.

HAYES: And they can do that, right? I mean, these vacancies just sit
open. Vacancies -- there are tons of vacancies throughout the federal
court. In fact, Barack Obama, has had a lower percentage of his judicial
nominees confirmed than either George W. Bush was much higher, or Bill
Clinton. There are a lot of vacancies in the federal bench generally right

FRIEDMAN: All over the place. I mean, the president was slow out of
the gate with some of his nominees. So, there`s a little blame to go

But this decision that we`re going to just shut down the judiciary is
incredible. And the judges have huge case loads, business is not getting
done. People need judges for things and it`s not happening.

HAYES: Yes, those two decisions, I think, just coming -- you know,
three decisions. Two decisions yesterday, the reinstatement of the parts
of the Texas abortion law that were blocked, the reinstatement of stop and
frisk, which had been declared unconstitutional after a lengthy trial by a
district court judge who gave an interview to one of your colleagues at
"The New Yorker", and then, today`s decision by the same court, striking
down this very important and controversial part of Obamacare.

They highlight how important the courts are. But, Rick, there`s an
asymmetry between the left and the right on this score.

HERTZBERG: Yes. The left, the Democrats never used -- never used the
filibuster in this way. If it`s court packing to a point -- two new judges
to an 11-member court. What happens when the next Supreme Court opening
comes up? Is it going to be packing the court for the president to

HAYES: That`s a great point. If Justice Antonin Scalia says he`s had
with dealing with these -- I love Scalia`s dissents because they always
sound like someone in a workplace where he has to work with the biggest
idiots in the universe, like every dissent. It`s like, I can`t believe I
have to come to work with these idiots. Like this is the most -- this is
one of the most brilliant people in the country.

But, anyway, Scalia decides he`s had it, he retires, right, and
there`s now a vacancy. The same logic of Republicans would be like --
well, it`s court packing if you fill that seat.

FRIEDMAN: I mean, it`s Orwellian, you know, double speak or something
here, people say court packing. Court packing was when Roosevelt wanted to
add six judges to the nine we already had, so he could get the results he
wanted in every case. The idea that filling empty vacancies is court
packing is -- I just almost can`t believe people are saying it and the fact
that people would believe it is extraordinary.

HERTZBERG: And to Jim`s point that what happens when the Democrats
are in the minority? Then don`t we want the filibuster? The problem with
that over the long-term is Democrats want the government to work.
Democrats want the government to be accountable. And if that means when
there`s a Republican government, they can pass their program and be judged
on it, so be it.

And if -- because it also means, for example, with no filibuster,
right now, we`d have -- we`d have cap and trade. We would`ve had a much
stronger health bill.


HERTZBERG: We would`ve had a much bigger stimulus.

And that was the program. And people should be allowed to judge the
government on the basis of its program.

HAYES: Yes, there`s a fundamental -- there`s a fundamental way in
which the filibuster as currently constituted makes the government
dysfunctional and does violence to the mechanisms of Democratic feedback in
which you vote for a party on an agenda, they implement and you judge it
based on how it`s been implemented.

FRIEDMAN: It`s a terrible strategy for the Democrats, right? They`re
playing defense instead of playing offense when they have a majority to
govern. It makes absolutely no sense.

And if you think about it, the Senate`s already not Democratic. I
mean, two senators from very state. Montana gets two, California gets two,
but now it takes 60 senators to get anything done. It makes no sense at

HAYES: Barry Friedman from New York University School of Law, and
Rick Hertzberg from "The New Yorker" -- thank you, gentlemen.

Coming up --


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the first chapter of Genesis, God created Adam,
placed him in the garden to work it. Work is not a penalty. Work is a
blessing. We have failed in introducing the blessing of work to abled
bodied people who have the ability. We have robbed them of knowing a
better life they helped create for themselves and their families.


HAYES: That`s real sound, by the way. We did not make that up.

Tonight, with 11.3 million people unemployed, one in every seven
Americans is trying to make due with less after their food stamp benefits
were slashed today. We`ll talk about who`s responsible for it and the
impact it`s having on families and the economy ahead.

So, stay with us.


HAYES: You heard of the Stephen Colbert super PAC Americans for a
Better Tomorrow Tomorrow. A really effective, stuntish endeavor to point
out how lack campaign finance laws became after Citizens United.

Well, get this -- now someone running for Congress is actually using
the Stephen Colbert method of fund raising for real. I`ll explain later on
in the show.



HAYES (voice-over): When provisions from the 2009 stimulus package
expire tomorrow night, $5 billion in cuts to the food stamp program will
take effect. The cuts to food stamps also called SNAP benefits are the
first big hit in what activists have taken to calling the hunger cliff.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I need food stamps and I needed food pantry in
order to survive and feed my three children.


HAYES: On Wednesday night, we brought you the story of the hunger
cliff. And today, we went over it as $5 billion of cuts to food stamps
went into effect, causing hardship for the nearly 1 in 7 Americans on food
stamps and panic for those scrambling to keep them from going hungry.

Since our report, there`s been an explosion of coverage of the cuts,
mostly focused on what they mean for the poor.

But FOX Business` Neil Cavuto had a different take.


NEIL CAVUTO, FOX BUSINESS: November 1st, could be a very, very --
well, iffy kind of a day. I`m no just talking about what many in the
Catholic Church view as All Saints Day. This could be all hell breaks
loose day. The Homeland Security spending $80 million on protecting the
IRS and buildings in New York. Not from terrorist threats, mind you, but
from American citizens because on November 1st, the food stamp program is
set to start decreasing the amount that is allocated to food stamp


HAYES: Food stamp riots. There`s something to be afraid of.

Of course, nothing like that happened today. Just the lies of a whole
lot of people millions of our fellow citizens got a lot harder. Nothing
for someone like Neil Cavuto to worry about.

But that wasn`t the only thing wrong with that report. We called DHS
to a if they spent $80 million to protect against the marauding food stamp
hordes after the very friendly spokesperson let out an exasperated sigh,
DHS sent us a statement that the FOX report and those like it was false.
The funding request was simply for money to replace an expiring security
contract and was, quote, "not in response to or anticipation of any
potential situation."

So, where did FOX News get its information? We don`t know for sure,
but most Web sites making these false claims sourced it to a story on the
notorious conspiracy site run by Alex Jones, where you can
also find speculation about Navy SEALs being involved in the Boston
marathon bombings.

Now, "The Wall Street Journal" also covered the hunger cliff today and
they highlighted yet another angle. What the food stamp cut means for
companies` bottom lines. And that angle is worth paying attention to. The
food stamp cuts don`t mean less money being spent on food.

As a J.P. Morgan Chase economist told "The New York Times," some poor
Americans may maintain the same food intake but reduce spending on other

Indeed, the economic impact of these cuts is huge. And they are just
one part of an entire austerity agenda that continues to produce completely
unnecessary hardship and misery for millions of Americans, full four years
since the recovery.

Joining me now Margarette Purvis, president and CEO of food for New
York City, and economist Jeffrey Sachs, professor at Columbia University,
special adviser to the United Nations.

And, Jeff, I want to begin with you. There is a real macro economic
effect to a $5 billion cut to food stamps. There`s an estimate that $1
spent in food stamps produces $1.74 in economic activity. It is very
efficient stimulus.

JEFREY SACHS, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Yes. Although, I want to stay on
the main point -- it is an agenda of cruelty beyond belief. And one can
talk about the macroeconomics and I know you want to, but it`s unbelievable
what this country is coming to, which is actually taking -- literally, food
from the hungriest children in this country. It is disgusting. There is
no rationale for it.

It would be simple to fund this. In fact, simple to fund it from the
richest people in this country who get tax breaks galore, often pay no
taxes whatsoever, and the abuse of our spirit, our morality is shocking and
this today is one of the worst things we`ve seen, period.

HAYES: But you`re -- come on, you`re a hard-headed economist, and
we`ve got deficits as far as the eye can see America`s going bankrupt.
It`s becoming Greece, haven`t you heard this?

We`ve got to make sure that we get our financial house in order and,
you know, we`ve got to have tough cuts.

SACHS: We have about 40 hedge fund guys who made $16 billion, took
home. Just the 40, $16 billion. And they pay much lower taxes than the
average working class American because they get tax gimmicks that keep
their top tax rate at 15 percent.

You put their taxes at a normal level, not even a super high level for
these unbelievable checks that they take home, and you fund 47 million

HAYES: I like it. This is a solution, get rid of what`s called
carried interest, the loophole you`re talking about -- get rid of the
carried interest loophole for the top 40 people. Do it just for the top 40


SACHS: You`d probably get about $3 billion a year from the 40 people
alone. This would be, you know, I have here, I brought it because I
thought it was relevant, to a piece of legislation submitted by Senator
Levin, which is all of the worst tax phony loopholes for American
companies, putting their money in the Caymans, this is $220 billion over 10
years, it`s not about raising tax or anything, it`s about closing the most
disgusting, egregious loopholes we could feed our children decently without
breaking a sweat.

HAYES: OK. Margarette, why did there`s been a lot today. I don`t
think they`re being disingenuous. I think if you look at the record of the
parties, there`s one party that has been absolutely taking an ax to these
programs, the Republican Party. House Republicans cut $39 billion in cuts.

But it`s important to point out why, why did this happen today? Why
did this expire?

broken promise. You know, couple years ago, we needed to find a way or the
president needed to find a way to have a real driver. They were looking to
try to improve the nutritional value of school meals. And so, in order to
get everyone to agree, we`ll take it from the SNAP program, the extra that
the program was getting. But then they were told, but it will never

HAYES: Right.

PURVIS: So, the money will come back.

HAYES: Right.

PURVIS: So, some Democrats were absolutely against it but went with
it saying it`s coming back.

HAYES: So, this is important. This is what`s known in Washington as
a pay-for.

And here`s what a pay-for is. Pay-for is under the Democrats, rules
in Congress, everything you spend you have to pay for it. And when they
were going to spend money on this new nutrition program, which I think is
good in many ways, their pay-for was sunsetting these -- this spending a
year earlier than it had been and that`s a pay for.

So, that`s why the expiration. This was something the Democrats put

PURVIS: Democrats put through. And now the result has been we`re
going to ensure that the nutritional value of lunch is better but now
there`s now dinner.

HAYES: Right.

PURVIS: I mean, that`s really the decision that was made.

And, you know, I`m not an economist. But I do believe that there is
one --

SACHS: So you can think clearly.


PURVIS: Thank you. However, I will say this, the reason we do need
to understand that whole basically 2 for 1 on food stamps is because, yes,
people who are concerned about their tax dollars, you`re right to be
concerned about your tax dollars. But this is a program that truly pays
your local economy back?

The fact that we would cut it is what really shows why this is cruel,
because we have decided to just be completely illogical, which is we`re not
going to do what makes sense --

HAYES: Right.

PURVIS: -- to potentially punish a group.

SACHS: And, Margarette, the whole thing is a game for tax breaks at
the top.


SACHS: And that, I think, a lot of people unfortunately don`t see
because that`s all disguised.

This isn`t about taxing the middle class to pay for this. This is
about the taxes at the top that aren`t paid.

And we have our biggest companies putting money in Bermuda, putting
money in the Cayman Islands, earning profits and paying no taxes on them at
all. And then, lo and behold, we`re told there`s no money for the poorest
people in the country.

HAYES: Here`s the other thing I would say -- you have in your hand
here, these are pay-fors, right? Money -- revenue you can raise.

SACHS: Absolutely --

HAYES: But I would also say, this is what I would say -- in the
absence of being able to pass this, just have a bigger deficit. I`m

I would prefer a bigger deficit in the amount of $4 billion than
literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry people which we are doing
today in the most shameful way imaginable.

SACHS: Absolutely.

PURVIS: And if the person does not agree with you? Fine. But you`re
-- in New York City alone, we`re going to lose at the end of this month,
$17 million. And the next month, we`re going to lose another $17 million.
And it`s going to continue.

HAYES: To the local economy, right.

PURVIS: The local economy.

HAYES: Margarette Purvis in food bank for New York City, and
economist Jeffrey Sachs -- it was a great pleasure having you both here.

PURVIS: Thank you so much for having us.

HAYES: Coming up: what happens when a sort of joke way to raise money
for a fake campaign becomes a totally real way to raise it for an actual
campaign -- thanks to Citizens United. We`ll be right back.


HAYES: You remember Citizens United, right? It gave us rather iconic
moment from the president`s state of the union address in 2011.


Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the flood gates
for special interests, including foreign corporations to spend without
limit in our election.


HAYES: Citizens United in broad strokes effectively opened the gates
for corporate spending and election campaigns. But, more than that, it
basically allows anyone or any corporation to spend whatever they want
whenever they want to help a candidate win an election.

That is the executive summary. The details are pretty complicated
and the best illustration ever of the kind of absurd loopholes that
citizens united opened up came from Stephen Colbert.


candidate and run a Super Pac, that would be coordinating with yourself.
You could have it run by somebody else.

What? Someone else can take it over?

POTTER: Yes, but someone else who you would not be coordinating with
in terms of Pac ads and strategy.

COLBERT: I think there might be a guy. Jon?


COLBERT: Colbert Super Pac transfer activate.




COLBERT: Ahhhhh. Colbert. Colbert Super Pac is dead.

STEWART: But it has been reborn, but definitely not coordinating with
Stephen Colbert Super Pac!


HAYES: All right. So the joke there being that citizens united
allows you to create a Super Pac, you know, that raises money and spends
money on ads, quit that Super Pac, hand off the reins to your best friend,
run for office while your best friend supports your candidacy with money
from that Super Pac.


STEWART: Can I run ads supporting Stephen Colbert who I believe in
very deeply and perhaps attacking his potential opponents who I don`t
believe in at all?

POTTER: Yes, you can as long as you do not coordinate.

STEWART: Can I legally hire Stephen`s current Super Pac staff to
produce these ads that will be in no way coordinated with Stephen?




HAYES: OK. So check this out. That comedy routine is now reality
in the state of Montana. Ryan Zinke, a former state senator and Navy
S.E.A.L. is running for congress in the biggest state but before that he
was running a Super Pac called special operations for America.


RYAN ZINKE, (R) MONTANA SENATOR: Special operations for America is a
grassroots Pac, you know, aimed at giving the military a voice. Giving
special operations to guys on active duty, the retired guys a voice in
what`s happening.


HAYES: Back in September, Zinke quit his Super Pac, writing I am
stepping down as chairman and a new leadership will take helm to stir the
future for special operations for America. That new leadership taking the
helm would be his best buddy and former Navy S.E.A.L., Gary Stubblefield.

A few weeks after this, Zinke declared his candidacy for congress and
since then the special operations for America Super Pac hasn`t exactly been
subtle in showing the support for Zinke. From the Super Pac`s Twitter feed
today is our former Chairman Ryan Zinke for congress` birthday. We wish
him a birthday over on his page. That links to a fund raising letter from
the Pac`s website. Special operations for America is committed to elect
leaders like Ryan Zinke.

Donate to special operations for America to support candidates like
Ryan Zinke. They got the money to do it. And, in the most recent FEC
filings, Special Operations for America reported almost $250,000 cash on
hand, which turns out to be a little less than all the outside money spent
in Montana`s congressional race in 2012, which is the year the Special
Operations for America Super Pac got off the ground and began to get a
decent amount of national exposure for backing Mitt Romney for president.


looking to raise? And is this going to be part of the ads that I assume
your Super Pac is going to put out?

unfortunate part of politics is, our voice is directly in relationship to
how much money we have. You know, I`m not taking a paycheck. I`m doing
this for God and country.


HAYES: But as mother Jones points out in a terrific piece of
reporting on Zinke`s scheme to financially support his own campaign, it
looks like his Super Pac paid more than $26,000 to a company called
continental divide international. And, according to Zinke`s Linkedin page,
he just happens to be CEO of that same company, or in other words Zinke set
up a Super Pac that just happened to cut a $26,000 check to his own

Zinke seems to be taking full advantage of Citizens United. Prior to
his exploits, it was a show on comedy central that best illustrate it that
decision`s effects. But, reality has now caught up with the satire. And,
when you think about it, there is nothing funny about it.


HAYES: All right, dear viewer, what do you think the luckiest
creature in the world is? According to a new book, Bill Clinton got a
novel answer to that question. And, promise me, you definitely want to
hear it. That`s ahead.


HAYES (voice-over): But first, I want to show you the three awesomest
things on the internet today. We begin tonight with a Halloween
postmortem. Just a few highlights, most of them pumpkin related, like the
supreme gourds. All Nine Supreme Court justices sculpted into an orange
haze of holiday harmony. The artist, these two law students with a lot of
time on their hands, apparently. And, there are Halloween true crimes
tales like this one, woman busted by airport security with cocaine stuffed
pumpkins. See the link appropriate.

But, our favorite Halloween goof-up is this, journalist Jillian York
who participated in the new Halloween tradition of changing her twitter
handle to something seasonally appropriate and inadvertently fooling the
"New York Times" resulting in this sober correction and earlier version of
the tweet in this column they stated the name of its writer. As her
twitter handle correctly noted, she is Jillian C. York, not Jillian J.

The second awesomest thing on the internet from that great muse
that New York subway system. A video of the New York City subway signs
experiment. There are 486 subway stations in New York City. The video
explains each one has a black and white striped board. Conductors point at
the board to prove that they are paying attention.


HAYES (voice-over): So, two subway riders, Yosef Lerner and Rose
Sacktor decided to have some fun with this weird rule.


HAYES (voice-over): I seriously could watch those reaction shots all
day. And, the third awesomest thing on the internet today is that time of
year again when we say good-bye to daylight savings time.

JOE LEPAGE: As you set your clocks back this weekend, don`t forget
about your carbon monoxide detector, committed to you, I am Joe LePage
And, that is today`s top story.

HAYES (voice-over): The practice begun in World War I of extending
daylight into the evening hours has been given a huge deserved smackdown.
Daylight savings time is America`s greatest shame. Alexander Abad Santos
methodically explains how it is a big crock.

Daylight savings time does not, as we have been told, save much
money. In the old days it saved money on lights and fuel; but in modern
times, it has increased the use of the air conditioner. Daylight savings
time screws up our sleep and bad for our health and reduces productivity
and contrary to popular belief, most farmers oppose it. They can do their
job just fine without it and so can the cows. Moo. You can find all the
links for tonight`s "Click Three" on our website, We`ll be
right back.


HAYES: Almost four years ago, they came out with "Game Change," a
revealing and often dishy behind the scenes look at the 2008 presidential
campaign. Now, journalist John Heilemann and Mark Halperin are delivering
a sequel. It is called "Double Down" detailing the interworking from the
2012 presidential campaign. The book and the authors are being called by
some supermarket tabloid trash, looking at you Jon Huntsman Sr., while
others are relishing the book`s really, really amazing quotes.

First up, revelation that President Obama`s top aides considered
replacing Vice President Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton with democratic
ticket in the fall of 2011 with Mr. Obama`s low popularity making
reelection uncertain. Aides reorganize extensive focus group sessions and

Former White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley told the "New York
Times" that considering a campaign shake-up was simply due diligence. Now,
you have to remember at that point the president was in awful shape. So we
were, like, "Holy Christ, what do we do?" But, the Lord stayed out of this
one and Biden remained on the ticket. Today, the White House pushed back
at the account.


JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: It`s important to know that
campaigns and pollsters of part of campaigns test a lot of things. What I
can tell you without a doubt is that the president never considered that.
And, had anyone brought that idea to him, he would`ve laughed it out of the


HAYES: And, there`s the issue with the political force off the
ticket. Bill Clinton, as the "New York Times" reports, the book says,
"Obama could barely endorse spending much time with his predecessor." Mr.
Obama rarely contacted the former president during his first few years in
office. But, changes tuned after the party`s midterm losses.

Aides thought that a golf outing would make the two men closer but
they did not even finish 18 holes, Obama telling an aide afterwards, "I
like him in doses." That was apparent when following a fundraiser Obama
was unable to, quote, handle any more undiluted Clinton instead of having
one on one meal with -- Obama invited aides from both of their staffs to
dinner and talk about their children rather than talking politics with

As for Clinton himself, well, he couldn`t get over how remarkably
lucky Mr. Obama was as this excerpt published by politico explains Romney`s
ineptness staggered Clinton after releasing the 47% video, he remarked to a
friend that while Mitt was a decent man, he was in a wrong line of work.

He really shouldn`t be speaking to people in public. As for Obama,
Clinton shouted it out for his pals the same line again and again. He is
luckier than a -- I am parapharasing here, "doubly endowed dog." It`s a
family show, people.

Joining me now is McKay Coppins, political editor for "BuzzFeed,"
Karen Finney, host of "Disrupt" which airs on weekends at 4 p.m. eastern.
She is former communications director for the DNC.

KAREN FINNEY, HOST OF "DISRUPT": Can we tell people that you gave us
the unedited version of that quote?

HAYES: I did. I did. I am a journalist. I`m just reporting. Just
to get that image out of everyone`s head. OK. So people -- people -- I
read and enjoyed "Game Change," actually. And, you know, this kind of book
will generate a lot of -- a lot of, you know, a lot of chatter in the next


HAYES: It`s one of those books and it will. And, so the first thing
to me, how do you just as a consumer of news deal with the information
presented to you? Because it`s not just this book that this happens. The
Woodward books are another great example. These books that are behind the
scenes, you are there books. There are no sources. You don`t know who
told you what.

FINNEY: Right.

HAYES: And, so, you have to read it kind of decoding what is in the
book but also what happened offset to make that appear in the book. And, I
want you to give me sense from a sort of reporter and spokesperson
perspective and your perspective as a campaign reporter on how to do that
right after we take this break.


HAYES: Back with Karen Finney host of MSNBC`s "Disrupt" and McKay
Coppins, political editor for "BuzzFeed" and I was just asking you, how
should the average reader, Karen --


HAYES: -- who approaches this book, no sources, no notes, you don`t
know who told why something is in the book, how do you read it?


HAYES: How do you deal with all the conversation we`re going to have
over it?

FINNEY: I would say about 50% entertainment fiction/50%, maybe it
happened like this; because remember that people in the book, you may be
anonymous in one section as you are telling a story and then quoted on the
record in another section and it just may be that off the record section
makes you sound a lot better than you would otherwise.

I mean you have to keep in mind the motivation of the people who are
talking, they are trying to make themselves the best they can. They are
trying to make their adversaries look the worst they can. And, sometimes
that is within the same camp. That`s not necessarily --

HAYES: No, absolutely. Right?

are written in journalism you call it de-background, where you go to
hundreds of sources and say, "Tell me everything. We are not going to use
your name. We are not even going to say -- you know, say attributed to
campaign aide or a journalist or just going to take what you tell us and
then put in the book as an account, right? And, we kind of we kind of --

HAYES: So, the people -- sources are protected from being exposed
for talking out of turn?

COPPINS: Yes -- No. Absolutely. And, you know, what readers should
keep in mind when they are reading a book like this is that every
presidential campaign to some extent becomes kind of a ceding culture of

HAYES: And have hatred.

COPPINS: Exactly.

HAYES: Is that true?

FINNEY: Absolutely, because look. Many people in the course of the
campaign are thinking about their next gig. Right?

HAYES: Right.

FINNEY: So, they`re thinking, I am going to get this guy elected and
then what am I going to do? How much can I charge? How good am I going to
look coming out of this? How bad am I going to look coming out of this?
How do I mitigate that coming out of this? So -- And, yes, the technique I
used to use would be deep, deep background can`t be -- got to be clear,
can`t be anywhere near me.

HAYES: Right. Anywhere near me.

FINNEY: Anywhere near me.


HAYES: Yes. And, I think, and part of it, I mean, I wan to make
this distinction too. Because I think, you know, there are things can be
true. If you have ever had a workplace conflict with two people at a
workplace who hate each other, like you would get very different versions
of the story --

FINNEY: Absolutely.

HAYES: -- from those two sides even if the broad facts were agreed
upon, right?


HAYES: And, so the question of like whose side was telling you that.
And, part of the job here, I mean I think one of the things that comes
through in these excerpts we have gotten was the Chris Christie camp and
Mitt Romney camp do not like each other.

And, that I think is like -- I mean we have Christie concluding
Romney`s campaign was a gaggle of clowns who couldn`t organize a one ring
circus. I am tired of you people to evoke quotes because you saying leave
the expletive alone. You have -- casting Chris Christie because he could
not pass betting, but I think the conclusion rather than necessarily the
substance of those things is they really didn`t like each other. And, all
of the stuff in the conservative media particularly towards the end of the
campaign of Chris Christie cost Mitt Romney an election. That went deeper
than bloggers.


HAYES: The people in the Romney Camp.

COPPINS: No. Totally, you know, you talk to a Romney adviser still
off the record around deep background and they will 100% cite Chris
Christie as one of the main reasons that they lost 2012. And, that totally
comes through in this book, at least the excerpts that I have seen.

The other thing that you have to remember is we see a lot about the
Clinton, you know, Clinton coming on possibly replacing Biden. All of that
is also being colored by how these democrats are positioning themselves for

FINNEY: Exactly.

HAYES: Explain that more because that is a really important point,
right? No. That`s true because there are a lot of machinations happening
in the world of democratic politics that are around 2016 and a lot of
positioning happening vis-a-vis that, as well.

FINNEY: Well, that is the difference of doing a book where you are
during the reporting, during the campaign and then you do the writing after
the fact because you then kind of look for, "OK, what were the themes?"
Rather than when it`s happening and the book comes out. With regard to
Chris Christie, obviously, if they think that was their problem, that is
malpractice, right?

HAYES: Right.

FINNEY: And, you know, that`s what I`m talking about what people who
say -- who are thinking, "I got to get hired again. I got to put this on
Chris Christie." But, it is interesting with Hillary. I actually -- my
read of it was, "OK. They think Hillary is running and they want to do a
book." So, they want to throw out that, like, you know, "Hillary was going
to be the one." You know? That seemed like a little bit of pandering to

HAYES: Well, I mean -- and, basically, it looks like Daley thinks it
was considered amongst a bunch of other options. I do think, you know,
there is no way for the Obama-Clinton relationship not to fascinate us
because these are the sort of most preeminent figures in democratic
politics. It was the most bitter primary I had ever experienced in -- I
mean it is just like people crying in bars, fighting about it like every
night for like months of my life. And, no, seriously -- it was like --

COPPINS: Did you cry, Chris?

HAYES: I did not. I did not. And, I don`t think I made anyone cry,
I hope. But there were tears, you know, shed. And, what I do think comes
through and I think I have heard this from other people is like -- these
are human beings. I mean that is one of the things I liked about "Game
Change." It was a reminder, these are human beings under conditions of
intense pressure and time constraint and limited knowledge. And things
from the outside that look stupid why would any idiot do that? On the
inside, you are just trying to like get through the day.

FINNEY: Sometimes I actually think the book doesn`t give you enough
of that like. When you have not slept in days and you`re exhausted and you
are having a meeting and trying to make this decision and you`re thinking
why do I care that the guy said arugula in Iowa.

HAYES: Right.

FINNEY: Because you do. Because you know what? You are going to
have three days of defending it if you don`t come up with the right answer

HAYES: That sounds so crushing.

COPPINS: Well, that`s the best thing --

FINNEY: It sounds crazy to the outside, right? First world problems.
But when you`re in it, it`s like --

HAYES: Yes. But, the only thing I heard you are saying is that in
that meeting, you could scream out an expletive that then gets quoted in a
context and makes you look like you hated the person on the other side of
it, when it`s just like the raw stress of the conditions of producing that.

COPPINS: Right. That first "Game Change" book had so many instances
of Hillary Clinton losing it, right? Just flipping out at her aides and
screaming. But, you know, who knows? I would venture to guess that every
single presidential candidate has had moments where they lose it with their
aides and everyone in a situation that intense is going to have moments
like that.

FINNEY: Having worked for Hillary, there were times she lost it and
she totally deserved to lose it because somebody really screwed up.

HAYES: McKay Coppins of BuzzFeed and Karen Finney. You can catch her
show "Disrupt" weekends at 4:00 p.m. Eastern. Thank you, both. That was
fun. That is "All In" for this evening. The "Rachel Maddow Show" starts
now. Good evening, Rachel.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. I am still trying to
figure out why that particular dog would be all that lucky. You know what
I`m saying?


HAYES: Oh, my God. You have now brought back the image I have tried
to banish all day.

MADDOW: I am sorry. I`m stuck with it. I can`t get to brain bleach
for an hour.

HAYES: I know. Have a good weekend.

MADDOW: You too.


<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2013 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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.>

Sponsored links

Resource guide