updated 1/8/2014 1:08:56 PM ET 2014-01-08T18:08:56

ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
January 6, 2014

Guests: Mattie Duppler, Chris Murphy, Tim Carney, John Stanton, Matthew Breen, Camilla Taylor

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

And the first big political battle of the year of the fight over extending
unemployment insurance will get a vote tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. And today,
the battle lines were being drawn.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HAYES (voice-over): Today, Congress is back in session with the first big
fight of this election year. The issue: extending unemployment insurance
to 1.3 million of the long-term unemployed who have lost their benefits
just three days after Christmas. Democrats want the benefits extended.
And they think they have a winning issue.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER: This is typical for Republican
members of Congress. Not Republicans, but Republican members of Congress.
The vast majority of American people believe that unemployment benefits
should be extended.

HAYES: But the Tea Party right wing, the same folks who brought you the
shutdown, are rallying the troops against the bill, coming out hard against
the unemployed. At a time when millions of voters across the country know
or have someone in their family looking for work.

Today, the Club for Growth announced they would be scoring the Senate vote
to extend benefits and holding it against those members that voted yes.
Heritage action, the group that orchestrated the shutdown, urged senators
to vote no. But what`s been missing from the battle, amazingly, are actual
Republican politicians. Much like the shutdown, Republicans find
themselves trapped between a right-wing Tea Party pushing something
unpopular and Democrats gearing up for a fight.

Rand Paul is one Republican who actually came out and made the affirmative
case against long term unemployment insurance.

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I do support unemployment benefits for the
26 weeks that they`re paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a
disservice to these workers.

HAYES: He was so thoroughly criticized for that interview. He walked it
back just a few weeks later.

PAUL: With regard to unemployment insurance, I`ve always said that I`m not
opposed to unemployment insurance, I`m opposed to having it without paying
for it.

HAYES: Meanwhile, Chris Christie, the other great 2016 contender for the
Republican crown, a man fond over for his willingness to take on his own
party, when asked about a benefit extension was not exactly a profile in
courage.

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: That`s really a federal decision.
There`s nothing that the state can do. We`re dependent upon the federal
government in that regard.

HAYES: The defining issue of this coming election season will be economic
justice. And which side politicians in Washington are on will decide their
political future. The Republican congressional brand has recovered from
the debacle of the shutdown, spitting on millions of Americans looking for
work is as good a way as any to reverse that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Joining me now, Maddie Duppler, director of budget and regulatory policy
for Americans for Tax Reform.

Maddie, I am really intrigued by the fact that Republican politicians seem
to have the position they don`t want to do this. They do not want to
extend emergency unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, but
aren`t making the case.

What gives? Where are they on this?

MATTIE DUPPLER, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM: Well, I think that there`s
really difficult to say it`s just Republicans who don`t want to do this.
Listen, if harry Reid really need to get this bill done, he would have put
it in the budget agreement in December, he would have had this on the floor
months and months ago.

HAYES: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop right there.

DUPPLER: I mean, we`re not --

HAYES: Stop right there. Stop right there.

DUPPLER: All right, Chris.

HAYES: That is -- actually, that is not the tact I thought you would take
here. But I do give you points for ingenuity and innovation. So, am I to
believe actually it`s the Democrats who don`t want to extend unemployment
insurance? Because the condition, all the reporting about the Ryan/Murray
budget deal was Democrats were pushing to include that extension in there
and for Republicans that was make or break and the end of the day decided
to leave it out and continue it for now.

So, if we held a vote right now, between Democrats and Republicans, is it
not the case that all Democrats would vote for this extension?

DUPPLER: Well, they were supposed to hold the vote, just a couple hours
ago and that got pulled until 10:00. Maybe you`ll have your answer
tomorrow when it does actually finally come to the Senate floor.

But, you know, I will agree with you here, Chris. I do not think
Republicans are making a compelling case for why they don`t like the Senate
bill. The Senate bill is not simply just an extension of unemployment
insurance like we`ve been doing for the past several years. What it does
is kicks it out three months. What`s to say three months from now,
anything is different?

Now, my issue with the Senate bill is it doesn`t do anything to actually
help the long-term unemployed, which is really the critical issue when
we`re talking about the economic malaise that we`re in right now.

HAYES: Stop right there, again. I will agree with you kicking the can now
for three months, let`s just extend it permanently. Let`s actually put in
benchmarks of unemployment rates, right, so that we don`t have to keep
doing this. Totally agree can you.

Instead of just having to do this every three months on an emergency basis,
let`s say if we have unemployment at a certain level, have the long-term
unemployed at a certain level, if we have it just renews automatically?
That would be great.

But my question to you is -- there seems to be some confusion on the right
about whether they`re ideologically opposed to the very idea of long-term
unemployment insurance, emergency unemployment insurance during a weak
labor market.

(AUDIO GAP)

DUPPLER: Well, I think that you`re right. We haven`t had an actual
process where we brought the bill to the floor and been able to see why
Republicans don`t want to vote on the Senate bill. If we had an open
amendment process and we had Republicans and Democrats who come to the
floor and offer their ideas to fix this bill, we would have a much clearer
picture as to why it is we`ve got two sides fighting over unemployment
insurance.

Because I think you`re right, I don`t think the question is, you know,
should we not have any kind of insurance for people who lose their jobs?
Of course not. But what we`re doing right now is we`re looking at a long-
term unemployment projection that is very, very bad. It`s not even that
it`s bad for these three months, that it`s bad just for this year. It
doesn`t get better in the out years either.

So, to say we should continue to do the same program, continue the same
program that we`ve had that has not really netted any new employment or
done anything to help people, like I said, especially those long-term
unemployed workers, that`s the real issue.

HAYES: Wait a second. That sentence there, that sentence there, I think
that`s the key. That sentence there -- has not done anything to help
people. I think you will find if you were to go and interview, people who
have been long-term unemployed, they would say the benefits have helped
them.

Now, has it gotten them a job? No. Do all these people want jobs? Yes.
Precisely. In fact, that`s exactly why I think so many people took offense
to Rand Paul`s suggestion these people have been lured into indolence by
the state giving them these benefits. But, yes, they do matter for these
folks.

We`re agreed having your benefits on day one and not having them on day
two, your life is much worse off on day two. And there are 1.3 million
people in this country right now who are dealing with that completely
undeserved misery.

DUPPLER: No, and I agree with you. To say to continue writing them a
check is the right prescription for that problem is wrong. I think that
there`s a lot of really great ideas out there as to how to address this
issue. The American Enterprise Institute has done fabulous work on this,
on some ways to look at this system, and continue to have a safety net that
actually encourages workers and incents works and allows people to search
for a job and rewards them for doing so.

HAYES: Here`s what I will agree with you. It is necessary to continue
these benefits for these folks. It is not sufficient for getting them book
to work, which I think is the goal that we all share.

Mattie Duppler for Americans for tax reform, thank you so much tonight.

DUPPLER: Thanks.

HAYES: Joining me now, Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat from Kentucky. He`s
a member of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pension Committee.

Senator, the vote is scheduled for tomorrow. As of now, the most recent
whip count according to my colleague, Kasie Hunt down in Washington, D.C.,
is that three Republicans, Dean Heller, who`s co-sponsoring the bill, Lisa
Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine, all three saying they`ll
society for cloture. You have to get two more votes.

Are you going to get it?

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: I think we`re going to get it.
Senator Reid in part called their bluff tonight. They said, hey, wait a
second, we don`t have all our senators here, give us until tomorrow
morning, not expecting Senator Reid was actually going to agree with them.
We put off the vote until 10:00 a.m.

And the hope is between now and then we`ll be able to get two, three more
Republicans come across the line. This is just awful policy. And even
worse politics for these guys. I don`t know why they want the next two,
three weeks to be all about the Republicans turning their backs on the
long-term unemployed. That`s horrible for them and horrible for those
folks.

HAYES: I could not agree with you more. In fact, I am baffled by the fact
we are once again, it seems, watching the Republican Party be led into a
fight it cannot win by certain elements of their coalition.

Heritage Action which is going to score the vote, when -- I mean, look at
Mark Kirk, for example, your colleague, I think someone you probably have a
degree of respect for, someone who`s been right on certain issues. He`s
someone who`s got 8.7 percent unemployment rate in his state. He`s got
81,000 people who have lost benefits. You could see his office number
there if you`re inclined to contact him about this vote.

I mean, I can`t imagine it`s good for Mark Kirk, as you say, for this to be
the story for the next two weeks.

MURPHY: No, you sort of get the sense with a lot of these guys that they
will take on the right wing like Heritage Action in dribs and drabs, and
that they might have taken them on to end the government shutdown but now
they have to back off over unemployment benefits. They might have voted
for the budget but now they need to essentially take a back seat in the
fight.

Listen, these Republican right wing groups hold enormous power in the
Senate, and right now, unfortunately, the vast majority of their caucus are
listening to those folks.

HAYES: Do you -- when you say that, I mean, that`s something that we track
here and we report on and it`s -- do you see that in the faces of your
colleagues when you talk to them? How does that manifest? You say they
hold power. How does that manifest?

MURPHY: Listen, there are so many of them that are only worrying about
their primaries, and when you are simply worrying about protecting your
right flank and some of these PACs and some of these families in and of
themselves hold essentially the keys to you surviving that primary process,
then you`re going to listen.

Listen, these guys know in their hearts that this is the wrong thing.
That`s why I think whether it`s tomorrow, later in the week or early next
week, they`ll come around. I`ve seen this process play out already on a
number of other issues. But, unfortunately, it`s going to take a little
bit of a process to get there.

HAYES: I think we saw some Republicans, conservatives sort of flirting
with the idea of making the case against this extension by kind of talking
about, in some ways demonizing unemployed. You spent a day during the
recess with a man from your state who`s looking for work. What was that
like?

MURPHY: Yes, I spent a whole day with actually a guy who`s homeless, and
he has only one source of income, and that was extended unemployment
benefits. He had $100 a week coming in and nothing else. That disappears.
That really is a matter of survival for him, but the real story is that
there are thousands of others in Connecticut who are basically not homeless
today only because of those benefits.

And what this guy essentially has found is that without a home, he can`t
find a job because putting a homeless shelter down as your address on job
applications is a nonstarter. And the idea we`re going to cut off benefits
to all sorts of people who are paying their rent and their mortgage with
these extended benefits, thereby making them homeless, thereby guaranteeing
that they stay unemployed, it`s just bad from a position of conscience, but
it`s also terrible from a position of economics. Your guest said we`re not
doing anything for them. No, these benefits actually keep people housed
which allow them to search for jobs.

HAYES: Finally, today, Janet Yellen was confirmed in the Senate to be the
first woman to head the Federal Reserve. Someone who many people are very
excited about. She`s going to play a key role in the recovery and in
getting these people back to work as well.

MURPHY: Yes, she is, because I think she`s going to recognize that the Fed
has two missions, one which is to keep inflation in check and the other
which is to address unemployment. And there have been a lot of us who have
worried the Fed spends a lot of time on the former and not enough on the
latter. I hope that she is going to be connected into this issue of the
long-term unemployed, because if you`re short-term unemployed, then your
prospects are getting better week by week to find a job.

But for these millions of people who`ve been out of work for a year, two
years, three years, they need not just a Congress that`s paying attention,
but they need somebody who`s overseeing the Federal Reserve and monetary
policy of this nation that`s paying attention to their plight. I think
she`ll do that.

HAYES: They need the full attention entire leadership class of the
country, every politician, every representative, every institution because
we destroyed this economy back during the great crash, and we broke the
labor market and the people were caught in it. They were broken along with
it. Senator Chris Murphy.

MURPHY: Thank you very much, Chris.

HAYES: Thank you.

Coming up later, former Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, talking about
why he thinks he`s been blacklisted from the NFL.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS KLUWE, FORMER NFL PLAYER: Eight years for the Vikings, I did exactly
what they wanted me to. I had no complaints about my job performance. My
numbers were very, very consistent. And so, you know, what changed between
that eighth year and ninth year -- well, I started speaking out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: What she was speaking out about and the impact that could have on
the NFL, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Have you heard it`s been really cold? It`s true, and snowy, too.
So much so the airline, JetBlue, took the very drastic step today of
suspending all flights for the nation`s busiest airports for 17 hours as
temperatures develop below freezing across the country, with hundreds of
canceled flights, thousands of travelers found themselves stranded.
Meanwhile, schools shut their doors. Governors declared states of
emergency.

No one is happy about this, except for one group, right wing snow trollers.
And right now they`re thrilled because all this winter cold means global
warming isn`t real. Right? That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is boiling water. Minus 51 wind chill.
Temperature, 21 below. January 6th, 2014, 7:45 p.m. Ready?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: How cold is it outside? It`s really cold, at least for most of us.
A record-breaking polar vortex, that`s really what it`s called has spent
the country into a deep, deep freeze. Subzero temperatures throughout the
Midwest. Wind-chills around 60 below in Montana, Minnesota and North
Dakota.

In Chicago, place I used to call home, a place pretty used to it being
extremely cold, school was canceled as temperatures hit minus 15, and air
travelers around the nation faced massive gridlock with more than 4,000
flights canceled today, alone. Absolute mess.

It was also the greatest day in the world for the army of climate change
deniers we have dubbed the snow trollers, take the occasion of the cool
weather to gleefully suggest that the, quote/unquote, "global warming hoax"
has been exposed by mother nature.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: Well, there`s been a concerted effort of
people to believe that global warming is taking place, that we`re all going
to die and all of that. At the same time, the evidence out there is just,
it`s almost laughable.

DONALD TRUMP, BUSINESSMAN: This winter is brutal. I mean, I`m in New York
right now. The airports were closed. Everything is closed. It`s
freezing.

Well, it`s a hoax. I think scientists are having a lot of fun. It was --
I wouldn`t say started, you know, just like Al Gore started the Internet.
He`s the one that really is the big proponent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: After we coined the term "snow trolling" last week, it engender
response like this treat. "Lol, 30 inches in New England." That`s very
typically of what you see from the right.

But not everyone has his head totally in the sand. Charles Cook,
conservative "National Review", criticized the left for hyperbole on global
warming but at least admitted weather is not the same as climate, allowing
"that it`s silly to see snow out your window and conclude the world is
cooling", if only someone would tell James Inhofe.

Joining me now, Tim Carney, senior political columnist of the "Washington
Examiner." My friend, someone I don`t see eye to eye with, a man who I
feel dabbles a little in snow trolling, which is why I wanted to have you
on, Tim, because you and I had an exchange the other day about what are the
ground rules for when it`s OK to talk about weather and climate, right?

TIM CARNEY, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Yes.

HAYES: So, you go first.

CARNEY: Yes, you and I are journalists. You`re a writer. What we do, we
use anecdotes. You go out, talk to the voter and try to use anecdotes that
demonstrate a broader trend.

HAYES: Right.

CARNEY: So if I`m going to talk to a voter, I try to make sure what he`s
saying lines up with what polls say.

HAYES: Yes.

CARNEY: So if you`re going to say, hey, it`s cold today, and make that
mean something, it should correlate with something. So, I think, look at
Chicago, for instance. Nine of the 10 coldest days in Chicago history are
in our lifetime, Chris.

HAYES: Right.

CARNEY: But only six of the ten hottest days in Chicago are in our
lifetime. The winters in Chicago are getting colder since 1990.

HAYES: Wait a second.

CARNEY: A trend in Chicago winters is cold, so to point out the cold is
highlighting a trend that the data supports.

HAYES: To point out the cold is -- here`s where it`s really important to
get this straight, OK? There is -- the weather on any given day is not the
evidence one way or another for global warming or climate change, right?
The evidence is a massive body of data that we`re collecting in all sorts
of places from Hawaii to the arctic, to the Antarctic, in ice cores and all
over the place, right?

CARNEY: Sure.

HAYES: That massive body of data which is studied by climatologists above
98 percent of whom are quite convinced the planet is warming, right? That
is the body of data, that`s the evidence. Whether it`s hot or cold on a
given day is not evidence in a direction. What it can be is illustrative
of the future --

CARNEY: Exactly.

HAYES: It`s illustrative of the future we are headed into which is why,
when there are wildfires in Colorado, when there`s a heat wave in
Australia, when there`s massively destructive storms hitting us, we talk
about those weather events as windows into what an extreme future will look
like. They are not evidence -- they are not a data point that says the
world is warming. What they are is a window into the future we are heading
into.

CARNEY: But you guys pick every possible point to do it. If you want to -
-

HAYES: Because the world is warming.

CARNEY: If you want to talk about melting arctic ice, that is a symptom of
climate change. If you`re going to go ahead, though, and say that droughts
were caused by climate change, you need a lot more -- you said that, Barack
Obama said that.

The -- what was it called? It was a drought task force went ahead and
said, no, I don`t think you can attribute the 2012 droughts to climate
change. This NOAA. The federal government -- you attributed to it and
Obama attributed to it.

That`s my friend, Charles Cook`s point --

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: Here is the point, though. This is the point, right? This is a
way, and you`re right, we have to tell stories and we tell them with
anecdotes.

CARNEY: Yes.

HAYES: Point is that data out there that`s being corrected, right, that
just means nothing to people. What means something to people, and that`s
the reason the snow trollers are so gleeful, right? That`s why Drudge does
this precisely for this reason because what means something to people is
how does it affect me?

When there`s a drought, like in 2012, what we are saying when we cover that
drought is this is what the world will look increasingly like. This is
what we are edging into because the numbers mean nothing to people.

CARNEY: So you are saying it`s okay to use a drought which the federal
government, the drought experts in the federal government said this is not
caused by to say --

HAYES: Every climate model suggests we will have more droughts and that is
going to ruin people`s lives, create massive misery, dislocation, massive
policy responses we will need. All of that is necessitated by the front
edge of climactic disaster that we are on the front edge of. And so, using
those examples to illustrate that is completely legitimate. What is not
legitimate is saying it`s 15 degrees out in Minnesota right now, ergo Al
Gore is fat, ergo, there is no global warming.

CARNEY: And it`s also not legitimate so say we`re going to get 40 foot sea
level rises because Antarctica is going to melt when Antarctica`s ice
levels are thickening. We`ve known for a while even in the global water --

HAYES: The sea ice is thickening but the arctic is melting.

CARNEY: And so the southern hemisphere, though, isn`t seeing the same sort
of warming.

HAYES: But, Tim, here`s the question.

CARNEY: When people like you say the planet is literally melting -- I
remember you saying that to me on "UP WITH CHRIS HAYES." I might have the
quote a little wrong.

HAYES: It is melting.

CARNEY: But when you say that, it makes it hard for us to have a debate.

HAYES: That`s not the point.

CARNEY: I bet you and I could lay out things we agree on about climate
change then get down to what we disagree on, which is mostly the policy.

HAYES: OK. That`s great. Look, that`s all I want in this world is
precisely that. The point is you come on, right, and the first thing you
do is say, well, look at this Chicago, nine of the ten coldest. But you
don`t think the world is getting colder, right?

CARNEY: I think Chicago winters are getting colder. It`s fine to talk
about that.

HAYES: You understand the world is not getting colder. You understand the
world is warming, right?

CARNEY: The world is warming.

HAYES: Thank you.

CARNEY: Greenhouse gas concentrations in the world are adding to that.
Industrial activity is adding to it.

And your favorite policies --

HAYES: Yes.

CARNEY: -- will not turn that around and any policy that would turn that
around will cost much more than adaptation. There, we can have a debate.

HAYES: Great. If we get to the point where James Inhofe goes to the floor
and says the world is warming, global, carbon emissions are contributing to
that warming, but the liberals are wrong with their solution and Drudge
goes on the front page of Drudge and says the world is warming, but the
liberals -- nothing would make me happier. I`d devote all my shows forever
until they take me off the air to debating the solution.

CARNEY: And you will stop saying the planet is literally melting?

HAYES: I will stop saying the planet is literally melting, figuratively
melting.

CARNEY: Thank you.

HAYES: Tim Carney from the "Washington Examiner", always a pleasure.

CARNEY: Thank you.

HAYES: All right. Coming up, Republican Congressman Peter King completely
lays into a member of his own party.

CARNEY: Either he`s totally uninformed or he`s part of that hate America
crowd that I thought left us in the 1960s. In any event, he doesn`t
deserve to be in the United States Senate for spreading that type of
misperception and absolute lies.

HAYES: Hate America crowd? Who was he talking about, and what that person
is saying in response, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: New York Congressman Peter King has basically accused a Republican
senator of being a terrorist enabling quisling who doesn`t care about
Americans getting killed. If you think that`s exaggerating, listen for
yourself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: The NSA is not listening to anyone`s calls
at all and no record at all can be looked at unless it has a direct
connection with a foreign terrorist. So, Rand Paul does not know who he`s
talking about and really spreading fear among the American people and also
today, I understand, on the show was also comparing General Clapper to
Snowden? I mean, to me, either he`s totally uninformed or he`s part of
that hate America crowd that I thought left us in the 1960s.

In any event, he doesn`t deserve to be in the United States for spreading
that type of misperception and absolute lies, to be honest with you. The
fact is, he has to realize there`s an impact in what he says. If we follow
his policies, it`s going to lead to the death of Americans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Congressman King is one of the most outspoken members of the
neoconservative wing of the Republican Party. And what got him ginned up
is Senator Rand Paul`s announcement of a class action lawsuit against the
NSA. Senator Paul also said the director of intelligence, national
intelligence, James Clapper, should be imprisoned for lying to Congress,
just as Edward Snowden deserves some jail time. But not life imprisonment
or death for his national security leaks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: So I think, personally, he probably would
come home for some penalty of a few years in prison which would be probably
not unlike what James Clapper probably deserves for lying to Congress and
that maybe if they served in a prison cell together we`d become further
enlightened as a country over what we should and shouldn`t do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Senator Paul was referencing there what was a pretty clearly
General Clapper`s lie to Congress about metadata that was revealed by
Snowden`s leaks. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on
millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It does not?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not wittingly. There are cases where they could
inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That is, as we now know, completely untrue. In fact, the NSA is
collecting bulk data on millions of Americans in all sorts of ways. Now,
underneath bluster of Congressman King and the senator is one of the most
fascinating high-stakes ideological battles within the Republican Party,
pitting the maximalist, interventionist, neoconservative wing, including
Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham on one side, against an ascended
Rand Paul wing that`s far more skeptical of foreign intervention as well as
the size and operations of our country`s national security apparatus.

Now this fight will move from its rhetorical phase to its legislative
phase as Congress tackles reforms based on the Edward Snowden leaks. It`s
going to have huge implications both for the Republican Party in 2016 and
for what kind of country we live in.

Joining me now is John Stanton, the Washington bureau chief of "Buzzfeed.
John, were you surprised by the level of vitriol in King this weekend?

JOHN STANTON, BUZZFEED: No, not at all. You know, he said things like
this about Rand Paul before, about Marco Rubio with the funding for the
hurricane disaster in Long Island. He has got problems with folks like
them among the party. He`s very much an institutionalist, sort of a
neocon, an old-school style Republican and he looks at people like Rand
Paul and Ted Cruz and others as sort of upstarts that are bringing a
libertarian sort of crazy person kind of thing in his mind to the party.
And, you know, Peter King is not the kind of guy that`s not going to call
you crazy if he thinks you`re crazy.

HAYES: What I think is really interesting about the way the battle is
shaping up, first of all, Peter King has been flirting with a presidential
run. At least that`s what he said and been reported, which seems
preposterous to me, frankly. Just in terms of what his actual chances
would be in a Republican primary field.

Right now you`re going to see this test case of where Republican lawmakers
line up as these battles happen, legislatively, over NSA reforms, in which
they are going to be torn between the kind of establishment and elite
foreign policy thinkers in the party and the actual base.

STANTON: Yes, you know, and it`s interesting to watch because part of, I
think, Peter King`s problem, frankly, is that every time he sort of draws
the line in the sand, more stuff comes out about what the NSA has done,
which is emboldening folks like Rand Paul. He say, well, they aren`t
collecting any information on Americans. Well, it turns out they are.
Well, then it`s not very much. Well, turns out that they are collecting
quite a bit of information about Americans.

And, you know, now we think maybe they`re collecting information about
members of Congress, and Republicans, unlike Democrats who have long had
this sort of fight within the party, a very open fight going on over this
issue, Republicans now are suddenly beginning to see it on their side as
well and it`s been tamped down for a few years but now, you know, with Rand
Paul and folks like that coming up, and a lot of members not really on
either side of the fence to begin with, you`re starting to see this fissure
grow.

HAYES: Well, I think there have been a few really important moments in
this. I think the kind of mass rejection of the idea of a Syria
intervention, which happened across party lines, but particularly among the
right, you know, against John McCain and Lindsey Graham in that wing,
right? I mean, we saw the grassroots really mobilize and rise up there.
We`ve seen it around some of the NSA stuff. I really think the energy in
the party is there, and what`s fascinating to me as a test is that`s where
Republican lawmakers go on domestic issues. Do they follow it on foreign
issues as well and national security issues?

STANTON: You know, you`re right. I think it even began before that with
Libya stuff where you saw, you know, John McCain and Lindsey Graham trying
to push a very hawkish approach and a lot of Republicans not being very
comfortable with that. You know, these -- the divide has happened on the
domestic side. I`m not sure if it`s going to be as pronounced and if
you`re going to see a full-scale swing. I don`t know if you`re going to
see, for instance, Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn, for instance, jump into
the NSA camp. I do think you are seeing more and more old Republicans and
older Republicans and folks that are just sort of rank and file guys in the
House and the Senate start to lean that way.

HAYES: And, finally, my political question for you is this. It seems to
me that Peter King is basically functioning as a Chris Christie stalking
horse surrogate. We know that`s the part of the party Peter King
identifies himself with. We know that Christie and Paul had this very
intense contra attempts over exactly these issues. It seems to me Peter
King is now standing in for Christie in waging this fight.

STANTON: Actually, that`s interesting. I think they clearly are the sort
of the northeastern Republicans, right? And, you know, they`re not
particularly conservative in a traditional manner, what we consider to be a
traditional manner now.

HAYES: Right, now.

STANTON: We both have these oversized personalities. They love to be
bombastic and yell. The two of them would be fun to watch out on the trail
yelling and screaming about Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. That`s for sure.

HAYES: I`m looking forward -- I`m really looking forward to those debates
with Peter King, Chris Christie and Rand Paul all debating foreign policy
and national security policy. John Stanton from "Buzzfeed," thank you.

I`ll talk to former Minnesota Vikings punter, Chris Kluwe, who said he was
fired from football because of his support for gay rights.

Plus the big news out of Utah today in the fight over same-sex marriage.
Those stories are still ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: In a few minutes my conversation with former Minnesota Vikings
punter, Chris Kluwe, who says he was fired speaking out about gay rights
while playing for the NFL, but said something else during the interview I
thought was quite revealing about what seems like a double standard in the
league when it comes to cases of domestic violence, how guys have been
charged with those kinds of crimes are right back out on the field as if
nothing happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS KLUWE, FORMER MINNESOTA VIKINGS PUNTER: It is a problem, and I think
it`s one that we as society let the NFL get away with because we`re more
concerned about seeing players that will entertain us with feats of
athletic fortitude on the field rather than, you know, are these guys
taking care of business in their personal life? You know, are they acting
like human beings?

And I think, again, that`s something that as a whole, as a society, we have
to ask ourselves that question. Is our entertainment worth what we`re
paying for it in terms of how people are acting?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: More of that conversation next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Big, big news today on the marriage equality front, which we`re
going to bring you in just a moment. First I want to go back to something
we first talked about on the show on Friday. A former Minnesota Viking
punter, Chris Kluwe, gained notoriety last summer when he came out in
support of marriage equality by writing an open letter to Maryland State
Delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. calling Burns a bigot for urging NFL players
to steer clear of endorsing gay marriage.

Then last week, Kluwe just about blew up the internet with a tell-all
letter published on deadspin.com in which he suggested he was cut from the
Vikings because of his gay rights advocacy, writing, "I honestly don`t know
if my activism was the reason I got fired. However, I`m pretty confident
it was."

Kluwe also accused special teams coach Mike Preefer of bigotry for
allegedly saying in a team meeting, quote, "We should round up all the
gays, send them to an island and nuke it until it glows." Preefer denied
saying such a thing and some of Kluwe`s former teammates quickly rallied
around the coach.

Viking`s place kicker, Blair Walsh, "I personally can attest to Preefer`s
integrity and character, his professionalism in the workplace is exemplary
and I firmly believe my teammates wholeheartedly agree."

Meanwhile the Vikings have gone into damage control mode announcing an
independent investigation into Kluwe`s allegations. All of this highlights
yet another dark story behind the curtain of America`s most popular and
most profitable professional sport.


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HAYES: Joining me now, former Vikings punter, Chris Kluwe. Chris, thanks
for coming on tonight. First question, I guess, is you seem to in the
piece you wrote wrestled for a long time about whether or not to go public
with this story. What eventually tipped you over and decided to do it?

KLUWE: Well, I knew it was a story I wanted to tell, and one of the
reasons why I wanted to wait is because I didn`t want to drop that story on
my former teammates during season because it would have been a huge
distraction for them. And I also wanted to try out for other teams during
this year to show I could physically still play in NFL. But apparently,
you know, I can still kick it 45 yards outside the numbers with good hang
time, but just for whatever reason, I couldn`t catch on with the team. It
looked like as if my NFL career was done anyways, might as well tell the
story now.

HAYES: Now the most damning part of your account is about Special Teams
Coach Mike Preefer. You have a quote in there about him talking about
rounding up all the gays on an island, nuking it until it glows. I`m
curious what your reaction to the reaction to the pieces that coach has
come forward and said he has no bias, he has gay family members. Other
Viking team members seem to have rallied behind him. What`s your reaction
to all that?

KLUWE: Well, it`s to be expected. I would have been very surprised if any
active NFL players had come out in support of me because if you look at
what I`m saying, you know, if I`m telling the truth, and obviously I
believe I`m telling the truth since these are things that happened to me, I
was essentially drummed out of the league, off the team, because of the
things I said. To come out in support of me would be inviting the same
sort of treatment.

So I`m not surprised that players haven`t spoken up, and, you know, it`s
really being blacklisted in the NFL is definitely a thing that can happen.
That`s one of the main things I also want to make sure happens is that when
I -- when witnesses have to talk that their anonymity is completely
guaranteed. I don`t want to see that happen to former teammates of mine or
friends of mine.

HAYES: There are people I think who have reacted who said basically
something along the lines of the following. You were very outspoken. You
were kind of a provocateur, had a very high public profile compared to your
average NFL player. That something like this was inevitable. It wasn`t
necessarily that the content of the views, but just the fact the NFL wants
its players to essentially be seen and not heard.

KLUWE: Yes, and that`s definitely an argument people can make, but my
counterpoint to that would be the fact that for eight years, for the
Vikings, I did exactly what they wanted me to. I had no complaints about
my job performance. My numbers were very, very consistent and so, you
know, what changed between that eighth year and ninth year? Well, I
started speaking out. And it is within the team`s rights to fire me for
doing so. You know, they are perfectly capable of doing that. On the flip
side, it`s within my rights to speak out on that and say, here`s what
happened. Is this the type of society we want to live in?

HAYES: You talk about yourself as being blacklisted. You suspect that due
to your outspoken views, you`re having trouble finding a job in the NFL
despite the fact you can still perform as an athlete. I want to get your
reaction to this. In 2012, "San Diego Tribune" found that 21 of 32 NFL
teams at one point that year had a player with a domestic violence or
sexual assault charge on his record. Is there a double standard that the
league will allow people that have these kinds of criminal entanglements
back on to play, no problem, but someone like yourself is now looking at
exile?

KLUWE: I think it is a problem, and I think it`s one that we as society
let the NFL get away with because we`re more concerned about seeing players
that will entertain us with feats of athletic fortitude on the field rather
than, you know, are these guys taking care of business in their personal
life? You know, are they acting like human beings? And I think, again,
that`s something that as a whole, as a society, we have to ask ourselves
that question. Is our entertainment worth what we`re paying for it in
terms of how people are acting?

HAYES: Finally, do you think we will see an out gay NFL player any time
soon?

KLUWE: I think we will. Really that`s one of the things I also wanted to
kind of point out with this story is the fact this doesn`t just happen to
me, this happens to, you know, millions of people across the country. But
things are getting better. Progress is being made. Now, at the same time,
we can`t just be content with the progress that`s been made.

We have to continuously stride for more progress so that when that player
does come out, they know that they have support, they know they have allies
and know if something like this happens, there will be, you know, a
backlash. There will be people who speak out against it.

HAYES: Former Vikings punter, Chris Kluwe. Thanks for your time tonight.
Really appreciate it.

KLUWE: No problem. Thank you for having me on.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HAYES: Speaking of that progress, the ongoing battle for it, the U.S.
Supreme Court tells the state of Utah today, not so fast with the whole gay
marriage thing. More on that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Some of you on Twitter and Facebook have been asking about the hat
our guest, Chris Kluwe, was wearing in the previous segment with the number
6 on the front. It represents something called "The Principle 6" of the
Olympic Charter that says that any form of discrimination is incompatible
with the Olympic Games including gender, race, or sexual orientation.

Winter Games are less than a month away in Russia where you can be
arrested for speaking publicly about gay and lesbian rights. The
"Principle 6" campaign gives athletes and fans to speak out about that
discrimination without breaking Russian anti-gay laws.

When we return, the state of our own laws here in the U.S.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: United States Supreme Court today put a halt to marriage equality
in the state of Utah. Seventeen days ago, U.S. District Judge Robert
Shelby ruled that the state`s same-sex ban violated the constitution of the
United States, which was a pretty remarkable ruling. Then the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals refused to offer a temporary stay to that ruling
three times, which meant that upon issuance of the decision and for a 17-
day period, plenty of scenes like this unfolded in Salt Lake City allowing
hundreds of Utah gay and lesbian couples to get marriage licenses.

It also meant the U.S. Supreme Court had to weigh in and today the highest
court in the land stepped in and said, no more. No more marriage licenses
will be issued in the state until the U.S. Appellate Court System has a
chance to evaluate the state of Utah`s appeal of the decision by the
district judge. So where does that leave the 950 gay and lesbian couples
who are possibly sort of married in state of Utah?

To find out joining me now, Matthew Breen, editor-in-chief for the
"Advocate." and Camilla Taylor, the marriage project director for the
Lamoda Legal. All right, Camilla, were you surprised by this Supreme Court
decision?

CAMILLA TAYLOR, LAMODA LEGAL: I was a bit disappointed, Chris. The papers
by the couple opposing the stay were very strong, but it is actually quite
commonly granted, in fact, in almost all of the cases in which we`ve won
marriage in state high courts. A stay was granted pending the final
determination by the state high court. In fact, there`s only one exception
to that.

HAYES: I`ve got to say, actually, I was shocked there was no stay offered
at the lower levels because it seemed to me that this was paving the way
for creating a situation in which you possibly had a whole bunch of
couples in a very strange kind of legal limbo.

TAYLOR: Well, I think it was pretty shocking that the stay was not granted
by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the district court given
the history of stays being granted in these circumstances. But there`s
something important to remember here. Which is the fact the Supreme Court
halted the further issuance of marriage licenses through this stay, that
doesn`t do anything about the validity of those thousand marriage licenses
that are already out there. They remain perfectly valid.

HAYES: That is a big -- there are two issues on the table right now,
right, Matthew? There is this question of what about those couples and
there is the question about the law more broadly. I want to play Utah
Attorney General Sean Reyes talking about what the stay means for those
couples. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN REYES, UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL: We don`t know the answer yet as to the
marriages that have taken place already. There`s no precedence, I believe,
for this and this is precisely the uncertainty we were hoping to avoid by
requesting a stay immediately upon the decision of the district court.
It`s unfortunate that many Utah citizens have been put into this legal
limbo.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: You can`t take people`s marriages away from them, right?

MATTHEW BREEN, THE ADVOCATE: No, there is precedence for this. You just
referred to that, California, Prop 8.

HAYES: Right.

BREEN: People were granted the permission to marry due to a State Supreme
Court decision in California in 2008. Lot of people got married. When
Prop 8 was voted into law, removing the right did not invalidate the
marriages that already happened. I don`t see -- I`m not a legal expert. I
don`t see any reason that the people who are legally married should be
unmarried.

TAYLOR: Absolutely.

HAYES: Camilla, it seems to me it would be an incredible assertion of
state authority to go -- to reach into the lives of a thousand married
couples and tell them they are no longer married.

TAYLOR: Absolutely. I think it`s very clear that those marriages are
valid, and there are, of course, 17 other states in the country and the
District of Columbia where same-sex couples currently can marry, so
certainly this decision of the Supreme Court to put a stay on the further
issuance of marriage licenses in Urah doesn`t halt the momentum that the
freedom to marry is already achieving.

HAYES: Before this decision, Matthew, you`re a native of the state of
Utah.

BREEN: Yes.

HAYES: Before this decision, you know, a month or two ago when we were
mapping out where the next battle lines in the fight were going to be, I
don`t think anyone had Utah on the radar.

BREEN: No. I did know there was a lawsuit in progress, but I did not
expect a result. Nobody was expecting a result until January, in fact. So
the idea that this was the next state, you know, a lot of these judges are
appointed by Republican governors and so forth. You know, nobody expected
that this was -- that Utah was next at all.

HAYES: One of the things that`s happened, of course, in reaction, there
has been a backlash. This is a Utah police officer and Arizona Sheriff
Richard Mack leading the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers
Association uprising against gay marriage. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD MACK, ARIZONA SHERIFF: The people of Utah have rights, too. Not
just the homosexuals. The homosexuals are shoving their agenda down our
throats. Sheriffs need to defend the county clerks in saying, no. We`re
not going to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: There was reporting there was going it be a lot of fundraising for
a fight in Utah. What do you think the contours of this politically look
like in Utah?

BREEN: Utah is a very interesting place --

HAYES: The history they have with marriage.

BREEN: The history they have with marriage. They have not said a whole
lot yet except they support the decision by the Supreme Court to issue a
stay. My hope is that they`ll stay out of it just a bit. Given the
backlash --

HAYES: The Mormon Church.

BREEN: The Mormon Church exactly. Given the backlash they got over Prop
8. I doubt that`s likely. They will find ways to wield influence. We`re
seeing there`s a call for $2 million to spend by the attorney general to
defend the ban on same-sex marriage. You know, and compare that to the
$2.3 million which was used to defend DOMA by the House of Representatives.

HAYES: Right.

BREEN: We`re talking about a lot of money. We`re talking about a
substantial energy. You know, and we`re talking about, like, sheriffs
wanting to defend a county clerk`s right to disobey law.

HAYES: Right. Camilla, very briefly, what next for this case in the
Supreme Court?

TAYLOR: Well, the Tenth Circuit has actually put this case on a very
expedited schedule. So the briefing will be concluded next month and it`s
conceivable that the Tenth Circuit could actually render a decision by this
fall leaving the Supreme Court and opportunity to take it then.

HAYES: Wow, and then we get a square straight up ruling on the
constitutionality of marriage bans. That will be something. Matthew Breen
from "The Advocate", Camilla Taylor from Lambda Legal, thank you much.

That is "ALL IN" for this evening.

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts now.

Good evening, Rachel.


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

Copyright 2014 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.>

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,