Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Friday, April 4th, 2014

Read the transcript from the Friday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

April 4, 2014

Guests: Bradley Simon, Paul Butler, Brian Wice, Shaun McCutcheon, Nancy
Giles, Julie, Robert Thompson

ARI MELBER, GUEST HOST: Good evening to you from New York. I am Ari
Melber, filling in for Chris Hayes.

And tonight, there is breaking news into the federal investigation
into the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge, at the center of
the so-called bridge-gate scandal surrounding New Jersey Governor Chris

We can report tonight for the first time that the attorney for
Christie`s press secretary is confirming this evening that his client,
Michael Drewniak, testified today before a federal grand jury at Newark,
New Jersey`s federal courthouse.

In addition, both ABC News and the New Jersey "Star Ledger" are
reporting a grand jury, quote, "is now hearing testimony in the federal
criminal probe into the George Washington Bridge scandal." Drewniak`s
lawyer confirmed to ABC news his client was, in fact, a witness today, and
only a witness.

The attorney emphasizing that, quote, "I`m not going to get into the
specifics as to what would be discussed in the grand jury. I would say,
though, that Mike is a witness and we have been assured that he continues
to be a witness throughout these proceedings."

ABC News reports that 23 jurors were impanel at that federal
courthouse in Newark today as part of this federal investigation led by
U.S. attorney Paul Fishman. The investigation had been looking into
whether or not Chris Christie or his aides may have violated federal law
last year and Michael Drewniak has already met, this is important, he`s met
with federal prosecutors before, in fact, his lawyer told "Bloomberg" last
February that, he, quote, "met prosecutors working for U.S. attorney Paul
Fishman in Newark, New Jersey."

So, what`s different now, what we`re reporting tonight is new
testimony that could indicate prosecutors are gathering new or additional
kinds of information pursuant to this formal investigation. It could also
mean the jury will hear from additional witnesses, indeed, it is not usual
to only hear from one in an investigation like this.

Now, who is Drewniak? Well, he is a close aide and trusted ally of
Governor Christie. He was his longtime press secretary and interestingly,
he previously worked for him at the U.S. attorney`s office. Of course,
that`s the very U.S. attorney`s office where this federal investigation is

The reason his testimony today is potentially significant is because,
remember, a grand jury is a pretty serious federal proceeding. Witnesses
must testify without a lawyer and they cannot plead the Fifth in that

We could see many more developments growing out of today`s news.
Joining us to help unpack it is former federal prosecutor, current criminal
defense attorney, Bradley Simon. Paul Butler, professor of law at
Georgetown University Law Center and former federal prosecutor with the
U.S. Department of Justice specializing in public corruption. And criminal
defense attorney Brian Wice.

Welcome to all of you.

Bradley, let`s start with your experience in these kind of offices, as
a federal prosecutor. What does it mean when we see a witness go in and
speak to a grand jury ins a case like this, an inquiry that thus far has
not had confirmed evidence, confirmed reports of folks going in for this
kind of testimony?

jury has been impaneled means the investigation has risen to a new level.
Grand juries are secret proceedings. They consist of individual jurors
between 16 and 23 in number.

And the entire process is controlled by the government. Defense
lawyers are not allowed into the grand jury room. And it is in a sense a
one-sided proceeding. Our former chief judge in New York once said that a
grand jury could indict a ham sandwich.

MELBER: Right.

SIMON: So, if, in fact, the U.S. attorney decides at some point to
present charges, it is more than likely that the grand jury will return
what they call a true bill and indict.

MELBER: Right. A true bill and indict.

Let me go to Paul who also has relevant federal experience which is
why we want to talk to you.

You`ve also kept an eye on this case. And this is a witness here who
has both been very loyal to Governor Christie for a long time, who also, as
I mentioned, knows this office, worked in this very U.S. attorney`s office
and whose lawyer says he is there strictly as a witness.

So, Paul, what`s your interpretation of what we`re learning tonight?

U.S. attorney is doing is trying to lock in testimony. So, they`ll come
in, they already know what he said because they`ve interviewed him.

MELBER: Right.

BUTLER: So they`re going to get him to put it under oath, on the
record, and that way he can`t change his story. And that`s what you do
when you`re trying to make a case against someone.

So, you know, before this point, if I were Governor Christie, I wasn`t
quaking in my boots. I`m still not quaking in my boots because grand
juries investigate lots of people who they don`t indict.

But I`m very worried because this is all about the prosecutor`s call
now. That grand jury is going to do whatever the prosecutor wants.

MELBER: Brian, let me bring you in, particularly as a criminal
defense attorney. Any reaction to what you`ve heard? And, again, speak to
the situation that anyone would find themselves in if they go before a
grand jury and would rather not testify?

investigation has now reached Defcon-1.

I have said all along on MSNBC the legislative investigation that`s
been undertaken by the Jersey legislators was spring training, AAA. Now,
they have reached a critical mass. What`s important, what your viewers
need to recognize, basically two things. Number one, this grand jury is
not going to pass upon the guilt or innocence of anybody who they may have
in their gun site, only probable cause. Is it more likely than not that
these folks violated law?

And Bradley makes a great point, this is a totally one-sided
proceeding. The closest defense attorneys get to this proceeding is in the
hallway or maybe the greenroom if they even have one.

But, right now, Paul Fishman is about to begin a phase of this
investigation that as we`ve said all along, guys, will change some careers
and others and turn people`s lives upside-down.

MELBER: So, Brian, let me drill down on the point you raised there,
make sure we`re understanding you correctly. You`re referring in part to
the standard of proof that would be required here, but you`re also making a
suggestion, the fact that they`re taking this testimony means some people
will be indicted or at least that`s more probable than we previously

To be clear, though, that`s not at all guaranteed by the fact that
they`re collecting testimony, correct?

WICE: Absolutely, you are absolutely right, Ari. Look, the standard
of proof, again, not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and like we`ve
heard, grand juries are impanel all the time who ultimately investigate and
then decide at the end of the day that there`s been no violation of federal

MELBER: Bradley, let me go back to you, then. So you have that
possibility that they will use this process, hear from these witnesses and
not indict anyone. What do you think in your experience, though, is the
kind of goals at this point when you have a federal investigation of this

Because as you mentioned, they didn`t need to go this far. They
clearly feel that having looked into this, they want to take more testimony
including as Paul Butler referenced testimony that is in some sense
redundant or explores upon what they`ve already heard from this very

SIMON: Right. They`re going to want to try to make out a case to
make sure that they can satisfy the elements of various federal statutes.
There are many statutes, mail fraud, wire fraud, that are in the
government`s arsenal that are very broad that if the government wants to
use those statutes, they can -- they will be likely to be able to make a
case. And they also have a wide range of latitude. They could be looking
at the allegations made in Hoboken by the mayor as well. That might fall
under the mail and wire fraud statutes.

So, you know, they have a lot of latitude on where they can go, and
the fact that it`s gone to this level in such a high-profile matter
suggests to me it`s not likely to just go away. You know, if this -- if he
wanted to look -- if Paul Fishman wanted to look at this matter quietly and
then take no further action, he could have done that.

The fact that a grand jury is being convened in such a closely watched
case suggests to me that this isn`t going away.

MELBER: Right. And that -- let me bring in Paul. That is
significant, again, if anyone`s just joining us here, the breaking news
tonight being that we have confirmation from a lawyer for a former top aide
to Chris Christie who testified today before a grand jury, the first such
confirmation of that kind.

And so, Paul, as we try to understand that, what do you make, though,
of the lawyer`s claim here which we`ve been reporting that Drewniak here is
not anything other than a witness? Can a lawyer even responsibly make that
statement unless he`s received some assurance from prosecutors, in your

BUTLER: So, what you do when you`re representing someone who gets
subpoena to come before the grand jury is ask, is my client a target?
Which means, is he someone who you are thinking about bringing a criminal
case against?

If the answer is no, then you usually let your client in. If you
don`t think he has any exposure. Now, people can actually claim Fifth
Amendment. The Fifth Amendment still applies to the grand jury, which is
why they`re not likely to invite principals like Mr. Samson or Governor
Christie to come in.

You know, the big get would be Bridget Kelly, but she would only
testify if she gets immunity or works out some kind of deal.

MELBER: Brian, can you speak to that and how that wrangling works?
Because we`ve heard a lot about different potential witnesses who are very
publicly stating they want immunity before they speak.

WICE: Sure. I think that there are two kinds of people who are
ultimately going to testify in front of this grand jury. Witnesses and
then targets.

And I think Paul and Bradley will underscore the fact that when you as
a criminal defense attorney get a target letter from the assistant U.S.
attorney who`s in charge of the grand jury investigation, you know that you
don`t want to walk in there without immunity because target means exactly
what it says. That you are within their sight as somebody who is likely
going to be the subject of whether or not you violated any kind of federal

And one thing Bradley pointed out all of the various offenses that
Paul Fishman can bring to bear. One I really think your viewers need to
understand is conspiracy -- the darling of the prosecutor`s nursery. Where
Jack McCoy on "Law and Order" used to say it`s great because the right hand
didn`t have to know what the left hand was doing.

MELBER: Yes, let me two go to you, then, Bradley. Speak to that. If
you`re not a target, how much can be compelled out of you in these

SIMON: If you`re not a target and you`re told that by the prosecutor,
then you have to go in and testify. And so, I think if the lawyer said
that he was not a target, then he pretty much has gotten assurances from
the U.S. attorney`s office that his client is not. But --

MELBER: Let`s pause right there, just on that point. If he has those
assurances, does that subject to you, can we interpret anything out of that
about the state of the investigation? If Mr. Fishman in this investigation
has determined that someone who was a top aide who I should mention was in
some of these e-mails back and forth about the traffic, they`ve at least
been able to determine in your view based on what we know publicly he`s
probably not a target.

Does that mean they`re pretty far along?

SIMON: Well, I think that`s how they make these cases. They bring in
witnesses who have firsthand knowledge of the offense. And they want
somebody lower down the chain.

MELBER: One second, then I`ll go to you, Paul.

SIMON: And they work their way up. So, you know, he, being the press
secretary, he`s in a good position to have relevant information for the
grand jury. So, you know, that`s the standard way how they make these
cases. They work their way up.

MELBER: Right. How they build their way up. We mentioned "Law and
Order" before is not unlike some of what we see in the popular examples.
Paul, please go ahead.

SIMON: Yes, I was going to make that point, they`re what`s called
pyramid investigations. So they start at the bottom. This is a relatively
low-level witness. He has no exposure. What they`re doing is working
their way up to the top.

You know, we got a signal a couple weeks ago when there was this turf
battle between the U.S. attorney in New York and the U.S. attorney in New
Jersey about who was going to investigate Samson and the potential
conflicts of interest at the Port Authority.

And the U.S. attorney in New Jersey seemed to make a power play to get
that part of the case. So that suggested they`re taking this very

MELBER: Yes, that`s a great point, Bradley, briefly, on that. Paul
Butler is a friend, in fact, of Preet here in New York, had stepped up and
actually issued some calls for documents then walked it back. That`s
fairly unusual, particularly as we know in what is a high-profile
potentially political case.

What did you make of that for our viewers who may not have heard about

SIMON: That`s not so unusual. There are turf battles going on all
the time between various U.S. attorneys offices. Eastern district of New
York, southern district of New York, New Jersey, they fight all the time
for cases.

MELBER: Publicly, would they put out a call for testimony?

SIMON: Well, it`s -- you know, obviously I guess Paul Fishman won the
battle, but, yes, you see that happen quite a bit. They work together in
some respects. They`re also competitors. So --

MELBER: And let me just go briefly, Brian, before we go, your final
thoughts on what we might expect here and if there are going it be other
witnesses coming before this grand jury?

WICE: Yes, I think traditionally, at least here in Texas, federal
grand juries sit for six-month temple terms and that`s a very long time and
will give the prosecutors and investigators and case agents a chance, as
we`ve heard from both Paul and Bradley, to build this case from the ground
up. Look, Ari, this is no different than an organized crime case from 20
years ago. You don`t show jaws in the first reel. You want to make sure
that you bring in the foot soldiers, the people who are witnesses, before
you get around with the targets.

Over the course of the next six months, we are going to see people`s
lives changed in a dramatic way -- guys.

MELBER: Thank you, Brian Wice. Thank you to Paul Butler, and Bradley
Simon, former federal prosecutors for your insights on a fast-breaking
story here. We`re going to keep an eye on it tonight.

Coming up, McCutcheon versus the FEC, this was a big case this week
that brought about a hugely important decision making it easier for a lot
of wealthy people to get the candidates they like elected.


REPORTER: The five-member majority said the court has long found
political spending to be free speech. Chief Justice John Roberts said the
government can no more restrict how many candidates a donor may support
than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse.


MELBER: How an electrical engineer from Alabama is changing our
campaign finance system. We have Shaun McCutcheon here -- Shaun McCutcheon
here to talk about it. That`s straight ahead.


MELBER: In the year 2000 when George W. Bush was running for
president he went on David Letterman probably hopefully looking for a
softball interview.


DAVID LETTERMAN, TV HOST: We make a lot of jokes about you
electrocuting people in Texas. And I know you don`t electrocute them.

But is there a circumstance you can imagine, have you ever thought
about this, that might change your view on capital punishment?

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: Well, obviously if the system were


MELBER: If the system were unfair.

David Letterman may have actually been quite a bit harder on George W.
Bush in that point of time than many journalists on his campaign plane.

Letterman`s retirement and the larger role late-night television has
actually played in our politics and culture, that`s straight ahead.


MELBER: The Supreme Court changed the rules for money and politics
again this week. In a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts,
the court struck down a law that limited the total number of politicians
that one person can donate to. Like Citizens United, the name of this case
could be associated with the rise of money and politics for decades. It`s
called McCutcheon versus the Federal Election Commission because a
conservative activist Shaun McCutcheon sued the commission, arguing that
those donation limits violated his right to free speech.

Now, under this new ruling, Mr. McCutcheon and other high-dollar
donors can donate to as many federal candidates and political committees as
they want. The case did not, did not alter the donation limits on the
total amount people can give to each candidate.

Now, instead of being limited to about $123,000 spread across
candidates and groups, there is no limit under the new ruling on those
total contributions in a campaign cycle. Senator Chuck Schumer, who was
actually a pretty excellent fund-raiser when he chaired the Senate
Democrats re-election effort, said in response to the ruling, "This
decision will take the country back toward the day of the robber barons."

Justice Robert`s ruling also drew a strong dissent from Justice
Stephen Breyer, who warned, quote, "If the court and Citizens United open a
door, today`s decision may well open a flood gate."

While Robert`s opinion argues that the ruling is a modest tweak, it
could be more consequential that Citizens United because this is the first
time in the modern era the court has attacked donation rules with the same
vigor it used to use on individual spending.

What do I mean? Well, basically, the court used to challenge
government rules on spending because people spend in order to speak to the
public. Whether that means buying a sign for a protest or a Web site for a
blog, or even TV ads, if you have that kind of money.

The government`s rules on donations, though, were different. Because
they run such a high risk of corruption according to the court`s previous
cases, and they`re different than spending to speak directly to your fellow

Now, years from now, the McCutcheon case may be known as the key step
towards free market democracy with everything for sale. And that may be a
legacy that this man, businessman and GOP activist Shaun McCutcheon is
proud of. He was the lead plaintiff in this week`s case and is joining us
to discuss his view that this week`s ruling is good for free speech and

Welcome, and thanks for joining us.

SHAUN MCCUTCHEON, GOP ACTIVIST: Thank you. I`m glad to be here.

MELBER: Well, it`s a big week for you. A victory, obviously, as I
mentioned from your perspective and for your case. And you and other
Republicans have said this is a victory most importantly for free speech.

Let`s look, in the 2012 campaign cycle, according to Center for
Responsive Politics, there were, however, only about 646 people who ran up
against that limit that your case knocked down. By contrast, more than 4
million people gave to Barack Obama with smaller donations. So do you feel
that at bottom, as a factual matter right now, this ruling even if it`s
free speech, it`s free speech for a relatively small number of people?

MCCUTCHEON: Well, all Americans, regardless of economic status, are
entitled to free speech under the First Amendment. This is fundamental
free speech and political assembly. All Americans are entitled to free

MELBER: Sure. But I mean specifically when you look at this being
only 600 or so people. If it stays that way, would you argue this is sort
of a limited ruling? Because for most Americans, going over $100,000 isn`t
a big issue.

MCCUTCHEON: Well, I can`t understand why we would want to limit the
free speech of any American. This is a free country, and if we want to --
you know, it`s about your right to spend your money on as many candidates
as you choose. I mean, it`s freedom.

MELBER: Let me -- let me ask you, then, about that idea of the many
candidates, because this is one of the weird parts of this area. Say you
have the federal candidates in your state that represent you, you are their
constituent. Isn`t there something different with folks who represent
other people in other states? How is it a violation of your individual
free speech to not be able to give to other politicians who don`t even
represent you?

MCCUTCHEON: Well, again, it`s about the free speech and the political
activism of people outside the government. It`s about we, the people,
selecting the people that go into the government.

So, you know, we`re talking about private citizens making transparent
donations to an open political process. This is disseminating ideas in the
political marketplace. It should be free and open. We`re spending the
money on communications and media and spreading good and better ideas. It
should be wide open.

MELBER: Let me push on that, though, Mr. McCutcheon, because you have
the right to vote and talk about obviously all these other politicians. To
get before the Supreme Court, which you did, they obviously found in your
favor here, you have to have a harm, right? You have to have something
that hurt you under the law.

In this case, they did find this law violated your free speech. But
in your perspective, sort of just in plain English, what is the harm in
preventing you from donating to say, a politician in another state that you
don`t even get to vote for?

MCCUTCHEON: Well, I wanted to spend more money on more candidates,
committees and PACs and parties. You know, that I wanted to support more
candidates. Under the First Amendment, I can support more.

So, it`s about freedom of speech, and the government does not need to
limit any Americans regardless of economic status.

MELBER: So by that logic, then, are you also against any limits on
how much we give to an individual candidate?

MCCUTCHEON: Well, again, I`ve said all along that I thought some base
limits make sense. Base limits are probably a little low because you can`t
even buy one ad with $5,200 on a good TV station. But, again, you know,
this case was about aggregate limits, not about base limits. So it was the
overall limits which is the number of candidates and parties and --

MELBER: So let me ask you --

MCCUTCHEON: -- PACs that you can support.

MELBER: If Speaker Boehner said let`s change the federal law and
raise it so you can give $100,000 to an individual candidate, would you be
against that?

MCCUTCHEON: If Speaker Boehner wants to pass that law, that`s fine.

MELBER: Because I think one of the concerns here, and the reason why
this case with your name on it may be so significant in the future is this
may pave the way toward limiting those caps, right? And we may end up in a
situation where a billionaire could be the sole donor to a politician and
that would seem to go towards the exact kind of corruption that folks have
been so concerned about. I mean, do you think that would be corrupting?

MCCUTCHEON: Well, I`m not really certain how this case fits into the
scheme of other cases. This was about aggregate limits. Again, this is
about private individual people donating directly to more campaigns and
committees. It`s freedom of speech. It`s basic, you know, political

MELBER: And let me ask you just as a final thought, why was it so
important to you to give money to so many different candidates? What does
it do for you? Why is it important to spend at these levels?

MCCUTCHEON: Well, again, I thought the laws supported incumbency and
I want to see more challengers and more new and better ideas in the
process. So a lot of candidates I supported didn`t even win, but which has
not been talked about a lot.

But, again, it`s about, you know, supporting your candidates and your
messages in the political marketplace. And, you know, I believe everybody
would agree that we need to improve. And politics is not going to improve
with less money. I have not seen many things that improved without time
and money being invested.


MCCUTCHEON: So, I`m all for more money in politics. I think that`s a
good thing, especially money from private individual citizens of this

MELBER: No, I understand that. There`s a long tradition of making
sure that private political activity and speech is protected. Obviously,
you got the better of the argument at the court.

But, you know, you mentioned the market place. That`s one of those
things here that I think will continue to be a big debate. Sometimes we
talk about the marketplace of ideas as an analogy where the best ideas can
go out and win. A marketplace that looks for like a cartel or where there
aren`t enough spaces for people because so much is bought up I think is
something that concerns people and in some sense isn`t free market either.

But I really appreciate you spending time with us. I will say
congratulations on winning your case this week.

MCCUTCHEON: Thank you.

MELBER: All right. Shaun McCutcheon, thank you.

Now, coming up, Chris may be on paternity leave, you`ve heard about
that. But he will be making a special appearance, on camera, on TV, to
talk about how Republicans have turned name recognition into dollars after
failed runs for office. That`s straight ahead.


MELBER: For many Republican Party stars, there is a simple blueprint
to follow. You run for office, build up your name recognition and then
leverage it, leverage all that momentum into some lucrative opportunities
elsewhere. There is a lot of money to be made here, and as our own Chris
Hayes will explain, there are a few Republican Party stars intent on making
that money.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: You trust the man in the store to sell you
fresh things of good quality and to deal with everyone honestly and fairly.
That helps us all to live together well, does not it?

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): If you are the type of person
who gives money to a conservative candidate, there is a whole bunch of
people out there who are interested in you and your money. And, once you
have turned over your information to a candidate, you may not know it, but
you are now the product and they get to sell you. The preferred mode of
communication, the e-mail list. It works for Herman Cain, the one-time
front-runner for the 2012 republican nomination.


HAYES (voice-over): Cain has successfully molded himself into a
conservative media mogul. He is got books, a radio show, a contributor gig
on Fox news, and an e-mail list of 335,000 people. On, an
online emporium of everything Herman Cain, you sign up to get the latest
from the best of Cain. You will be treated to a steady stream of e-mails
giving Herman Cain is take on the news and some interesting advertisements.

For example, an e-mail sent out last July, subject line,
"Breakthrough: Remedy for E.D.!" -- The e-mail includes a link to a one-
time-only webinar especially for Herman Cain fans. Interested parties can
learn how to get their manhood mojo back and discover number one root cause
of women cheating. Why, you may ask, is Herman Cain so keen on helping his
readers treat their erectile dysfunction?




HAYES (voice-over): Because sending out advertisements to his e-mail
list makes Herman Cain a lot of money. The "New Republic" estimates Cain
made around $420,000 from e-mail ads in 2013, alone, minus operational

Mike Huckabee who won Iowa caucuses in 2008 is in on the same
game. He had the books, the radio show, the gear, the weekly show on Fox
News and, of course, the e-mail list of around 700,000 people. Found your
way to and you will be asked to sign up for Huckabee`s
commentary club.

Once you have given Huckabee your e-mail, you will start receiving e-
mails like this special message from his paid sponsor sent out in February.
Message came from Tobin Smith who is billed as a Fox News alumnus. Smith
told readers to buy shares of a specific stock now while you can still get
them at around $1 and you could turn $10,000 into $282,000 in the next 6
months. Tobin Smith did used to work for Fox News.


percent of people pay for the other 50 percent for all their services? No.
It is not fair.


HAYES (voice-over): But last year, Smith, a market analyst, was fired
from Fox Business for getting paid to promote a particular stock. Smith`s
company, MBT Equities Research is in the business of promoting stocks for a
fee off in right-wing newsletters like and, surprise,

When media matters looked at how the stocks Smith promoted in
the past were performing, they found some to be virtually worthless. Last
January, Smith urged readers on a Townhall Spotlight e-mail to put your
aggressive growth money on the Kardashian sisters and their 100 million
member social media list, buy Boldface Group. This week Boldface Group was
trading at less than a cent.


money, wasted everyone`s everything and I feel bad.


HAYES (voice-over): When Huckabee was asked about attaching his name
to another misleading e-mail sent earlier this year, he said, "Hey, read
the fine print."


MIKE HUCKABEE, (R) ARKANSAS FMR. GOVERNOR: You are supposed to read
the disclosure and the disclaimer that is part of the messages. You know,
we are simply the conduit to send messages. These are sponsored and I
cannot always vouch for the veracity.


HAYES (voice-over): It makes sense that Huckabee is not distancing
himself from the e-mail. Because it is e-mails like that that have made
his rich. As a "New Republic" estimates e-mail ads have made him north of
$900,000 in 2013, alone. But what Mike Huckabee and Herman Cain learned
about conservative entrepreneurship, they learned from the master.


to our party.

that way.


HAYES (voice-over): Newt Gingrich is the author of dozens of
books, producer of several documentaries, a political paid speaker, a cable
T.V. host and owner of the multimedia production company, Gingrich
Productions. Sign up for the Gingrich production newsletter and you will
be treated to regular communications from Newt, as well as from some third-
party vendors.

An e-mail sent out last year alleged the Illuminati, secret society
puts a death grip on America. Another suggests cancer was cured in 1925,
but the government does not want you to know. Yet another warned of serve
deadly drugs the government wants you to swallow. Oh, by the way, if you
are taking one of these drugs regularly, you are 530 percent more likely to
die tonight. All of these communications made Newt Gingrich money, an
estimated 500,000 people are on his e-mail list.


Brown. And, I drive a truck.


HAYES (voice-over): Former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown is now
running for senate in New Hampshire. Earlier this year, Brown e-mailed his
supporters an offer from his sponsor News Max Health titled, "5 Signs You
Will Get Alzheimer`s Disease." The e-mail tells the findings of renowned
neurosurgeon and nutritionist Dr. Russell Blalock. In the video, Blalock
warns of the evils of fluoride, a frequent theme of his.


water or toothpaste even on a small amount, it will increase your aluminum
absorption, and trigger a dramatic destruction of the same brain cells we
see destroyed in Alzheimer`s patients.


HAYES (voice-over): Blalock also dedicates an entire section on his
Youtube page to exposing the fraud, hidden truths and cover-ups about


DR. BLALOCK: And, so the death rate from common things like measles
is so infinitely low. It is ridiculous to vaccinate every child in the
United States with this vaccine or many of these other vaccines.


HAYES (voice-over): He is a regular guest on conspiracy theorist Alex
Jones` talk show "Info Wars" where he discusses vaccines, something called
chemtrails or chemical agent that conspiracy theorists believe are
deliberately sprayed by the government and Obama`s nazi health care system.


DR. BLALOCK: Well, the CDC has clearly demonstrated itself as not a
scientific organization. It is demonstrated itself as nothing more than a
ministry of propaganda for the state.


HAYES (voice-over): Brown has since parted ways with the company who
sent the e-mails, but here is the thing. Scott Brown faces the same
conundrum as every other conservative seeking higher office. If they want
to be elected, they need to appeal to as many people as possible. If they
want to be rich, they need to appeal to a small amount of people willing to
fork over their hard-earned money. And, that is the problem with the
modern Republican Party in a nutshell.


MELBER: That was a report from Chris Hayes there. Now, did you know
there is massive, massive voter fraud going on right now in North Carolina?
No, you have not heard about that? Well, you must not have talked to your
right wing family or friends lately. We have a reality check on the latest
conservative myth. That is next.


MELBER: It is either an incredibly bold stand by a corporation that
values equality above its own bottom line, or a brilliant business move
from a company that knows, well, just which way the wind is blowing. Last
month, Honeymaid launched a graham cracker ad -- you can see here,
showcasing all kinds of who wholesome families and that happen to included
several families that were headed by same-sex couples. No biggie.

And, then it was a biggie. There was a backlash. An anti-gay group,
1 million moms, urged their members to e-mail the company and tell them
that, quote, "Honeymaid offends conservatives." apparently that ad was
automatically offensive. Angry tweets poured into the Honeymaid account.
Well, what is a company to do? Honeymaid pushed back with a response video
that has now officially gone viral.


MELBER: That is a beautiful ad. You can see why people are sharing
it. But, it is still an ad. That response from a multibillion dollar
corporation would have been, I think, totally unimaginable even five years
ago. We look at the numbers today. As recently as 2009, a majority, 54
percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage.

Today, that has completely flipped. Now 54 percent support
same-sex marriage. A sea change in public opinion about marriage equality
has been so fast and so complete that what we are looking at today is the
mere complete business reality that it is good business for a major company
to not only release these kind of ads featuring same-sex couples but then
respond to what they consider a small or minority backlash by, well,
calling out the haters. Whether that is brazen activism, or good business,
or maybe a little bit of both, the internet loves it. And so do we.



distant future, 2015 for the love of God, in fact, Paul and I will be
wrapping things up and taking a hike. Thank you. Thanks, everybody.



MELBER: It is true, after 32 years in late night television,
David Letterman did announce yesterday he is going to retire. He has gone
from being a former weatherman in his hometown of Indiana, to becoming the
longest tenured host in the history of late night TV. In other words, he
has become part of our cultural landscape. When you turned on his show,
you usually knew you were getting something pretty distinct, a sense of
jeopardy, and that anything might happen.


LETTERMAN: You seem to be distraught. You seem to be distraught.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I do not. People try to make me sound a lot
weird -- and I am just, you know -- I am strong. You know? I am strong.
I can arm wrestle. Do you want to arm wrestle?


UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I can take you. I have been taking -- i have
been taking -- These are mine. I can -- I can kick.


LETTERMAN: OK. OK. I am going to go check on the top 10. We
will be back.



LETTERMAN: Yes, what can I do for you?


LETTERMAN: Relax. Take a couple of deep breaths and let is try it
again. Let me have that order again, please.


LETTERMAN: Medium sprite.


LETTERMAN: That is all?


LETTERMAN: You could not have gotten out of your car for a medium



MELBER: It was not all lulls, either. Viewers got a letterman who
often found different ways to challenge people who were not used to being
challenged on late night TV.


BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: The reason to go into Iraq was
WMDs with a mad dictator. OK? That was the reason. It was wrong. If we
could go back in a time machine, we would not do it.

LETTERMAN: How does staying there killing more and more Americans
make it right? How do you make a right decision out of a wrong decision?

O`REILLY: You want United States to win in Iraq.

LETTERMAN: First of all, I --

O`REILLY: It is an easy question. If you do not want the
United States --

LETTERMAN: It is not easy for me because I am thoughtful.


MELBER: It is an easy question, you guys. Then there was also
the time that Republican presidential candidate John McCain canceled at the
last minute on David Letterman and said he had to get back to Washington to
work on the financial crisis.


LETTERMAN: An honest to God hero, an American hero, maybe the only
actual hero I know. I have met the man. I know the guy. So, I am more
than a little disappointed by this behavior. We are suspending the


LETTERMAN: Or are we suspending it because there is an economic
crisis or because the poll numbers are sliding?


MELBER: The reason turned out to be shaky and McCain tried his best
to save some face appearing on the show a month later.


LETTERMAN: You called me an hour and a half and said, "We got
to get right back to Washington," but you did not go right back to



MELBER: Classic interview there. Now, will there ever be another
letterman? Is Stephen Colbert really the top candidate to replace him? We
are going to talk about all that with some funny people, straight ahead.



LETTERMAN: Have you friends treated you differently since you have been
out of the slammer?

I was really strong that I went through it, so --

LETTERMAN: It was just ugly, was not it? Have you made --

HILTON: But, I have moved on with my life, so I do not really want to
talk about it anymore.


HILTON: Love you, too.

LETTERMAN: There. Somebody you met in prison?


MELBER: We are back. We are going to do prison reform with
Paris Hilton. No, we are not. We are going to talk about David
Letterman`s retirement and who might replace him. Joining us, Nancy Giles,
contributor to CBS "Sunday Morning" and a friend of mine, comedy writer and
performer Julie Klausner -- maybe a friend some day. I do not know, I do
not want to pre-judge it and Robert Thompson, professor of TV and pop
culture at Syracuse University. Welcome to you all.



MELBER: Nancy, who is going to replace David Letterman?

GILES: Well, I have to say that one of the things that has been
annoying him. First, how much I love him and how bummed I am. And, now it
is my mission to get on his show somehow before he leaves.

Having said that, when they talk about the replacements, I am
kind of annoyed that so casually they mention another list of white men and
Ari, you are a white man. I do not want you to be insulted, but -- what is
with that?

MELBER: What is up with that?

GILES: The country looks different.


MELBER: Julie -- Julie Klausner, let me ask you what is up with

KLAUSNER: Well, it is just taking a cue from history and current
events. I mean that is just sort of what is going on right now. I mean
why would not they speculate that another white straight guy would host a
late night talk show? That is a pretty much what the landscape is, with
the exception of Chelsea Handler and Arsenio who is back.

MELBER: I love Arsenio. We are going to do a whole segment on that.

KLAUSNER: I wish you would.

MELBER: Robert, let me bring you in and -- If you want to talk about
Arsenio, we could do that but on the Letterman front of his legacy, we
played some clips earlier. He was not conventional. He was edgy. He was,
you know, an overused word, but he was probably subversive when he first
got on late night. How important was that to his legacy? How different is
it nowadays when any comedian can get online and try to find an audience?

UNIVERSITY: Yes. Well, it changed everything. I mean Leno -- I am sorry
Johnny Carson was doing this showbiz thing and Letterman came along and did
the antithesis of that. He did bizarre-o Carson.

I was just starting graduate student studies when he started and
our jaws would simply drop when we saw what he did. We could not believe
that was going on in television. And, now I talk to my graduate students
who are the age I was back then, and Letterman is the old guy that their
parents used to watch. What happened was Letterman`s unorthodoxy spread
everywhere and now he is the old guard.

MELBER: Yes. It is so funny you say that. And, Julie, it is like
the counterculture can become the culture very quickly. Letterman has said
that initially when they were on late night, hay had a hard time booking
that they went to more of the tricks and more of random cast of characters.
They turned that necessity into a virtue. But, then they did hold on to
it. And, obviously he would have the big stars on. But, he did not do
what a lot of this kind of shows do, which is sometimes seem to pretend
that the host is excited about every "B" list celebrity that showed up.

KLAUSNER: Yes. He would make fun of that. I mean his monologue was
making fun of monologues. He was the first cool guy that was a
broadcaster. He was sort of poking fun at the audaciousness of, like, I am
an authority because I am on television in front of you. He was an
irreverent guy from a different generation.

GILES: I think one of the things I loved about him was that he made
the ordinary guy kind of the star. He featured people like Ruppert at
Hello Deli and Larry "Bud" Mellman and with stars he would kind of take
them down a peg. And, I think that kind of equalized the kind of guest
they had in a different way than what other people had.

KLAUSNER: Yes. Zero tolerance for hubris.

MELBER: Yes. I mean Julie, do you think in that sense he was sort of
an internet comedian before the internet?

KLAUSNER: I think we owe letterman way more than to call him an
internet comedian. I think his legacy is strong enough and we should be
genuflecting a bit manufacture before we resort to such name.

MELBER: What is interesting now is I have learned about some of your
sort of internet insufficiency issues, Julie. We will talk about those
some other time.


KLAUSNER: Is this an intervention?

MELBER: No. Not yet. Not yet.

KLAUSNER: All intervention, Chris Hayes.

MELBER: And, I was also going to mention because we went long in
this segment, we did not get to the North Carolina story that I wanted to
do. So, everyone should know we will hopefully touch on that next week. I
want to say, Nancy Giles from CBS "Sunday Morning" and comedy writer and
performer, Julie Klausner and Professor Robert Thompson, thank you all very
much. That is "All In" for this evening. Thanks for staying with us.
"The Rachel Maddow Show" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Ari. Thanks, man. It is
nice to see you.

MELBER: Thank you.


<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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.>

Sponsored links

Resource guide