Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Thursday, April 17th, 2014

Read the transcript from the Thursday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
April 17, 2014

Guests: Robert Reich, Nick Hanauer, Jonathan Cohn

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

The standoff in Nevada might be over, but armed militia members remain
on site. And today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called those
supporters of rancher and conservative hero Cliven Bundy "domestic
terrorists".

An event sponsored by "The Las Vegas Review Journal", Reid had this to
say about the armed supporters who rallied in support of Bundy`s right to
not pay federal grazing fees for his cattle, quote, "They`re nothing more
than domestic terrorists. I repeat, what happened there was domestic
terrorism."

Those comments mark an escalation in rhetoric from Reid, who`s been
singled out in the conservative media as the villain in the Cliven Bundy
story, a story that, let`s not forget, involves Cliven Bundy refusing to
pay federal grazing fees for 20 years, owing the government about a million
dollars, and successfully warding off government collection of his cattle
by the Bureau of Land Management, by inviting a bunch of gun-toting
supporters to essentially stand guard near his ranch. Some of those
supporters, whom Harry Reid referred to as domestic terrorists, are still
there, awaiting any further potential government action. And some,
according to "Reuters", are looking for another fight.

"Reuters" reporting today, quote, "Energized by their success, Bundy`s
supporters are already talking about whether -- where else they can
exercise armed defiance. In the days since the showdown, right-wing Web
sites have begun searching for other Bundys."

But don`t expect the original to fade away anytime soon. Because you
see, Cliven Bundy is the perfect mascot for anti-Obama conservatism.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS: The grievance industry basically says that
America is not a fair nation, that the deck is stacked against minorities,
women, the poor, gays, atheists, Muslims, you name it. And the bad guys
are white males, the Republican Party, and anybody who doesn`t buy into the
grievance industry.

HAYES (voice-over): The grievance industry. There is nothing
conservatives hate more than some freeloader whining about his lot in life
and wanting something for nothing at the expense of John Q. taxpayer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Meet Jason Greenslate, food stamp recipient.

UNIDENTIIFED MALE: Thank you, taxpayers. Thanks.

HAYES: You see, these takers have no respect. And when you have no
respect, you get chaos.

O`REILLY: It is much easier to decide to cause trouble when you do
not respect people and property.

HAYES: Here`s a perfect example, Cliven Bundy.

For two decades, Cliven Bundy has been grazing his cattle on
government-owned land without paying. He now owes the government over $1
million in grazing fees -- grazing fees which are already so heavily
subsidized, they`re basically welfare to begin with.

Still, Bundy just doesn`t want to pay for the land he`s using, like
almost every other rancher does. Instead, when the Bureau of Land
Management came to take his cattle that he`s been illegally grazing for two
decades on federal land, he gathered militia members, states` rights
activists to come to his defense, and complained.

CLIVEN BUNDY, RANCH OWNER: It seems like the United States government
is operating with unlimited power over we the people.

HAYES: Complained that his family was there first and that the
federal government had wronged him. The whining paid off. After a tense
standoff with federal authorities, the Bureau of Land Management backed
off. Bundy got his cattle back.

Cliven Bundy is the perfect face of the grievance industry, where many
of the most important voices are Cliven Bundy-level whiners despite the
fact they are doing quite well.

The Koch brothers are now worth over $100 billion. Even if you take
the more conservative "Forbes" numbers, the Koch brothers have just about
doubled their personal fortunes since Barack Obama was first elected.
They`ve never had it so good.

And what do they do? They complain.

SEN. JERRY MORAN (R), KANSAS: Mr. Koch says this, "Unfortunately, the
fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before law, and personal
freedom are under attack by our nation`s own government."

HAYES: And they`re using part of their vast fortune to air their
grievances against the president, spending millions on outside groups to
run ads against the president and anyone associated with him, because
that`s the model. Those who have the least to complain about complain the
most.

Like casino tycoon and Republican mega donor Sheldon Adelson. He
spent millions and millions to defeat the president in 2012. Yet according
to "Forbes," Adelson is worth over $34 billion more today than he was in
2009. Meaning, his wealth has increased tenfold under Obama. But that
apparently is not enough.

Then, there`s Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone who spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars against Obama. He`s upset he`s not getting enough
love.

KEN LANGONE, HOME DEPOT: If we change the faces in the White House,
we`re on the road to recovery.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You think it`s that simple?

LANGONE: I believe it`s that simple.

We need leadership. We need cheerleading. We need encouragement. We
need businessmen and fat cats to feel like they`re doing something good,
not that they`re villains and not that they`re criminals.

HAYES: Langone has doubled his net worth since Obama`s been
president.

And it`s not just these men. No one has had it better in the Obama
era than the extraordinarily rich.

O`REILLY: If Barack Obama begins taxing me more than 50 percent,
which is very possible, I don`t know how much longer I`m going to do this.

HAYES: So, why are some of the wealthiest Americans complaining the
most? Because it works.

Take big oil. The United States is now on track to become the world`s
top oil producer.

JIM CRAMER, CNBC: Oil. The United States is enjoying an energy
renaissance.

HAYES: Needless to say, the oil companies are doing just fine.

CRAMER: It`s a bonanza! And the stocks have been some of the best
performers imaginable.

HAYES: And yet oil companies across the country continue to complain.

JACK GERARD, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE: What the president does,
though, is he picks winners and losers.

HAYES: Here`s the National Rifle Association.

Before the president even took office, the NRA warned he wanted to
take away people`s guns. Well, the president`s so tough on gun control
that in 2010, he earned an F from the anti-gun group Brady Campaign. And
still, the NRA complains.

WAYNE LAPIERRE, NRA: We see the president`s strategy crystal clear.
Erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the
U.S. Constitution.

HAYES: Since bringing down the world economy, the financial sector
has rebounded quite nicely, reaching record profits during the Obama
presidency. All the while complaining about how hard it is to make a buck.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Rich man`s rantings. A Silicon Valley
billionaire says there is a war against America`s elite, going so far as to
compare it to Nazi brutality.

HAYES: You see, the Cliven Bundy victory in Nevada isn`t a one-off.
His is a story of the Obama era. Bundy whined, and he won, and then he
whined after he won, because there is no grievance industry as powerful as
the one conservatives have created on the right.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HAYES: Joining me now is former secretary of labor in the Clinton
administration, Robert Reich. He`s professor of public policy at the
University of California-Berkeley. His documentary "Inequality For All" is
out now.

And Nick Hanauer, he`s a venture capitalist, technology entrepreneur
and a partner at Second Avenue Partners.

Bob, I want to start with you.

You served in the Clinton administration and the Bundy moment is so
strikingly similar to me than the kind of high water mark, a very scary at
times anti-government militia activism we saw in the mid `90s.

ROBERT REICH, FORMER LABOR SECRETARY: Yes, it is similar. And it
also is similar in the sense that a lot of that activism does not take
account of the fact that a lot of these people like Bundy are living off of
federal lands, public goods.

I mean, look at all the corporate welfare. We haven`t seen this
degree of corporate welfare in years. And yet, you have a lot of these
people who are -- are basically saying oil and gas, they`re not doing well
enough. They`re already getting $7 billion a year in corporate welfare.

So, you`ve got people stirred up and angry because the federal
government apparently is too large when what they really ought to be angry
about is that the government isn`t responsible to regular people. It`s
responsible to basically the top 1/10 of 1 percent.

HAYES: And I just -- I cannot get over, Nick, I can`t get over the
ceaseless whining. I just can`t deal with it. It drives me nuts, first of
all, just aesthetically.

But today when we were looking at these numbers, we were talking
about, you know, it`s not just Cliven Bundy, it`s these other people too.
You look at the numbers. You look at the Koch brothers. You look at
Langone. You look at Adelson.

You look at all of them. They are making a killing. They have never
had it so good. And they are taking that money and sinking it into running
ads against the guy who`s presided over this expansion in which all the
money has gone into their pockets.

NICK HANAUER, VENTURE CAPITALIST: Right. And you know, I understand
why this confuses most people. I hate to say, it but it`s sort of -- you
know, I do understand the psychology of it because unfortunately it takes
one to know one.

And, you know, people misunderstand the motivations of the very rich,
people like the Koch brothers and frankly people like me, because they
think that what we want is more money. And that`s not true. Money is
simply a way of expressing status and power. And that`s what these fights
are about, is status and power.

And so, one could be puzzled by a person who makes $300 million a year
and then rants because they only make $250 million a year in a world where
most people are struggling. But understand, it`s not the money that
matters. It`s how much you make relative to other people, and that`s what
this fight is about. It`s about status.

HAYES: But it`s also -- it`s interesting. It`s both genuine -- and I
think Cliven Bundy and I think, know, Ken Langone genuinely actually feel -
- it`s an act. They actually feel put upon. They actually feel
persecuted.

HANAUER: Yes.

HAYES: They actually feel like the government has them in their
crosshairs.

HANAUER: Yes.

HAYES: But, Bob, it`s also strategically useful. We just saw what
happened with Bundy. The guy has lost every single court decision that`s
come down. He has described, one conservative writer, his legal case as,
quote, "legless", OK? And what happened? He whined enough that he got to
walk away scot-free so far.

REICH: Well, in fact, it`s a metaphor for what`s happening across the
country. And the corporate profits are now a higher percentage of the
total economy than they`ve been since 1920. And yet because corporate
America is yelling so much and complaining so much about the Obama
administration and this terrible economy, people don`t see the extent to
which people at the top, the CEOs, for example, and the top executives and
the top shareholders are really raking in unbelievable amounts of money.
They don`t see that these hands under the table are in the till getting
corporate welfare.

The louder corporate America, the louder the CEOs, the louder Wall
Street yells, the harder it is for America to focus on what`s really
happening.

HAYES: Do you agree with that, Nick?

HANAUER: Completely, completely. Again, economics is how we clothe
our social and moral preferences and how we embed status and power. And
again, that`s what all of this is about.

You know, Langone wants somebody to tell him, wants the president to
tell him that the richer he gets the better off everyone else will be. And
because the president has the temerity to challenge that idiotic idea,
Langone feels attacked. As do the Koch brothers and, you know, many of the
people like that.

HAYES: And there`s this -- what you get from this rhetoric on the
right, you saw it in the package, you see it from Bill O`Reilly and you see
it from the masters of the universe on Wall Street, is they hate when
people whine. They hate when people want handouts. They hate when people
play the world`s smallest violin about how tough their life is. And then,
Bob, they turn around and do the same thing over and over and over again.

REICH: But the scale of what they`re handing out, what they`re
demanding and getting from the government is so much larger than the scale
of what any other individual is getting. I mean, Sheldon Adelson, for
example, not only has his fortune almost doubled under the Obama
administration but more importantly, what does he want? He wants to ban
online gambling. He wants more regulation, more government.

I mean, these people are not satisfied simply to do better. They
really want government in there helping them to do extraordinarily well.

HAYES: This is -- that is a key thing, Nick, is that we talk about
this debate as if it`s about bigger or smaller government or anti-
government. It is not. It is always, Nick, about who government benefits,
right?

HANAUER: Exactly. This is simply a grab for status and power. And
the people -- look, the thing about people who have status and power is
that usually that status and power is extraordinarily important to them.
That`s why they have it, because they sought it for their whole lives,
right?

And all they want is more status and power. And it doesn`t matter to
them how they get it. If government is an instrument of advancing that
status and power, then they`ll be for it. And if it is an instrument of
resisting their status and power, then they hate it. And it is simply --
it`s simple as that.

REICH: Take a look at Wall Street. I mean, Wall Street, not a day
goes by that Wall Street doesn`t complain about more regulations but
actually what Wall Street is not talking about and nobody can focus on
because Wall Street is so loud is the fact that because everybody on Wall
Street is too big to fail, the biggest banks are too big to fail, they`re
getting a subsidy that amounts, according to people who have studied it,
about $83 billion a year indirectly from the federal government.

HAYES: That`s right. Welfare cowboys, a lot of them.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and venture capitalist Nick
Hanauer, thank you very much.

HANAUER: Thanks for having us.

REICH: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: All right. Coming up, President Obama made a big, satisfying
announcement this afternoon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They still can`t bring
themselves to admit that the Affordable Care Act is working. They said
nobody would sign up. They were wrong about that. They said it would be
unaffordable for the country. They were wrong about that. They were wrong
to keep trying to repeal a law that is working when they had no alternative
answer for millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions who`d be
denied coverage again, or every woman who`d be charged more for just being
a woman again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The ACA is working, I mean, really working past what was
predicted. And Republicans are retreating further and further into denial.
The secret of why it worked, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Russia, Ukraine, the United States and the European Union
reached a deal in Switzerland today to deescalate the crisis in Eastern
Ukraine. Russian leader Vladimir Putin`s annual televised call-in show
today pointed out that some of the rested cities in eastern Ukraine had
once been part of the Russian empire. And he reminded his audience that
Russia`s parliament has given him the authority to send troops over the
border even though he hopes he doesn`t have to do that.

President Obama expressed skepticism Russia would follow through on
today`s diplomatic deal and stay out of eastern Ukraine but made it clear
the U.S. will not be taking any kind of military action.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I think I`ve been very clear that military options are not on
the table in the Ukraine, because this is not a situation that would be
amenable to a clear military solution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The crisis in Ukraine was not what brought President Obama to
the White House press room today. What did is good news. Well, good news
unless you wanted Obamacare to fail. We`ll get to that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We now know that the number of Americans who`ve signed up for
private insurance in the marketplaces has grown to 8 million people, 8
million people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That today was the huge announcement for the president. A
milestone for Obamacare that critics thought could never happen, far
surpassing the original target of 7 million sign-ups. But even more
important news in that impromptu press conference today at the White House
was the number of young people enrolled -- 35 percent of people covered
through the federal marketplace are under the age of 35.

Why is that so important? Well, you may remember not so long ago,
during the Obamacare launch, the scary-sounding prospect of a death spiral.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The exchanges don`t work. And you wind up going
into what they call sort of the insurance death spiral.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What did you call it, death spiral?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Insurance death spiral.

ALLEN WEST (R), FORMER FLORIDA CONGRESSMAN: Obamacare is going toward
a death spiral.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is that death spiral.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The death spiral.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The death spiral.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s called an insurance death spiral.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: You get into what they call that death
spiral.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This could be the beginning of the death spiral.

It could potentially be the beginning of the death spiral.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The architect of Obamacare being interviewed by
Megyn Kelly. She asked him, is this the beginning of the so-called death
spiral?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is that the beginning of the so-called death
spiral?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ad he said, quote, "That could be the beginning of
a death spiral", quote.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That could be the beginning of a death spiral.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That`s the death spiral.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HAYES: Death spiral.

Only the old and sick would bother to enroll, critics said. And
without the young to balance out the risk, the Obamacare exchanges they
would enter into -- say it with me -- an actuarial death spiral.

That was actually a possibility if young people did not sign up for
the exchanges. But they did. Today, we now have these numbers. Enough
young people signed up and the critics were wrong again.

The president today defiant about the law`s success.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: But we now know for a fact that repealing the Affordable Care
Act would increase the deficit, raise premiums for millions of Americans,
and take insurance away from millions more. I find it strange that the
Republican position on this law is still stuck in the same place that it
has always been. They still can`t bring themselves to admit that the
Affordable Care Act is working.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The best chart to capture this news comes from Judd Legum of
Think Progress, "Hey, FOX News, updated your Obamacare chart for you."

Joining me now, Jonathan Cohn, senior editor of "The New Republic",
and author of "Sick: The Untold Story of America`s Health Care Crisis, the
People Who Pay the Price."

All right. Jonathan, how big is this news today?

JONATHAN COHN, THE NEW REPUBLIC: It`s pretty big. This is as good a
day for the cause of health care reform I think that we`ve had since, you
know, March of 2010, when President Obama signed the law.

HAYES: Wow.

COHN: These are two very big thresholds. We know that the system
works. The predictions were always, you know, 6 million or 7 million
people would sign up. And that`s probably what it`s going to end up at
because the 8 million will fall down a little bit. Some people won`t pay.
But we`re going to be right on target for that.

The mix looks good. It looks like young people are coming out,
they`re buying it. And it`s just really -- it`s validation of the idea
that if you try to make insurance available to people at reasonable prices
and you let them buy coverage don`t discriminate against them on pre-
existing conditions, people will take it. People want this. The idea
works.

HAYES: Well, Sarah Kliff over at Vox had this. She tweeted this as
an Obamacare enrollment projected versus actual and you can see what an
amazing thing happened in March, April particularly. But she made this
point today where he said, you know, the reason this worked is because it`s
terrible to be uninsured and all the punditry and all the commentary that
was particularly coming from the right was coming from people who had
health insurance trying to predict what uninsured people will do. And it
turns out uninsured people would like to be insured.

COHN: Right. I mean, the conversation up until very recently was all
about people who had insurance and what they thought was going to happen to
their coverage. And look, the way the law works, for some people who had
coverage, some people are ending up they have to pay more money because
they were getting a discount because they were young and healthy or they
were carrying around policy that`s had big gaps in them. And there really
are people like that.

But that was the entire conversation. And lost in that conversation
was the fact that you had millions and millions of Americans with no
insurance at all, not to mention the millions of Americans who couldn`t
afford their insurance, the millions who had weak insurance that didn`t
cover them, and it was horrible. You walked around not knowing what would
happen if you got sick.

People really did go into financial distress. They went into
bankruptcy. They had to make these excruciating decisions, do I pay my
bills or do I pay my doctor? That`s really bad. And if you give people a
decent chance to escape that, they will.

HAYES: So, the president today talked a bit about -- he talked a bit
about the Republicans moving on. He also talked about one aspect that
we`ve been covering a lot, which is Medicaid expansion. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: States that have chosen not to expand Medicaid for no other
reason than political spite. You have 5 million people who could be having
health insurance right now at no cost to these states, zero cost to these
states, other than ideological reasons. They have chosen not to provide
health insurance for their citizens.

That`s wrong. It should stop.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Political spite. Five million people who could have health
insurance, I think that is exactly accurate.

COHN: I was so glad to see the president bring that up, to be
aggressive about that. I find it appalling that you have states -- and
let`s face it. These are the states with some of the most uninsured people
in the country, places like Texas and Florida, all across the Deep South.

You have millions of people who desperately need this coverage. The
federal government is putting the money on the table. The states have to
do very little to get it.

It is really shocking that you have governors and state lawmakers who
are turning this money away. I mean, it doesn`t make good economic sense.
These are jobs in their states. They`re turning down the money.

But more importantly, I just don`t understand the morality of it.
There`s no question that when people get on Medicaid at the very least
they`re more financially secure. This is a known thing.

And these lawmakers are basically saying to their own people, we are
not going to help you because we want to make a point. We don`t want to
help you because we are so opposed to this idea. And I just -- I find it
appalling.

HAYES: It is stupid. It is appalling. And it is shameful.

I have been surprised, actually, to -- that states have done this.
But there you have it.

Jonathan Cohn from "The New Republic" -- thank you.

COHN: Thanks.

HAYES: Coming up, when Chris Christie channels FOX News, it sounds
like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: We`re turning into a
paternalistic entitlement society, and the American people no longer
believe that this is a place where only their willingness to work hard and
to act with honor and integrity and ingenuity determines their success in
life. Then we`ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for the
next government check.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That was Governor Chris Christie two years ago. It doesn`t
seem like he`s changed his mind when it comes to feeding poor people in his
state. I`ll explain. And chef Tom Colicchio will be my guest, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: While everyone was cheering the bipartisan budget deal earlier
this year that avoided another shutdown, poor people, particularly in the
East Coast, were not. You see, as part of the deal which was signed by the
president, $8.7 billion was cut from the food stamp program. The cuts came
from tweaking the formula that calculates how much benefits poor folks get.
The old system gave certain households an automatic boost if their food
stamp benefits of up to $90 a month if those households also participated
in a program that provides home heating assistance to the poor.

Poor households only needed to get $1 in home heating assistance from
their state to qualify. Republicans and some democrats consider that a
loophole, which states were exploiting by giving a dollar to get more in
food stamps for their residents. So, congress changed the rules. Now,
states would need to provide at least $20 in home heating assistance for
residents to qualify for the added food stamp benefits.

Congress figured the states would not pony up the extra money. But,
then a funny thing happened. Many of the states whose poor residents are
still poor and are losing out as a result of the cuts, they rebelled. The
governors of at least eight states, Montana, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont expanded their
heating aid in order to maintain food stamp benefits for their poorer
citizens. This move did not sit well with House Speaker John Boehner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BOEHNER, (R) OHIO SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVE: Since the passage of the farm bill, states have found ways
to cheat once again on signing up people for food stamps. And, so, I would
hope that the house would act to try to stop this cheating and this fraud
from continuing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: For governors this was not about cheating. It was about
maintaining a lifeline for poor people who desperately needed the
assistance. And, it was not just democrats. Pennsylvania`s republican
Governor Tom Corbett, a Tea Party ally, is one of the governors who moved
to preserve food stamp benefits for his state.

Now, let`s take another look at that map. Most of the states that
made the move to maintain food stamp benefits are concentrated in one
region, the northeast. But, there is one state in that region, a state
that a governor often claims to put his own people above politics that
notably has not.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR: I have got a job to do here
in New Jersey that is much bigger than presidential politics. And, I could
care less about any of that stuff. I have a job to do. If you think right
now I give a damn about presidential politics, then you do not know me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The same Governor Chris Christie who professed to be
disgusted when congress initially did not approve billions in Sandy aid has
been silent when it comes to finding a way to keep an estimated 106,000 New
Jersey residents from losing out on food stamps.

Of course, unlike helping people affected by Sandy, getting food
stamps are politically toxic for republicans. The last thing Chris
Christie wants to be talking about as he eyes a presidential run is how he
expanded food stamps in his state. We reached out to Governor Christie`s
office about this and received a fact sheet in response that did not
address the issue.

Joining me now, Tom Colicchio, chef, owner of Craft Restaurants,
board member of food policy action, also lead judge on bravo`s "Top Chef."
You have been on the war path about these cuts. You have been going
around. Have you personally been surprised that governors have said, "You
know what? We need these benefits for the poor folks in our state. We are
going to pony up the money to make sure they get instituted?"

TOM COLICCHIO, OWNER, CRAFT RESTAURANT: Yes. First of all, Chris,
thanks for drawing attention to this because I think so much attention has
been put on bridge gate. And, I would suggest this is more important.
There are people inconvenienced in traffic that were stuck on the bridge
for four days. But, this is affecting 160,000 households every single day.

So, I would actually say this is more like fridge gate and I am glad
you are paying attention to it. Yes, I am really disappointed. First,
Governor Cuomo was the first governor to step in and sort of reinstate
these cuts, and I was really surprised at Governor Christie. I was invited
to spend a day at a hunger conference in New Jersey in September. And, I
spent about an hour on stage with the governor in a panel discussion.

HAYES: About these --

COLICCHIO: About these issues, about school lunch program, about SNAP
and about the benefits of SNAP. And, he seemed really amenable to a lot of
these issues we were talking to him. In fact, I was very pleased at the
end of this. I was really surprised at this.

And, what really surprised me is he really sort of responded to the
economic benefits of the food stamp program. And, so the economic benefits
here, for an additional $3.2 million to make a poll, it would bring an
additional $172 million into the economy of New Jersey. So, I am really
surprised that he would not do this.

HAYES: The state would pony up an extra 3.2 million, it would bring
in about $172 million in economic activity.

COLICCHIO: Right. It adds that multiplier effect, you have about
$300 million into the economy of New Jersey. So, I am really surprised
that he is not doing it.

HAYES: So, why is not he doing it?

COLICCHIO: I really do not know. I do not know. You know? I
reached out to him to talk to him about this. He, you know, said, he would
call me back, and I have not received a phone call yet. This was about a
month ago. I know, he is busy, and I do not expect that he has to make
time for me.

HAYES: Right.

COLICCHIO: I am not nearly that arrogant. But, I think that he is
really letting down 160,000 families in New Jersey. And, just the fact
they are living in New Jersey in the tri-state area. If they are living in
Connecticut, if they were living in New York, they would actually receive
these benefits.

HAYES: It was striking me also that Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania --
this is right across the border from New Jersey. This is a guy who got
elected based on Tea Party support. He is a republican. I do not like
basically any of his policies.

COLICCHIO: Rigth.

HAYES: He has pursued a whole bunch of stuff. If Tom Corbett could
step up and do the right thing, I mean that says something about how
important this is, how important Tom Corbett thinks it is to the folks in
Pennsylvania and about bucking the -- bucking his own party.

COLICCHIO: Yes. Again, it is really surprising. Especially since
the governor right now -- I think he would benefit from reaching across the
aisle and at least giving the appearance that he is willing to work on
tough issues in New Jersey. So, I am not sure why he is doing it. You
know, maybe he has political aspirations beyond his current office. I am
not sure if he still does. And, perhaps that is why he is doing it. I
mean, Boehner came out strong and he said this was another -- more fraud in
the system. This is not fraud.

HAYES: Well, respond to that. You have seen exactly what the
rhetoric on the right is about food stamps.

COLICCHIO: Yes. It is all about fraud and about people gaming the
system. You know what? Follow the money on food stamps. Where is this
money going? You think it is going to poor people is pockets? No, it is
going for food for them. Where is that money going? It is getting spent.
It is going back into the communities. It is going to food companies. It
is going to supermarkets. It is going to grocery stores. Going to farmer
is markets. To farmers. So, just follow the money through.

This is not a giveaway. This is a hit on the stimulus that we should
be happy to do, especially right now when we are trying to get the economy
going. So, again, I am not sure why he is doing this. I do not get it.
Again, I am surprised. I talked to some hunger advocates in New Jersey.
They think perhaps maybe that there is the legislature in New York will
sort of work through this and he does not have to do an executive order, he
could just sign a bill and that will go away, but --

HAYES: I see. But, he could do it if he wanted to.

COLICCHIO: He could. Yes.

HAYES: he could sign an executive order and do it.

COLICCHIO: Again, Malloy did it. Cuomo did it.

HAYES: Malloy did it. Cuomo did it. Corbett did it. He could do
it.

COLICCHIO: Right.

HAYES: Chef Tom Colicchio, it is always my pleasure you come by.
Thanks a lot.

COLICCHIO: Thanks.

HAYES: Coming up, a shocking report in the "New York Times" says
police completely botched the investigation into rape allegations against
the best college football player in the country. We will bring you that
story with the attorneys advising that football player`s family, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Remember back in 2012, the first presidential election post
Citizens United. There was a lot of confusion out there about super pacs.
There was one person who illustrated better than anybody exactly how
preposterous the rules to prevent those super pacs. Those independent
lightly regulated enemies that can take unlimited donations from
coordinating with actual campaigns.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN`S COLBERT, LATE NIGHT TALK SHOW HOST: Can I run for president
and keep my super pac?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: You cannot have the pac. You could have
it run by somebody else, but someone who you would not be coordinating
with.

COLBERT: Is being business partners a problem?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Being business partners does not count as
coordination legally.

JON STEWART, LATE NIGHT TALK SHOW HOST: Can I legally hire Stephen`s
current super pac staff to produce these ads that will be in no way
coordinated with Stephen?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Yes.

STEWART: Yey!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Well, today brings news of something almost as preposterous
as that. Right now in Oregon there is a pitched primary battle for the
republican senate nomination between these two people you see there on your
screen. Monica Wehby, a neurosurgeon, an establishment favorite and state
Representative Jason Conger, who in the latest poll fared better against
Merkley than Ms. Wehby did. He trailed the senator 47 percent, 40 percent.
She was behind 46 percent to 34 percent. But, then Conger got hammered by
this $100,000 ad buy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: Republican Jason Conger voted five times
with democrats for Oregon`s Obamacare. Jason. Republicans do not like it
when you vote that way. So, now we are going to vote no on Jason Conger.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Paid for by --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: If he votes like that in Salem, imagine
how he will vote in congress.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Not authorized by any candidate or
candidate`s committee.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That was a real ad. That was not a spoof. That ad was run
not by the Wehby campaign but by a super pac that is called, "If he votes
like that in Salem imagine wheel do in congress." Longest name for a super
pac ever. And, do you know who gave a sizable chunk of money to that -- of
that money to that super pac? This man. Timber Magnate Andrew Miller, who
reportedly is romantically involved with none other than Wehby.

Today, Miller defended the ad buy saying, "from the outside I can see
the optics would appear otherwise and I know some folks appear to think
there must be a smoking gun of coordination there and I would welcome the
inspection." I mean, he is right. Why cannot a wealthy guy go about and
buy something nice for the special someone in his life without everyone
getting so suspicious?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: There was a time when all eyes were on Jameis Winston and the
Florida State University football team. Winston was college football is
breakout star last year. Two-sport athlete sports writers have said was
absurdly talented and did everything right.

Leading up to the ACC title game in November there was still a
question whether Winston would even play because a prosecutor was trying to
decide whether to charge him with rape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER (voice-over): The latest on the sexual
assault allegations against Jameis Winston, the Florida state football star
who is a Heisman trophy candidate. Prosecutors say they will announce
today whether they will bring charges.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Ultimately, Florida Prosecutor Willie Megs announced he would
not be charging the 19-year-old quarterback with a crime. Winston would go
on to become the youngest person to ever win the Heisman trophy and then
lead Florida state to a national championship.

Well, now a blockbuster report from the "New York Times" shows an
insane series of errors and missteps into that rape investigation and
paints a picture of an operation that was bungled from the very start.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: If it had been done right from the get-
go, we might -- I am not saying we`d have a different answer or different
result, but we would certainly have more clarity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Winston was accused of raping his victim, a fellow Florida
state student, in December of 2012. Instead of conducting a prompt and
thorough interview with Winston, the "Times" reports, "The police did not
even attempt to talk with him for nearly two weeks and never obtained his
DNA."

The officer leading the investigation decided against it. The
accuser`s lawyer said the officer told her that testing Winston`s DNA might
generate publicity. Winston`s DNA was eventually collected more than 300
days after he was accused. It matched the DNA found on the victim`s
clothing.

The "Times" investigation also points out the University knew about
the rape accusation early in January 2013. Even so, the school did nothing
about it, allowing Winston to play the full season without having to answer
any questions. I will be talking to the attorney who was advising Jameis
Winston`s family about all this, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: Jameis, what is the last month been
like for you as news of the investigation was sharing headlines with your
on the field performance?

JAMEIS WINSTON, FLORIDA STATE FOOTBALL STAR AND HEISMAN TROPHY
CANDIDATE: It helped our team. Because Florida State has just been known
for taking the game off, but we came together. Everybody had my back. We
knew that it was going to be on and we knew that people was going to try to
get us. And, we did great.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: And Jameis, how come you decided not to
talk during the process on Thursday? Jameis, congratulations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Joining me now to discuss this case, Zerlina Maxwell,
political analyst, contributor to The Grio, survivor of sexual assault.
Mike Pesca, host of the new slate podcast The Gist with Mike Pesca, which
is excellent. You should check it out. And sports attorney David Cornwell
who is advising the family of Jameis Winston.

And, David, let me start with you. I have to say the facts as
presented in the "New York Times" and I should say Florida State has pushed
back, they have issued a statement taking issue with some of the things in
that. But, I look at that and I just cannot believe what happened. I
mean, Jameis Winston was identified by this person who is alleging an
unbelievably serious crime and is not contacted by the police for two
weeks? For two weeks and then is contacted by phone?

DAVID CORNWELL, ATTORNEY ADVISOR, WINSTON FAMILY: Well, listen, you
know, Chris, one of the things about "The New York Times" piece is that it
does not tell all of the story. And, it did not include all of the story
and Walt knew that he could not include all of the story because the
University is under certain privacy obligations with respect to both Jameis
and the young lady.

But, let me just say this. Listen, I am a father, a son, and a
brother. So, sexual assault is a vicious crime. But, the only thing that
is equally vicious is a false accusation of sexual assault. There are
facts --

HAYES: Are you saying there is a false accusation in this case? You
are saying the accusation is false?

CORNWELL: Absolutely. Without any reservation, Jameis Winston did
not sexually assault this young lady. And, the facts support that.

HAYES: Why was it that the two people that witnessed this, his two
friends, one of whom apparently was taping this encounter, what happened to
that tape and why did not we hear from those two? Why were not they
investigated or interviewed by law enforcement until an affidavit was
provided by them backing up Jameis` story?

CORNWELL: Well, I cannot tell you why or how the investigation was
conducted. What I can tell you is that the investigation, no matter how it
was conducted, will not change the facts. It will not change the fact that
Jameis did not sexually assault this woman.

There are facts that are not known to the public that will become
known presumably when her opportunistic lawyers finally file their lawsuit
that will demonstrate that her reaction was not consistent with the victim
of sexual assault. Now, that is not attacking -- that is not attacking the
victim.

HAYES: David.

CORNWELL: That is just acknowledging that the facts --

HAYES: You just called her lawyers --

CORNWELL: -- do not support the assertion.

HAYES: I want to bring Zerlina and Mike into this. Because, look,
you are a lawyer and I believe in vigorous defense of the accused. I
believe in our system of justice in terms of presumption of innocence in a
courtroom.

ZERLINA MAXWELL, POLITICAL ANALYST/CONTRIBUTOR TO THE GRIO: Right.

HAYES: But this seems to me this is how it always goes. Let me show
you something. Let me give you some statistics.

MAXWELL: Yes. Yes.

HAYES: OK? This is number of reported sexual assault cases at
public universities with enrollments between 30,000 and 60,000 students.
Cal state Fullerton, two. Florida State, 14. UC Berkeley, 83. We are
talking 30,000 to 60,000 people. Do you believe those for a second?

MAXWELL: No. And, the reason why people do not report is exactly
what we are seeing -- the reason why is because of what happened here in
Florida state. Because schools are not on the side of the students, you
know? Just an anecdote. I have a friend who went to the University of
North Carolina. She now is a campus activist.

But, when she reported her rape to the administrator, they said,
Annie, rape is like a football game. You should review the things that you
did to see if you would have made different choices. And, instead of
supporting students who come forward to report, you are interrogating the
victim.

And, that is what is happening here. We are questioning her
decisions and her choices and not Jameis` choices. And, that is the bottom
line here. What did he do that night and was that illegal. And, that was
not looked into by the detective at all.

HAYES: Mike.

MIKE PESCA, HOST OF THE NEW SLATE PODCAST "THE GIST": I am
interested. I would like to ask Mr. Cornwell. He uses the phrase that she
was not consistent. And, I have read all the reports. And, maybe you can
say that there was a difference of opinion about consent.

But, I have not seen anything that indicates that she was not
consistent the entire time from 3:00 a.m. afterwards when she told a friend
till she did not know it was Jameis Winston for about a month. Then she
identified him. And, even though the police said she no longer wanted to
go forward with her case, no one has ever said anything about
inconsistency. What is inconsistent?

CORNWELL: Well, I will tell you one thing that is inconsistent. That
even though she is now claiming sexual assault, when the two roommates, one
of whom was taping -- tried to tape the encounter, when they came into the
room she got up and shushed them out of the room and closed the door. Now,
that is not consistent with an allegation of sexual assault. You asked me.
I will answer the question.

HAYES: OK.

CORNWELL: Here is -- wait a minute. One more thing. The other issue
is we cannot assume or allege that Jameis Winston is guilty of sexual
assault. He is found not to -- he was not even charged. But based on what
goes on at the University of California Berkeley. That is just
irresponsible.

HAYES: No, I am --

CORNWELL: Statistics are what they are. But that does not mean that
Jameis sexually assaulted this young lady.

MAXWELL: I do not think anybody here --

HAYES: I agree with that.

MAXWELL: No one here knows what happened. But what we are saying is
when someone comes forward with serious allegations of a crime that the
police are supposed to investigate. They did not even look at the
surveillance video to find out who she left with. And, they would have
been able to identify him even sooner and get his DNA. Which they later
found did match. So, I think that --

CORNWELL: Yes. The DNA issue is a red herring. He admits to
consensual sex.

MAXWELL: Right. But, there is videotape of the encounter, then would
not that prove that it did or did not happen? And, that was deleted
evidence because the police did not do their job from --

HAYES: Right. I mean David, from my perspective, from the
perspective here of let is say as you allege, you assert, that your client
is guilty -- is innocent of this, OK? That this was not sexual assault.
From the perspective of an outside observer on this, it seems to me that
the best case scenario for Jameis as he goes forward into a career is to
not have a cloud of suspicion and to have an investigation that crossed
every T, that dot every I, that left no suspicion that he was getting
treated well because he was a star football player so that people could
look at the record of that investigation and all of the steps police took
and all of the steps university took and say you know what, they played
this one by the book there, must not have been enough evidence. Instead,
what we have is a record that is shot through with holes that leaves people
to think that that is not what happened.

PESCA: HE might be an innocent man who benefited from a shoddy
investigation. But, it was a shoddy investigation, innocent or not. Go
ahead.

CORNWELL: As I said from the beginning, I am not here to defend an
investigation. And Chris, you are absolutely right. The only reason that
I am here is because the investigation left questions that should have been
resolved with the finding that he should not have been charged. And, the
only reason we are having this conversation is because the investigation
left some questions open. But, it does not change the fundamental facts.

HAYES: Mike.

PESCA: That is notable. I mean, Jameis Winston`s defender is
pointing to the shoddiness of the investigation.

MAXWELL: Right.

PESCA: If you want to talk about the big picture, putting aside the
specifics, I mean, that would seem to be agreeing with this overall
question of what the Tallahassee police was doing and what goes on all the
time on college campuses.

HAYES: You made this point too. This gets to be about big football
programs and it is not just big football programs.

MAXWELL: No, it is not about football. It is not about college. It
is not about the military. This is a cultural problem. We have a problem
with rape culture in this country. We are not teaching young people about
consent, about healthy masculinity or any of the things that lead them into
healthy intimate relationships as opposed to situations where people leave
thinking that they have been sexually assaulted or have been sexually
assaulted. So, we have a cultural problem. It is not a football problem.
It is not a sports problem. Cultural.

HAYES: Zerlina Maxwell from The Grio, Mike Pesca from "The Gist" and
Attorney David Cornwell. David, Thank you very much for joining us and I
really appreciate it.

CORNWELL: My pleasure.

HAYES: All right. That is "All In" for this evening. The "Rachel
Maddow Show" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.

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

<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