ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
May 14, 2014
Guest: Bob Inglis, Wesley Clark, Lee Gunn, Camilla Taylor, Lucien Greaves,
James Martin, Christopher Robichaud
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris
Hayes.
Tonight, thousands of people are evacuating their homes and businesses
in California as wildfires spread throughout the state.
Meanwhile, Marco Rubio is self-immolating before our eyes. When Rubio
traveled to New Hampshire this weekend to effectively launch his 2016
presidential campaign, he probably expected some headlines and some big
interviews. What he likely did not expect was that his relaunch would be
completely hijacked by one single issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INTERVIEWER: Let me get this straight. You do not think that human
activity, the production of CO2, has caused warming to our planet?
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: I do not believe that human activity
is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists
are portraying it. That`s what I do not -- and I do not believe that the
laws they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy
our economy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: That bit of obfuscation during an interview meant to launch
his 2016 bid wasn`t Rubio planning to make news or plant some kind of flag
on the issue of climate change -- no, it was Marco Rubio doing what every
potential 2016 presidential candidate has to do as they gear up for the
2016 Koch primary, which is to simultaneously not accept the obvious
scientific consensus about what`s happening right in front of our eyes,
while at the same time, not looking like a total idiot while doing so.
It`s a harder dance to pull off than you might think, as Marco Rubio
is finding out this week. Yesterday, Rubio headed to the National Press
Club to unveil his retirement reform plan, one more step in the 2016 ramp-
up. He was greeted with question after question on his comments on climate
change.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUBIO: Of course the climate is changing, because the climate is
always changing. And that`s immeasurable, you can see. There is climate
change. The issue is not whether the climate is changing, as it always is
changing, the issue is whether there are legislative proposals before us
that can do anything about it. The truth of the matter is that the United
States is a country, it is not a planet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: The United States, indeed, a country, not a planet. Now, the
headline out of that event was not about Rubio`s retirement plan, but on
Rubio`s backtrack on climate change, which is fitting, because if Rubio has
his way, everyone`s going to be retiring in life vests anyways.
The next stop on Rubio`s media tour was the more sympathetic CNBC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m just giving you some advice.
RUBIO: I understand.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just take it from me. Just say, "I believe that
the climate changes" and leave it at that. It`s not worth it.
RUBIO: I do not believe that these laws will do anything about it.
I`m not going to help destroy the American economy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Again, the headline out of that interview again is on climate
change. But it didn`t stop there.
In his next interview with Sean Hannity, climate change comes up
again. This time, Rubio tried out a different way to explain his anti-
science position, abortion.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
RUBIO: All these people always wag their finger at me about science
and settled science. Let me give you a bit of settled science that they`ll
never admit to. Science is a settled. It`s not even a consensus. It`s a
unanimity that human life begins at conception.
So, I hope the next time someone wags their finger about scientist,
they`ll ask one of these leaders on the left, do you agree with the
consensus of science that human life begins at conception?
SEAN HANNITY: Really well said.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
HAYES: What we are watching right now and in the last few days is
something genuinely amazing and really new, especially for the Republican
Party. We are watching Marco Rubio self-detonate politically over his
climate denialism.
Think about that for a second: a prominent Republican blowing up in
front of all of us over climate denial.
Now, a big part of that is that Rubio had the misfortune of timing his
2016 rollout to a real bang-up week of news in climate change.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS: Two groups of scientists reported today,
based on close and constant examination, large parts of Western Antarctica
ice sheets appears to have collapsed. The area shown here in red,
scientists say further degradation is almost certainly unstoppable. They
say global warming is accelerating the pace of disintegration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: In addition to the revelation that sea levels could rise 10
feet or more in the coming centuries, a report out this week, authored by
16 retired three and four-star generals and admirals, warning that climate
change is a threat to the national security of the United States, that is
accelerating instability in vulnerable regions and will place key elements
of our national power at risk and threaten our homeland security.
Another report by the International Energy Agency found that delaying
and dealing with climate change comes at a cost. Finding the most recent
two-year delay has added nearly $4 trillion to the cost of a burning
climate catastrophe.
Right now, we have reached something of a consensus moment on the
threat of climate change. Scientific establishment, the military
establishment, even much of the business establishment understands it.
Marco Rubio`s last four days shows that the Republican Party is
starting to understand it. This time around, climate change will be a
wedge issue for Republicans, and that`s a big deal. Because remember less
than two years ago, for Republicans, climate change was nothing more than a
punch line.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MITT ROMNEY (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: President Obama
promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet.
My promise is to help you and your family.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Joining me now is former Congressman Bob Inglis, Republican
from South Carolina, now executive director of the Energy and Enterprise
Initiative.
And, Bob, you`ve been fighting a lonely battle to kind of get
Republicans to accept the science on climate change. What do you make of
Rubio`s week, the last few days?
FORMER REP. BOB INGLIS (R-SC), ENERGY AND ENTERPRISE INITIATIVE:
Well, I think you`re right that this might be a tipping point, a place at
which we begin to see the Republican Party, my party, moving more toward
embracing the science, because of the problem that you get into if you
don`t. In other words, you can`t stand against the settled scientific
observations that are out there.
Of course, it`s also true that Marco Rubio is right, that he hasn`t
seen a proposal yet that wouldn`t solve the problem without harming the
economy. That`s yet to be seen, but it can be offered --
HAYES: OK, but here`s --
INGLIS: It can be offered.
HAYES: And you have a plan on that, it`s called, basically fee and
dividend, you put a price on carbon and pass the money back to taxpayers
directly. You don`t grow government. I like that idea. I think that`s a
great policy solution. There`s things we can quibble about.
But what`s so interesting is that Rubio is attempting to do two
things. Deny that humans the putting carbon in the atmosphere is making
the planet warmer and also saying, oh, the solutions that are being
proposed aren`t enough.
And I want him just to abandon the first. Stop with the nonsense. If
you want to be a defeatist or critique the policy of cap and trade, or you
want to talk about how China needs to be, you know, under some carbon
regime, that`s fine. That`s all sensible.
But he`s doing two things simultaneously that are incompatible with
each other.
INGLIS: Well, maybe, except, of course, he faces a challenge in a
Republican primary. He`s got to win the Republican primary. So, it`s up
to people like us at Energy and Enterprise Initiative to show fellow
conservatives that there`s a solution that is based in free enterprise,
passionate belief in free enterprise, in putting all the costs in on all
the fuels, eliminating all the subsidies, and watching the free enterprise
system deliver innovation faster than government mandates or fickle tax
incentives.
That`s what we`ve seen so far, is a lot of government. So, it`s
understandable why conservatives say, we`re going to go back and doubt
whether we`ve got a problem, because we don`t like the solution.
HAYES: That`s exactly how the reasoning`s working.
INGLIS: So we`ve got to find -- we`ve got to show a solution that
fits with conservatives` deeply held beliefs. If we do that, then I think
that a candidate that`s facing a Republican primary electorate can say, of
course we should listen to the scientists.
Is the science settled? No, science is, in fact, never settled, but
it does clearly indicate risk. And you want to move against that risk.
And so, somehow them -- what we`ve got to do is we`ve got to show them a
solution that fits with their values.
HAYES: It`s so true, that the reasoning on all of this is reasoning
backwards from not liking the policies and ergo getting -- working your way
back up to the science. You see it all the time.
Former Congressman Bob Inglis from the Energy and Enterprise
Initiative, fighting a really noble and lonely battle. I hope you have
more company in the days and months and years ahead. Thanks a lot.
INGLIS: Thanks, Chris.
HAYES: Joining me now, retired General Wesley Clark, former NATO
supreme allied commander, presently serves as co-chair of Growth Energy,
and retired Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, president of CNA Corporation`s Institute
for Public Research.
Vice Admiral, I`ll begin with you, because you were part of the group
that issued this report.
What are the main top line findings of the report about the connection
between climate change and security?
VICE ADMIRAL LEE GUNN (RET), U.S. NAVY: Between the issuance of the
original report from the military adviser board in 2007 and now, the
climate has continued to change and the pace has quickened. That means, I
think, that many of the predictions we made in 2007 about the impact that
America`s security would feel from the change in climate have increased as
well.
So, the top line findings are that the population has increased
dramatically in the world and that millions have moved from the inland to
the seacoast and built infrastructure there and now make their lives there
and depend on the existing sea level. That science has coalesced, as has
previously been said in this show, about the findings that the climate is
changing. We have seen evidence that climate is contributing directly to
unrest.
HAYES: I want to stop you there for one second, and give a little
illustration of that, that comes this program, "Years of Living
Dangerously," I`ve been involved with. And, General Wesley Clark, I want
to get your comments.
This is Thomas Friedman doing some report that before the Syrian
uprising and civil war, there was a long period of very intense drought in
Syria that kind of paved the way for some of the conditions that have given
way to the unrest there. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, is this year after year, less rain?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Year after year. Government doesn`t try to help
in any kind of way.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And at the government`s response made people so
angry, they were eager to take to the streets. She said, "I couldn`t
understand the civil war if I didn`t understand what happened in the
drought."
Later, I learned that this drought was the worst in Syria`s modern
history. And that it happened in the four years just before the
revolution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: General Clark, the basic idea is that we`re going to see more
drought, more extreme weather, and that is going to stress societies in
ways that will produce greater likelihoods of unrest and instability,
right?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET), U.S. ARMY: That`s right. And it`s happening
right now. It`s happening across Africa. You can be sure that some of the
problem in northern Nigeria, in Niger and the other countries, south of the
Sahara, is that the Sahara, is that that region is drying out and the
Sahara is creeping south and people have to move and that upsets
communities, and tribes and cultures. And the same thing is happening in
East Africa.
So, already, we`re seeing these effects. Not just in Syria. And it`s
going to be more widespread, as the climate change continues.
HAYES: Vice Admiral, is there generally consensus -- I mean, do you
find climate deniers in the top ranks of the pentagon and the military
establishment? Is this basically regarded as a settled thing to deal with
strategically or is it something that is debated?
GUNN: There is, of course, a debate and there are open minds about
this topic. But military folks, by their nature, by our nature, are
planners. And that is, we deal with risk, Representative Inglis talked
about risk a moment ago. We plan for the worst and hope for the best.
And it is important that we consider the potential (AUDIO GAP) on
America`s military apparatus, the defense establishment, the national
security apparatus, are well-prepared to deal with these problems on behalf
of the American people. Problems like mounting of the sea ice at a greater
rate in the Arctic, causing security problems potentially in the Arctic,
that result from the access that is now opening and potentially creating a
race for resources in that region.
HAYES: Yes, we`re likely to see a race for resources in the arctic.
General Clark, do you think there`s a dynamic in which Republican
politicians who toot -- who often talk about the need to defer to the
generals, I`ve heard this out of the mouths of many Republican politicians,
in regards to Afghanistan war planning. Is there a way that the military
and national security establishment can bring them around on this issue?
CLARK: There might be, but it really depends on the sources of
funding for the Republican Party. And so, there are some key backers of
the Republican Party. They need to be talked to by the generals. They
need -- and it`s (AUDIO GAP) they`re making their money off industries that
essentially bring that greenhouse gas to the surface and send it into the
atmosphere.
And so, they`re going to have to recognize their industry has to
transform itself. That`s tough.
HAYES: It`s not just the industry, though, of course, though I think
I`m pretty sure the largest consumer of fuel in the world is the U.S. Armed
Forces, am I right?
CLARK: Well, that`s true. But the U.S. Armed Forces is a very, very
small consumer compared to the overall consumption in the United States.
We only use about 4 percent of the energy in the United States. So, we`re
not terribly significant.
If you look at the source of greenhouse gases, the largest is the
electric power industry.
HAYES: Right.
CLARK: And behind that is transportation.
And, you know, I heard the conversation before. There is no
legislation that`s going to ruin this economy. There`s no legislation out
there right now.
HAYES: Right.
CLARK: And one of the things the Republican Party has to do is
understand that when you take action against greenhouse gases, to deal with
climate change, you`re not taking money and putting it in the ground.
You`re giving it to other people, you`re creating jobs.
HAYES: That`s right.
CLARK: Jobs in the wind industry, the solar industry, the electric
power industry, and batteries and electric automobiles, transportation,
electrified highways -- these are the things that are going to make America
great in the future.
We`ve got the technology. What a terrible thing it is that we can`t
get investments in it in this country. And instead, our friends in China
put the money up, and those young technology companies are going to China
for things like how to convert CO2 into fuel, how to develop new batteries,
how to have very high voltage direct current transmission lines.
HAYES: We`re seeing that also in Germany and other places in the
world.
Retired General Wesley Clark and retired Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, thank
you, gentlemen, both.
Coming up, there`s a new hero in the gay rights movement, but someone
who never intended to be one. I`ll tell you who it is and what they`ve
done, ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: Coming up, a new feature here on ALL IN, "This Week in Satan",
a reenactment of satanic rituals is called off at Harvard University and a
statue of Satan planned for the Oklahoma state capitol is in legal limbo.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN COLBERT, COMEDIAN: It has two innocent children gazing up in
wonder at the devil and is designed so that real kids may sit on the lap of
Satan. That is wrong. Kids should only be sitting on the laps of strange
old men at the mall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Is this an epic case of trolling or an actual religious
freedom issue? The spokesperson for the satanic temple and the Catholic
priest will join us, ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has done it again. The
unlikeliest hero of the gay rights movement racked up yet another victory
yesterday, when a federal judge in Idaho struck down that state`s gay
marriage ban, making it the ninth time that a state`s same-sex marriage ban
has been stricken or a state has been forced to recognize another state`s
same-sex marriages in the wake of the Supreme Court`s DOMA decision, United
States v. Windsor.
What role did Justice Scalia have in all of this? Well, back in
February when Virginia`s gay marriage ban was struck down, we ran a report
about how Scalia`s own snarky dissent in that DOMA case was being cited by
judges and turned around against him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: In a 26-page rant, Scalia took a knife to that logic, even
writing a fake ruling, showing how easily the majority opinion would be
used to strike down bans across the country.
In his dissent, he takes part of the majority opinion and says, hey,
guys, this is how you take the majority opinion. You cross out a few
words, and what you end up with is the identical argument to strike down
every ban.
Yes, we now know Scalia was right, and he was so right that his
vitriolic but prescient dissent has now been used by five federal judges to
expand gay rights.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: But it`s not just five anymore. That number is now nine
judges having cited a Scalia dissent to expand gay rights.
And here`s the funny thing -- yesterday`s Idaho decision doesn`t even
cite the same Scalia language from the DOMA case, Windsor, cited by all
those other judges. It goes back to another Scalia decision, when he was
also on dissent. That time the case was on sodomy, the famous Lawrence v.
Texas case which struck down Texas` sodomy law 11 years ago.
Again, Scalia snarkily took a jab at his colleagues in the majority,
basically saying, you`re putting us on the path to the day when even
something like gay marriage is OK. I mean, if a state can`t have anti-
sodomy laws to express its moral disapproval, Scalia reasoned, then, what`s
next? Getting rid of gay marriage bans?
Scalia wrote, quote, "Preserving the traditional institution of
marriage is just a kinder way of describing the state`s moral disapproval
of same-sex couples." In other words, Scalia noted that states had no real
rational basis for their gay marriage bans other than disapproval.
So, Judge Candy Dale (ph) in yesterday`s Idaho decision cited that
exact same line from Scalia in support of her opinion that states
basically, well, had no rational reason to ban same-sex marriage.
And when another judge just five days ago struck down Arkansas gay
marriage ban, he also cited that Scalia line from Lawrence v. Texas.
(INAUDIBLE) a federal judge struck down Texas` ban on gay marriage,
also using Scalia`s Lawrence dissent against him.
Once again, U.S. Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia, unlikely hero
of gay liberation.
Joining me now is Camilla Taylor, a not-unlikely hero of gay
liberation, counsel on marriage project director at Lambda Legal.
Camilla, the last time you were on and we were talking about this, you
looked triumphant and confident and you basically said, we`re going to run
the board with all of these. There`s no place to hide. And that`s looking
pretty prophetic now?
CAMILLA TAYLOR, LAMBDA LEGAL: Well, we haven`t had a loss, Chris.
It`s been almost a year since Windsor came down, and we`ve now had, I can
count, 13 different federal decisions in different marriage cases. And
each one of them has been a win, declaring unconstitutional a marriage ban
that either denied the ability of same-sex couples to marry in a state or
denied them the ability to be respected for their out-of-state marriages.
So, things are looking very good. It`s becoming harder and harder, I
think, for these states to argue that there`s any likelihood of success for
them on the merits.
HAYES: Have you ever seen a sarcastic portion of a dissent or
dissents be cited so extensively to make the point that`s being made time
and time again? I`m not a scholar of the court, but I can`t recall
something similar to what is happening with the Scalia dissents in these
two cases.
TAYLOR: I mean, I don`t want to be too flip. These decisions really
are relying primarily on the majority opinions in Lawrence and in Windsor
that were authored by Justice Kennedy, but in so many of these decisions,
there`s a line that follows that language, that says, and if there were any
doubt about the accuracy of my analysis, Justice Scalia confirms that I got
it right.
HAYES: The Scalia argument, if you go back to Lawrence, and I`m sort
of trying to pull this back from memory in the Lawrence dissent, but I
believe in the passage about moral disapproval, he`s says, what`s to stop -
- he`s talking about the slippery slope argument that Kennedy has shoved
the court down, and said, why can`t states approve moral disapproval of a
moral institution like polygamy. I think he uses bigamy actually in that
dissent.
That argument gets are used all the time. But since it was an
argument that Scalia made, why isn`t that a good constitutional argument?
What about the "what next" question in terms of expressions of moral
disapproval?
TAYLOR: Well, there are these three major cases that the Supreme
Court has handed down that deal with gay rights, that have specifically
said that moral disapproval alone is never enough justification to sustain
a law. But there are other cases out there, too, on which we regularly
rely. The Casey decision versus Planned Parenthood is another example,
they`ve also made clear that it`s not the job of our courts to define the
moral code for all of us.
So, Justice Scalia is correct in pointing out that these cases are
great authority for that proposition, but they`re not the only thing out
there. There`s a series of cases that have long held that courts can`t
justify laws that are otherwise unconstitutional by saying that the
legislature passed them in order to try and create a version of morality
that would exclude people.
HAYES: Do you anticipate any court, any finding the opposite way,
upholding a state ban and creating a circuit split that the Supreme Court
would then have to step into and adjudicate?
TAYLOR: Well, I am feeling very good. I`m feeling very good, based
on --
HAYES: Sixteen and O, whatever it is.
TAYLOR: -- the oral arguments that have happened so far, and two
circuit court of appeals have given us a lot of optimism as well. I do
think that there are some more challenging circuit courts out there and
there may well be a few decisions that go the other way.
But the more decisions that pile up in our favor, and when I gave you
that 13 federal courts number, I wasn`t even including the state court
decisions, three of them, including Arkansas, that you mentioned.
HAYES: You know what`s an important thing to add here? Judges, it
turns out, are human beings who don`t like to be out there on a limb, on
their own. I`m fascinated by the kind of human behavioral aspect of the
stampede we have seen from federal judges, Republican, Democratic
appointees in all parts of the country towards that same point.
Camilla Taylor from Lambda Legal, always a pleasure. Thank you.
TAYLOR: Thank you for having me.
HAYES: Coming up, the investigation that may lead to find that other
investigations that weren`t investigating or why Republicans are worried
about the Benghazi select committee. That`s ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Anyone who wants
to set his or her aspirations on the Republican nomination for the
presidency in 2016 already knows that they can`t possibly cross the Koch
brothers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: At the University of Chicago Institute of Politics this week,
former Vice President Al Gore said it`s the Koch brothers who are a primary
reason why so many Republicans seem to be shying away from reality and
refusing to accept climate change as a fact.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GORE: I don`t think it`s particularly complicated, why they have all
been cowed into abandoning that position.
They will face primary opponents, financed by the Koch brothers and
others who are part of their group if they even breathe the slightest
breath of sympathy for the truth about climate science.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: The Koch-funded group Americans for Prosperity is projected to
spend an incredible amount of money in this year`s election, more than $125
million in the midterm in a 50-state effort to get their candidates elected
and their agenda enacted.
The Koch brothers` mission to gin up climate change denialism is
facing some resistance in their own backyard. Next week, as part of our
series we`re launching all spring and summer, "ALL IN America," we`re
traveling to Kansas to take a special look at just some of the people in
the home state of Koch industries who are embracing exactly what the Koch
brothers are trying to kill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE FERRELL, KANSAS RANCHER: I think they wanted to make an example
of Kansas and try to defeat wind here and then defeat it in other states.
I think it`s very unfortunate. If I had that kind of money, I would
be investing in wind, rather than trying to defeat it. I think it`s the
future of our energy sector and I, quite frankly, am baffled why they have
spent so much money to try to defeat wind power. I don`t understand it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: We`re going to bring you that report and more amazing stories
from Kansas, which has become America`s incubator of conservative ideas,
all next week on "ALL IN America" on the road in the conservative
heartland. You will not want to miss it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In my opinion,
Hillary did what she should have done.
She impaneled a very high-level review committee. They looked into
what was wrong. They gave 29 recommendations. She took them and started
implementing them. And they established the fact that, whether it was
right or wrong in the past, secretaries of state never were involved
directly in these security decisions.
And they also have untangled what was an early mystery at Benghazi,
when all we knew was that four people were killed. And we know now two of
them were heavily armed CIA contractors.
And so most Americans don`t even know how many American diplomatic
personnel were killed when President Bush was president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Bill Clinton knows politics, and so he knows what all of us
know, which is that the Republican pursuit of Benghazi investigation after
Benghazi investigation is driven primarily by, wait for it, politics.
It`s been my operating thesis that this has to do with the fact that
the 2014 Republican field has nothing else to run on at this point. It`s
been a strategic pivot to Benghazi the moment Obamacare started clearly
working.
That`s a notion reinforced by this chart we brought you last week,
showing the number of times FOX News mentioned Benghazi -- that`s the line
in red -- once it became clear that Obamacare was no longer working as a
line of attack.
But the real story just might be a little more interesting and
complicated than that. Some reporting from Eli Lake at The Daily Beast
suggests that this new round of investigations led by a special select
committee may be a kind of ad hoc concession made by House Speaker John
Boehner to an unyielding Tea Party base, this from a House Republican aide.
Remember, Boehner has also gotten a lot of resistance from House
Republicans on immigration. He wanted to turn the page on this. This aide
said that Boehner`s view was that: "I am giving you guys this committee.
Now it`s on you to make this work."
According to the reporting, this was done over the objections of three
Republican House members who -- quote -- "have led their own investigations
into the matter." That`s Representatives Darrell Issa, who is no shrinking
violet on Benghazi, Mike Rogers, and Buck McKeon.
Now, it`s possible their reluctance to get behind the latest
investigation is about turf. It`s also possible they`re worried the select
committee might uncover something that they missed, or perhaps it`s because
they know there`s actually no scandal there and that this committee will
set in motion some inertial process that could end in a disastrous fashion
for the Republican Party.
Joining me now is my MSNBC friend and colleague Joy Reid, host of "THE
REID REPORT."
It`s great to have you here, instead of tweeting me at during the
show.
(LAUGHTER)
JOY REID, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Exactly, because that`s what I do.
HAYES: Tweet in person.
(LAUGHTER)
HAYES: I am fascinated by the backstory here, by the reporting there,
because it is the case that they wanted a select committee, select
committee. And John Boehner was saying no for a long time and something
broke.
REID: Yes.
Well, John Boehner`s been in politics a long time, so he knows sort of
the history of this kind of fishing expedition is what sort of happened
with Whitewater, this idea of trying to find some scandal, any scandal,
hoping that maybe you get a thread you can tie a scandal to.
But, yes, there have been at least four separate reports produced on
Benghazi, three of which actually came from the House of Representatives,
so he knows that his own people have investigated it. And I think part of
what probably worries establishment Republicans like John Boehner is what`s
left out there is the stuff that`s being produced by people like this
Citizens Commission on Benghazi, these kind of conspiracy theory-minded
groups that have created themselves...
(CROSSTALK)
HAYES: Part of what I call #Benghazi, the kind of netherworld of
conspiracy theorists.
(CROSSTALK)
REID: Exactly.
And they are a group of conspiracy theorists. A lot of birthers are
involved in that, C.C. -- the Benghazi citizens commission movement.
So what they have got left is the really sort of crazy stuff. And
that won`t look good for Republicans.
HAYES: I also thought it was fascinating. Boehner`s calculation was
in part political, according to one House Republican aide. "The speaker
was looking to mollify the Tea Party faction of his caucus, who are upset
about a range of issues, including the federal budget and immigration
reform."
And there was some thinking that maybe he -- like, he really wants to
get -- I have been reading all this reporting. He wants to get immigration
reform done by the end of the term.
REID: Yes. Yes.
HAYES: If he throws them the bone of...
(LAUGHTER)
HAYES: ... Trey Gowdy running a select committee, they`re going to do
immigration reform, which, if he believes that, that`s preposterous and
upsetting.
REID: Yes.
No, it`s -- but it is -- you have seen John Boehner starting to be
kind of the honey badger on certain things. He`s been going off-campus and
saying really like sane things about immigration, really making it sound
like he would like to get policy done, and then sort of to pay back the
base, to sort of apologize to them, he gives them something.
He gave them the government shutdown and he gives them things that are
really kind of frightening, but I think, in this case, this is the gimme
that he`s giving the far right in his party, because they just don`t
believe in...
(CROSSTALK)
HAYES: Right.
And so the question all comes down to this guy, Trey Gowdy, who is a
former prosecutor, who, who if you talk to reporters who spend a lot of
time around him, he`s a pretty disciplined guy, he`s a pretty smart guy.
He had a pretty good reputation, at least professionally, in South
Carolina, although could be really with the elbows. Right?
(CROSSTALK)
REID: Yes.
HAYES: The question then becomes, like, does this guy descend into
the morass?
REID: Yes.
HAYES: And if he doesn`t descend into the morass, what can he
possibly do that hasn`t been done, right? He is in a terrible position, it
strikes me, because what can he probably produce?
REID: Yes.
What he can do disappoint the base again. And that is really what`s
set up here, because if those other commissions, if all those other
investigations couldn`t...
(CROSSTALK)
HAYES: Darrell Issa -- it`s not like Darrell Issa was playing patty-
cake.
REID: Right. Exactly.
And I think it was the Senate Armed Services Committee`s report that
essentially said they believe the military. They believe that they did all
the could. Unless they`re calling -- they want to call the Pentagon liars
and they want to call the members of the United States military liars, or
unless they want to go after the CIA, no one has been able to find any
thread that goes back to the White House, which is what the base wants
done.
They want them to get Barack Obama. And that isn`t there, because we
haven`t seen it come up before. And you know what? This guy called it a
trial, Trey Gowdy. He`s already set it up. It will be an inquisition.
(CROSSTALK)
HAYES: On our air on "MORNING JOE," he called it a trial.
REID: Yes. And I think that`s a bad sign, because they`re going to
go on a wild...
(CROSSTALK)
HAYES: Right. He, himself, is a prosecutor. Right?
REID: Absolutely.
HAYES: He is viewing this in this kind of court-like proceeding.
It is not a trial.
REID: No.
HAYES: It`s not an impeachment trial yet. Right?
REID: Right.
HAYES: It is just a -- it`s a select committee.
But the other thing about these select committees -- and this is the
same that we saw to a lesser degree with the special prosecutor of the Ken
Starr in the Clinton years -- is, can you keep the horse, you know,
connected to the cart, or does it gallop off without you? And that`s going
to be a real problem.
(CROSSTALK)
REID: Yes.
HAYES: Joy Reid, thank you so much.
REID: Thank you.
HAYES: Of course, catch Joy`s show, as I do, every day, "THE REID
REPORT," weekdays at 2:00 Eastern right here on MSNBC.
Coming up: Satan gets expelled from Harvard. That story is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: Have you seen this sculpture of Satan with the goat head, a
pentagram in the background surrounded by adoring children?
It is hilarious and scary, and also part of an elaborate trolling
enterprise by an organization called the Satanic Temple, which has emerged
as a weird, Bizarro World religious freedom gadfly.
It goes around finding examples of Christians putting up their
religious symbols and says, OK, if you`re for religious freedom, then
here`s our symbol, so put that up too.
In Oklahoma, the Republican legislature authorized a privately funded
Ten Commandments monument to be placed on the grounds of the Capitol, which
it was in 2012. So the Satanic Temple, which is based in New York, said,
OK, us, too, notifying Oklahoma`s Capitol Preservation Commission it wants
to donate its own monument, and raising almost $30,000 to pay for this yet-
to-be-finished sculpture, which its creators say will originally by cast in
bronze.
Basically, the argument being, you open the door to God, you open the
door to Satan. It was the same group that was behind a brouhaha that
erupted at Harvard this week in which a student organization planned to
partner with the Satanic Temple to host a black mass, basically a parody
event put on by Satanists with the intent of mocking and some would say
defiling a Catholic mass.
It was another elaborate trolling enterprise. And Catholics, up to
and including Cardinal O`Malley, the head of the Boston Archdiocese, took
the bait, protesting the planned black mass and expressing outrage that it
was taking place on the Harvard campus.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARDINAL SEAN PATRICK O`MALLEY, ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON: It`s very
repugnant and just very disappointing and disturbing. There`s a great
fascination with evil in the world, but it doesn`t lead to anything good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Harvard`s president, Drew Faust, said she would reluctantly
let the black mass take place. The event was abruptly called off right
before it was supposed to start.
A scaled-down version was then held at a Chinese restaurant called
Hong Kong just off campus, where according to "The Harvard Crimson," "Four
individuals in hoods and one man in a white suit, a cape, and a horned mask
were active in the proceedings, as well as a woman revealed to be wearing
only lingerie."
We don`t have video of the event, but we imagine it looked something
like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Hail, Satan, it is done.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTORS: Hail Satan, it is...
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: It is done.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Well, thanks for coming, everyone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
HAYES: All right.
All joking aside, the underlying issues in both these cases are
actually pretty profound. If we as a nation truly believe in religious
liberty and the First Amendment protects our religious expression, then
what exactly are the boundaries of that expression? Who gets to say what a
real religion is?
Joining me now, Lucien Greaves. He`s spokesperson for the Satanic
Temple.
Lucien, what is the story here? Is this performance art? Is this
trolling? Like, what are you guys up to?
LUCIEN GREAVES, SPOKESPERSON, THE SATANIC TEMPLE: No, it`s not
performance art and it`s not actually simply trolling.
It`s -- but we do want to make clear that we think we can separate
religion from superstition. And on a legal basis, we even have to, or
we`re giving preference up to superstition over nonbelievers, given
religious exemptions and privileges.
So we have this metaphorical symbolic construct that embodies our
rejection of arbitrary authority and our drive for personal sovereignty,
and the best symbolism for that for us is the Satanic narrative.
HAYES: And so, you have a belief system that you are saying is
covered by essentially the First Amendment and religious expression. Why
these sort of -- what is the point of the kind of -- the provocative acts
like the statue in Oklahoma or the black mass at Harvard?
GREAVES: The statue in Oklahoma and the black mass at Harvard, I
feel, were completely separate, and I was a little disappointed at all the
press we got for the black mass, because I feel it overshadows the more
important issue of the monument.
And the issue there, I think, is that -- is very much like you said.
You open the door to one, you open them all. And we wouldn`t want our
monument in Oklahoma at all if weren`t for the fact that the Ten
Commandments monument was already there. If you have a singular
perspective sitting there, giving the appearance that one voice has co-
opted the authority and power of the government, that to us is disgraceful.
But having a counterbalance there or a monument park, as they
originally said they wanted in Oklahoma, that`s preferable.
HAYES: And in the case of Harvard, I have to say, I was really
surprised that that thing blew up as much as it did. I mean, it seemed to
me that if people are going to do some ritual, they`re going to do some
ritual. Lots of stuff happens on a college campus, that, you know, some
people may not like.
Were you surprised by the level of outrage, that you had the
archbishop, that you had the cardinal talking about it?
GREAVES: Well, the disappointing part, too, is that they never
reached out to us at all to see what it was about. And we billed this as a
reenactment, and we were quite clear that we didn`t actually have a
defrocked priest acting -- overseeing the event.
These weren`t actual nuns. And I even made it clear to the press that
we were using an unconsecrated host. Our feeling is that the consecrated
host itself is symbolic of the body of Christ, and they disagree. Then we
were asked if, perhaps, we could use a symbol of a symbol, which would be -
- we were already using a symbol of a symbol, an unconsecrated host, but
then we were asked if we could use something that wasn`t bread at all,
being a symbol of a symbol of a symbol.
And soon the request for concessions got completely untenable. But
the thing that we would have liked to have told the archdiocese before he
started making these grim and moronic apocalyptic proclamations was that to
us this is as removed from Catholicism as Christian holidays are from their
pagan roots, Easter or Christmas.
HAYES: Right.
GREAVES: To us, the action is an affirmation of personal
independence, free from supernaturalism.
We`re not actually trying to summon the devil, or anything foolish
like that. And we were going to give an academic perspective and a history
of the whole thing.
HAYES: And we have someone, actually, who was going to be at that
event joining us next.
Lucien Greaves from the Satanic Temple, thank you for coming by.
GREAVES: Thank you.
HAYES: When we return, a Catholic priest and that person who was
supposed to speak at a Harvard black mass reenactment will join me. Stay
with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Roman Catholic Church is raising some concerns
tonight about a mass that is scheduled to be held at Harvard soon, because
they say the ceremony is evil.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: We`re back talking about religious freedom.
Joining me now, Father James Martin, a Jesuit priest, and Christopher
Robichaud, a lecturer in ethics and public policy at the Harvard Kennedy
School of Government, was supposed to speak at the Satanic Temple`s event
at the university this week.
Father Martin, I will begin with you.
I was a little surprised by the intensity of the reaction by the
Catholic Church on Harvard campus in Boston to what did seem to me to be an
elaborate trolling enterprise, but you felt the same way.
FATHER JAMES MARTIN, CATHOLIC PRIEST: Yes, I was appalled.
I think to put it into perspective, we could say, how would we feel if
they said, we`re going to do a little cultural thing? We`re going to do
something that is anti-Semitic or racist or homophobic just as a cultural
experiment? We will set up some sort of reenactment of a lynching or
something like that.
I don`t think we would have these kinds of things on any college
campus.
HAYES: So, you thought it was an offensive desecration, an
intentional provocation, not anything that was like a legitimate expressive
act?
MARTIN: No, unless you say we`re going to have a legitimate
expressive act that sort of is anti-Semitic or is racist.
Yes, it is. To say you`re going to do a black mass, that`s what it
is.
(CROSSTALK)
HAYES: Right.
MARTIN: It`s basically a desecration of the mass. It`s, you know,
worshiping Satan, but it`s also a mockery of the Catholic mass. And I
don`t think -- imagine saying, we`re going to burn a Koran, we`re just
going to see what that`s like kind of culturally.
HAYES: Right.
MARTIN: I don`t think any other group would stand for it. I thought
it was appalling.
HAYES: Yes, Christopher, would you defend the cultural reenactment
of, say, burning of a Koran, as the father said? Is that what this
amounted to?
CHRISTOPHER ROBICHAUD, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Hi.
I think one of the worst thing that happens when we think about is
false equivalencies.
HAYES: Yes.
ROBICHAUD: We see similarities in a lot of things and we lump them
all together.
I think it`s, to be honest, sloppy to put all of those things
together. What I wanted to do at this was to introduce distinctions that I
hope people think a little bit more carefully about where they come down.
Each case is different. It doesn`t mean that you have to take a stand on
all of them together at once.
HAYES: So this case, why this case? What did you think was the
important principle here or what made you want to participate or thought
that it should have been done on Harvard campus?
ROBICHAUD: Well, my interest, again, was trying to insert a little
critical reflection into the whole thing.
For me, I think that it`s useful to distinguish between hate speech
and merely offensive speech. Hate speech is typically understood as
directed at marginalized groups, and is meant to characterize them as not
worthy of being part of the democratic process at all. They don`t have a
place at the table.
This struck me as merely offensive. It didn`t even strike me as
intentionally offensive. It struck me as offensive, but not directed at
the church, at least taking what was just said by the member of the Satanic
Temple at face value, which I think is a responsible thing to do. I`m a
little bit worried when power of any sort tells me how to characterize
marginalized communities.
HAYES: Father, part of the thing here with the Satanic Temple in the
two cases and the black mass is, it is, I think, fair to say, kind of, I
think, a somewhat clever -- making a kind of clever constitutional or
philosophical point about what we call religion and what we don`t and what
the First Amendment protects.
And I wonder, like, when you think about the Ten Commandments issue,
right, what is the argument, if the Ten Commandments are there, that there
shouldn`t be this sculpture by the Satanic Temple there?
MARTIN: That`s a good question.
The difficulty is that they`re clearly saying, we`re not a religion.
We`re just doing this to kind of thumb our noses at people. If you`re
going to compare apples to apples, if they were actually Satan worshipers,
maybe they would have...
(CROSSTALK)
HAYES: OK, there are examples, right? Like, so here`s one of my
favorite examples of this, the outliers, the Pastafarians. You know about
the Pastafarians, right? These are people that say they`re from the Church
of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It`s a Web site.
They have to have a colander on their head. This is what they say
their religious belief is. And, like, of course, we`re both smirking, like
this also seems ridiculous and rolling. But the line between like I`m
saying your religion is ridiculous and trolling and the line between you
have got a religion with millions of followers, like, it`s pretty thin,
isn`t it?
MARTIN: It may be, but once again, look at that from the point of
view of, say, someone who`s African-American or who is gay or is a woman.
And if you do something that`s completely offensive, you know, does
that person have...
HAYES: But this is distinct, right?
MARTIN: It is distinct.
HAYES: There`s a distinct issue here, Christopher, here about like
who gets to say what religion is, right?
And that`s actually a pretty profound jurisprudential question that
appears before the court quite a bit. The Pastafarian case I think has
actually been litigated on precisely this question.
ROBICHAUD: I think that -- and just to build off of that, I think
that, again, you know, however we wish to answer that, we should not answer
it by turning to very powerful religions to decide who the others at the
table get to be.
I should also add that we`re seeing an increasing trend in more people
in this country moving away from religion and adopting a kind of
spiritualism or just general religious outlook. I think, in some sense,
it`s a red herring. Religious experience -- religious experience --
religious expression cannot be isolated to happening within a defined -- a
defined religion.
HAYES: Father James Martin and Christopher Robichaud from Harvard
University, it`s great to have you here. Thanks.
ROBICHAUD: Yes.
HAYES: And I have your copy of "Jesus" now.
MARTIN: Beautiful.
HAYES: That`s ALL IN for this evening.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END
Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
All In With Chris Hayes, Wednesday, May 14th, 2014
Read the transcript from the Wednesday show