Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Tuesday, July 1st, 2014

Read the transcript from the Tuesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

July 1, 2014

Guest: Chris Murphy, Molly Crabapple, Cecilia Munoz


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight, we are ALL IN.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are going for you, Barack Obama.

HAYES: ISIS declares their own state. Iraqi parliament is MIA. The
president sending more Americans.

national security team have determined is that additional military service
personnel are required.

HAYES: The latest troubling news from Iraq.

Then, the president continues to dare congressional Republicans.


HAYES: What can he do on immigration by himself? Tonight, my
exclusive interview with a White House official who has answers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The constitutional coalition met with the governor
on Saturday, Jack.

HAYES: Guess which state`s governor was busted meeting with a group
the FBI calls domestic terrorists.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are following the Hitler playbook to a T.

HAYES: It was a nice run, America.

CROWD: I believe that we can win! I believe that we can win!

HAYES: It was good while it lasted.

ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.

The president has deployed another 200 American troops to Iraq, that
is in addition to the 275 U.S. troops sent there last month, and the 300
military advisers drawn from Special Operations Forces deployed to Iraq and
the region to figure out how to help Iraq fight the jihadi threat, which
brings the number of American troops in the region or heading there right
now to 775.

And it is unclear what the end game is for American involvement. And
yet, in a partisan environment in which every move the president makes
inspires criticism and reaction, there`s been a strange silence from
Congress about all this.

Joining me now is someone in Congress, Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat
from Connecticut. Senator, your reaction to the announcement that we`ve
seen more troops sent, the president determining they are necessary. Are
you worried about a kind of slippery slope of American involvement here?

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: Well, I think you have to be
careful about what the troops are being used for. This new cadre of
military officials that are going there are going to be used in part for
diplomatic security and, the reality is that we have a pretty large State
Department presence there that we have to protect.

I don`t know exactly where that line is, but I trust that the
president understands that he`s got to come to Congress if he wants an
authorization beyond advising the Iraqi military over the next couple of
weeks, or protecting U.S. forces there. I don`t believe and I think a lot
of my Republican and Democratic colleagues agree with me, that he does not
have authorization either under the original Iraq authorization for
military force, or the 9/11 authorization for military force, to do
anything beyond this relatively small number of advisers.

HAYES: What is the end game here as far as you can tell? What do you
hope the end game is in terms of American involvement in Iraq at this very
fractious moment?

MURPHY: I think the hope now is that you can provide some short term
military stability by standing up a decent degree of short-term
effectiveness on behalf of the Iraqi army to achieve a political settlement
that gives confidence to the moderate Sunnis that they have a place to go,
that they have a home in a new coalition government and the only
alternative isn`t ISIS.

I think the chances of that are relatively slim especially when we saw
today the cavalier nature of this first round of negotiations where only
about 2/3 of the Iraqi members of parliament showed up and they huffed out
of the room in part because they didn`t believe they were going to get
their salaries for a day`s work.

I think, though, that the stakes are so high that we deserve to give
this political consensus building effort a chance. If it doesn`t work then
the United States cannot be seen as taking sides in what could be an
enormous regional proxy war inside Iraq.

HAYES: There is a question so far about what American interests are
in Iraq aside, from a moral obligation there is to the people of Iraq and
that has to the people of Iraq, and what Americans interests are, and that
has to do with at the degree which ISIS, which is the Sunni insurgent
jihadi group that`s taken so much territory in the Sunni areas, the degree
to which they view America as an enemy and the degree to which they
threaten America.

Richard Engel, my colleague reporting, multiple U.S. intelligence
officials tell NBC News current terror threat against U.S. targets from
ISIS is extremely high. I want to get your reaction to that, 13 years of
anonymous officials talking about terror threats has perhaps made some of
us jaded possibly, properly jaded, about that. What is your reaction to

MURPHY: Well, I think it is only logical that should ISIS gain
control of substantial majority of Iraq that they would turn their sites on
the United States. Of course, that`s a reason to be very careful about our
next steps. The conflict in Iraq became, as the intelligence community
called it, the cause celebre of the international jihadist movement because
of the presence of U.S. forces there. We can`t make that mistake again.

I would argue that we have a different kind of moral interest here
other than just the people that are being slaughtered, highest number of
casualties since 2008 in the last month.

Last night I had a town hall filled with a lot of progressive members
of my community. But more than half of them supported the president`s
short term plan to put military advisers in, in part because I think there
is a belief that whether or not you supported this war in the first place,
we`re, in part, responsible for the disaster that is Iraq today. And we
bear a little bit of responsibility to try to help clean it up, at least in
the short run.

HAYES: Of course, it is the logic of that that also is the logic of
continued involvement if 200 troops doesn`t work and 1,000 doesn`t work. I
think that is where the fear comes on the part of the people who are
watching this unfold.

Senator Chris Murphy --

MURPHY: Mine as well.

HAYES: Yes, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

All right. The reason we have sent nearly 800 troops to Iraq is based
on fear from the White House and the world that more of the country will
fall into the hands of the Sunni insurgent group ISIS who have now, as of
today, rebranded themselves.



HAYES (voice-over): Each day, the jihadi group commonly known as ISIS
continues to lay the ground work for their stated end goal. An Islamic
state stretching across the Middle East.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But on the ground, ISIS claims to still be on
control. This is the latest video from their supporters.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We above all others (INAUDIBLE), there`s no
nationality. We are Muslims, only one country.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This claims to show them crossing the border in
Iraq. Today, they announce they would remove the words Iraq and Syria from
their name declaring a new Islamic state in the Middle East.

HAYES: The leader of the group has declared himself the head of the
newly proclaimed Islamic state.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Courtesy of social media, there`s now a statement
of the elusive leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He urges Muslims to come and join the new Islamic
state. Syria, he says, is not for Syrians, Iraq not for Iraqis. The land
is for all Muslims.

HAYES: And the group is making head way in the goal of erasing the
border between Syria and Iraq, which was drawn almost a hundred years ago
during World War I.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A new video shows them literally bulldozing the
Syrian-Iraqi border. The new name, a statement, this is our new caliphate.

HAYES: Along with the rebrand, they`re continuing their online
propaganda push.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This fighter claiming to be from Chile says Iraq
and Syria are just the beginning.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Break the barrier of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, all of
the countries --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ISIS puts out daily propaganda, video showing its
brutal attacks. The videos can`t be independently verified but the
intentions are clear.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are going for you, Barack Obama.

HAYES: But in their vast territorial ambitions, ISIS` biggest enemy
could prove to be itself.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Photographs and satellite imagery appears to
show the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria better known as ISIS, conducted
mass executions in Tikrit in Iraq. After seizing control of the city
northwest of Baghdad, the analysis suggests is killed up to 190 men in at
least two locations between June 11th, and the 14th.

HAYES: The same brutality that has installed fear in their enemies is
also instilling hatred in the people they presume to rule.


HAYES: Joining me now Molly Crabapple, columnist for "Vice", who just
returned to a trip to the border, which she was reporting on ISIS and those
fighting them in Syria.

And, Molly, of course, ISIS really gained strength in the Syrian civil
war. You were reporting on some fighters who are both fighting Bashar al
Assad but also fighting ISIS. Who are they?

MOLLY CRABAPPLE, VICE: I crossed the Syrian border 11 days ago to
visit the border town of Azaz (ph) where I met with Islamic front fighters
who are fighting both ISIS and Assad. These men are religiously motivated
fighters but they completely reject the misinterpretation and really
destruction of Islam that ISIS represents. ISIS is using Islamic language
to justify murder, torture and looting. And what they`re doing is
completely alien both to Syria and to Islam.

HAYES: Yes, it was fascinating to me. The jihadi fighters, I mean,
they themselves are self-proclaimed jihadists.


HAYES: Fighters that you were talking to, who view ISIS as monstrous,
as barbaric.

CRABAPPE: Of course, I recently spoke to a young man in Raqqa (ph)
who I wish could be here instead of me, actually. I asked him what would
you tell America about ISIS? He says tell them Syrians feel like strangers
in their own country. ISIS are foreigners. We feel suffocated by their
rules. And ISIS actually views Syrians as essentially corrupt and need a

HAYES: Raqqa is a town that they have taken over, much like they have
taken over Mosul in Iraq, and are essentially governing right now.

CRABAPPLE: Exactly. It`s a town where they recently crucified eight
rebel fighters.

HAYES: Crucified?

CRABAPPLE: Crucified.

HAYES: Actual?

CRABAPPLE: Yes. They crucify people as public punishment.

HAYES: They are fighting both Assad and all these other different
jihadi groups, there`s sort of been a manifestation of all different kinds
of groups fighting in Syria. But they have also employed -- we have seen
them in Iraq using conventional military attacks, guerilla fighting and not
suicide bombings necessarily targeted at civilians so far in Iraq
specifically, but that`s the tactic they used quite a bit in Syria.

CRABAPPLE: They absolutely use suicide bombings in Syria. When I was
at the refugee camp, I interviewed a young boy whose father died when ISIS
suicide bombed a garage that was frequented by refugees. This refugee camp
is mainly women and children. But ISIS views anyone that`s not in the
region they govern as essentially an enemy.

HAYES: The situation in Syria has been the kind of cauldron out of
which all this has been created. And what you saw there and what you
reported on is a pretty rough scene. I mean, we are talking about
basically a kind of lawless place in which there is no state. There is
only war.

And there are just a few sort of scrappy NGOs in this refugee camp
looking out for 20,000 people who were forced to flee.

CRABAPPLE: Exactly. Assad has banned the UNHCR from having anything
to do with opposition areas. So, the best work in this camp is really done
by Syrian Diaspora groups like the Syrian American Medical Society. And
these groups, when they go in there, that are utterly risking their lives.
They`re doing it with no protection.

The other group helping out is the Turkish government and also and
very troublingly, the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And I say
that this is troubling because these governments are funding fundamentalist
fighters and yet also making very, very visible shows of aid.

HAYES: What do you -- the Syrians that you talk to who are not
fighting ISIS is there an awareness of ISIS and who they are? Generally
among folks in the camp there?

CRABAPPLE: Oh, absolutely. Many of these people fled from ISIS areas
and ISIS is viewed with complete hatred. This is an organization that
during the World Cup which I assure was a very popular event, in Syria, in
Raqqa, ISIS went into cafes where guys were watching the World Cup, stole
the TVs and said Islam forbid watching the World Cup, and then tweeted
pictures of themselves watching it.

HAYES: Right. On Twitter, they`re watching on their phones.

CRABAPPLE: Yes, exactly.

HAYES: That was sort of perfect, little microcosm of the hypocrisy of
those ruling.


HAYES: Molly Crabapple from "Vice", it was great reporting. Thanks
for being here, really appreciate it.

CRABAPPLE: Thank you.

HAYES: Coming up, a day after President Obama announced he is taking
executive action on the humanitarian crisis on the border, we have an
interview with the White House. And that is ahead.


HAYES: Did Maine`s Republican governor really call for the execution,
arrest or hanging of his political opponents? That is not a rhetorical
question? And that story is ahead.



HAYES: Earlier today a group of anti-immigration protesters in
Marietta, California, north of San Diego, waving flags and yelling, "go
home," blocking the arrival of buses carrying families of undocumented
immigrants from Central America from entering a nearby Border Patrol
station most likely for processing.

The families have been flown to San Diego from Texas. But now,
according to the NBC affiliate in San Diego, officials from Immigration and
Customs Enforcement or ICE turned the buses around and sent them southbound
back towards San Diego.

The president spoke yesterday about the influx of immigrant families,
particularly unaccompanied children showing up at the southern border.
While he talked about using executive action to reform immigration instead
of waiting around for Congress, overlooked at a speech of what he is
pushing to do with the growing humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied minors
who are showing up at the border.

Right now, under the immigration laws of this country, those minors
are entitled to due process as the ACLU was quick to point out yesterday.
The U.S. has domestic and international legal obligations to asylum-seeking
children, including access to an attorney.

The president is being accused of pushing to weaken those protections.
In a letter asking Congress for help with the thousands upon thousands of
unaccompanied children, the president wrote he needed, quote, "additional
authority to exercise discretion in processing return and removal of
unaccompanied minor children from non-contiguous countries Guatemala,
Honduras and El Salvador," the countries where most of these kids are
coming from.

And since the president did not explain what he meant by discretion,
immigrant advocates are worried the administration wants to change the law
that requires these children to have their cases heard in immigration

Earlier, I spoke to Cecilia Munoz. She`s the domestic policy adviser
for the president and his point person for immigration reform efforts, and
I asked her about the criticism coming from immigration rights advocates
who say the president is trying to rob these children of their due process.


groups are overstating what we asked for. We asked for greater authority
for the secretary of homeland security to make sure the process is more
efficient. Nobody is talking about turning people back at the border and
nobody is talking about denying these kids their due process rights.

What we are talking about is making sure that this process doesn`t
take years and years and years before people get an answer about whether
they have a humanitarian claim or whether they`ll be returned. And part of
the reason we have such a great sense of urgency about this is that people
are making decision in Central America or in the U.S. to put their kids in
the hands of smugglers because the smuggling networks, the criminal
networks are telling them that it`s easy, you just pay us the money, we`ll
take your kid across Mexico and get to the United States and they`ll be
home free.

That`s not true. It`s an incredibly dangerous situation. We want to
make sure that we protect these kids and we protect their due process
rights, but we also want to make sure that folks who don`t have a basis to
stay get returned and, frankly, that we send that message to the people in
Central America who are making the decision to put their kids in the hands
of smugglers.

HAYES: What is your or the White House`s opinion about the genesis of
these rumors? Obviously, your critics, particularly Republicans, have said
that the president`s decision in 2012 to take executive action essentially
to allow children who had been brought here as minors to stay in the
country and come out from the sort of specter of deportation. They say
that is what started these rumors.

What is your understanding of why these smugglers` networks are --
have the rumors that kids can come and stay?

MUNOZ: Yes. So, this has nothing to do with the immigration reform
debate. It has nothing to do with the deferred action program that
protects DREAM Act students.

What this does have to do with is ugly smuggling networks which have
made an industry out of persuading people that if they put their children
in the hands of smugglers that bring them to the United States, that they
get a piece of paper at the other end, which is a permission to stay.

That piece of paper is actually a notice to appear at a deportation
hearing. Now, we are under obligation under the law and, frankly, morally,
to make sure that we deal with these kids appropriately. They have been
through harrowing situation, and have crossed all of Mexico alone or in the
hands of smugglers. But the fact of the matter is, most of them are not
eligible to stay and we want to, in a humane way as possible, work with the
sending country, put the kids through the process.

But at the other end of the process, they`re going to need to go home
and, frankly, we need to send that message very clearly as possible to
forestall an even bigger humanitarian crisis in the future.

HAYES: So, you said something that I think is key and that I haven`t
heard enough of, frankly, which is that what is happening on the border,
the humanitarian crisis of these kids from Central America is unrelated to
the immigration reform discussion and yet the two of them conflated and I
would even argue, the president kind of drew a connection to them.

Take a listen to what he had to say in the Rose Garden yesterday.


OBAMA: The journey is unbelievably dangerous for these kids. The
children who are fortunate enough to survive it will be taken care of while
they go through the legal process, but in most cases that process will lead
to them being sent back home. I`ve sent a clear message to parents in
these countries not to put their kids through this. The problem is, is
that our system is so broken, so unclear that folks don`t know what the
rules are.


HAYES: Do you think that the failure to pass comprehensive
immigration reform has led to the lack of clarity that is there for
enabling the situation we are seeing on the border?

MUNOZ: The situation on the border is one of many, many reasons.
This is a very, very compelling reason, that we need Congress to act,
right? It`s not just that we need clearer rules. We need more immigration
judges. We need more of the kinds of resources to process these kinds of

What we need are the tools to enforce the border that we got now, not
the border that we had in the `90s last time immigration was reformed, when
the situation was very, very different.

Congress has completely failed to live up to responsibilities here.
The president is going to do what he can as we are doing what we can with
respect to the border situation and he announced he is going to do what he
can to deal with what is broken about our immigration system.

But everybody should understand -- Congress needs to act about the
path to fixing this lies in the United States Congress and it is time they
step up to their responsibilities.

HAYES: One thing that`s developed is that as it became clearer and
clearer the base of the Republican Party wasn`t going to allow a vote in
the House on comprehensive immigration reform to pass the Senate, the
pressure came from immigrants rights groups on the White House to do
something executively. It seems like the announcement yesterday the
president made is in line with that, but the call has been made to
basically stop deportations. I mean, there are people who call the
president deporter-in-chief. They point out that there`s historic levels
of deportation.

What do we expect to see at the end of this summer in the way of
executive action? Given that`s the demand advocates are making?

MUNOZ: Well, so understand that the president made this announcement
because the speaker of the House told him that he has no intention of
moving immigration reform this year. After waiting a year since the Senate
passed the bill, the president has said enough is enough, it`s time for him
to consider his options.

But here`s the thing -- he does not have legal authorities that match
what the Congress can do or what the Senate did last year. So, while there
are advocates would like him to do what is in the Senate bill
administratively, he is not going to have those tools.

HAYES: Cecilia, with all due respect, that exact argument was made by
the White House in 2012 when the DREAMers were pushing for deferred action,
and the White House said time and time again, this is not a monarchy, I am
not a king. I can`t just wave a magic wand and fix something Congress
needs to fix.

What ended up happening was the White House did, in fact, take
executive action along the lines that many had been pushing for.

MUNOZ: Not, but DACA, the thing that we did doesn`t come close to
what the DREAM Act does. That`s our point. The administrative authorities
that he has are not going to match what Congress can do. DACA does not
provide anybody permanent status. They have to renew every two years. And
that can be revoked by some future Congress or some future president. It
doesn`t come close to what the DREAM Act would do or what immigration
reform does.

So, the point the president is making is he will look at what legal
authorities he has, but they cannot match what Congress can do and he is
going to continue to press for Congress to act.

HAYES: Cecilia Munoz of the White House Domestic Policy Council --
thank you very much.

MUNOZ: Thank you.


HAYES: Coming up, if you are trying to recover from the U.S.`s World
Cup loss today like we are, some much need therapy is next.


HAYES: There is a joke about Brazil, the host of this year`s World
Cup, which is that it`s the country of the future and it always will be.

And there is a similar kind of joke when it comes to U.S. soccer
taking off the United States of America. Forever, it has been talked about
as the sport of the future.

But, objectively, by the numbers something happened in this World Cup.
Nearly 25 million people watched the U.S. play Portugal last weekend, the
highest for any soccer telecast in American history. A rating easily
eclipsing the NBA Finals, which averaged 15.5 million viewers and the 2013
World Series, which averaged just under 15 million.

And they tuned in to watch a team whose chances to win the World Cup
were so poor that their own coach Jurgen Klinsmann told "The New York
Times" point blank that there was no chance to win the tournament. A team
that got a very unlucky draw and landed in the dreaded group of death,
alongside Portugal, whose striker Cristiano Ronaldo is perhaps the best
player in the world right now. And Germany, widely seen as one of the best
in the entire world, and Ghana, the team that knocked out the United States
out of the past two World Cups.

And that team, that U.S. men`s national team managed to defy the odds
and get out of that group of death and give American fans an incredible
run. Today U.S. Men`s National Team was knocked out of the world cup by
Belgium in a hard fought, intense battle between two teams that deserved to
be there.

And, American goalie Tim Howard gave fans one of the most impressive
displays in goal keeping ever. Time after time throughout the match,
Belgium had chances to regulation and time after time Howard stopped them,
making an incredible 16 saves. The most by any world cup keeper in at
least 50 years. It was not enough.

After regulation ended 0-0, Belgium was finally able to break through
scoring twice and sending U.S. home despite a very exciting late American
goal. While the result was a let down for American fans, it was amazing to
see so many of us come together like U.S. fans at today at viewing parties
around the country. We took our cameras to Jack Dempsey is bar in New York


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Can you tell me how you feel about the
U.S. loss and what it means to you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Devastated, but at the same time, you
know, we did an amazing job just getting past the group stage. And, you
know, the fact that the camaraderie was around and we got this many people
out and about just to root for the country and root for the team. It is


HAYES: The aversion that some hold to joining the world in embracing
soccer is often weirdly tied to American exceptionalism. And, once again,
this year, a few anti-soccer troll reared their ugly heads, but they really
do not matter. Now, that the World Cup brings so much joy to so many

Even the president of the United States caught the game today leading
staffers in a chant of "I believe that we can win" and while we did not
win. That is ultimately all right, because part of embracing a truly world
wide competition is accepting the fact the U.S. cannot assert its
dominance. It turns out we have to play just like everybody else.

There probably will not be 25 million American viewers for the rest of
the World Cup games, but the competition is gong to go on without us and
some amazing footballs is going to be played. And, I know, I for one, we
will be watching.


HAYES: Maine Governor Paul Lepage is denying that he ever called for
the execution, arrest or hanging of his political opponents. And, the
reason he had to utter what is as of yet, the weirdest political denial of
2014 is this excerpt from the first chapter of a new book about the
governor written by a local writer and blogger, Mike Tipping.

Tipping describes a series of meetings the governor had with the Maine
constitutional coalition, a far right group associate with the militant
anti-government sovereign citizen movement. Sovereign citizen call
themselves patriots, but the FBI considers them a growing domestic threat.

According to Mike Tipping`s reporting, Lapage over the objections of
his staff met with the group eight times in 2013 and heard them out on a
number of issues including per the participants, the sale of American
citizens as channel to the international monetary fund and the Department
Of Homeland Security`s plot to buy up ammunition for coming war against the

One of their top priorities was to get rid of the states democratic
house speaker and senate president when the coalition accused of committing
treason. Believing the state`s court system to be illegitimate, they
reportedly wanted to try the lawmakers in a common law courts where people
would describe their fate. On a radio show co-hosted by a member of the
coalition, here is how they describe the governor`s response.


JACK MCCARTHY, SOVEREIGN MEMBER: We also discussed this there, that
as far as I know, the penalty for high treason has not changed in 100
years. And, I did not say it, but the governor said it. I never -- I
never opened my mouth and said the word. The governor looked at us and
looked at his buddy and said they are talking about hanging them.


HAYES: Governor Lepage told the Bangor Daily News, quote, "I was
never in the room where execute was used. It never happened. We did not
discuss execution, arrests or hanging." Governor`s words, "We did not
discuss executions, arrests or hangings." While the substance of the
meetings may be in dispute, governor did not deny they took place after
giving democratic lawmakers the silent treatment. Lepage met eight times,
reported at least hour each time with a group, which believes things like


MCCARTHY: The coming holocaust will be against Christians and not
Jews this time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Older adult homosexuals to recruit younger
ones into that lifestyle through homosexual rape. It happens all the time.
There are lots of triggers that these MKUltra, monarch, mind-slave
controllers use to trigger their mind control subjects and one of the songs
is "Over the rainbow".


HAYES: Joining me now is Mike Tipping, author of "As Maine Went." I
do not know where to start, Mike. Who are these people? Who are these
people? What do they want? And, why in the Lord`s name is Governor of
Maine meeting with them?

MIKE TIPPING, AUTHOR OF "AS MAINE WENT": Well, that last one is a
question only the governor can answer. But, they are a group of
individuals with as you just heard some very strange and potentially
violent beliefs. They are part of a national movement, not an organization
but a philosophy that is anti-government and believes that the federal
government and state governments are coming after them and they need to
defend themselves.

HAYES: And, your reporting indicates that he met with these folks
eight times and over the objections of his staff what was the concern of
the staff about the governor meeting with them?

TIPPING: Well, his legal staff eventually wrote a five-page memo to
him saying that the strange legal ideas of the constitutional coalition,
you know, were not actually true and did not have basis in law and finally
got him to stop meeting with them. I imagine the staff was in a tough
spot. I can only sympathize with their situation when the governor was
trying to meet with these people and they were trying to pull him back.

HAYES: This was during a time in which the governor, if I am correct,
refused to meet with democratic lawmakers. Is not that right?

TIPPING: That is right. He refused to meet with the very people he
was discussing with these folks, you know, about treason. He stormed out
of a meeting with independent legislators, you know, pounding the table and
swearing at them because he did not like what they were saying. He refused
to show up to his own budget presentation but found time to meet with these
people eight times over the course of a year.

HAYES: Now, this is a governor who has been called America`s craziest
governor by politico. He has developed a reputation for behavior that I
think a lot of people find strange. At the last poll, it has him only down
four points against Mike Michaud, who is the democrat who is running
against him. I can never figure out what exactly our Mainers seeing in Mr.

TIPPING: Well, he has a core group of supporters. And, obviously
this is a three-way race. So, that is, you know, a significant factor that
he only needs a smaller amount to win. But, they definitely see him as
someone that says it like it is and gets things done. And, then they often
see these kinds of controversies around him as a sign that he is shaking
things up in Augusta. But, the difference between --

HAYES: Sorry. I just --

TIPPING: -- The difference between this and previous controversies
with the governor is it has often been kind of a humorous thing almost, you
know? He will say something crazy or do something a bit off kilter. But,
this is definitely more sad and troubling.

HAYES: Finally, Mike, you work for a group that advocates for
democratic candidates in the state of Maine. Is this just a partisan
attack? I mean does the reporting stand up on its own?

TIPPING: Well, the great thing about this is you do not have to take
my word for it. There are copious documents. There are audio recordings,
obviously, of people describing the meetings in great detail. And, there
is also, we learned yesterday, apparently, the governor did take notes.

He originally said he did not at these meetings, he would not provide
them to a freedom of access request, but now he did. He says he is going
to release them, but they are in a secret code that only he understands.
So, we will have to see what comes to that.

HAYES: Maybe they will be unlocked by "Over The Rainbow." Mike
Tipping, the book again is "As Main Went." Thank you. Coming up why the
Hobby Lobby decision is actually a problem for republicans. I will explain


HAYES: Coming up a very smart solution to the Republican Party`s
issues with women proposed by a conservative writer. I will tell you what
it is. I will talk to the guy who proposed it. Next.


HAYES: After the Supreme Court`s ruling on Hobby Lobby flood gates
opened. It was never just Hobby Lobby. More than 54 profit companies had
already filed lawsuits against the ACA`s Contraception Mandate. The
majority of those rulings stayed pending the Hobby Lobby case and
presumably will now be viewed favorably by lower courts in wake of
yesterday`s stunning high court`s decision.

So, the Hobby Lobby case was a victory for conservatives who
championed. But, it does present a political problem for the GOP; because
birth control is used by more than 90 percent of women and is viewed
favorably by the public including republicans. Eighty-eight percent of
republicans saying birth control is morally acceptable in recent gallop
polls. Just five points lower than the 93 percent of democrats who viewed
birth control as morally acceptable.

And, yet over the past several years there is increasingly the
perception because of cases like Hobby Lobby championed by Conservatives,
republicans are hostile to birth control. A novel solution has been
offered to combat that political problem by Philip Klein of the Washington
examiner, proposing a smart way for Republicans to approach women in the

They, Republican, should support a bill to allow oral contraception to
be purchased over the counter. Philosophically, it is consistent with
limited government principles. It removes unnecessary government
regulations and increases choice. It does not impose new burdens on
businesses or legit institutions nor does it require an increase in
government health care spending.

He is right on the merits. The big question is would the republican
base actually go for that? And, joining me now is Philip Klein, senior
writer for the Washington examiner. I really like that piece. I thought
it was in an environment of tremendous amount of contention yesterday. It
struck me as a very smart, novel suggestion. Is there any reason to
believe that this is something you can see republicans getting behind?

actually do not think it is totally unreasonable. As you pointed out
earlier, Republicans overwhelmingly find birth control morally acceptable.
So, it is not actually that controversial and even Louisiana governor Bobby
Jindal who has endorsed it.

So, again, he is not some moderate northeastern republican. This is a
catholic conservative governor of Louisiana who is trying to court the
socially conservative vote and he felt comfortable in 2012 advocating this.

HAYES: So, the narrative on the left about Hobby Lobby and about
little sisters of the poor, some other cases they are going to come forward
on the birth control mandate. And, about plan B emergency contraception
and sort of the brouhaha over that, the narrative on the left is that the
right has sort of turned against birth control.

And, when I say this to conservative friends of mine, they will say
you are crazy. This is a fabrication. But, I want to show you this Eric
Ericson tweet yesterday, which is after Hobby Lobby, he says, "Religious
liberty trumps employer subsidized consequence free sex. The left flies in
the hysterical outrage." And, you see conservative activists talking about
birth control in this context that it permits consequence free sex and it
makes people think, "Oh, wait! They really are actually objecting to birth

KLEIN: Well, again, as I noted nearly the same amount of republicans
as democrats support this. So, I think what happens is a lot of voices can
get amplified in this debate. And, I think that democrats were very
effective at portraying what was a legal dispute about that statutory
interpretation of a bill that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton
and Turn that into republicans blanketly being against birth control.

And, I think that republicans need to avoid that trap. And, that is
why I think that one way to do it would be what I proposed, which is
allowing birth control to be purchased over-the-counter.

HAYES: I actually think it is a great test in some ways, right? You
do not get to sort of test theories in politics that much. I think it is
actually a great test. I mean, I think we always see republicans come
forward on this. We always see the conservative base pushes this, because
I think you are totally right. It is actually deregulation, right?

It is getting the FDA out of the way of things. It would make birth
control more accessible for a lot of women who need it. And, I would love
the Philip Klein offer to be taken up. So, we are going to look for that
in the days and months to come. Philip Klein from the Washington examiner,
thank you.

KLEIN: Thanks.

HAYES: Up next, I will talk to the President and CEO of the Center
for Reproductive Rights and the communication`s director for Emily`s List
to get their take on all of this. Stay with us.


HAYES: We are back talking about the fallout from the Supreme Court`s
Hobby Lobby decision. Joining me now, Nancy Northup, President and CEO of
the Center For Reproductive Rights. And, Jess McIntosh, Communications
Director for Emily`s List, a pack that supports pro-choice Democratic women
running for congress and governor. Nancy, let me ask you what do you think
about this idea of making more birth control available over-the-counter?

RIGHTS: Well, I think it would be a good idea if the FDA looked to see if
it could be safe and effective for use by all women over-the-counter. It
is true, most places around the world that you can get birth control pills

HAYES: Really?

NORTHUP: The Center For Reproductive Rights fought for a decade to
make sure emergency contraception was over-the-counter. So, I do think it
is time for the FDA to look at this issue.

HAYES: That of course just will not solve the problem created by the
Hobby Lobby case. But, I am curious to see whether that is something you
can see conservatives and republicans getting behind, because they are
offended of the suggestion that really what this is about is birth control
and this seems to me like a good test case of that.

is right. They did fight to get emergency contraception available over-
the-counter and republicans fought them every step of the way.

HAYES: Right.

MCINTOSH: I mean the hobby lobby ruling did not happen in a vacuum.
The reason why republicans feel the need to push back on this and try to
say that this is not about birth control and this is not about them
disliking women having, quote, unquote, "consequence free sex," is because
this ruling came as the last in a very long line of attempts by every
branch of government that they get access to, to try to limit our access to
affordable birth control.

This was not out of nowhere. The blunt amendment from a couple of
years back did exactly what the Hobby Lobby ruling did. It said your
employer could decide not to cover birth control if he did not like the
reasons you were taking that. That ultimately did not go anywhere because
we still have the White House, but Republicans have been trying to do this
for a while. So, I think all of a sudden trying to back their way out of
it and support something else. I mean sure, I would love to have that
conversation but forgive me for being really, really skeptical.

HAYES: Right. And, when it comes down to the four kinds of birth
control that were an issue in kind of sort of Hobby Lobby, they include
emergency contraception, two different kinds of IUDs, right? Now, the
argument that folks have been saying is, will they only objected to those
four, right? They did not object to the other ones. What is your response
to that?

NORTHUP: Well, first of all, those four are contraception and it is
really important as people are listening to this to understand that. You
know, pregnancy is established when a pre-embryo is established in the
uterus, right?

And, I would say to people, you know, when you are using IBF and you
have fertilized eggs in a Petri dish, you know you are not pregnant. And,
when those are implanted in your uterus, you also know you are not
pregnant. You are waiting and hoping for that moment for the
implementation and then you are pregnant. So, this notion that somehow you
are pregnant before that is not true.

HAYES: Right. And, that notion -- just for the context, that notion
that you are pregnant before that and that these drugs then disrupt that
and therefore are actually abortion, which is the contention of Hobby
Lobby, a factual claim which was waved away by Alito saying, "Well, it does
not matter if they are right or not, it is their sincerely held belief."

NORTHUP: Right. And, it is completely scientifically medically false
just like saying, you know, embryos in a Petri dish, you are not pregnant.
So, it is important to not be kind of fooled by that part of the argument.


NORTHUP: And -- But, more importantly, the rationale of the case
which is that any kind of unscientific belief can lead to rejecting a form
of health care. There is no limit on that.

HAYES: Do you, Emily, do you see this case playing in races across
the country? There was some -- a little bit of interesting news on it in
Colorado yesterday.

MCINTOSH: Yes. Absolutely. I think that women are definitely paying
attention to this. I think that we started talking a little bit about the
slippery slope of not having basis in science. The thing that concerns me
about the slippery slope arguments is that it suggests that something bad
might happen because of the ruling.

HAYES: Right.

MCINTOSH: In fact, something bad has happened. Birth control is
very, very important to women. More than 95 percent of women have taken
birth control. And, that includes you cannot reach those numbers with just
democrats or single women or just women who do not have a religious
affiliation. That includes all of the women.

So, that is why we are seeing this be so resonant in races across the
country, in conversations across the country. And, I think that it is
going to be a motivating factor. We have seen the gender gap between
republicans and democrats grow exponentially as birth control became part
of the debate again.


MCINTOSH: We saw historic gender gaps in 2012. I am sure that had a
lot to do with putting aspirin between your knees for the gals as advised
and Todd Aiken and all of that. If they are going to continue down this
path, I think we are just going to see it grow even more. So, yes,
definitely resonant.

HAYES: Well, Jess, and, your point about the sort of importance of
birth control, it is kind of pharmacy, it was fascinating to look at the
majority opinion yesterday and the dissent by which they are against -- in
which Alito, it is a religious freedom case. It is a case about -- For Ruth
Bader Ginsberg where she starts with a long explanation of why this was
part of the legislation to begin with.

How important birth control is. How expensive it can be. Why
congress put it in there. It was exactly the way the case has been covered
from the left and right, all the way through, which is the right saying
this is about religious freedom and the left largely saying this is about

MCINTOSH: They were so careful to say that it was just going to
affect birth control. They ensure that it would not affect the vaccines.
So, somehow, your religious opposition to my birth control is more valid
than your religious opposition to vaccinations even though neither has any
basis in science. I find that almost more offensive.

HAYES: Right. Nancy.

NORTHUP: And it gets back to why it is so important that we
understand that contraception is part of preventative health care. And,
that is where you have, you know -- women on average going to spend five
years trying to get pregnant, being pregnant, nursing a young infant. They
are going to spend 30 years trying not to get pregnant and that is
protecting their health and their lives and their futures and their
families and planning for that. So, women get that.

HAYES: Right. And, that was put front and center by the Ginsberg
dissent. Nancy Northup from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Jess
McIntosh, not Emily from Emily`s List, thank you. That is "All In" for
this evening. "The Rachel Maddow Show" starts right now. Good evening,


<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