Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Monday, July 7th, 2014

Read the transcript from the Monday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

July 7, 2014

Guest: Luis Gutierrez, Leslie Holman, Linda Sarsour, Ori Nir, Rev. William
Barber, Eric Boehlert, Mark Hertsgaard


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

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right now, we are getting really close to having a
chaotic situation.

HAYES: The immigration wars rage through the weekend. More protests
and now arrests in Murrieta, California.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go back to Mexico!

HAYES: And as Republicans call for mass deportation --

REP. RAUL LABRADOR (R), IDAHO: I know it sounds harsh. I know it
sounds difficult.

HAYES: -- tonight, why the origins of this border crisis point to
another presidency.

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: I`m the decider and I decide what
is best.

HAYES: Then, the U.S. State Department demands answers after the
beating of an American teen by Israeli forces is caught on tape.

TARIQ ABU KHDEIR, AMERICAN TEEN: I remember them punching me and
after a couple of punches, I went unconscious.

Plus, Moral Monday descends on a North Carolina courtroom, with that
state`s democracy hanging in the balance.

REV. WILLIAM BARBER, NC NAACP: The whole nation`s got to watch what`s
going on here in North Carolina.

HAYES: Reverend William Barber joins me tonight.

And major news organization takes a stand on climate science as the
deniers keep on trucking.

ALL IN starts right now.



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

You are looking at aerial footage from earlier today of more than 100
migrant women and children arriving in San Diego, California. It`s the
third time in a week that undocumented children from toddler to teenage
have arrived at Lindbergh Field bound for immigration processing facilities
in Southern California. NBC affiliate in San Diego reporting this morning
that some border patrol agents had been placed under a gag order over
public safety concerns. That caution after anti-immigrant protesters in
Murrieta, California, successfully blocked buses carrying migrant women and
children from entering a Murrieta processing facility last week.

Over the weekend, those protests continued.


REPORTER: Dozens waited for the possible arrival of another
approximately 140 undocumented immigrants brought to California from Texas
because of overcrowding and influx of children crossing alone.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`ll send them aid but it`s too hard on the
United States to support all of them.


HAYES: Five people were arrested at Murrieta demonstrations after
scuffles broke out between dueling protest groups. The buses they were
wait to block never arrived.

Meanwhile in Washington, there is a rising chorus from elected
officials demanding immediate deportation of the children, many of them
unaccompanied, who`d been streaming to the U.S. border from Central


REP. RAUL LABRADOR (R), IDAHO: The thing this administration needs to
do is immediately deport these families, these children. I know it sounds
harsh. I know it sounds difficult, but they`re creating a crisis at this
time that is actually going to harm these children.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Send these children back to
their homeland, tell the countries in question if you don`t keep them and
take care of them, we`re going to cut all aid off.


HAYES: Joining me, Congressman Luis Gutierrez, Democrat from
Illinois. He`s chairman of the immigration task force of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus.

Congressman, do you have a respond to your colleague, Raul Labrador?

REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ (D), ILLINOIS: Yes, I think, you know, he`s a
good lawyer. He`s smarter than that statement would lead you to believe.

No, he just is. I worked with him for months. When the gang of 8,
four Republicans and four Democrats, trying to craft immigration
legislation together. He`s very knowledgeable.

And he`s a lawyer. He specializes a lot in immigration and he`s just

Look, what I would say to Raul, it`s not that it`s difficult, not that
it`s harsh, it`s illegal. It is well established jurisprudence in the
United States.

And I`m just going to use two, just two -- 2002 Homeland Security Act,
it says you must treat unaccompanied minors differently. And it codifies
an agreement between Flores and Reno in 1997 that says, look, when children
arrive, you can`t expedite their removal. You must give them a court case,
you must put them in the least restrictive environment, and you need to put
them in a place which is best for them, taking into consideration their
best interests.

And that`s usually a parent. But wait, that was 2002. Homeland
Security. Dick Armey introduced the legislation. George Bush signed it.

But in 2008, George Bush signs another piece of legislation about
human trafficking, right? It basically dealt with human trafficking that
now says, wait, unaccompanied minors must in 72 hours be released, right,
to Health and Human Services, their Office of Refugee Resettlement, and be
placed in the least and have a court case.

So, this notion of just deport them all? You cannot -- if you -- if
that`s what you want, then I just find it astonishing that on the one hand,
the Tea Party says the president of the United States acts like a dictator,
acts like an emperor, then on the other hand they say, just forget about
the law, Mr. President, and just deport them all.

But maybe they want the president to do this so that they can have
some articles of impeachment. I`m not quite sure what they`re doing.

HAYES: Congressman Labrador, I thought his and Senator Graham`s
comments this weekend were important kind of weather vanes in the
trajectory of where the Republican Party has been on this issue,
particularly now amidst this kind of humanitarian crisis at the border
which has been turned into an argument against immigration reform, but not
just an argument against immigration reform. It seems to me there was an
open question after 2012 where the Republicans would support comprehensive
immigration reform.

We`re now here in 2014, five months before the elections, and it`s not
just they`re not supporting comprehensive immigration reform, they are
calling for deportation, for mass deportation as a kind of policy position
they`re coalescing around.

GUTIERREZ: Look, the children -- the administration is following the
law and the law is very well-established. And, look, I didn`t go to law
school, but I read about the law and it`s pretty well established. No,
it`s good for us to laugh because it`s just silly what they`re saying.

Now, if they want to change it, here`s what I say, Chris -- sit down
at the table with Democrats and Republicans because when these laws were
crafted, especially, it was -- you know, it was a good time in America,
right? 2008, 2002. It was a good time for politicians to get together and
agree, right?

The children should be treated differently. And that is still the law
of the land, and if you want to change it.

And I just want to make sure that we understand one thing. Look,
Honduras is the murder capital of the world. It`s quickly followed by El
Salvador and Guatemala.

The children aren`t coming from Mexico. We have a different policy
with Mexico. We send them right back. It`s quick. Usually within 48

Look, they`re not coming from Belize or Panama. They`re not coming
from Costa Rica. They`re not coming from Nicaragua. They`re coming from
those three countries.

It`s a humanitarian crisis and we shouldn`t be -- how should I say, we
shouldn`t exploit the children and simply say we`re going to deport them
back. We just can`t. These are children and very dangerous places for us
to be sending them back to.

HAYES: Congressman Luis Gutierrez -- always a pleasure, thank you.

GUTIERREZ: Thank you.

HAYES: As the congressman just alluded to, at the heart of the border
crisis is a rumor, a rumor that has been circulated throughout Central
America. Countries like Honduras and El Salvador and Guatemala, where most
of the unaccompanied children are coming from.

And it`s a rumor about the ability of young children and families
fleeing violence in their countries to obtain what has been called in
Spanish a permiso or permission to stay in the United States.

Now, last month, a Guatemalan woman named Connie explained how she
heard of permiso to MSNBC`s Alexandra Pelosi.


ALEXANDRA PELOSI, MSNBC: Who told you America was going to take care
of you if you came here with your son?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was told by a friend. She said, "Let`s go to
the U.S. They are giving opportunities to Guatemalans with kids." I asked
her if it was true. She said, "Yes, it`s true, I was told." The rumors
then spread around. The rumor spread far even to where I was living. Then
I waited until she came over. When she got here, she called me and told me
it was true what people were saying.


HAYES: When she got here, she called me to say it was true what
people were saying.

Now, Republicans had been quick to point to such rumors as evidence
the Obama administration has basically invited a crisis by issuing a 2012
memorandum known as DACA for deferred action for childhood arrivals. That
essentially stopped deportations of immigrants who had been brought to the
United States as young children.


REP. CANDICE MILLER (R), MICHIGAN: I think that this humanitarian
crisis can be laid directly at the feet of President Obama as a result of
his DACA policy in 2012.

LABRADOR: As soon as the administration in 2012 decided to do DACA,
which is the Deferred Action program, that`s when the number of children
started moving up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would argue that the misinformation comes from
the president`s own programs, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
Word`s getting back home, if you come to the United States and you`re a
child, tell them you want to come in and they`re going to let you in.


HAYES: But here`s the thing -- blaming DACA never quite made sense
for a host of reasons. First of all, the surge from unaccompanied minors
from Central America started in 201 1. DACA was issued in 2012. And DACA
doesn`t apply to anyone who arrived in this country after 2007.

The real source of the permiso rumors appears to be a different law
passed both by the House and Senate without objection and signed by George
W. Bush. It`s a 2008 law meant to combat sex trafficking. It strengthened
protections for unaccompanied minors coming from countries other than
Mexico, giving them access to a federal asylum officer and a chance to make
their case before a judge.

And that`s the law that both Republicans in Congress and the White
House now want to roll back. It`s not DACA, it`s not the DREAM Act, it`s
not comprehensive immigration reform, it`s a piece of legislation that was
so controversial it passed on a voice vote.

The White House has said it will ask Congress to make changes now to
that 2008 law. And over the weekend, Republican Congressman Matt Salmon of
Arizona says he plans to reintroduce a bill to make changes to the sex
trafficking law that would send children back quickly.

Meanwhile, the White House is taking pains to make it clear that most
of the unaccompanied children coming across the border will not stay in
this country.

Joining me now, Leslie Holman. She`s president of the American
Immigration Lawyers Association.

Leslie, can you explain the significance of that 2008 law? How it
changed the way that the U.S. government processes young children coming
across the border?

2008, when they passed the trafficking act that you`re referring to, it
basically provided expanded benefits to children in terms of giving them
due process for unaccompanied minors. It helped pave the process for them,
make things easier so that -- or actually make it fair. Not easier.

And, you know, when you look at the expansion, this happened in 2008.
When this was done, you didn`t see the surge of children coming. You saw
them start to come in 2011 when things got even more horrible in where they
exist. So, to blame it on something that was passed in 2008 now makes no

HAYES: And yet it is the case. I think this is a sort of important
thing to nail down because I`ve -- it`s felt like a mystery to me the whole
time covering this which is people are saying, well, there`s this rumor
about a permiso. We`re seeing the footage of people coming getting their
processing with court date saying come back for this court date.

There`s now this rising tide saying, oh, this process, we`ve got to
get rid of them, we`ve got to deport them at the border. What do you think
of that?

HOLMAN: I think that here`s the time when we actually need to use the
law that was put in place in 2008 because there is a crisis. There`s a
humanitarian crisis. These children are in trouble. That`s why that law
was passed.

Thankfully, things weren`t so bad at the time . Now it is. So when
you need them to pull it away makes no sense, and in fact, it`s exactly
contrary to everything we stand for.

HAYES: Well, what about this idea that this is essentially tough
love? That basically, you know, bleeding heart liberals and woolly headed
idealists who have basically said, we`re going to give these kids due
process rights have paved the way for this humanitarian crisis by creating
the conditions under which people come and then call back to their home
country and say, yes, it`s true. I went to border patrol, they stamped me,
I now have a court date and I can stay.

HOLMAN: Well, they`re going to find out that, yes, it`s a court date
because it`s due process. It`s exactly what we stand for, but it`s not
permission to live in the United States for the rest of their life.
They`re going to be processed through the system. They`re in deportation.
This is not a free ride. It`s offering protection to children who need it.

HAYES: That is --

HOLMAN: That`s who we are.

HAYES: What is being adjudicated in that court date? I mean, so this
has also been unclear to me throughout this. The process happens,
unaccompanied minor, let`s say, without a mother there, is put into HHS
custody, or is reunited with a family member living in the United States,
given a court date.

What is -- what is the case brought before the adjudicating entity
when that court date happens? What is the case being made?

HOLMAN: Well, it depends on what the child is eligible for. For
example, there will be children who have asylum claims. There will be
children who may be processed as special immigrant juveniles. There will
be, unfortunately, victims of trafficking.

So, the courts are going to determine exactly what it is that the
child has suffered, if they have suffered, and if they have the appropriate
protections are going to be offered.

HAYES: Leslie Holman from the American Immigration Lawyers
Association, thank you for bringing clarity to this. It`s been confusing
me throughout.

HOLMAN: I`m happy to do so. Anything we can do to protect these
children is paramount.

HAYES: Coming up, shocking video apparently showing an American
teenager being beaten by Israeli police. That story is ahead.


HAYES: One of the most respected news outlets in the world has been
told to stop giving airtime to climate deniers. I`ll tell you about it,


HAYES: After the appearance of a video that appeared to show him
being beaten by Israeli police, Tariq Abu Khdeir, a 15-year-old American
citizen from Tampa, was released by Israeli officials yesterday on house
arrest. While an investigation against him continues reportedly on
potential charges of assaulting police.

Khdeir was staying with family in East Jerusalem when detained by
Israeli police last Thursday during clashes between Palestinians and
Israeli security forces.

And then this video emerged which allegedly shows the 15-year-old
being beaten by police. As far as we can tell, no Israeli official has
denied the video shows Khdeir being beaten by police. Israeli police
disputed the circumstances of the video, calling it edited and biased,
arguing it does not represent the scope of events.

Here`s how Khdeir described what happened in an interview with NBC`s
Ayman Mohyeldin.


ABU KHDEIR: From the beginning, I only remember the beginning because
they punched me a couple of times, I remember them punching me. And after
a couple of punches, I went unconscious.


HAYES: His parents say he suffered a broken nose and chin and
injuries to both eyes in the beating.

The State Department is calling for a speedy and transparent and
credible investigation.

Tariq Khdeir happens to be the cousin of 17-year-old Mohammed Khdeir,
the Palestinian youth who`s abducted in East Jerusalem last Wednesday and
burned alive.


ABU KHDEIR: I was just with my cousin and I still remember his voice
and I still can`t believe he`s dead. I feel like he just went somewhere
and he`s still going to -- he`s going to come back.


HAYES: Mohammed Khdeir`s murder was an apparent reprisal kills for
the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli students who went missing in the
West Bank several weeks ago. Their bodies finally recovered last week.

While Israel has identified two suspects in that case of the three
Israeli students, they have yet to apprehend them. They have apprehended
six suspects in the killing of Khdeir. All of them said to be Israeli
citizens between the ages of 16 and 25. Three of the suspects reportedly
confessed to the crime earlier today and have re-enacted their actions for
Israeli authorities.

News of the arrest sent waves of shock and disgust through much of
Israeli society, now struggling to understand the violence. All this comes
on the heels of anti-Palestinian protests in Jerusalem after the three
Israeli students were found. Demonstrators reportedly chanting "Death to
Arabs," and a campaign on Facebook called the people of Israel demand
vengeance which garnered over 30,000 likes before being shut town last
week. The page included posts from young Israelis, even IDF troops calling
for revenge.

The social media campaign reportedly led to the arrests of four
soldiers. Israel`s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had called for
vengeance in his own initial response to the murders. There`s one bright
spot of compassion amid the escalating violence and grief. It actually
comes from the parents of one of the murdered Israeli teens, Naftali


mourning over our son, it`s hard for me to describe how distressed we were
over the outrage that happened in Jerusalem. No mother or father should go
through what we`re going now, and we share the pain of the parents of
Mohammed Abu Khdeir.


HAYES: According to one report, the Fraenkel family actually receives
a visit from Palestinians living in Hebron, near where his son went
missing, who came to offer their condolences. Naftali Fraenkel`s uncle
even spoke by phone with Hussein Abu Khdeir, the father of the slain
Palestinian teen, Mohammed Khdeir. The two men reportedly comforted each

Joining me now is Linda Sarsour. She`s executive director of the
American Arab association of New York.

And Ori Nir, he`s spokesman for Americans for Peace Now, an
organization that advocates for Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab peace.

And, Ori, let me start with you. It`s been interesting to watch the
reactions among Israelis and Israeli society of -- to the news of the
murder, apparent murder of this young Palestinian teenager because it seems
to me there`s a kind of crisis of conscience happening in the country right

ORI NIR, AMERICANS FOR PEACE NOW: There is. I think that Israelis,
most Israelis, I dare to say all Israelis are shocked and disgusted by this
crime and are satisfied to see the Israeli authorities were quick and
decisive in finding the suspects.

HAYES: Linda, the American cousin of Mohammed Khdeir, Tariq Khdeir,
was on the front page of "The New York Times". And it was striking to me
because I think in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for a
variety of contextual reasons, there is a tendency for I think Americans
and American media to view itself sort of cheering more affinity with the
Israeli side of that divide, and because this boy was an American, you saw
a kind of different perspectival shift I thought on the coverage today.

I`ve seen Tariq on TV and saw his pictures, all I could think of was my son
who`s 15 years old. And just last summer, I spent the whole summer in
Ramallah and to think that my son could have been Tariq, my son could have
been Mohammed Khdeir. I mean, you can`t tell a difference between an
American-Palestinian boy and a Palestinian boy.

And I think that it -- the death of Mohammed Khdeir unfortunately came
in the shadows of the three Israeli boys who were murdered. But the
question is, if that didn`t happen, and those three Israeli boys weren`t
murdered, would we have heard of the story? That`s my issue. Mohammed
Khdeir has now become this outrageous story and everyone`s like how could
this child be burned alive? And the Israeli authorities are all over the

What about if our attention wasn`t turned there to the Israeli boys,
would there be this outrage and condemnation? That`s really --

HAYES: It strikes me though -- it strikes me, though, that burning,
the abduction and burning alive of this teenager, is in the context of a
conflict that is often shot through with violence in many different ways
and iterations, has a distinctness to it. You know what I mean?

It strikes me even in the absence of the murder of these three young
Israelis, we would be hearing about it because it is different than what
seems much more routine which is, say, an encounter with Israeli police
like we saw with Tariq Khdeir which happened to be caught on tape.

SARSOUR: I mean, I guess it depends on who you ask. I mean, I`m a
Palestinian-American with family who lives in Palestine. We live actually
only a few feet away from a settlement called Sigat (ph). And this
settler-incited violence happens very often. It`s unfortunately not

And I think some of the questions I have also about this American boy
were outrage. But he`s currently under house arrest and has not been
charged with any crimes. Then why is he the one being investigated and not
the Israeli officers who actually beat him almost to death is the question
I have?

HAYES: There is, Ori, an interesting or striking asymmetry, right, in
response to the abduction and murder of the three Israeli students and this
Palestinian boy which is that the suspects named by Israel have had their
houses, I believe, demolished, which is a common reaction to this kind of
violence. There have been strikes against Hamas in Gaza -- which all of
that outside of the sort of judicial process. In the case of the murder of
this young Palestinian teenager, it`s seen as a murder and these people are
brought through a kind of legal process and it`s the asymmetry of living on
either side of that line that`s kind of striking and the reaction of the
Israeli government of these horrible crime.

NIR: That`s correct. The West Bank and Gaza are under Israeli
military occupation, and Israel is a Democratic state and there are
different laws that pertain to Israel proper and to the West Bank and Gaza.
That`s why we see that difference.

What should be done is ending the occupation, ending this kind of
situation where you have two different systems of law that apply to Israel
and to the West Bank. And that is what my organization and other
organizations are trying to achieve.

What happened here, however, and I think it should be stressed, is
that this horrific murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir in Shuafat was something
that we have never seen before. That level of cruelty, that kind of
vigilantism is something that we have never seen before. It`s not usual.
It`s not routine.

And, again, it is -- it is to the credit of the Israeli law
authorities that they`ve been dealt with swiftly and will be hopefully
brought to justice swiftly.

HAYES: This all, of course, comes against a background of context of
a peace process, if you can even call it that, which is essentially defunct
and/or stalled, and equilibrium that has preserve for a long period of time
that doesn`t seem very stable. I hope that stability doesn`t fall into
more violence.

Linda Sarsour from the American Arab Association for New York, Ori Nir
for Americans for Peace Now -- thank you both.

NIR: Thank you.

HAYES: All right. This is what a climate change denier looks like.


HAYES: Hottest new YouTube trend. What they`re doing, and why, next.



for a second. I just wanted to ask you if -- Do you smoke? You do? Well,


part of that video where Barack Obama totally had his butt handed to him?
No. Did that seem like a strange pointless prank? Well, it is part of a
strange subculture trend known as rolling coal. It might be more aptly
called trolling coal.

Owners of trucks disable the emission controls in their diesel
pickups, tricking the engine into demanding more fuel than it actually
needs, which is then belt out as, yep, you guessed it, lots of black soot.
Practice originated at truck pulls like this one in which diesel trucks can
be deceived, which can pull a heavy load the farthest.

In that context, the excess diesel yields greater overall power and
thus a better chance of winning. It is now been appropriated by some
people into a bizarre form of political protest, which is akin to shooting
yourself in the foot at a second amendment demonstration. But, rallying
cry of this movement is a dark smoky middle finger to President Obama with
all his EPA rules, clean energy proposals, and organic gardening.

For its part, an EPA spokesperson saying today the practice is, well,
illegal. But, you know, if an enviro-bureaucrat or the president is not
nearby, the next target is, of course, a Toyota Prius. A silly and easy a
target as coal rollers may be. There is actually an entire multibillion
dollar industry that is seriously trying to roll coal on all of us. That
is actually what they are doing. Someone finally called them out. That is
coming up.


HAYES: I remembered this video that aired on the BBC then went
viral that made fun of British news?


lackluster establishing shot of a significant location. Next day
walkie-talkie preamble from the auteur, pacing steadily towards the lens.
What comes next?

Often something like this, a filler shot designed to give your eyes
something to look at while my voice babbles on about facts. Sometimes it
will slow down to a halt, turn monochrome, and some of those facts will
appear one by one on the screen. This is followed by the obligatory shots
of overweight people with their faces subtly framed out.


HAYES: Well, now, a real watchdog group has called the BBC out for
how they report the news on one particular issue. That story which may or
may not include our own facts on the screen, ahead.



many of those from the extreme left who I have been criticizing photo I.D.
are using scare tactics. They are more interested in divisive politics
than ensuring that no one`s vote is disenfranchised by fraudulent ballot.


HAYES: What might be the country is most restrictive voting law came
before a federal judge in North Carolina today. U.S. Justice Department
and several civic groups like the NAACP want to put North Carolina`s voting
law on hold until at least after this November`s election. Arguing it is
discriminatory. The hearing is expected to last a week.

But, last year in a single bill signed by Governor Pat McCrory who
you just saw there, North Carolina shortened the period for early voting
and got rid of same-day registration altogether. And, starting 2016,
voters will need to show a photo I.D. and student I.D. cards including
those from State Universities, Flagship Universities, Unc Chapel Hill, will
not be accepted as a valid form of I.D.

The new law also got rid of a program in which 16 and 17 year olds
filled out their voter registration forms early and were then automatically
registered when they turned 18. There is something new in the case being
made against that law. An argument that according to the "New York Times"
has not been made before.

It is being made by a group of college students who joined the
lawsuit against the state of North Carolina, making the claim that the new
voting law violates the 26th amendment. An amendment which lowered the
voting age from 21 to 18 and declared the right to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Now, if you really want to understand the political stakes of all
this, Nate Cohn of the "New York Times" looking at 2012 exit poll data
found that North Carolina seniors voted for Mitt Romney by 29 points; more
than twice his 12-point advantage nationally among older voters.

President Obama won North Carolina`s young voters by a 35-point
margin. Better than the 24-point margin he won nationally. Meaning, lower
youth turnout is twice as damaging to democrats in North Carolina than it
is nationally. North Carolina`s voting law is one of the main targets of
the Moral Monday Movement.

As the movement`s leader, Reverend Barber explained to me when we
visited North Carolina last month as part of our "All In America" series,
is just one of many issues currently facing citizens of North Carolina.


their hand on the bible and swear to uphold the constitution, and then they
engage in public policy that denies 500,000 people health care, Medicaid
spent 170,000 unemployment, 900,000 people earned income tax credit. They
push voter suppression law. We need to critique that in an independent way
and say that is not democrat. That is not republican, it is immoral.


HAYES: Joining me now is leader of the Moral Monday Movement,
Reverend Barber; President of the North Carolina NAACP.

REV. BARBER: Hi, chris.

HAYES: Reverend, it is good to see you, again.

REV. BARBER: It is good to see you.

HAYES: So, today you were present at the hearing. What did you make
of the proceedings in the courtroom today?

REV. BARBER: Well, it was eerie because the opening argument of their
lawyers for Tillis, Berger and McCrory and it should be noted this is house
speaker -- started in the house that where Speaker Tillis is. Their
argument was basically this, "Your honor, we have already started to use
these laws. And, so you should not enjoin or stop them because they have
already been used."

In other words, even if they are unconstitutional. Even if they will
cause irreparable damage because we have already begun to use them, you
should not disrupt the status quo. Strange argument, because if we had not
disrupted the status quo, women would not have the right to vote. We never
would have had a civil rights bill, no voting rights bill.

It is a strange argument. McCrory in your clip said that -- extreme
left, and in fact, this is the extreme right if you will. And, it is about
voter I.D. But, let me tell you the kind of voter I.D. What they want to
do is identify voters they that think may not go along with their extreme

And, then use that identification to conjure up policies that can
exclude a bridge and suppress the rights of those particular individuals to
vote. It is a cynical kind of voter I.D. that they have engaged in.

HAYES: So -- You know, what arguments -- it is one thing when you
talk about voter I.D. laws and there is an argument that is made by some
that it prevents voter fraud. That I do not think is born out at all by
the data. What was the argument for getting rid of this preregistration
thing for high school students, which seems like an innocuous civilly
minded way to get young people into the political system?

REVEREND BARBER: Well, you are exactly right. In fact, there was an
expert testimony today that said in 25 years -- he was the state election
official, had never seen any form of voter fraud. In fact, North Carolina
had the best law, signature at that station.

But, Chris, the strange thing is there is really no rationale except
this political ideology that decided after the Shelby case. Let me give
your listeners a quick bit. This bill was 12 pages before Shelby. Shelby
was done in the Supreme Court. It went to 57 pages. And, one of the
senators simply said now that the headache has been removed, we can go

And, so they decided to attack every constituency that they thought
or think may not be engaged with their particular brand of extremism, their
particular brand of public policy. It makes no sense at all. North
Carolina had passed laws and citizens have been using these laws.

These are not laws that we are trying to get. These are laws we
have. And, North Carolina had gone to number one in per capita turnout in
the 2004/2008 election. But, that scares these Tea Party extremists. It
scares McCrory. It scares Tillis, Berger and all of their allies. And,
that is why we know exactly what is going on here.

And, it is in history in North Carolina, 60 times, Chris -- 60 times
that the U.S. Department of justice has had to intervene in North Carolina
over the last 30 years. This kind of deal shows the level and the depth at
which extremists will try to suppress the vote, particularly in the south
when you do not have Section 5 protection.

HAYES: When you talk about these different constituencies, the focus
in the "New York Times" article on this was, of course, the youth vote.


HAYES: And, how significant have students been in the forward
together movement that you have been a part of bringing together in North
Carolina in the last year or so?

REV. BARBER: Well, young people have been the power. I mean, even
eight years ago, we started organizing. Young people have been at the
forefront of this movement. We now have over 40 young people organizing in
about 40 counties across North Carolina to register 50,000 new voters.

If you look at the year, for instance, that president Obama won, you
actually saw that in the early voting same-day registration, it was
students who did that and pushed him over the brink. They know the power
of young people.

HAYES: Reverend William Barber from North Carolina, thank you so

REV. BARBER: Thank you.

HAYES: The most radical White House pronouncement ever made on the
country`s single biggest challenge, and hardly anyone has noticed it. We
will play that tape for you, ahead.



mathematical balance, I am going to bring out two people who agree with
you, climate skeptic. And, Bill Nye, I am also going to bring out 96 other
scientists -- it is a little unwieldy, but this is the only way you can
actually have a representative discussion. So, yes, please, please file
in. Again, again, this is going to make the debate difficult. We should
not really be having it in the first place.


HAYES: John Oliver, once and for all definitively demonstrating that
if you are actually going to debate climate change, that is how you do it.
And, the problem is almost no broadcast news organization, this one
included has the time or resources to, actually, do it in that way.
Instead, they often do it the wrong way.

Setting up a false equivalent between the establish of science,
climate change, and climate deniers. Well, not the BBC, which next to the
"New York Times," one of the respected news organizations in the English-
speaking world. BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science

In the phrasing of the telegraph, a report by the BBC trust, which is
an independent oversight body found that there was still an over ridged
application of editorial guidelines on impartiality, which sought to give
the other side of the argument, even if that viewpoint was widely

Some 200 staff of BBC have already attended seminars and workshops
and more will be invited to take courses in the coming months to help them
stop giving undue attention to marginal opinion. Joining me now, Eric
Boehlert, senior fellow at Media Matters. Are we going to see this in
American media any time soon?

do not have that same kind of oversight that the BBC does, obviously has
more government connections.

HAYES: Right.

BOEHLERT: But, all major news organizations are certainly free to do
this, and they ought to. And, they are not saying do not talk to these
people, they are not saying, you know, that BBC has to dictate the debate.
They are saying, if you are in the business of informing the public, do not
have climate deniers on who purposely misinform.

And, as John Oliver pointed out -- I mean, it is 97-3. I mean if you
take 90 percent of most climate scientists agree about climate change and 3
percent do not. So, why is that 3 percent getting so much time? And, the
problem is it is a dangerous intersection between false equivalency and
liberal media bias.

HAYES: Right.

BOEHLERT: Right. Because Science has been adopted as a political
issue. So, Republican Party has decided this scientific question is
Partisan. So, reporters deal with it.

HAYES: So, I would contend, though, that things have gotten much
better in the American press on this question.


HAYES: You do not think so? --

BOEHLERT: Well, I think -

HAYES: -- I think in print. So, I feel like a sort of a prestige
venue like "New York Times" whereas five, six, seven years ago, you would
see this kind of obligatory --


HAYES: -- Go find the quote from the denialist to match with the


HAYES: They just basically disclose to that now. I mean, they will
run stories that basically just say, "Well, this is the overwhelming
scientific consensus."

BOEHLERT: They will. Media Matters study last year when the U.N. put
out its big report, we found places like "Bloomberg" and I think
"Washington post" were still sort of doing that.

HAYES: They still were. This kind of vestigial --

BOEHLERT: Right. So, I think in general the sum of the coverage has
gotten better, but at the same time The Republican Party has veered so far
to the right and embraced this so emphatically that it makes it harder for
the press to make the clean break.

HAYES: Yes, although -- right. I think that is true. But, what I
think has happened is we are seeing a divide open up that in my mind we
have really seen open up in the last six months. I thought the Marco Rubio
moment where he kind of stepped it in over climate change denial and became
a day two --

BOEHLERT: Right. Right.

HAYES: And, it became a political story showed the fact that I think
the mainstream American press is at a point where they are basically, "Yes,
this is what the science says. You put the carbon in the atmosphere."
And, the Republican Party is not there and that distance creates all sorts
of problems, both for reporters but also for the Republican Party.

BOEHLERT: Well, it does for the reporters and we need more and more
of them to just say -- you know, if we are going to have a political
debate, you can quote them in a political context. If we are going to have
a scientific debate, you just leave them out of it, because that is not
part of science. And, I think the BBC is doing the right thing. And, I
think, you know, it would create such a firestorm here again, because it is
all wrapped in Partisan anger. If the "New York Times" had --

HAYES: Had put out a memo like --


HAYES: It is funny. I had --

BOEHLERT: There would be protests outside right now.

HAYES: I had retroactively constructed a similar memo and asked the
segment producer working on that -- I was like, sure, the "Times" put out
something like that, but it appears they have never. I think they have
sort of changed their practice.

BOEHLERT: Yes. And, the public editor maybe has addressed it. But,
there is no need to be -- giving these people a national platform. They
deserve it because it is not science.

HAYES: Eric Boehlert from Media Matters. Thank you.


HAYES: All right. What would it take to leave 2/3 of the earth is
fossil fuel in the ground? We will talk about that, next.



there is no doubt that if we burned all the fossil fuel that is in the
ground right now that the planet is going to get too hot and the
consequences could be dire.


PRES. OBAMA: We are not going to be able to burn it all. What that
means is, over the course of the next couple of decades, we are going to
have to basically build a ramp from how we currently use energy, to where
we need to use energy.


HAYES: You notice what happened there? Hardly anyone in America
media did. It seems like a simple, OK, maybe even a little boring exchange
about climate change, but in that exchange, President Obama acknowledged a
fundamental truth about our dependence on fossil fuels that hardly anyone
in any position of power ever seems to acknowledge.

President Obama was asked about the international goal of limiting
global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. Now, the international
energy agency has concluded that meeting that target will require leaving
2/3 of the earth`s known reserves of oil, gas, and coal underground,
unburned. And, Thomas Friedman had asked, did the president agree with
that conclusion?


PRES. OBAMA: There is no doubt that if we burned all the fossil fuel
that is in the ground right now that the planet is going to get too hot.
And, the consequences could be dire.

FRIEDMAN: So, we cannot burn it all?

PRES. OBAMA: We are not going to be able to burn it all.


HAYES: We are not going to be able to burn it all. We cannot burn
it all. No one ever says that, at least no U.S. President until now. And,
to forestall really cataclysmic levels of climate change, the necessary
follow-through of leaving 2/3 of the earth`s fossil fuel reserves in the
ground would revolutionize global energy practices as Journalist Mark
Hertsgaard has points out in the new piece in "Bloomberg Business Week,"
which leads us to the fundamental paradox of this president.

That the steps he has taken thus far on climate are easily the most
forward leaning, aggressive of any U.S. President and yet they are still
very far from what actually must be done. Joining me now, the
aforementioned Mark Hertsgaard, also author of "Hot: Living Through The
Next 50 Years On Earth." Do you think people missed how significant that
little exchange was?

MARK HERTSGAARD, JOURNALIST/AUTHOR: The rest of the American media
missed it and I do not really quite know how because they are all on the
same e-mail list that I was for that broadcast.



HERTSGAARD: But, I think it partly gets back to what you were
talking with Eric about that there is maybe -- yes, the media is doing a
slightly better job, but there is not a lot of climate literacy I think
within the media.

So, they missed the importance of what Obama said there. The 2/3 of
the fossil fuel has to stay in the ground. It is not just that no American
politician has said that. I cannot think of a head of state or head of
government in the world that has acknowledged that yet.

HAYES: Right. All we hear is --

HERTSGAARD: Pretty big story.

HAYES: -- All we hear is all of the above, right? We hear this idea,
that like, "Oh, yes at some point we are going to put a price on the thing
and the caps." The brute fact is like a lot of it has just got to stay in
the ground and that is such -- It sounds so radical and impossible when you
hear it, but it is the truth.

HERTSGAARD: It is radical. But, you know, Science does not care
about what politics thinks is radical or unreasonable. The science is the
science as the president said. And, so we are going to have to leave it in
the ground. And, what is ironic with the president saying that is that his
own policy completely contradicts what he acknowledges the science

HAYES: And, he contradicts it because they have put so much emphasis
on things like fracking which have in the short term brought down carbon
emissions, which the White House is very proud of. In the long term, it is
just part of the same pool of carbon that is got to stay in there.

HERTSGAARD: Look, if you take the 2/3 imperative seriously, you have
to stop fracking. The whole point of fracking is to get that 2/3 that we
cannot cut out with conventional --

HAYES: Right.

HERTSGAARD: -- drilling. And, I would disagree that fracking has
actually lowered the emissions. That is what they say. But, that is not
what the emerging science indicates.

HAYES: I should say carbon emissions. The --

HERTSGAARD: Carbon emissions.

HAYES: The greenhouse emissions are probably much, much bigger.

HERTSGAARD: The greenhouse emissions are going up. And, that is why
I think that, you know, John Podesta, who is now Obama`s now top climate
aide told me in November that history is going to judge Obama pretty
harshly on this.

HAYES: This is fascinating. This is in your "Harper`s" piece, which
is all about this administration`s climate. It says, in a two-hour
interview conducted just weeks before his return to Obama`s inner circle in
the White House. Podesta told me the president had been willing to take
risks and expend political capital on climate issue. But, 50 years from
now, is that going to seem like enough, Podesta asked? I think the answer
to that is going to be, no.

HERTSGAARD: No. I thought that was very brave of John Podesta to

HAYES: Well, it was several weeks before on the White House. Now, it
seems to me since Podesta has entered the White House, we have seen
renewed, focus and vigor on this issue.

HERTSGAARD: Absolutely.

HAYES: Do you think he is partly responsible for that?

HERTSGAARD: Absolutely. And, look, the president asked him to come

HAYES: Right.

HERTSGAARD: I think that Barack Obama wants to do the right thing on
climate change. He has two daughters. I have a daughter. I know you have
two kids. Anybody who is a father, a parent, you know that this has got to
be dealt with.

HAYES: Right.

HERTSGAARD: And, John Podesta has taken this seriously for 25 years.
He organized the earth day. I found out in 1990, he was the chief
organizer for Earth Day on the national mall. He has been pushing climate
change for a long time. It is kind of too bad that he was not there at the
start of the Obama administration. I think things would have been very
different on climate change.

HAYES: That is very interesting. Journalist Mark Hertsgaard. Thank
you so much for your time tonight. I really appreciate it.

HERTSGAARD: My pleasure.

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


<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