Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Friday, August 29th, 2014

Read the transcript from the Friday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

August 29, 2014

Guest: Norman Siegel, Phillip Atiba Goff, Bob Marshall, Irin Carmon, Lucia
Graves, Ana Marie Cox


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

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The problem is I`m black. That`s the problem.

HAYES: Video and accountability.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please don`t touch me. Please don`t touch me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re going to go to jail then.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re going to go to jail.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not doing anything wrong.

HAYES: Another video of police excess surfaces and accountability
begins to come to Ferguson.


LT. RAY ALBERS: I will (EXPLETIVE DELETED) kill you. Get back. Get

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s your name, sir?


HAYES: Then, the immigration wars. White House is now pushing back
on a report the president will delay executive action until after the

Plus, nine years after Katrina, a new study shows Louisiana is quite
literally sinking.

And a U.S. senator says she was sexually harassed by her own
colleagues. Now, others step forward with their own stories.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We all had our stories of whom you would not get
on an elevator with and whom you would protect your young female interns

HAYES: Why some are now pressuring the senator to name names.

ALL IN starts right now.


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

We have breaking news tonight. ALL IN has learned that Dan Page, one
of the St. Louis county police officers that became infamous during the
Ferguson protests for pushing a CNN anchor live on air, has retired and is
expected to receive full pension and benefits, according to Sergeant Colby
Dolly who ALL IN spoke to earlier today.

Shortly after Officer Page pushed Lemon on air, video surfaced of him
speaking earlier in the year at a meeting of the far right group Oath
Keepers, where he mused about killing people.


DAN PAGE: And if I need to, I`ll kill a whole bunch more. If you
don`t want to get killed, don`t show up in front of me. It`s that simple.


HAYES: Page went on to talk about how he believed the president was
born in Kenya.


PAGE: Now this here is Kenya. I had my own airplane. I had me a
Learjet. I said, I want to go fly where the illegal alien`s claiming to be
my president, my undocumented president lives at. So I flew to Africa, and
right there, I went to our undocumented president`s home. He was born in


HAYES: Shortly after those comments surfaced, St. Louis County police
department put Officer Page on administrative leave. That was seen as a
penalty for what he had done.

But we learned today when we called the department to check on the
status of his employment that because Page was a 35-year veteran, he was
eligible to retire. His last day of employment with the department was
August 25th, just 3 days after he was put on leave.

Once again, he`s expected to receive a full pension and benefits.
Page`s ability to retire seemingly unpunished stands in stark contrast with
two other St. Louis-area police officers who were forced out of their jobs.

This officer, later identified as Lieutenant Ray Albers of St. Ann
Police Department resigned yesterday, according to the "St. Louis
Dispatch." St. Ann Board of Police Commissioners gave Lieutenant Albers
the option of being fired or resigning, just over a week after video of him
threatening to kill a citizen journalist in Ferguson surfaced.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My hands are up. My hands are up!

ALBERS: I will (EXPLETIVE DELETED) kill you. Get back. Get back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re going to kill him?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s trying to kill me?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s your name, sir?



HAYES: Another St. Louis area police officer, Matthew Pappert, of the
Glendale Police Department was fired yesterday over disparaging posts he
wrote on Facebook, saying among other things, quote, "These protesters
should have been put down like a rapid dog on the first night", and
referring to protests, quote, "where`s the Muslim with the backpack when
you need them?"

But action against individual officers in the wake of Ferguson protest
is just the beginning. Yesterday, a federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of
five plaintiffs accusing police in Ferguson of using excessive force and
arresting innocent bystanders while policing protest in Ferguson.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They slammed me on my face as if they were doing a
technique move from the WWE. They`re mopping my face on the concrete. My
blood is everywhere.


HAYES: That lawsuit which seeks $40 million in damage and names
Ferguson police chief, Thomas Jackson, among others as being led by
attorney Malik Shabazz, former head of the militant nationalist New Black
Panther Party.

Meanwhile, the Ferguson police are attempting to make moves in the
right direction it appears. A report from local station KMOV reveals that
Ferguson police officers are now being trained to use uniform cameras.


REPORTER: A private company donated three body cameras after Mike
Brown was killed. Those three are in operation for the last five days,
plus, the department purchased two more and now, a second private company
is donating 50 more body cameras to Ferguson for a total of 55. Enough
body cameras for the chief and all of his officers in Ferguson.


HAYES: The attempts to rehabilitate relations with the community are
not limited to the Ferguson police. Earlier this week, Missouri Governor
Jay Nixon appointed former St. Louis chief Daniel Isom as the state`s new
public safety director.

Last night, a forum where members of the community expressed anguish
and outrage, Isom said he understood why.


for 24 years, I`m not surprised by the response of the public because as a
police officer, you work in areas that are challenged, that are
impoverished, that have tension with the police. And you understand that
there is a bubbling tension that goes on between the police and those


HAYES: Joining me now, Trymaine Lee, national reporter for
who also covered the events in Ferguson extensively.

Here`s my feeling about all this. The national media came to one, in
some ways, random metro area suburb, St. Louis County.


HAYES: With 100 cameras for two weeks. And you`ve got at least four
police officers essentially caught on camera doing really awful things and
a bunch more unnamed and this was just -- it was almost as if a random

And the thing I can`t help but thinking is, OK, there`s two ways to
interpret this. Is this area particularly bad in terms of the quotient of
police officers who act like this, or is this just normal and we just
happened to have the cameras pointed there?

LEE: I think this is the proverbial tip of the iceberg here. This is
what we`ve seen with media from all over the country and all over the
world. Imagine what we`re not seeing. And again, people in these
communities have said this all along. So, when Mr. Isom says that there`s
tension bubbling up for these communities, the community says you`re right
because every time we step into the streets, we`re dealing with these kinds
of police officers.

And again, they`ve said that a lot of them are former military, a lot
of them are good old boys. This is what they said. And the language and
what we`ve seen, the first arrest I saw down in Ferguson, a guy on
crutches, failure to disperse. It`s almost like in New York City, the
movement for stop and frisk, anything you do or don`t do is something to
get you arrested.

HAYES: You saw a guy on crutches get arrested.

LEE: He`s on crutches, an old guy, maybe 60-some years old, on
crutches. They`re dispersed. And so, this is what we`ve seen. And so,
the scary part is, imagine the remarks of the officer who was allowed to
just skate on out of town with his full pension. That`s pretty disturbing
scary stuff.

HAYES: Officer Page, I mean, that was the other thing about Officer
Page was here`s a guy, and let`s just be clear. His belief that the
president was born in Kenya is constitutionally protected speech.

LEE: Of course.

HAYES: And I don`t think there should be any kind of political litmus
test. Him speaking to Oath Keepers about it, I`ll kill lots of people,
that`s a worrying thing to say from a guy who`s toting around a gun every
day, even if it`s bravado and it also just make you think, OK, well, we
just scratched the surface here, what else do we got out there?

LEE: The other officer who pointed a gun at a citizen journalist,
said, I will kill you, the other put them down like dogs. This is what
people have been saying, they`ve been fearing all along.

And so, what comes of it? What`s next? You know, will a Department
of Justice investigation unearth other things that we`re smelling but can`t
clearly get to?

HAYES: You know, one of the things I think that happened in the story
around the shooting and death of Mike Brown, the protests that followed the
police response, was there was a little bit of the story that happened
towards the tail end, oh, this is being too much of a protest and not
enough about the death of Mike Brown. I understood that and heard that
from the folks in Ferguson.

But the thing was, this is a story about police -- this was a story
about policing from day one when the body was on the street for four hours
and it was a story on policing three nights later, the first three nights
when they were using tear guns and pointing rifles, and it was a story
about policing later on. It`s always -- the whole story has been a story
about policing.

LEE: When people would say it`s bigger than Mike Brown, Mike Brown
was loved by his family and loved by his friends, but everyone -- no one
else knew who he was. So, it was about this would have been my son, this
could have been me.

So, people were in the peaceful crowd of protesters, mostly peaceful
crowd and they were treated like they were some criminals, it was to them
all of us.

HAYES: And it`s also to me, the expectation in an officer who points
a gun at someone with a camera and says, I will f-ing kill you -- the
predicate for that is a belief that there will be no accountability for it.
In fact, the accountability that`s come, I think, would probably be a
surprise, to Mr. Albers and what Dan Page has been able to do, essentially
retire and ride off into the sunset, that`s clearly the expectation because
the police behavior you and I saw routinely -- and let me say, there were a
lot of police officers who handled the situation quite well, who, you know,
were very good at deescalating and communicating and doing all the good
aspects of police work.

But those who didn`t, we saw it routinely and you could tell, they
just didn`t think they were going to get punished for it.

LEE: The idea there`s no accountability, people in the community will
say it`s reinforced by the other half of the community, where it`s almost
like a plantation mentality. You have to keep certain parts of the
community under control. They should be put down like dogs, that you have
to handle them with a heavy hand in the beginning or they`ll run all over
you. That`s what we`re seeing.

HAYES: Right. The other thing to keep in mind here is I asked
Governor Jay Nixon, any kind of after-action report, any accountability,
any review? As of now, that federal lawsuit is the only thing out there.
I mean, there`s -- we haven`t heard anyone say, yes, we`re going to look
into the two weeks of policing and come up with some at least

Trymaine Lee, have a good holiday weekend.

LEE: Thank you very much, man. I appreciate it.

HAYES: All right. Keep in mind: the fallout we just talked about
from Ferguson comes after tremendous amount of media scrutiny of a group of
police officers in a St. Louis suburb. Most police officers in the country
operate without that scrutiny. Perhaps, now with smartphones everywhere,
that will start in some ways to change.

For example, yesterday, a cell phone video surfaced of a January
encounter between several police officers and 27-year-old man named Chris
Lolley (ph) in St. Paul, Minnesota. In the video, Lolley says he`s waiting
to pick his kids up from school.

We should warn you, the video we`re about to play is very upsetting.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s going afternoon, brother? I got to go get
my kids. Please don`t touch any. Please don`t touch me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re going to go to jail then.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, wait, wait, wait.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not doing anything wrong.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please, no, no, brother.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not here to argue. I`m not your brother.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is assault.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not here to argue with you. Put your hands
behind your back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, can you please not do this? I didn`t do
anything wrong.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put your hands behind your back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, really? I got to go get my kids.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put your hands behind your back otherwise this is
going to get ugly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you need from me?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I told you, I want to identify you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I haven`t done anything wrong.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I told you what I wanted initially. We can
settle all this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put your hands behind your back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I haven`t done anything wrong. Please, no, don`t
do this. Please --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put your hands behind your back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can somebody help me? That`s my kid right there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put your hands behind your back. Put your hands
behind your back!


HAYES: Lolley was tased by officers and was charged with trespassing
and disorderly conduct. According to the "Minneapolis City Pages", those
charges were later dropped.

Today, the St. Paul police defended their action, the action you see
on the video recording, saying, quote, "Our officers are called up and
required to respond to calls for assistance and to investigate the calls.
One point the officers believed he might either run or fight with them. It
was then that officers took steps to take him into custody. He pulled away
and resisted officers` lawful orders and used force necessary to safely
take him into custody."

Joining me now, civil rights attorney, Norman Siegel, and Phillip
Atiba Goff, social professor at social psychology at UCLA and visiting
scholar at Harvard.

Professor Goff, let me start with you. Here in the tape we saw
something we saw in the Eric Garner case. It`s key to understanding what
we`re looking at from a systemic standpoint, the first officer on the
scene, is to my mind, doing good police work which is communicating, not
escalating, letting him talk it out. He`s not frustrated.

We saw the same thing with Eric Garner in Staten Island. There`s a
police officer not escalating, allowing the person to express their
frustration. Then someone comes in from the outside, no read on the
situation and you end up with a situation. It shows me, there are
different kinds of police approaches and very different ways that police
react in those circumstances.

PHILLIP ATIBA GOFF, ASST. PROF., UCLA: Yes, that`s absolutely right.
I think one of the key things to note, though, the video starts after the
conversation with the female officer and the individual waiting for his
kids has already started. So, you don`t know whether or not backup was
called. You don`t know what the circumstances were for that.

But certainly, when you`re listening to it, it becomes something
that`s very difficult to kind of end up defending -- but quite right that
we need to have folks that are able to deescalate at all points where the
goal is to get to mutual respect and legitimacy, not to get to compliance
and obedience.

HAYES: Yes, compliance and obedience clearly on the mind of the
second officer.

You`ve been working on this for a long time. You`re one of the
masterminds behind the CCRB here in New York, which is Civilian Complaint
Review Board.

Here`s my question. I don`t want to misrepresent the prevalence of
these episodes simply because we have video. To me, it`s an open empirical
question. Like, how much does stuff like this happen we don`t see, or are
we seeing the times when it does happen?

NORMAN SIEGEL, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: It`s a systemic problem. Law
enforcement, unfortunately, especially in urban areas in America, has a
legacy of racism, sexism, homophobia and discrimination based on political
ideology. And we`ve been trying for decades to set up systems to get what
you were talking about in your opening piece, accountability.

There should be a civilian review board in Ferguson, in every city in
America, and what that means is you can`t allow the police to investigate
the police. You have to have independent civilians looking at the
complaint. You need a permanent special prosecutor for police misconduct
so we can finally get accountability. The current systems fail.

HAYES: The current systems meaning internal review boards or internal

SIEGEL: Internal review boards, and even sometimes going to the
court. You go to the court with a local prosecutor, they rely 95 percent
from the cops.

HAYES: They work their entire life with police officers. That`s
their teammate.

SIEGEL: Right. In situations, and I`m glad you point it out, people
should understand speech is protected, even speech that we don`t approve of
like we saw. Action is not protected.

HAYES: Right.

SIEGEL: If they allow someone to retire, to give him the pension,
they should have then brought him up on charges and perhaps fired him in
the evidence and due process requires. So, it`s the old boys network
generally that allows this to happen.

HAYES: Dr. Goff, when I -- I spent a lot of time reporting on the
child rape scandal in the Catholic Church and one of the striking
statistics was a very small percentage of priests accounted for a massive
preponderance of the assaults. I mean, that was the issue was that the
small amount of predatory priests were allowed to stay in the system, cycle
from parish to parish, and they were responsible.

Is there a similar dynamic here, a play in terms of what we know about
what percentage of cops are engaging in the kinds of aggressive behavior or
unlawful uses of force that we`ve seen?

GOFF: Yes, I`m really glad you asked that question because looking at
the Catholic Church scandal, it`s really hard to believe how this small
number of priests could just devastate so many lives and when you`re
looking at what you called kind of the news audit in St. Louis County and
in Ferguson in particular, it seems like you`ve got a small number of
officers causing most of the damage.

But the worst thing is, we have no idea. These could be policies that
are put in place in which an entire department is engaging in behavior that
America would find grotesque and objectionable or it could be 2 percent, 3
percent of every department that are bad eggs and have to find a better way
to identify them and get them out.

SIEGEL: What I don`t like is this metaphor is you have a barrel of
apples and there`s a bad apple.

HAYES: The Reverend Al Sharpton --

SIEGEL: They`re wrong. It`s a systemic wrong. And we have to deal
with it. For example --

HAYES: Well, let me say this -- it can be both, right? In the case
of the Catholic Church by analogy, it was both. There were bad apples and
a systemic problem that protected those people.

SIEGEL: But when you say bad apples, you`re thinking of half a dozen
whatever. I`m thinking about systemic problems. Even if someone comes in
to be a police officer, doing what they do which is a very hard job --

HAYES: Extremely difficult.

SIEGEL: I don`t want to stereotype cops. Most of them are good.
It`s a systemic problem. It`s not just a few.

After five, ten years, we should have random psychological tests to
make sure because the person could be ready to blow up. Some of the video
you saw in the interaction --

HAYES: Stressed.

SIEGEL: Ready to blow up. Recognize how important it is. Provide
the training.

But we need a permanent special prosecutor who will prosecute this and
put teeth into accountability.

HAYES: Dr. Goff, I like that term news audit. I was joking today.
Imagine if the national media descended on a random county once a month to
look at their policing.

GOFF: Well --

SIEGEL: This is the answer. We`re trying to establish a First
Amendment constitutional right for people to take video of the police
officers. Once we do this, we`ll see the systemic problem.

HAYES: Norman Siegel, and Phillip Atiba Goff, thank you both,

SIEGEL: Thank you.

GOFF: Thank you.

HAYES: All right. How the president could be laying an immigration
bear trap for unruly Republicans.

Plus, breaking news right now on the most important Senate race in the
country. Mitch McConnell`s campaign manager resigns suddenly amidst the
whiff of scandal. More on that with our own Rachel Maddow, ahead.


HAYES: Late word tonight in the most important Senate race in the
country, Jesse Benton, the campaign manager for Senate Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell`s re-election campaign is stepping down amid questions
about a growing bribery scandal surrounding his old boss, Congressman Ron
Paul, during the 2012 election.

Team Mitch was forced to go on the defense about a year ago when audio
surfaced of Benton saying he was, quote, "sort of holding his nose for two
years" in working for McConnell because it could benefit Kentucky Senator
Rand Paul in a potential run for the Oval Office in 2016.

In a statement tonight, Benton denied any role in the Iowa bribery
scandal, citing unsubstantiated media rumors. At least he won`t have to
hold his nose anymore.


HAYES: With House Republicans keeping Congress from passing
immigration reform, President Obama vowed in June to take action before the
end of summer, he attached a date to it. He said before the end of summer
to, quote, "fix as much as our immigration system as I can on my own."
Now, that promise before the end of summer was widely seen as the first
step towards an executive action by the president to expand the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrival program, or DACA, and prevent millions more
undocumented immigrants from facing the prospect of deportation.

The president`s executive action was expected to be politically
explosive, particularly coming right before the midterm elections. And
today brought two reports suggesting he is now strongly considering
delaying that action until after the election. In other words, not at the
end of the summer.

A decision to delay, if it comes, would appear to be grounded in
politics. "The New York Times" projects Republicans now have a 65 percent
chance of taking over the Senate in the midterms. Vulnerable Democrats who
are facing re-election, including Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas, are
warning against the president taking big and bold action without Congress,
which some Democratic strategists say would energize the GOP base just
weeks before the election.

Political calculation, in their minds, is this -- if the president
takes bold executive action on immigration, Democrats can kiss the Senate

Immigration advocates counter that political concerns should be
secondary to people`s lives. And they also argue that bold action could be
exactly what Democrats need to galvanize a sleepy base.

At the White House today, Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked if
the president was, indeed, planning to delay for political reasons.


who are speculating that the president is making a political decision as it
relates to immigration. I would put forward probably a noncontroversial
suggestion, that those are probably people who are regular critics of the
president. So, I take that declaration with a grain of salt.


HAYES: But this is not being drummed up by Republicans. As "The New
York Times" reports, there`s a fierce debate over timing inside the White
House, some advisers telling the president to wait, others pressing for
action now.

If the president does act now, it could lead the GOP directly into a
kind of bear trap. Some Republicans, including Senator Marco Rubio and
Representative Steve King are suggesting they might move to shut down the
government after the end of September if the president acts on immigration.

As we learned from the last government shutdown, that would likely be
very, very bad for the Republican brand -- could even create a backlash
that keeps the Senate in Democrats` hands.

Joining me now, Raul Reyes, attorney and NBC News contributor.

I think this debate is fascinating, because the politics of it do seem
complicated and fraught but at the same time it`s sort of the same old
caution versus boldness dynamic that we`ve seen replayed a lot of times.
What`s your judgment of the politics?

RAUL REYES, NBC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, first thing, I think when we
look at this debate, the most salient thing to keep in mind, as cautious as
the president has been on immigration, and we`ve seen it again and again,
his administration`s immigration enforcement policy has been absolutely
zealous and aggressive as ever.

So, just in the summer along, I think Vox estimated 97,000 people have
been deported. So, that`s the backdrop of where this debate is going on.

I think, though, there`s a very strong political case for him to act
sooner rather than later because during this time that he has delayed, as
we`ve all been waiting for the other shoe to drop, so to speak, on
immigration, the Republicans have done a pretty good case of rallying
support against it, even though we don`t know what it`s going to be.

HAYES: Right, right.

REYES: They have filled the void that he left.

HAYES: The political argument is they`re going to be whipped up over
this no matter what. You might as well do something good substantively and
energy your base because -- but I think that`s -- I would say this: if
there is an action and it`s millions of people, which is what has been
suggested, reported, that they`re considering action for the family members
of those who got DACA, right, which could be millions of people, the right
is going to flip. I mean --

REYES: Right, of course.

HAYES: They will go nuclear. This will be the only thing on talk
radio. It will be the lead on FOX. It will be everywhere, everywhere,
everywhere, every Republican hammering them.

So, I think it`s a little understating the case to say -- well,
they`ve already geared up their base on it.

REYES: I just think the president does need to do something sooner
rather than later because also, as a policy, the success of whatever he
does do in terms of how many people he might offer some type of reprieve
from deportation or some other grant, it`s going to depend on the
timeliness of the action, because remember, look at the DACA kids. They
were the low-hanging fruit in a sense because to show they were here in
this country, all they had to do, most of them showed their report cards,
school records.

HAYES: Right.

REYES: For all these adults who are going to be coming in who largely
lived their lives in shadows, it`s going to be much harder because they
have no paper trail. So, look, the president will likely face some type of
legal challenge to whatever he does on immigration.

HAYES: So, you`re saying from a process standpoint, in terms of
implementing the policy, you got to get it started if you`re going to help
these people.

REYES: The window is already closing. It`s going to be much harder
for these people and remember, because it`s temporary, they`re taking a
huge risk because maybe they get one year`s worth --

HAYES: Right. Then someone else gets elected and it`s --

REYES: And they`ve already given their names to the government, where
they are. So, those are -- that`s a very strong policy argument.

But again, going back -- going back to the political, I think at least
the president could have, you know, the immigration movement, all the
progressives behind him and it would, I think, energize many Latino voters
who don`t typically turn out in this election.

And the fact is, I would say the Latino community, this is a
tremendous sense of a feeling of frustration and conflicted over this
president. I mean, to be in blunt terms, Latino voters turned out in
record numbers for this president, for the hope and change. Not hope and

HAYES: The Congressman Gutierrez said to me last night, made a good
point, in 2012 there was a lot of worry about DACA, that was politically
toxic during an election year. They were sort of forced into it by smart
activism. And two months afterwards, they`ve got DREAMers up at the
convention and it proved to be a political win. So there`s a kind of
precedent here.

Raul Reyes, thank you so much.

REYES: My pleasure, sir.

HAYES: All right. When do enhanced interrogation techniques become
torture? When they happen to an American. I`ll explain, ahead.


HAYES: James Wright Foley, the American photo journalist, murdered by
ISIS extremist on tape, was tortured while in captivity. According to
report from "The Washington Post," Foley and at least three other hostages
were water boarded several times. Foley was also singled out and subjected
to mock executions.

Water boarding and mock executions are unquestionably forms of
torture. And, when those, quote, "Enhanced interrogation techniques," as
torture apologists called them, were used on one of our own, no one thought
twice about calling them what they are, torture.

This is exactly what many of those who argued against such torture
techniques feared would happen. There are and have been throughout the
last ten years, two arguments against torture. One, torture is wrong, end
of story. We should do it. It is barbaric. It is beneath us. Two, when
you torture people, you make your own people more likely to be tortured, as
Senator Carl Levin pointed out to a panel of military lawyers and legal
advisers at a 2005 hearing on the treatment and torture of prisoners at


to give us both a system that is effective and efficient and that is
workable and achieves its goal of obtaining information and treating people
humanely but also doing it in a way, which is not only consistent with our
values but will protect our troops. If the same techniques are used
against us so that we have standing to not only object, but to act against
anybody who treats our troops with these kind of techniques.


HAYES: The image that is now seared in everyone`s mind of James
Wright Foley on his knees in front of the man who murdered him so savagely.
That costume that he is wearing in that image, that is not accidental.
That is the outfit of prisoners at Guantanamo. And, now, the symbol for it
as well internationally.

If you do any reporting on Jihadi social media or talk with people who
study Jihadists full time, you know they talk about Guantanamo all the
time. Now, ISIS clearly does not need any American excuse for acting
monstrously. But, it is a fact that Guantanamo is in the words of our own
President in 2009, a quote, "Rallying cry for our enemies." Well, it is
2014 and it is long, long past time to take that rallying cry away.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: In New Orleans, the city mostly below sea
level, residents emerging to assess the damage find the water is rushing

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE RESIDENT: I would not do it again. I would not
stay home. The ceiling fell. Water through the windows.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: Katrina may have moved on, but she is
still causing trouble to hundreds of thousands of people in New Orleans who
are either homeless or without power tonight.


HAYES: Nine years ago today, Hurricane Katrina made landfall. The
storm, itself, was not as bad as predicted but the worst was yet to come.
The levees protecting New Orleans failed catastrophically. Nine years and
more, $14 million of levee investment later, the results of which remain in
question, Louisiana has even bigger problem. The state is sinking.

According to a new report from ProPublica and The Lens, Louisiana is
shrinking at the rate of a football field worth of land every hour or 16
square miles per year. It is vanishing in part. Thanks to more than
10,000 miles of canals cut across the wetlands to support the 50,000 oil
and gas wells in the state, and the levees around the Mississippi river
that disrupt the natural flow of the delta.

ProPublica has produced eye-popping maps that showed just what human
engineering has done over the last 80 or 90 years along the Louisiana
coast. This is what the area around New Orleans looked like in 1922, and
this is what it looks like now. The change is even more noticeable on the
local level.

Here is what the area around Venice looked like in 1956. Landmass has
shrunk every year since. And, here is the area around Byres in 1932, which
has lost so much land since then by that 31 different bays no longer even
exist. Here is the area near Bayou Lafourche in 1932, farmland steadily
disappearing -- wow, over the last 80 years. The area by Bayou DuPont in
1932, so thoroughly reshaped over the years by Texaco oil wells it is now
known as Texaco Canals.

Now, there is a $50 billion, 50-year effort under way to restore the
wetlands. But even if that succeeds, Louisiana will still lose miles and
miles of land, everything in red according to the ProPublica prediction.
The question is, are we looking at a future without the Louisiana coast?

And, joining me now, Bob Marshall, who co-produced that report, covers
environmental issues for "The Lens." Bob, when I first saw this headline,
I thought there is going to be a story about climate change. Obviously, we
know climate change is rising sea level and it is something that we have
covered in New York and the context of Hurricane Sandy. This is not quite
so much about that, although that obviously is playing some role. What is
doing the damage here?

actually when levees were put on the river putting in a straitjacket.
Those were finished about the 1930`s, which meant the river that created
these deltas was no longer connected to them, could not resupply them with
sediment. That is all we had done.

The loss of the wetlands would have been menaced at a very small level
each year, millimeters; but then we found oil and gas in this area,
proceeded to permit 50,000 wells, dredge at least 10,000 miles of canals,
which eviscerated the hydraulics of this area.

And, so, it is sinking according to NOAC, one of the fastest rates of
any large coastal landscape on the planet. At the same time, that sea is
rising. So, we live on a delta that is starving and sinking at the same
time the Gulf of Mexico is rising.

HAYES: This also, I should say, had been aided -- it is not just
private industry that has the wells. The army corps of engineers has been
instrumental in building, maintaining a lot of those canals and Levees.
There was a canal that got built that, basically, ended up never getting
used and was part of what allowed Hurricane Katrina to hit New Orleans as
hard as it did and was just a massive engineering mistake.

MARSHALL: Yes. The corps -- by orders of congress, by the way,
dredged about 550 miles of navigation canals through the marsh, basically,
to support the port as well as the oil and gas industry. And, this just
exasperated the impact of all these other canals. Researchers here and in
other parts of the country and the federal researchers have said that, "You
know, we have lost about 2,000 square miles of our coast since the 1930s."
And, at least 36 percent to 60 percent of that total loss is due just to
these canals.

HAYES: So, what is the cost for the people that live there? Are
these intensely populated areas or is it, you know, there were not a lot of
people there anyway, and I guess you are getting a lot of money and jobs
out of the oil and gas industry, so maybe this is the price that you pay?

MARSHALL: Well, that is really the bottom line. The people in this
area where most of the land loss is taking place, the oil and gas industry
is, basically, now the primary employer. So, the folks there have, you
know, a very mixed emotions about the oil and gas industry. They know the
damage that has been done, but they also rely on their livelihoods, so they
are afraid to really fight the oil and gas industry or to call them to
account for some of the damage done.

But, there are a lot of people living here. There are 2 million
people living on this coast, and by NOAA`s predictions -- you know, by the
end of the century, almost everything that is not protected by levees today
in southeast Louisiana could be under water before the end of the century,
and that is many, many communities. New Orleans is protected by levees. A
few other communities are, but the rest are out there, outside the levees
and the gulf is coming to get them.

HAYES: We are talking about a massive relocate -- I mean, we are
talking about evacuating a huge swath of land in which millions of people
currently reside?

MARSHALL: Exactly. That is the choice. Either this plan the state
has works, in that they are gaining more land than we are losing by 2060,
and through the end of the century, or we have to find places for at least
a million people to live.

HAYES: Well, astounding report. Fantastic job of reporting and also
visualization. Everyone should go to I got sucked into it
for an hour yesterday. It is really just excellent, excellent journalism.
Thank you, Bob Marshall. Thank you very much.

MARSHALL: Thank you for having me.

HAYES: All right. The worst kept secret in Washington, ahead.


HAYES: New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand`s new book is not even out
yet, but there are couple passages she is talking about in the run up to
the book`s release next month. That provided a window into what life is
like as a woman in the United States congress in the 21st century.

"People" Magazine reported this week, quote, "In off the sidelines,
Gillibrand 47 shares a sobering incident in the congressional gym, where an
older male colleague told her, good thing you are working out because you
would not want to get porky." On another occasion, she writes after she
dropped 50 pounds, one of her fellow senate members approached her,
squeezed her stomach and said, "Do not lose too much weight now, I like my
girls chubby."

The public airing of those incidents have prompted a broad and candid
discussion about what might be the worst kept secret in Washington. The
disgraceful culture of sexual harassment and sexual predation that hangs
over the entire Capitol as it has for quite some time.


late `80s and `90s and we all had our stories of whom you would not get on
an elevator with and whom you would protect your young female interns from.

years ago, I got some comments that would just maybe blow you away from
male Senators, maybe not realizing that they were saying inappropriate
things but talking about, you know, getting my figure back and things like


HAYES: Bear in mind, the atmosphere of the Kirsten Gillibrand and
Dana Bash are describing is the current situation in Washington as it is
probably the best it has ever been, sadly. Back in the early 1990s, a time
when Andrea Mitchell said she had to protect young interns from United
States Senators -- think about this for a second, comes this infamous story
about Washington Senator Patty Murray.

Murray found herself alone in an elevator one evening with 91-year-old
Senator Strom Thurmond, who did not recognize her as a colleague. He
inquired whether the little lady was married and then proceed to grope her
breast. That guy, anyone. That is what it was like to be a fellow United
States Senator caught in an elevator with 91-year-old Strom Thurmond. No
wonder the reporters and interns were following an unwritten elevator
safety protocol.

Joining me now, Irin Carmon national reporter for, Lucia
Graves reporter for "National Journal," political columnist, Anna Marie
Cox. Anna, I feel like there has been an upside and downside to the
Gillibrand revelations. We will get to the downside later, which is -- I
think of this whole debate, which we will talk about in a second. But, the
upside is it has prompted people to name the -- talk about the elephant in
the room.

ANNA MARIE COX, POLITICAL COLUMNIST: Yes. I think that is good, too.
And, also I think at least I have seen on social media, no one is
questioning whether or not it happened, which I think Irin said it is a
form of progress as well. Conservatives are simply saying, "Well, it must
be democrats since she did not name who it is." But, at least they are
acknowledging that it happened.

And, I would venture to say there is not a woman on this panel that
has not had some experience of this type with some person, some male figure
in power. This is really, I think people have to acknowledge it because, I
mean, I bet you had an edit meeting and this came up.

HAYES: Yes. Absolutely. I knew when I was a Washington reporter, a
female colleagues and friends of mine and stuff that I witnessed firsthand,
you know, all the time. Often not -- the other thing we should say is not
just at the senate level, the staff level, all the time at the staffer
level. And not just --

COX: Journalists also.

HAYES: Exactly. Just, like --

COX: Photojournalists.

HAYES: Yes. Creeps everywhere, basically. Do you think, Irin, that
it is -- is there a particular problem in Washington, or is it just that,
you know, patriarchal society, centers of power are like this, and it would
be the same in Wall Street, and it would be the same, you know, in
professional sports or anywhere else, or is there something particular
about Washington?


HAYES: Sure.

CARMON: I want to say all of those things have that kind of culture.
But, I think there was something really crucial in that Patty Murray story
the way that Karen told it is that she said he did not recognized her as a

HAYES: Right.

CARMON: He did not recognized her as a fellow human deserving of
respect, you know and of boundaries. And, that would be true whether she
was a Senator or not. But, he also came up in a place and a time where
women did not have this kind of power. So, I think that there is something
about having a woman in the senate elevator with you, asserting power that
makes you want to put her in her place that way.

HAYES: Lucia, we should also say, you know, how many -- I am trying
to think off the top of my head, there are 17 female Senators?


HAYES: There are 20. OK. So, there are 20. We are talking about a
workplace that is male dominated in a way that almost certainly no
workplace I have ever worked in is. I mean, 80/20 is just a crazy kind of
ratio. So, even to this day, there is a kind of atmosphere in the place
that is deeply male.

GRAVES: Absolutely. And, I think part of the power of this story is
just knowing that this happens everywhere. It even happens in the U.S.
Senate. It happens at the top. And, the men who were harassing her were
not just any men. They were U.S. Senators. They were the men who run our
country. And, I think that should be very disturbing.

HAYES: These are also the men who, like, presumably vote on policies
of legislation dealing with sexual harassment.


GRAVES: Some were even in favor of restricting sexual harassment.

HAYES: Right. That is right. And I -- the most explosive kind of
scandal we ever had about this, Ana Marie, of course, is the Bob Packwood
scandal, which happened I think in the late 1980s, or early 1990s.

COX: Yes. It was around the same time as Anita Hill, actually.

HAYES: That is right. And, there was a kind of dam bursting
situation there, but -- and there was accountability insofar as he was
chased out of the senate, basically. But, it seems like it then gets swept
under the rug again.

COX: Well, you know, it is interesting, actually. I was looking at
the numbers on this. And, during the Anita Hill/Packwood Scandal, 88
percent of Americans said that sexual harassment on the job was a problem,
that is gone down to 60 percent, which is good. Yey, 60 percent, but it is
still a problem.

That is, of course, if you ask women and men. If you ask women, you
get a much higher number. You know, I have to say, another problem here,
with Anita Hill and Bob Packwood, everyone recognized that, that was
vicious sexual assault, that that was sexual assault that was malicious.


COX: I have a problem with the discussion that at least Gillibrand is
having about these incidents that she kind of writes them off in a way.

HAYES: Right.

COX: And says, oh, he meant well and on one of them she says, I was
getting too heavy for my own good.


HAYES: Right.

COX: That, to me, is a real problem, too.

HAYES: Right. Is not there a certain extent to which, like, I do not
know -- now I am going to be the dude and sort of defend Gillibrand `s
interpretation, but it does seem to me like these -- that the person who
experiences them have some kind of, like, I do not know, sort of like
authorial control of the interpretation of their malignancy? Does that
makes sense?

CARMON: I think that is absolutely true. I mean I think we should
not be telling Gillibrand how to experience her, you know, inappropriate
interactions, on the spectrum of harassment to assault. I think that is up
to her to define those terms. I think we should also say that she is a
politician, who has long-term plans as a politician.


CARMON: And, maybe is not looking to have this completely define her,
or derail her other plans whether we like it or not.

HAYES: And, that dovetails with the question that has been raised. I
think largely by a male cast of characters, although some women as well, I
should say. That Gillibrand should be naming who these people are, that
she has to call these people out. She has a duty to do so. And, Lucia and
Ana and Irin, I want to get your thoughts on that right after we take this


HAYES: We are back here with Irin Carmon, Lucia Graves and Ana Marie
Cox. Lucia, you were giving me a quizzical expression, I think of
exasperation at the heat of the question of call some sort of quarters -- I
think male journalist. I think Jezebel wrote a post also saying that
Kirsten Gillibrand should name who these people are.

GRAVES: I think one of the things that is really upsetting is that
she has no good options in this situation. She can, you know, on the one
hand name names and make a huge public spectacle and perhaps have her
career defined by this moment.

She can do what she has done and talk in generalizations and then have
people call her a liar or say that she needs to name names or tell her
story on their terms. Or the third option is silence. And, I think that
is the most dangerous option of all. And all of the people, who are
attacking her for telling her story are encouraging that culture of
silence, which allows this kind of behavior to repeat.

HAYES: There also seems to me, Irin, that there is part of the name
names is a little bit layered with I do not actually believe you. I think
you made this up and the way you have to prove it to me that you did not is
telling me who this was.

CARMON: There are a couple of people who have come out and said that
they do not believe her. But, I do think this is a new subtle way of
saying, if it is real, why do not you name names? I happen to think if she
did name names, there would still be people who would say, not that guy.
That guy is a great guy, how could you impugn the reputation of that guy?
None of these options are going to somehow clear her and their name.

HAYES: Yes. You have to ask the then-what question, like when did
you get to a two-week news cycle. You are going to have a huge public --
Ana Marie -- politicians write memoirs all the time. They talk about their
colleagues anonymously, fairly routinely. Reporters are constantly talking
to people anonymously. Like, it just seems like this is a crazy standard
to apply to her.

COX: Well, it is. But, I also just want to point out, we all are
kind of talking about this a little bit with passive voice, like if she
does this, this will happen. But, actually, as reporters we have some
control over that narrative, the way that we report on this story. And
also, I mean, I do not want to criticize her and do not want to say what
was and was not sexual harassment for her.

But, I do in this instance think about what kind of lesson what I
would want to teach my daughter or my little sister or some other woman
that was close to me. Would I want her to say what it was? Would I want
her to accept this kind of behavior with a laugh or tell me that well, he
did not really mean it? She can do what she wants, but I think we all
should think about that particular question.


CARMON: I mean, I would love to live in a world where every victim
can come forward and say exactly name the names, have no repercussions. I
think we need to work on creating that world and putting the --

HAYES: I challenge the male senators if they are still alive, which
we do not know if they are. But, if you are, then you should come out and
say that you did that and you should apologize. How about that? Irin
Carmon, Lucia Graves and Ana Marie Cox. Thank you, all. That is "All In"
for this evening. "Why We Did It," a Rachel Maddow documentary, is up
next. Have a great Labor Day weekend, and good night.


<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