Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Monday, September 15th, 2014

Read the transcript from the Monday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
September 15, 2014

Guest: Ken Belson, Femi Ayanbadejo, David Zirin, Stacey Patton, Denise
Natali, Felipe Calderon



CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN:

RICK SPIELMAN, MINNESOTA VIKINGS: This is a difficult path to
navigate regarding the judgment of how a parent disciplines his child.

HAYES: Vikings reinstate running back Adrian Peterson two days after
he was charged with child abuse, and after a backlash to his benching.

CHARLES BARKLEY: I`m from the South. Whipping is -- we do that all
of the time. Every black parent in the South is going to be in jail under
those circumstances.

HAYES: This as former Baltimore Ravens` running back, Ray Rice, is
expected to appeal his indefinite suspension.

We`ll have the latest in NFL damage control.

Plus, the hard sell for boots on the ground against ISIS.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: It`s going to take an army
to beat an army, and this idea will never have any boots on the ground to
defeat them in Syria. It`s fantasy.

HAYES: And a former president joins me live to discuss his plan to
combat climate change.

ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

Breaking news tonight: Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson
was reportedly investigated for abusing another one of his sons, according
to local CBS Houston affiliate KHOU. That report says Peterson was not
charged -- if true, could present big trouble for Peterson as far as his
current charges go. Again, this new information has not yet been
independently verified by NBC News.

But this news arrives on the same day the Minnesota Vikings have
previously announced they are reactivating Peterson, who was indicted by a
grand jury on charges of reckless or negligent injury to his 4-year-old
son.

On Saturday, Adrian Peterson indicted the previous day, turned himself
in for booking in a Montgomery County, Texas jail. He was released on a
$15,000 bond within a half an hour.

Today, the manager of the Peterson`s team, the Minnesota Vikings,
which had deactivated Peterson immediately following news of the
indictment, announced that Peterson would now be reactivated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPIELMAN: This is a very important issue. And I want to take time to
emphasize that the issue of child welfare is extremely serious and should
be taken serious not only by us but by everybody. We are trying to do the
right thing. This is a difficult path to navigate regarding the judgment
of how a parent disciplines his child.

At the same time, we must defer to the legal system to determine
whether he went too far. But we cannot make that judgment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That news on Adrian Peterson comes as the league continues to
rail from the scandal that has now expanded well beyond that moment in an
Atlantic City casino elevator, when Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice
knocked out his then-fiancee. Rice will appeal his indefinite suspension,
according to multiple league sources. Meanwhile, the NFL has announced
four new advisors, all of them women, to help guide policy on domestic
violence and sexual assault.

In a lengthy memo to NFL staff and its teams, Commissioner Roger
Goodell announced a new and expanded role for the NFL`s current vice
president of community affairs and philanthropy, Anna Isaacson, that a vice
president of social responsibility to oversee education, training and
support programs relating to violence, sexual assault and matters of
respect.

Goodell named three senior advisors on domestic violence and sexual
assault, numerous other NFL players around the league who have been either
arrested or indicted for domestic violence, with little if any sanction
from the NFL, now faced actual sanction as the NFL comes under greater
scrutiny.

For instance, Greg Hardy. He`s the Carolina Panthers defensive end
that we reported on last week who was deactivated prior to yesterday`s
game, even though the team had previously declined to take such an action
following a July verdict -- a July verdict of guilty for assaulting and
communicating threats to his ex-girlfriend. She said he threatened to kill
her.

All of which creates the impression that when it comes to disciplinary
action taken towards its players who engaged or accused of engaging in
violent behavior toward people they love, there is no actual policy, rhyme
or reason to the NFL`s policy other than to manage the PR fallout.

And joining me now, Ken Belson, sports reporter for "The New York
Times", where he covers the NFL.

Do you think it`s chaos over there, in the offices of the NFL?

KEN BELSON, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, it`s chaos that they
essentially created, because the policy has been to make it up as they go
along. When it comes to matters of personal conduct, the commissioner has
wide discretion to do what he wants and the policies that can go anywhere
from a game to no games all the way up to a season, there`s no framework
that is publicly available for how he`s going --

HAYES: Yes, we don`t have a sentencing guidelines here. There`s been
examples of unbecoming behavior by a player in which they got a few games
for something that was nowhere as violent as what we saw Ray Rice got or
marijuana in the case of one player, right?

BELSON: Well, the drug and performance-enhancing drug policy is set
in stone through the negotiations with the union. But when it comes to
personal conduct, it is the commissioner who makes the rules as he goes.

HAYES: So, what do you think they are doing over there? I mean, one
of the other weird things about this is it seems like they`re letting the
teams handle all of this, which is really strange. I mean, I know in the
NBA, you`ve got Stu Jackson who is the attorney general of the basketball
association. Any time there`s anything like this, like he`s the front guy,
he`s directing policy, it`s not that the Knicks or the Bulls or the
Trailblazers are deciding individually, in this case, with the Carolina
Panthers, with the Baltimore Ravens, the Vikings, it really seems, like,
OK, you guys figure it out.

BELSON: And they`re doing that in the vacuum and they`re partly
reacting to fans in their own areas. It`s citing, you know, outrage in
Minnesota or outrage in North Carolina, and that`s not the way to run a
league policy.

And I think what you`re going to end up seeing is the NFL is going to
have to come up with a framework that everybody can understand and
everybody can follow.

HAYES: Yes, and precisely the reason you can`t let individuals to do
it because their incentives are all screwed up, right? I mean, obviously,
the Baltimore Ravens want Ray Rice to play. And the Minnesota Vikings want
Adrian Peterson to play, they got, you know, 50-something rushing yards
this weekend without him.

BELSON: Yes, in fact, right, they turned around and said, well, maybe
he could come back now. They lost 30-7, that`s an embarrassment, their
season can go down quickly.

So, suddenly, their priorities have shifted, or it seemed to have
shifted.

HAYES: What do you think, Jerry Johnson said about the Goodell.
We`ve been sort of tracking this. Goodell is a singular figure in sports.
He makes millions of dollars a year, $100 million over four years, $44
million last year, reportedly, he has seen a league undergo tremendous
growth, tremendous success, any way you sliced it in terms of the dollars
and cents.

Jerry Jones, the Dallas Cowboys, says, I know he, Goodell, has 100
percent support. It`s my understanding 100 percent of all of the owners.

Do you think that`s true?

BELSON: Right now, it`s true. They definitely want to see the
results of the former FBI director`s investigation. If it came out that
Goodell lied or was -- didn`t supervise properly, they may push him out or
nudge him out, let`s say. Somebody may have to take the fall between
Goodell leaving and that could be a security director, for instance.

HAYES: But isn`t it a problem with the Adrian Peterson position play
out, I mean, you`ve got -- how many players roster, 60 something, right?

BELSON: Fifty-three.

HAYES: Fifty-three, right. So, 53 roster players. You`ve got, you
know, 1,500 players running around, right? You`re now going to own
everything. Every one of those 1,500 players do, and you Roger Goodell,
aren`t going to be the sentencing judge, the judge, jury and sentencing
judge for every single one of them.

BELSON: Well, that`s why I think this may ultimately be something
that is included in the collective bargaining agreement, just the way
performance enhancing drugs is. We could ultimately see Roger Goodell take
a step back and say, you know what, to the union, I don`t like to do this,
but we`re going to need your help.

HAYES: It`s a hilarious situation to think that you would want a
stronger collective bargaining agreement, is management so that you could
then go to the public and say, look, my hands are tied, which is what the
owners in Major League Baseball have done all the time, all the steroids
era particularly.

Ken Belson, thank you very much.

BELSON: Sure.

HAYES: All right. Let`s not forget that Ray Rice initially receive a
two-game suspension, OK? For punching out his fiancee. But following
outrage over video showing him dragging his then fiancee out of an
elevator, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, a new policy, enacting a six-game
suggestion pension for first offenses and lifetime ban for second. That
lifetime ban could subsequently be appealed.

Then, when the second elevator video came out, the one showing the
punch itself, Goodell gave Rice an indefinite suspension, despite the fact
that according to ESPN, Goodell already knew about the punch. Rice having
told Goodell on June 16th that he punched his fiancee in a casino elevator,
and now, Ray Rice is appealing.

And as "The New York Times" note, could argue the league cannot
suspend him twice for the same infraction. Rice might simply argue first
offense is six games, period. That`s the policy Goodell himself announced.

Ambiguity around punishment stems from the fact, as you just heard,
the NFL Players Association is so weak relative to other sports unions,
that Commissioner Goodell has tremendous latitude in deciding who to punish
for what, and for how long, rather than a process that has been negotiated
and adjudicated.

Joining me now, former NL player and player representative, Obafemi
Ayanbadejo. He played for the Baltimore Ravens. And Dave Zirin, sports
editor at "The Nation" and host of "Edge of Sports" for Sirius.

Obafemi, can you talk to me about what the players union has in their
collective bargaining agreement? How this whole thing done, because it
just seems this almost antiquated universe which the commissioner comes in,
and he reads a press account, or he looks at a videotape, and he says, I
give you x number of games.

OBAFEMI AYANBADEJO, FORMER NFL PLAYER: I think that the crazy thing
about this is that Roger Goodell seems to handle things in a manner -- and
I want to go to Ken`s point -- he hasn`t gotten, he`s not getting out in
front of things properly. He`s waiting for things to happen and reacting
from situation to situation.

And the bottom line is, is that if you`re not going to create some
framework that allows something substantive to be taken away from as far as
punishments goes, you`re going to have people like Terry O`Neil from NOW
continue to talk about player discipline and a lack of respect and domestic
violence issues across the league. The bottom line is there`s 4 million
women each year that get abused and raped across the country. NFL players,
in general, are far below the crime rate of the general public.

And we`re missing that because Roger Goodell fails to have something
set up that allows people to understand that there is a plan in place.
That`s the largest issue.

HAYES: Let me just jump in on a factual basis. You`re right than the
NFL players, arrests rates, are lower than the men in the general
population of the ages represented in the league. That is a true
statement.

Of course, Dave, that doesn`t help Roger Goodell right now. And part
of this, it occurs to me is, you`ve got a situation where he wanted to be
the person who is the strict disciplinarian before this and now, he`s kind
of got out over his skis because he now is owning everything.

DAVE ZIRIN, THE NATION: Exactly. I think we`re learning that women
and children first is not exactly a guiding principle of the National
Football League.

You talked about this, Chris, as being an antiquated system, it does
seem very antiquated, the idea of one person being judge, jury and
executioner. And that also means that Roger Goodell then owns every
infraction. And this was something he demanded eight years ago. He
demanded it, because at the time, there were some arrests in the NFL that
were causing a minor public relations problem, nothing compared to what
they`re dealing with today.

And Roger Goodell put himself forward to the public, in a public
relations move that said, and I thought frankly that this was extremely
racialized at the time, that said, look, someone needs to be in charge of
the asylum here. It`s a league that`s 70 percent African-American, and
I`ll be Mr. Drummond. I`ll be the great white father who makes you NFL
fans feel comfortable, that the players are going to be kept in line.

And that`s what he`s -- and I can tell you something, that upset a lot
of players, because as Obafemi said, most players do not in any way, shape
or form run afoul with the law. Most players hate being treated like
they`re perspective criminals by their boss.

HAYES: Right.

ZIRIN: And that`s why when Roger Goodell, in 2011, he did this tour
of training camps before the NFL lockout to make his case to the players.
He was roundly mocked when he went to training camps. Players heckled him
when he went around. He has no authority when it comes to so many of the
players. They`ve been mocking him on Twitter and that`s reason enough to
me, about why 100 percent of owners backing him is just, says so much about
the morality of the National Football League.

HAYES: And, Femi, when you take the case of Ray Rice who was
appealing this indefinite suspension, it seems to me independent of the
moral outrage ones feels towards what you saw, which I do and I think
everyone does, on the matter of policy, he has a strong case. I mean, it
was his case, after all, that precipitated Roger Goodell telling everyone,
we got a new policy. First infraction six days, second game is indefinite
suspension. So, you can`t look at what happened to him and think that
anything happened, other than he got suspended for the video being leaked
as oppose to what he did.

AYANBADEJO: Well, there`s still a large debate on whether Goodell had
the video or not. I mean, the bottom line is you have an executive -- and
this is an endemic issue when it comes to the league office. I mean, if
the lady in the office says she has the video, it doesn`t make sense that
he wouldn`t have seen the video. And it would be naive for Roger Goodell
to think that the video wouldn`t leak out at some point.

So, once again, it`s about being reactive and not having a framework
that makes sense. And I`m not sure what Roger Goodell is going to do, but
the bottom line is his job is in jeopardy. I`m not sure where he can go
from here. It`s one thing to protect the shield, it`s the other thing is
to hide behind it.

And I think what Roger is doing right now is hiding behind the shield
instead of protecting it. He`s let a number of people down. And I believe
that the owners, behind closed doors are discussing an exit strategy, when
it comes to Roger Goodell. That`s my opinion.

HAYES: That`s interesting.

Dave, will you explain that phrase is a Roger Goodell catch word,
catch phrase of his era, "protect the shield"?

ZIRIN: Yes, actually, I did a journalistic search on this, and you
can`t find this phrase "protect the shield" before Roger Goodell comes into
the commissioner`s office, when it was Paul Tagliabue or Pete Rozelle in
charge. This was not a phrase.

And it`s become the thing that Roger Goodell has -- it`s what me says
when he greets the new rookies in the NFL. He doesn`t say my first
responsibility is to you, or my first responsibility is to the communities
where there are teams. He says my first responsibility is to protect the
integrity of the shield. Or what do you do when the commissioner is
destroying the integrity of the shield with every statement?

Let`s remember that the reason why that the commissioner is publicly
justified, banning Ray Rice indefinitely from the sport is that he -- they
put a statement about this. They said it`s because Ray Rice lied to the
commissioner`s office, about what happened in that elevator.

Ray Rice, Ozzie Newsome, the GM of the Ravens, the owner of the
Ravens, have all said that that`s actually not true. Ray Rice was very
forthcoming about what happened. If Goodell was lying about that also, and
if that comes out more in this arbitration case, it`s just going to be
another reason to show him the door.

HAYES: And, Femi, what do you think players make of this as they
watch this unfold?

AYANBADEJO: I think it`s pretty polarizing. You know, I think that
players feel that they`re being unjustly cast under an umbrella. You know,
there`s this dystopic view of the NFL now, like everything is just
horrible.

And the bottom line is the league does a lot of good things, a lot of
guys on Tuesday afternoons, you know what they do, they go and talk to
kids, they go to hospitals, they go to jails. They do a number of things
across the country. But you don`t hear about that.

You hear about domestic violence, and issues, and clearly with Adrian
Peterson thing, that`s happened this week, it -- the negative news cycle
seems a lot more entertaining that the factual that`s out there about what
players do to themselves when it comes to the environment and culture. And
that`s an unfortunate thing.

HAYES: Femi Ayanbadejo and David Zirin, thank you both, gentlemen.

All right, controversy over what Minnesota Vikings star running back
Adrian Peterson is charged with is ahead.

Plus, breaking news to report about U.S. response to ISIS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: What the majority of American people support, even though they
think it will fail? The answer to that is ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPIELMAN: I understand this is a very difficult, this difficult thing
to handle. But I also -- we feel strongly as an organization that this is
disciplining a child. And whether it`s an abusive situation or not or
whether he went too far disciplining, we feel very strongly that that is
the court`s decision to make. But we also understand the seriousness of,
you know, abusing children as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Minnesota Viking`s general manager Rick Spielman announced
earlier today the team`s star running back Adrian Peterson will play this
weekend against New Orleans Saints. Just for the last hour, local Houston
TV station KHOU reported Peterson was investigated but not charged for
abusing another one of his sons last year.

A former Texas prosecutor telling a local CBS affiliate reporting that
the earlier allegations can be use as evidence against Peterson in the
current case pending against him. This new reporting Houston has not been
independently verified by NBC News. All this after Peterson was indicted
on Friday by a grand jury on charges of reckless or negligent injury to a
child for beating his four-year-old son. The beating allegedly results in
cuts and bruises on the child`s back, buttocks, ankle, legs and scrotum.

Now, statement on Friday, Peterson`s attorney concluded that the
charge, quote, "involves using a switch to spank his son. Today, Peterson
released his own statement which reads in part, "I have learned a lot and
have evaluated how to discipline my son going forward. But I am, without a
doubt, not a child abuser."

Based on reporting from Sports Radio 610 which obtained a draft of the
police report, Peterson`s son said, quote, "Daddy Peterson hit me on my
face." Sports radio 610 also reports the child also expressed worry that
Peterson would punch him in the face if the child reported the incident to
authorities.

The Vikings` initial reaction after the indictment broke had been to
bench Peterson for yesterday`s game against the Patriots. Since then, two
things have happened. One is that without one of the best running backs of
the game, the Vikings lost by 23 points yesterday and only manage to gain
54 yards rushing.

The other is that a backlash to the backlash spring up around the
story. In other words, people begun rushing to the defense of Adrian
Peterson and of physically disciplining children.

Comedian D.L. Hughley taking to Facebook writing, "Adrian Peterson was
indicted in Texas for swatting his son with a switch. Who knew that was
illegal because my mama would be in jail."

Basketball hall of famer Charles Barkley took a similar stance, taking
to Jim Rome on CBS`s pre-game show yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES BARKLEY, BASKETBALL HALL OF FAMER: We spank kids in the
South. I think the question about did Adrian Peterson go overboard. But,
listen, Jim, we all grew up in different environments. Listen, every black
parent in my neighborhood in the South would be in trouble or in jail under
those circumstances.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The other side, there is ESPN`s Cris Carter, former Minnesota
Viking, who got emotional yesterday when talking about growing up and
getting disciplined by his mother.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRIS CARTER, ESPN: My mom did the best job she could do, raising
seven kids by herself. But there are thousands of things that I have
learned since then that my mom was wrong.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Thank you!

CARTER: This is the 21st century. She did the best she could, but
she was wrong about some of that stuff she taught me. And I promise my
kids I won`t teach that mess to them. You can`t beat a kid to make them do
what they want to do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s correct. Thank you.

CARTER: Thousands of things we have learned since then.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Joining me now, Stacey Patton. She`s senior reporter of "The
Chronicle of Higher Education", author of the memoir, "That Mean Old
Yesterday", about her childhood and foster, also creator of group Spare the
Kids. And MSNBC contributor Goldie Taylor, managing editor of FaultLines
JPS.

Goldie, let me start with you. I found the reaction to the story
almost immediate on social media everywhere. People saying what Charles
Barkley said basically. D.L. Hughley, you know, I was -- I was spanked as
a kid or I had to go choose a switch and that`s how I was disciplined as a
kid, I turned out all right.

It seems to me that we should focus on the facts as being reported
here. I don`t know if they`re true. But what`s in the police report is a
child, you know, bleeding from his genitals, a child with cuts a week
later, possibly in the face, naked, leaves stuffed in the mouth.

I mean, we should distinguish this as the model case for, you know,
physical discipline and the broader issue, it seems to me.

GOLDIE TAYLOR, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: We do have to distinguish it,
because the incident as described in this police report is nothing short of
a flogging. If for instance this child had been a woman, underneath Roger
Goodell`s new policy, his domestic policy, this would have been a first
offense with mitigating circumstances -- meaning, if this child had been a
woman and there was a child present during this altercation, then he would
have been banned from the NFL with a right to appeal after a year if this
had been a significant other.

But because it`s a child, there are many people who are regarding this
as Adrian Peterson`s own business. Now, how someone disciplines their
child is their business within the confines of a certain portion of the
law. But when it steps over that line, it becomes a public safety issue,
which means it becomes our business. That means we`re the stake holders
here.

HAYES: And, Stacey, much of what I`ve seen has been skepticism and
fear about who draws that line and how it gets drawn, this idea that, you
know, child protective services in people`s houses, taking people`s kids
away, or criminalizing or making illegal a whole cohort of parents, as
Charles Barkley said, black parents in the South, but there`s lots of white
parents, I mean, across races, across regional parts of the country, right?
That`s the concern, who gets to make that call.

STACEY PATTON, SPARE THE KIDS: Yes, it`s a very real fear,
particularly in African American culture, we have this long history of
state intervention in black family life, going all the way back to the
plantation. It`s a very real fear.

But what we have to realize is that we`ve got to evolve our practices
because of the growing illegality of certain kinds of physical discipline
against children. There`s been the 50 years of research that shows the
negative impact of hitting children as they`re developing, particularly on
their brains, their biochemical responses that happened in their brains
that can alter the physical architecture of a child`s brain.

And so, you have pediatricians, educators, the mental health
community, social workers, teachers are all coming out against this. And
you have a culture that`s shifting away from this type of behavior of
children. And, for African-Americans, there`s a different kind of cultural
specificity to this problem in a perverse way in which we celebrate this.

Meanwhile, we have to look, pay attention to the growing racial
disparities in terms of school performance, in terms of who gets put in
foster care and how foster care is becoming a feeder to the juvenile
justice and adult prison pipeline.

HAYES: Goldie, when you heard this story, particularly the switch in
selecting the switch, as reported, what went through your head? What do
you think about?

TAYLOR: You know, there were a number of things that went through my
head. I remember my aunt telling me, you better stop crying before I give
you something you cry for. She wanted me to align my emotional response to
violence based on the threat of more violence. There were days I was
paddled in school, paddled by a neighbor, and beat the hell out of when I
got home, all for the same offense of not turning in my homework.

Let me tell you that the boys in my family got it even harder. I had
an uncle who felt strongly that either he kept you in line at home or the
streets would get you together. So, he fought damn hard to make sure that
13 of us living in and out of that house had all the structure necessary.
But he meted out discipline in a very, very severe way.

Unfortunately, it didn`t have the outcome that he was hoping for. So,
there`s not a man in my family alive who was born after 1186 because the
streets did take them. Those paddlings didn`t stop all of that. And I
think that`s one of the producers earlier tonight.

My uncle passed away of a heart attack in 1985. My cousin, Bookie and
I, about the same age. We went out back, took my uncle`s old ax and
chopped down the tree that he used to beat us with. We chopped it up in
pieces over hours and we burned it in his old trash file. That is the kind
of severe trauma that we had even in his death.

We weren`t happy that he was dead. But we were happy to be able to
burn that tree once and for all.

HAYES: And, Stacey, that point that the fear that without this then
comes chaos. I`ve seen repeated again and again all over social media,
people writing to me saying, look, you don`t understand the situation I`m
in trying to discipline my kids. And this is the thing, this is the thin
line over which, if I don`t have this, if this isn`t there, there`s no
structure. There`s no discipline. There`s just chaos.

PATTON: This fear goes all the way back to the plantation, where if
you spend some time reading slave narratives, you`ll hear the voices of
slave women who, with their children, with switches, would strip them naked
like Peterson did his child.

HAYES: Allegedly.

PATTON: They would say, look -- allegedly -- look, if I don`t do
this, a whipping by me is much better than at the hands of an overseer.
Fast forward to modern times where you have black parents say, look, if I
don`t whip my child, then my child will fall prey to the streets or a
police officer will kill him and things will be much worse off.

So, this fear is very real. And I think we need to understand where
that fear comes from. But at the same time, we can`t fight oppression with
more oppression.

HAYES: As a parent, I would say, speaking firsthand, that you`re
never more desperate, more panic, more sort of near the edge of your
capacity than when you feel like your child is in the edge of danger, and
so, a situation which you always feel like they`re in danger put you in a
situation where you`re constantly on edge that way.

Stacey Patton and Goldie Taylor, thank you both.

PATTON: Thank you, Chris and Goldie.

TAYLOR: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: OK. All right. Yes. Yes. We pulled the fossil fuels out of the
ground. We put them in the incinerator. They put the carbon in the sky.
It warms the earth. Lots of bad stuff is going to happen, heat waves,
extreme weather, floods -- OK, sure. But I mean, really, is that the thing
I care about most? You know, there is all of these other issues in my life
that are much more depressing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: New film called "Disruption," is out. You can watch it
online. It was released by organizers of the people`s Climate Action. I
appear in it, as you can see. It is an action that organizers are saying
will be the largest climate March in history, set to take place this
Sunday, September 21st in New York City. Participants marching down from
Columbus Circle to midtown.

It is time for a very specific reason to put the fear of God into the
folks more than 120 world leaders were attending the climate summit at the
U.N. next week, which will be the biggest gathering seeking to address
climate change ever. And, that is happening right here in New York City.
And, one of the most important voices in that discussion, a ground breaking
voice will join me ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: The broader military campaign against ISIS has now begun.
According to U.S. Defense Official who told NBC News that an American air
strike near Baghdad today marked the beginning of intensified action
against the militant group in Iraq.

It is the first phase of efforts to, quote, "Degrade and ultimately
destroy ISIS," announced by President Obama last week. But, it will not be
enough to satisfy a small faction in Washington pushing for ground troop in
Iraq and Syria, including Congressman John Fleming, who is called for,
quote, "All out war - shock and awe" and Senator Lindsey Graham.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA SENIOR SENATOR: It is going to
take an army to beat an army. And, this idea will never have any boots on
the ground to defeat them, and Syria is fantasy. This is a war we are
fighting.

It is not a counterterrorism operation. This is not Somalia. This
is not Yemen. This is a turning point on the war or terror. Our strategy
will fail yet again. This President needs to rise to the occasion before
we all get killed back here at home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: This group of people calling for ground troops may be
relatively small in number. But, they are successfully pulling the
conversation towards all-out war. And, a good example of this is the way
this graphic operated on Fox News was flagged today on Twitter.

One of the graphics has them saying the U.S. has conducted 160 air
strikes against ISIS in Iraq, while the other has military action has yet
to commence. Military action it appears has not started until there are
combat troops fighting on the ground. Meanwhile, new polling seems to
perfectly capture the public`s deep and bill and surround this entire
enterprise.

Get this, a solid majority of Americans support the President`s
decision to take action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria while only a small
minority have much confidence the U.S. will actually be able to accomplish
its goals there. The country wants us to bomb ISIS and does not think it
will work.

And, that pessimism has a lot to do with the complicated mess on the
ground, especially in Syria, where as "The New York Times" wrote in
editorial this weekend, quote, "Groups identified by western intelligence
agencies as a moderate opposition have been weak, divided and without
coherent plans or sustained command structures."

Compare that to ISIS, the biggest and best organized insurgent force
inside Syria, now controlling over 35 percent of the country according to
the London-based Syrian observatory for human rights. All that takes in
large part to its unprecedented funding. According to the Associated
Press, "The extremist group brings in more than $3 million a day from a
combination of oils smuggling, human trafficking, death, and extortion.

Joining me now to discuss how that money works is Dr. Denise Natali.
She is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for National Strategic
Studies. OK. I have seen so many articles now about the funding of ISIS
and still do not quite understand it. So, just to be real basic, what do
we mean when we say they are bringing in $3 million a day? How do you even
do that in the circumstances in which ISIS exists?

DENISE NATALI, INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL STRATEGIC STUDIES SENIOR
RESEARCH FELLOW: Right. These figures of $3 million a day, you know,
could be exaggerated. We could go on the low end. There has been a change
in the scope of ISIS revenue flow since June as it has taken control over
some key oil fields in Iraq and in northeastern Syria. So, that at
minimum, some of the smuggling is bringing in between $1 and $1.5 million a
day just in the oil smuggling.

HAYES: So, they control oil fields and refineries, if I understand
this correctly, right? They can actually get refined oil and find
smugglers and just do an exchange like a drug deal? Is there a suitcase of
cash? How does this work?

NATALI: No. They do not have -- Again, these fields, you know,
require refinery and production. They do not have the capability,
necessarily, to produce. But, what they can do and what they are doing is
getting the oil and smuggling it out to areas and using this types of make-
shift refineries, whether that be in Syria, whether that have been
initially to the Kurdistan region of Iraq.

And, then, getting it out through largely Turkey in the north. That
is one part of it, because the other part of it is selling this oil, the
smuggled oil and confiscated oil to local agents, the way that business has
been going on for a very long time. So, you are selling it to gas
stations, middle men, smugglers. And, they are making a cut as well. So,
there is a lot of people in this smuggling chain making a lot of money.
And, that is why it is going to be difficult to break, as well.

HAYES: So, what I am hearing here is that before ISIS, there has
existed a fairly robust, sophisticated black market for oil. And, there is
all sorts of things that existed to make that possible. These kinds of
transactions in the scale we are talking about with amount of money, ISIS
then comes in and they do not have to build that market from scratch. It
is kind of dare for them to tap into is what you are saying.

NATALI: This has been going like in the oil for fill smuggling trade
in the 1990s, when oil traders were making money. And, this is a control
of roads. This is a trucking industry. So, part of that network has been
put in place since the `90s. And, again, since 2003, has been able to grow
because you have a weakened state. You have ungoverned spaces. You have
borders that are no longer able to be controlled. So, that by December of
2013 whether we want to call it ISIS, the former AQI, they are making $8 a
month just in this oil extortion.

HAYES: So, they are bringing this money in. Again, how does this
work? Like they also have a payroll, right? I think this is an important
thing to understand about ISIS. They have got tens of thousands of troops
under arms. A large part of those people are people getting paid. They
are a paid army. They are going to pay them. How does the money work?
Are these dinars, Iraqi dinars? Are they American dollars? Is it script
credit?

NATALI: Right. Some of it -- Again, it depends on where it is
going. When it is going locally, they are being paid in the local
currency.

HAYES: OK.

NATALI: I mean it depends if it is going to the local gas stations,
for example. And, some of these other money, and this is not the only
part, it can be coming from overseas, too and being paid in different
currencies. Where it is being used and where it is going is how the
currency is going to be determined. A lot of this is local. When it goes
out, however, by the time it gets to the end user, you can be using a
different currency, as well. And, this is where again, I emphasize where
it is being sold at the Turkish border through Syria and through Iraq.
This is a very key point, where this money is being channeled out --

HAYES: So, that seems like the kind of Nexus point for the kind of
black market and the legitimate market is sort of laundering operation is
at the border. Denise Natali, thank you very much.

NATALI: Certainly.

HAYES: Accountants -- accountants are friends. People we trust.
They have run the numbers and they got news. We have got 20 years. I will
explain, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: There is an annual tradition at the Oscars where amid all the
glamour and the celebrities, the nerds get their moment in the sun.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Who will win? Who will bate an Oscar
glory, tonight. Right now, Rick Rosas and Brad Oltmans, accountants at
Price Waterhouse Coopers and the only people on earth who know.

RICK ROSAS, ACCOUNTANT AT PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS: The backstage is
the accountants of the Oscar social security certainly humbling and reminds
you why you are an accountant.

(LAUGHING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Hollywood puts its safe in the accountants from Price
Waterhouse Coopers to count the Oscar votes and that is because, well,
people trust accountants. At least they did before the whole Enron Arthur
Andersen accounting scandal. I mean the idea is that accountants are
independent, right? They are not betting on Meryl Streep to win or try to
boost an underperforming movie. They are just counting the votes, running
the numbers.

Well, now, Price Waterhouse Cooper has run the numbers on another
topic almost as important as the Oscars. Climate change. Here is what
they found. We are now 20 years away from catastrophe. 20 years, like my
kid is 23 in 20 years. They concluded that the G-20 nations that U.S. and
most of the world`s other major economies need to cut their annual energy-
related emissions by one-third by 2030 and by just over 1/2 by 2050 to
avoid a global climate disaster.

And, here is my least favorite part. And, again, this is not from
some lefty environmental group. This is from vulnerable accounting firm,
Price Waterhouse Coopers, at current rates, we are headed to a global
increase of more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

Now, 7 degrees, how to think about this. Think about what would
happen if you had a 7-degree fever. What would it mean if you or someone
you loved had a temperature of 105 degrees? That is what we are looking
at. But, now, right now, this moment, we are coming to one of the best
windows of opportunities to change things.

This weekend in New York, which is being build as a largest climate
march in history will take place. And, then two days later, the U.N.
climate summit with 125 head of state including the leaders of the U.S.,
U.K. and France will gather to take the first step toward a global
solution. A former President will join me to talk about how the world can
finally get the job done, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: I promised you a former President and I have a former
President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon. He is a former president of Mexico.
Tomorrow, a grouping shares will release a report at the U.N. arguing that
major emission cuts are possible to pull off while continuing strong
economic growth. It is a pleasure to have you here, Mr. President.

FELIPE CALDERON, FORMER MEXICO PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

HAYES: OK, I want to play you an argument made by an American
Congressman that is the most sophisticated argument people take in the U.S.
against us doing something to put a price on carbon or cap it. Take a
listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Well, there is a concern with global
warming. We know this that there is no way that the United States by
following -- and even the administration said this themselves, by following
their own plan will reduce the temperatures, globally. They are just
saying we want to be the -- we want to be face of people to take
responsibility for it.

Now, the rest of the world is not going to follow that. And, so
because of all these different things that are put in these caveats is not
going to change anything. But, the effect of it is that each American is
going to pay the price for a public relations piece.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: So, the idea is we can be the do it alone. And. we are going
to go and cut off our nose to spite our face and we are going to have
higher field cost and we are going to have less economic growth. And, the
rest of the world is going to say, ha ha, you silly Americans. And, the
problem will not be solved.

CALDERON: No one is saying that the Americans need to do everything.
So, what we are saying is all we have a common responsibility.

HAYES: Right.

CALDERON: We need to fulfill that responsibility according with our
own capacities. So, we are saying in our report that there is a way in
which we can get economic growth and, at the same time, attacking climate
change. That is possible.

HAYES: So, you do not think the argument, which is that we will pay a
cost. It will be bad for us to do these things for our economy. It will
cost us jobs. You do not buy that?

CALDERON: What is going to be really bad for everyone, including the
Americans, is the climate change. As you were saying, being 7 degrees at
the end of December is going to be impossible to afford by any means. So,
the ways that there is an alternative in which we can get the jobs we are
looking for. We can get the economic growth what we are looking for and at
the same time, to reduce the climate risk. But, in order to do that, we
need to change three big systems, which our energy, cities and it is
possible.

HAYES: Americans might listen to this and say OK, fine, yes, but how
about someone else goes first? Other people do it and then we will -- or
for instance, the big argument we hear in Capitol Hill is China. China is
going to do it. If China does not do anything, we are screwed anyway. So,
China, if you jump in the pool first, we will jump up in after you.

CALDERON: We need to end this kind of finger point strategy and start
to take actions. Actually, China is going to take action and has taken
already. So, probably, China today is the largest country producing
renewal energy in the world. China is probably taking actions in order to
reduce pollution in Beijing and other large cities. And, the way to do
that, we need to provide some kind of instruments in order to get those
outcomes in an affordable way, and we are trying to do so.

HAYES: You have some credibility on this because you signed a climate
law in 2012, if I am not mistaken. And, I believe it was the first with
hard targets for emissions in a developing country, in Mexico. What were
the politics like that there? Were you getting beaten up in the same ways
that Barack Obama, on the EPA instance, is getting beaten up?

CALDERON: Well, in that sense, Mexico is suffering a lot from climate
change. Right now, today, the hurricane in the pacific is destroying part
of Los Cabos and the beautiful sea of Cortez. So, the point is we are
paying very high costs and all the country will pay for that.

HAYES: So, was that resonating politically. I mean was it the case
that Mexicans look out and they say, "Oh, man. We are already in trouble
right now. We are literally in hot water." People feel that?

CALDERON: Absolutely. Yes.

HAYES: That is kind of things people would say to each other.

CALDERON: It is very conscious. The members of the congress were
very responsible when they approved the law. But, now, we need to find a
way, how can we put in place all of those goals, and it is possible. But,
we need a global agreement. Nobody is saying Mexico, alone, could do that.
Nobody is saying that the United States could do that alone. We can do
that together, and that is the ideal.

HAYES: But, this is the big problem. And, it has been the problem
since, you know, it has been problem from Kyoto and it has been the problem
in Rio. Everybody gets together, there is hand waving and then we will
say, "Yes, we will do this."

CALDERON: Yes, but there are some successful cases. For instance,
the Montreal Protocol able to reduce the ozone hole.

HAYES: Right.

CALDERON: It is a great success. We can do the same with climate
change.

HAYES: The ozone hole is gone -- I mean it is basically gone.

CALDERON: Yes.

HAYES: The Montreal Protocol worked.

CALDERON: It is a successful story, yes.

HAYES: Yes.

CALDERON: And, we can make another successful story with this issue.
What is different now is the technology could provide us with an incredible
tool in order to reduce carbon emission, and the economic growth from
carbon emissions.

HAYES: All right. I have to ask you this. You are here. Obviously,
immigrations have been a huge issue here in American context, the crisis of
unaccompanied migrants in the border, who were not coming from Mexico,
through Mexico but from Central America. When you look at American
immigration politics and the response to that at the border and the way the
republicans have kind of dug in their heels against it, what is your
response to watching all of this?

CALDERON: What is clear is not working that kind of policy. And,
that law is not working. We need to fix that. Probably, what we can do is
to establish some kind of mechanism that allow people for instance to work
on seasonal basis. A lot of people only work -- wants to work for only two
to three months either in the winter or landscape person in the spring or
the crops in the summer. They have the chance to provide hard work to the
American society and economy and then go back to Mexico or Central America.

HAYES: So, you think there should be a more fluid system?

CALDERON: A flexible system could work much better, in that sense,
which is incredible is the current law is actually preventing the people
not to come into U.S., but going back to central America.

HAYES: You know, I remember -- I will never forget interviewing
someone, who was an undocumented worker who said that to me. That actually
it was the military in the border did not stop them from coming, it stopped
them from going back to go visit his family.

CALDERON: Exactly. A lot of people is unable to cross the border to
the south.

HAYES: OK. You also are famous for your war. I think there is no
other way against the cartels. It is a very militarized response. It has
been a very deadly period. There are different views about how successful
it was. My question to you, as you watch the U.S. experiment with
legalization of drugs in state of Washington, Colorado, is that going to be
good for Mexico?

CALDERON: Let me first say that what I was looking for was not
exactly the drugs themselves. I was looking for security of the Mexican
families and found the organized clan that it was overtaking cities and
towns in the America.

HAYES: But, is legalization good for Mexico?

CALDERON: We need to explore those kinds of possibilities. Actually,
I proposed the United Nations to open a big exclusion -- a global level in
order to observe -- we need to make changes.

HAYES: To legalization?

CALDERON: To legalization. And, it is completely needed to explore
that possibility.

HAYES: Former President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, thank you.

CALDERON: Thank you.

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

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

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>






Sponsored links

Resource guide