Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Wednesday,September 17th, 2014

Read the transcript from the Wednesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
September 17, 2014


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

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

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will not commit you
to fighting another ground war in Iraq.

HAYES: The president promises no ground troops in Iraq. As the House
votes to authorize his request to train Syrian rebels, they face strenuous
objection from some in the Senate.

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D), WEST VIRGINIA: If our military arms and trains
Syrian rebel, we`ll be involving ourselves in a ground conflict that we
cannot resolve.

HAYES: Plus, the president of Iran weighs in on the conflict in an
exclusive interview with NBC.

Then, the Vikings backtrack again on Adrian Peterson.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We made a mistake.

HAYES: A new call tonight for a resignation of a federal district
judge arrested for domestic violence.

CALLER: I`m calling, I need help.

DISPATCHER: What`s your name?

CALLER: Kelli Fuller.

HAYES: And an ALL IN exclusive with Naomi Klein on her new book and
why she says the right is right on climate change.

ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

In a speech before American military personnel today, President Obama
said again the U.S. military campaign against the militant group ISIS will
not be, quote, "another ground war in Iraq".

But already, there`s pressure from lawmakers and reportedly even
military advisers to expand the U.S. role in the fight against ISIS.

In a few minutes, I`ll talk with Ann Curry live from Tehran, with her
report on the surprising comments by Iran`s president on U.S. ground
troops.

But, first, tonight, the House passed a measure authorizing the Obama
administration to train and equip the rebels in Syria, by a vote of 273-
156. It was amended to a government funding bill and it now goes to the
Senate where debate is set to begin tomorrow afternoon with the vote soon
to follow.

On the Senate floor this morning, Senator Joe Manchin made a case
against arming the Syrian opposition.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANCHIN: I strongly believe that if our military arms and trains
Syrian rebels, we will be involving ourselves in a ground conflict that we
cannot resolve, where potentially everyone involved is our enemy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Senator Manchin will join me in just a moment.

President Obama visited MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida,
today, the home of the U.S. Central Command, to reiterate unambiguously his
pledge not to deploy American combat troops.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I want to be clear: the American forces that have been
deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. They will
support Iraqi forces on the ground as they fight for their own country
against these terrorists. As your commander-in-chief, I will not commit
you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in
Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That sentiment was echoed by Secretary of State John Kerry
later also today at a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: I want to be clear -- the U.S. troops
that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission.
Instead, they will support Iraq forces on the ground as they fight for
their country against these terrorists.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: But just a few hours after the president`s speech, the White
House press secretary told reporters the door might still be open to
forward deploying U.S. military advisers with Iraqi combat troops,
something numerous Republican senators have been calling for and the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs made headlines he`d be open to. That`s a real
distinction between embedding military advisers with Iraqi forces and
sending in actual combat units. But make no mistake, imbedding those
forces would mean putting American service members in harm`s way.

There`s been a steadily increasing mobilization of American boots on
the ground in Iraq already, as pointed out in this tweet with a number soon
to exceed a total of 1,500.

As the role of U.S. combat troops emerges as the central access of
political debate in the U.S., what is increasingly clear is what ISIS
wants, a full fledged war with the United States. They first sent that
message by murdering two Americans on camera, now released a new propaganda
video, a movie trailer for the coming war against the U.S. entitled "Flames
of War: Fighting has just Begun."

We should note, we don`t know when or where these images were taken.

They also released this other propaganda video. It looks like a
"Grand Theft Auto" style videogame dramatizing the violence unleashed by
ISIS, in a way that might appeal to the young men that they are targeting
for recruitment.

With Congress now weighing a response, some are urging the
administration not to give ISIS what they so clearly want. Despite the
risks of giving arms to rebels in Syria, Senator Joe Manchin told me the
House vote today wasn`t unexpected.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MANCHIN: I know the pressure that`s been put on. I know they`ve been
working it hard. Leadership on both sides, when you have John Boehner and
Nancy Pelosi both speaking out of the same hymnal.

I just -- I don`t know what the past 13 years, where people have been.
What else do we need to see unfold, Chris, for us to see this playing over
again? And I don`t know why we`re going to be drawn in.

And I think the president gave a good speech. He was resolute and he
came out strong, laid out a good plan, except for this part of the plan.
You know, why aren`t the people in the neighborhood, why aren`t the Saudis
stepping to the plate? Why aren`t the Turks and the Jordanians and the
Egyptians, why aren`t all of those, why aren`t the Arab and Muslim
countries and the neighbors in that who really have more to fear than
anybody else, immediate fear, why aren`t they?

And I said this should be a ground game, they should be the training,
they should be the forces in place. They have armies ready. They have
people who are trained to fight these barbaric terrorists.

We`ll give them the air support. I`m all for that. This doesn`t make
any sense for us to go in and embolden them, the ISIS, and use it as a
recruiting tool against us. It just gets us more and more drawn and
trapped in a civil war. That`s just what we need now another civil war in
Syria to be drawn in for how many years?

HAYES: What are you planning to do when this now moves to the Senate?
There`s been talk of a vote fairly soon, through unanimous consent. Are
you going to object to that? What do you want to see the Senate do? What
are you going to do?

MANCHIN: I`m going to ask to separate it. I`m going to pull it out.
I don`t think it should be -- at least give us -- just give us the dignity
of voting on it separately. In the Senate, shouldn`t we say that this is
important enough that it should be a separate vote?

I`m sure everyone -- it`s not going to change the votes. But don`t
you think they`re making me and other people that believe as strong about
this issue as I do, Chris, they`re saying, OK, we`re going to put it in the
continuing resolution, which is what continues to fund the government for
the next few months. And guess what? We`re going to put one of the
biggest foreign policy decisions in the same thing.

And I guess if you vote against it, you`re saying you`re voting to
shut the government down. I absolutely am not. We have until the end of
September. We have enough time.

And this deserves a debate. It deserves separate votes, but if that`s
what I have to do, I will make that vote because I feel so strongly against
what they`re doing.

HAYES: There was a report today that in a classified briefing, CIA
expressed -- members of CIA expressed misgivings and doubts about the plan,
about arming and training up Syrian rebels to fight ISIS and to fight Assad
inside the Syrian border. Your reaction to that?

MANCHIN: Well, I guess they`re using their common sense, they`re
using their experience, they`re using what history has provided to us to
date. Thirteen years we`ve been in that part of the world, and I said
this, if military might or money would have changed it, we`d have done it
by now, Chris.

We`ve spent almost $1.7 trillion over there in those two wars. We`ve
lost almost 7,000 Americans. We`ve wounded more than 50,000. And have we
made a difference? Is Iraq safer, is Afghanistan in good shape? Is any of
this going to repeat itself?

I mean, I would think I would look and say, OK, guys, this hasn`t
proven out too good for us. Maybe we shouldn`t have a ground campaign over
there.

Let me just say this, Chris.

HAYES: Please.

MANCHIN: Even today, even today, the new ambassador for Iraq has
said, listen, your air support has helped us, we appreciate it. We don`t
need your ground forces. We don`t want them.

HAYES: Let me ask you one final question. The argument you`re
making, which I think is a strong and persuasive one based on the history
of the last 13 years -- why doesn`t that also apply the airstrikes? I
mean, if the idea is that military might can`t make things better, why do
you have confidence that airstrikes can make things better?

MANCHIN: If -- and we`ve seen the air strikes being successful, when
you had a ground game with the Iraqi army in the dam that we have there,
around Mosul, the dam that we`re able to go -- and then yesterday we were
able to go and protect some of the troops. We can make -- we can make a
difference and make a level playing field for them. With that being said,
I`m OK with that. I`m OK with that support we have.

The bottom line is you have to have some sort of a ground game which I
do agree with. It just doesn`t have to be American troops` ground game.
You know if we go in to advice, to counsel to train, you know, I`m old
enough to remember the Vietnam War.

We didn`t start out in the military operation. We were drawn into
that advice, technicians, technical, and you see what happens. We have
very, very recent history to tell us this doesn`t work for us. This
doesn`t work. You can`t put us in this.

On top of that, Chris, you have the people that are fighting in there
now are Islamic. The people that they`re fighting against is the Assad
regime, and both ISIL and the people we`re supposed to go train are
fighting the same regime.

HAYES: That`s right.

MANCHIN: We`re going to try to convince them to turn right now and
fight ISIL, and what makes you think they`ll be loyal to America`s desires?
They`re not going to adhere to that. I understand it.

And anybody that thinks anything differently, unless we`re just going
to pay them and pay them more than anyone else and look at it as a
mercenary type of a job that we`re paying these soldiers of fortune, it
just doesn`t make sense, Chris.

And I would prefer us not be in this position and to put the Senate to
where we don`t have a chance to debate it. But we`re talking about now,
we`d like to see all sides come to the floor of the Senate and have just a
thorough debate. And we`re not going to get it.

So, here`s what we`re doing. Thank God that you`re allowing me to
come on and talk and put my position out there. I know it`s not going to
be a good vote basically if people were looking at it politically. I
wasn`t sent here by the people of West Virginia to make a political vote
for myself.

HAYES: Senator Joe Manchin, cable news is a thin substitute for
Senate debate, but I appreciate you coming on.

MANCHIN: Thank you, Chris.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HAYES: Senator Lindsey Graham and some of his colleagues aren`t the
only ones calling for boots on the ground in Iraq. They have an unlikely
ally in the head of state of Iran, President Hassan Rouhani.

In an exclusive interview with NBC`s Ann Curry, Rouhani questioned
President Obama`s decision not to deploy combat troops against ISIS.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRES. HASSAN ROUHANI, IRANIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): How
come they are doing only air strikes? Are Americans afraid of giving
casualties on the ground in Iraq? Are they afraid of their, you know,
soldiers being killed in the fight they claim it is against terrorism?

If they want to use plane and if they want to use unmanned plane so
that nobody is injured from the Americans, is it really possible to fight
without any hardship, without any sacrifice?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Joining me now from Tehran, Iran, where she interviewed
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani today is Ann Curry, NBC News national and
international correspondent.

And, Ann, it seems to me like the president of Iran is telling the
U.S., come on in, we`re fighting ISIS, we`d love to see you in there, too.

ANN CURRY, NBC NEWS: Well, actually what he`s doing -- I know it
sounds that way. But what he`s doing is mocking the United States`
commitment and basically saying that air strikes are not the solution, that
they are really more an act of aggression unless the Iraqi government and
the people of Iraq want to have air strikes. He`s actually not supporting
U.S. ground troops in Iraq, but he is saying that this -- that President
Obama`s strategy shows a lack of commitment. And that it`s not a good
strategy, that it will not work.

He said that Iraq -- excuse me that Iran is prepared to go its own
way. I know you probably know this. But Iran already has military
advisers on the ground in Iraq. It has been fighting ISIS or some call it
ISIL, since its inception. And it says that it`s committed if Iraq asks
for any kind of help that Iran will respond with whatever is required
including he said and especially the president said if religious sites in
Iraq are threatened, he did not rule out sending in Iranian ground troops
into Iraq -- Chris.

HAYES: You can imagine the situation in which you have Quds forces
and military advisers in Iraq, advising Iraqi soldiers in the fight against
ISIS. You have 1,500 American personnel and Special Forces. You can
imagine the situation of Iranian and American military advisers running
into each other or advising similar combat units. It`s a truly bizarre
situation.

CURRY: That`s exactly right, because as you know, there has not been
diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran for about 30 years
now. We asked President Rouhani about this. He said that there is not
direct cooperation or direct coordination. He said that any would be going
through the Iraqi government.

But, clearly, if the United States is having to deal with air strikes,
in other words as it`s calling for air strikes, if there are Iranians on
the ground, that does need to be coordinated or there could obviously be
bigger problems.

HAYES: It also seems that any solution in a regional sense to the
current situation both in Iraq and Syria is going to involve Iran which
basically views Iraq as a close ally and is also an ally of the Assad
regime. Did Rouhani give any sense of what they want to see as the
ultimate end state here?

CURRY: They want an end to ISIS. They believe that ISIS is against
Islam. It`s against -- what its done is against all religion, against all
humanity. President Rouhani said that he felt pity and sorrow for the --
after learning about the beheadings of the two American journalists, as
well as the British aide worker. They want an end to ISIS. And it`s clear
that they`re not going to stop until ISIS comes to an end.

HAYES: Remarkable. Ann Curry live from Tehran, thank you so much. I
really appreciate it.

All right. It just keeps getting worse for the NFL. Another running
back has been arrested and accused of domestic violence. That`s just
breaking within the last hour and a half. Details ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: In her new book, international lefty icon Naomi Klein says
conservatives are right about the climate -- well, at least one crucial
aspect of it. She will be here to explain, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Breaking news tonight from a league engulfed in scandal.
Another NFL player arrested, accused of domestic violence.

Phoenix police confirmed that Cardinals running back Jonathan Dwyer
has been arrested on suspicion of aggravated assault. In a press release
issued in the past hour police say he was arrested this afternoon on
allegations of aggravated assault for two separate incidents alleged to
have occurred in July. The victims listed on the press release are a 27-
year-old female and an 18-month-old child. Police say Dwyer denies any
physical assault.

They said Dwyer is being booked on the following charges -- aggravated
assault causing a fracture, aggravated assault involving a minor, criminal
damage and preventing the use of a phone in an emergency.

Within minutes of that news from Phoenix police, the Cardinals out
with this statement, "We became aware of these allegations this afternoon
when notified by the phoenix police and are cooperating fully. We`ve taken
the immediate step to deactivate Jonathan from all team activities." His
arrest comes as the NFL struggles to address public outcry over the way it
addresses domestic violence allegations against its players.

Just since last night, the Minnesota Vikings have reversed course for
the second time in a week. In addressing running back Adrian Peterson`s
indictment last week for reckless or negligent injury to a child for
allegedly beating his 4-year-old son. After initially suspending him, then
announcing the end to his suggestion just one game, the Vikings have now
reversed their decision to reinstate Peterson.

This latest reversal comes after public backlash including
condemnation from Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton and dropped sponsorships
from Radisson Hotels, suspending its sponsorship yesterday, to Nike
suspending its contract with Petersons today.

Vikings have changed their mind about Peterson playing in Sunday`s
game, placing him on something called the commissioner exempt list, or in
plain English, they got him to agree to a suspension with pay.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZYGI WILF, VIKINGS OWNER: We have given this issue much thought and
consideration since last Friday. We`ve decided that the appropriate course
of action for the organization and for Adrian is to put him on the exempt
list until the legal proceedings are complete.

We made a mistake. And we needed to get this right. It is important
to always listen to our fans, the community and our sponsors.

(END VIDEO CLI)

HAYES: Meanwhile, the era of scandal around the entire league has
only intensified. The NFL Players Association, the union for the players,
is appealing the indefinite suspension of former Baltimore Ravens running
back Ray Rice for knocking out his then-fiancee.

And following the Vikings` lead, the Carolina Panthers announced today
that defensive end Greg Hardy will also be placed on the exempt list.
Panthers allowed Hardy to play the first game of the season despite the
fact that he`d been convicted back in July of assaulting his girlfriend.

"Charlotte Observer" reported at that time that Hardy`s former
girlfriend said he put his hands around her throat, tossed her on a futon
covered with rifles and, quote, "looked me in the eye and told me he was
going to kill me."

Now, the attention turns to San Francisco 49ers defensive end Ray
McDonald who was arrested and is now being investigated for allegedly
hitting his pregnant fiancee. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that
the 49ers should bench McDonald amid the investigation.

Congresswoman Jackie Speier, a 49ers fan, stood on the House floor
this morning and ask, why hasn`t McDonald been benched?

And joining me now is Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Democrat from
California. She`s calling on the NFL to immediately suspend any players
who were arrested for domestic violence.

And, Congresswoman, your reaction to the latest news about Arizona
Cardinals` running back?

REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, it`s stunning revelation
that once again, we have another player who has clearly crossed the line, a
fracture. These are conditions that are grossly unacceptable.

We have 56 players that have been arrested for domestic violence since
Roger Goodell became the commissioner. And of those 56 who have been
arrested, only 13 games were suspended in total. Some of them got nothing
in terms of penalties. Some got fines. It is time to take seriously
domestic violence in the NFL and across this country.

HAYES: Congresswoman, let me just say, in the case of Jonathan Dwyer,
these are allegations, this is an arrest. And I think people would say,
and some of the teammates of Adrian Peterson said this in his arrest and
indictment, this is a country where you`re innocent until proven guilty.
That everyone has a right to due process.

Are you afraid that you`re essentially whipping up a mob to folks who
have been accused but not necessarily convicted of crimes?

SPEIER: No, actually I absolutely support the due process. And I
likened it to police officers that are first looked at for aberrant
behavior or use of excessive force. They are put on administrative leave
with full pay. And by benching them, what I`m suggesting is that they
continue to be paid a salary but that they do not play pending the due
process that takes place.

HAYES: Given the way that Roger Goodell has handled all this, do you
think he should resign?

SPEIER: I think that Roger Goodell should resign, I absolutely thing
so. Whether he does or not is probably, I think, unlikely. It`s something
that would be done by all of the teams, and I don`t see that happening any
time soon.

I think a lot`s going to depend on what the fan base does, what the
sponsors do, because in truth, this is really all about money.

HAYES: Finally, Congresswoman, I want to ask you about District Judge
Mark Fuller in Alabama. He`s a district judge arrested on domestic
violence charges. He pled guilty to a reduced charge.

He`s someone that you actually have the control over, in some sense.
He`s a sitting judge. You`re a member of Congress. He`s currently
collecting a salary.

Do you think he should resign or be impeached?

SPEIER: Well, actually, I think he should be impeached because what
typically happens -- and we have a couple of judges that have in effect --
one being impeached, one resigned before he was impeached. If they are
impeached, then they don`t get their plump pensions. If they resign, they
continue to receive those benefits.

HAYES: Congresswoman Jackie Speier of California, thank you very
much.

SPEIER: Thank you.

HAYES: As I just mentioned, a federal judge arrested for domestic
violence is now facing growing calls -- you just heard a new one there --
to resign or be impeached. They`re coming from the only people who can
fire him. That story is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: U.S. District Court Judge Mark Fuller is now facing calls to
resign from the only people who can actually fire him, including from one
of his home state Republican senators who recommended him for the job 12
years ago -- Alabama Senator Richard Shelby who today is calling on Fuller
to resign immediately.

Fuller, a 2002 George W. Bush appointee has been the subject of
heightened media scrutiny in the wake of the Ray Rice fallout for an arrest
that happened at the Ritz Carlton in Atlanta on August 9th after his wife
called and told police he was beating her. Here`s what that 911 call
sounded like.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

911 DISPATCHER: What`s going on?

KELLI FULLER: It`s domestic --

911 DISPATCHER: Excuse me?

FULLER: A domestic dispute.

911 DISPATCHER: OK. With yourself and who else?

FULLER: I`m calling, I need help.

911 DISPATCHER: What`s your name?

FULLER: Kelli Fuller.

911 DISPATCHER: OK. Do you need an ambulance?

FULLER: Yes, please.

911 DISPATCHER: Kelli? Kelli? OK. She needs an ambulance. I`m
sending the police. They`re in a domestic fight now at the Ritz Carlton.

911 DISPATCHER: Please help me. He`s beating on me.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

HAYES: According to police report, Fuller`s wife who had lacerations
to her mouth and forehead, said the judge threw her to the ground, pulled
her hair and kicked her after she confronted him over an alleged affair
with a law clerk.

Fuller accepted a plea deal for pretrial diversion that will
ultimately result in his arrest being expunged if he completes a once a
week family and domestic violence program for 24 weeks and undergoes a drug
and alcohol evaluation.

On the 11th Circuit, which oversees of the district court has removed
Fuller from hearing all cases. One of the remedies is allowed under law,
while Fuller continues to draw his annual salary of nearly $200,000. Since
withholding pay is not a remedy available to the 11th Circuit judicial
council.

In 2012, a Montgomery Circuit Judge sealed Fuller divorce records in
which the plaintiff is Fuller`s first wife alleged domestic violence, drug
abuse and the judge is alleged affair with the his court bailiff, who would
later become his second and current wife. As a lifetime tenured judge, the
only way to remove Fuller is for congress to impeach him.

But, Home State Senator Richard Shelby has called Fuller to resign
makes it a virtual chorus. Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri today
tweeting, "Federal Judge Fuller should resign." Congresswoman Terri Sewell
of Alabama, who will join momentarily also calling on Fuller to resign.

And Republican Congressman Martha Roby saying in a statement that
"Impeachment is the ultimate remedy if disciplinary action is not
satisfactory. The process should play out." Joining me now Chuck Dean,
Senior Political Reporter for the Alabama Media Group, AL.COM. Chuck, how
big a deal was Shelby`s statement today?

CHUCK DEAN, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER FOR THE ALABAMA MEDIA GROUP:
That is the proverbial 500-pound gorilla speaking. It is good that
Representative Roby and Sewell said what they did, but Richard Shelby is by
far and away the most powerful politician and certainly republican in this
state. And when he speaks, things tend to happen.

HAYES: This has been a pretty big scandal in Alabama as I understand
it. It has now got national attention. How much do you see the national
attention is getting related to the conversation that happened in the wake
of the Ray Rice video?

DEAN: Very much so. This was big news. It was seemingly running its
course and beginning to wane. And, then the Ray Rice thing exploded and
the timing could not have been worse for Fuller. Even though we had taken
a stand for his resignation some weeks ago that he should resign, it was
beginning to fade a bit.

And, then we saw what happened with Ray Rice. And, the timing is bad
for him and now this chorus of very powerful and important politicians in
this state are aligning against him, and I think it is a matter of time.

HAYES: Yes. I am curious, Judge Fuller has said -- I believe said he
does not intend to resign. His statement in the wake of the plea was
somewhat defiant. In fact, he regretted that the full facts could not come
out, but this is the best thing for his family, to move on. Do you think
he will resign as this chorus grows?

DEAN: It is. What you are hearing about Richard Shelby and the
congresswomen, but there is also a growing chorus of lawyers in this state,
plaintiff attorneys, others who are on social media and who are speaking
about the case and calling for his resignation. Fuller has said very
little since his initial statement, but the pressure is building each day
on the man.

HAYES: Chuck Dean, thank you so much for your time, sir. Appreciate
it.

DEAN: Thank you.

HAYES: And, joining me now is the aforementioned Congresswoman Terri
Sewell, Democrat from Alabama. Congresswoman, what do you want to see
happen with Judge Fuller?

TERRI SEWELL, (D) ALABAMA CONGRESSWOMAN: He should resign. I think
that, you know all acts of domestic violence are unacceptable and should
not be tolerated and no one should get a pass, especially those that are in
positions of authority, who have the right to enforce the law, they should
uphold the law. You know, domestic violence is a serious crime and it
deserves a serious consequence, not just a slap on the wrist.

HAYES: If he does not resign, will you move to impeach?

SEWELL: I think that he -- that I will, as well as the others in the
Alabama delegation move for an impeachment, absolutely. You know, I think
that it is important to note that if an NFL player can lose his job over
domestic violence, then surely a Federal Judge should not be able to have a
lifetime appointment on the bench. He should lose that as well.

HAYES: Are there larger concerns about the judge? I know that there
were allegations again, and it is a sealed divorce proceeding that he moved
to have sealed. Allegations of alcohol and substance abuse, there is no
way to know anything further than that. Those allegations remain in the
divorce proceeding, which, of course, does not mean they are true. But are
there further concerns about retroactively the record of this judge who has
been presiding for quite some time.

SEWELL: You know, I think that the harm has been done already. I
think that the fact is that, you know, the integrity of the court has
already been compromised by his actions and by his by subsequent arrests
and plea. And I think that, you know, we who are charged with appointing
and choosing these federal judges have an obligation to the public that
when the public trust is violated, that we do something about it.

And, that is why I have called for his immediate resignation. I was
glad to see that both senators, Senator Shelby and most recently Senator
sessions has called for his resignation as well. And, so, I really hope
that Judge Fuller will do the right thing and resign so that he will spare
us the expense and the public humiliation, Alabama, the public humiliation
of going through an impeachment proceedings.

HAYES: Congresswoman Terri Sewell of Alabama, thank you very much for
your time.

SEWELL: Thank you.

HAYES: Big news tonight to report out of Ferguson where a grand jury
has been investigating the shooting death of Michael Brown by a police
officer. Someone a lot of people have been looking for showed up. That
news, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Today, big news in the investigation into the shooting death
of 18-year-old Michael Brown. Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, who
shot Brown has shown his face, coming out of hiding for the first time
since August according to a report.

St. Louis Dispatch citing a single source reports that Officer Darren
Wilson, quote, "Testified for almost four hours, Tuesday, in front of a St.
Louis County Grand Jury investigating the August 9th shooting of Michael
Brown."

That comes against after a spokesman for the St. Louis County
Prosecutor in-charge in the investigation, Bob McCulloch, told MSNBC that
in the name of transparency McCulloch would be releasing the grand jury
transcripts and audio if the grand jury did not indict Darren Wilson and if
he could get permission.

Joining me now to discuss these developments, Lisa Bloom, Legal
Analyst for AVVO.COM, also an NBC News Legal Analyst and author of
"Suspicion Nation." All right, I have lots of questions Lisa about this
process.

LISA BLOOM, LEGAL ANALYST, AVVO.COM: I got answers.

HAYES: OK. Good. That is perfect. So, let us start with this
report that Darren Wilson testified before the grand jury. I should stress
again this is a single source in the St. Louis post dispatch. I have no
reason not to believe it, but we have not independently confirmed it. If
it is the case that he testified for four hours as the reports indicates,
how common is that, that someone who is possibly going to be indicted
testifies for that length of time before a grand jury?

BLOOM: It is exceedingly rare because the defendant does not have a
right to testify in front of a grand jury. Most of the time the
prosecutors do not want to call them and most of the times the defendants
themselves do not want to come in and testify, because they give the state
a preview of their testimony and they waive their fifth amendment right.

You know, Chris, what strikes me here is that every time this
prosecutor has had a choice of two different options, he has chosen the one
that leans towards the defense. He did not recuse himself. He did not
file charges against Darren Wilson himself as he could have. And, now he
is allowing Darren Wilson to testify in front of the grand jury.

HAYES: OK. Explain that distinction, because that to me is crucial.
When you say he did not file charges against Darren Wilson, himself, as he
could have --

BLOOM: Right.

HAYES: He is presenting this case before the grand jury. So, what do
you mean by that?

BLOOM: Right. Because he had a choice. He could have filed charges
himself and had are a preliminary hearing, which is extremely common. That
takes normally about one day. You put a couple of police officers on to
talk about their investigation. You only have to establish probable cause
and now you are good and now you have to go ahead and prepare for trial.

Instead he chose a grand jury which is a very long process. It is now
extended to January, and it is completely secretive. And, if there is no
indictment he can say, "Well, do not blame me. Blame the grand jurors."

HAYES: Yes. And, there is also this report, the St. Louis County
Prosecutor`s Office is taking an unusual approach, instead of telling grand
jury members what charges they believe Police Officer Darren Wilson should
face. They are leaving it open ended for now and involving the grand jury
as co-investigators. What does that mean?

BLOOM: Yes. That is another one. So, once again every choice they
make leans toward the defense. Listen, prosecutors have to be concerned
about bringing justice. They have kind of a dual role, but they are also
normally an advocate for prosecution and an advocate for the victim. I do
not see anyone in this grand jury room, who is an advocate for Mike Brown
because every time they have a choice, they make a choice that helps the
defense.

HAYES: So, normally -- let us say in a circumstance where we were not
talking about a police officer shooting and killing someone, but police
show up at the scene and a citizen shot and killed someone.

BLOOM: Right.

HAYES: That person would be booked and arrested and charged right
away, right? There would not be some long grand jury process.

BLOOM: That is correct. And, very often it would be again by way of
a preliminary hearing where the prosecutor examines all of the evidence,
decides what the charges would be, and then goes forward with the
preliminary hearing. And, if it is a grand jury, the prosecutor is an
advocate.

They do not just throw everything out there and say, "Hey, citizens,
you figure out if there is something here." Those citizens are not
attorneys. They are not prosecutor. They are not criminal attorneys, so
they do not know what the right charges are. There needs to be an advocate
in there explaining to them what they are supposed to be doing.

HAYES: Lisa Bloom, NBC News Legal Analyst. Thank you so much.

BLOOM: Thank you.

HAYES: A much anticipated new book, seven years in the making, the
follow-up to the best seller, "The Shock Doctrine." Author Naomi Klein
will be here for an exclusive interview. That is ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: What if the right is right when it comes to the climate change
movement? Not necessarily in the way you think. You see there is this
argument in conservative circles that the fight against climate change is
not really about limiting carbon and saving the environment and the planet,
no.

It is a back door effort to impose lefty ideas on an unsuspecting
public. By this way of thinking, environmentalists are watermelons as one
book about the movements` true colors put it. They may be green on the
outside, but they are red on the inside. You get it? When we come back,
Naomi Klein, one of the world`s most celebrated liberal authors will make
the case that gets it exactly right. She will be here, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: This weekend New York City will play host to what is being
billed as the largest climate march in history and next week the U.N. is
holding a major climate summit. With the White House`s announcement of new
power plant regulations, there is now palpable momentum in the movement to
limit carbon pollution.

Conservatives to their part have been getting more sophisticated in
the way they fight against that movement, spending a lot less time denying
the science, which gets harder and harder in the face of overwhelming
scientific consensus on global warming. We just had the warmest August
ever, also the warmest May ever.

And, spending more time questioning the motives of the climate change
movement. The argument is that this whole thing is really about carbon.
It is about the left trying to seize power, get rid of free enterprise and
push socialism on the American people.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE WILL, PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING JOURNALIST: Global warming is a
socialism by the back door.

STEVE FORBES, JR., AMERICAN PUBLISHING EXECUTIVE: The fact of the
matter is global warming, David, is simply socialism in drag. Socialism
does not work, so you bring it back in green environmentalism.

RUSH LIMBAUGH, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That is what global warming is.
It is merely a platform to advance communism. That is all it is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Now, in a very provocative and I might say excellent new book,
one of the left`s most celebrated and influential authors across the world,
Naomi Klein says, "Yes, that is right." Klein says, conservative fears
about what climate change means for the global economy are well founded.
She argues, the only way to actually fix the problem is to completely
revolutionize the way we do everything including global market capitalism.
And, Naomi Klein joins me, now. Thank you for being here.

NAOMI KLEIN, AUTHOR, "THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING": Good to be with you,
Chris.

HAYES: The book is excellent and it is provocative. And, your
chapter title is "The right is right." So, I mean, you know, it is
television so I had to sell it a little hard. But, you have this --

KLEIN: Yes. I mean, it is not true that it is some sort of
conspiracy designed to smuggle in, you know, socialism and just using, you
know, climate change as a cover. The fact is if we are going to respond to
this crisis, we need to break a whole bunch of the free market rules that
these guys hold very dear. We need to regulate.

We need to get in the way of the fossil fuel companies, who have made
it clear that they are willing to dig up five times more carbon than our
atmosphere can absorb and still stay below catastrophic warming. We need
to invest heavily in the public sphere. We need to do that to protect
ourselves from storms like Sandy, but also to lower our emissions so we do
not have more and more such extreme storms.

Now, I think -- I do -- I admit that I think that is good news. I
think it will create jobs. I think it will create more livable cities. I
think we will have cleaner air. I think we will have stronger communities
if we respond to this crisis seriously. But, I can understand why from a
hard core free market conservative perspective, if you live at the Cato
Institute and the American enterprise institute, this would feel like the
end of the world. It is not the end of the world. It is the end of their
world.

HAYES: What do you say to people that say, OK. Well, Naomi Klein, you
have these politics and these ideological priors, right? You wrote a best
selling book "No Logo," that was very skeptical of sort of global
neoliberal capitalism.

You wrote this book "Shock Doctrine," which is an amazing book and
sort of history of this era in global capitalism. So, you already sort of
believe this stuff and then you see global warming. You think, oh, well,
this is a useful tool for my ideological priors.

KLEIN: Well, I certainly already knew that there were problems with
capitalism, that there were problems with deregulated capitalism. And, it
is true that the same logic that lowers wages, that creates this global
race to the bottom, that slashes social safety nets, that is willing to
sacrifice people on the altar of economic growth and profit is also, by the
way, willing to sacrifice the stability of the support systems on which all
of life depends.

That is just an extension of the same logic. That is not saying, you
know, "OK. You wanted this, so now you think this." It is actually part
of the same story. It is the same logic that values basically nothing but
profit. That is what this system is built to do. So, you have all kinds
of enlightened billionaires, who say, "We have to do something about this."
You know? You have a Michael Bloomberg or Richard Branson --

HAYES: Yes.

KLEIN: -- or a T. Boone Pickens. You know, I talked in this book
about the parade of billionaire saviors that we have seen over the years,
but they always come up short. You know, Michael Bloomberg`s billions are
invested in oil and gas. Richard Branson while he has been trying to save
the world has increased his fossil fuel emissions by 40 percent by going on
an airline buying spree.

And, I do not argue that this is because these guys or hypocrites and
evil. I think it is because they are locked within a system that tells
them that they have to keep increasing profits for shareholders and
pursuing growth and expansion. And, that is why, you know, the subtitle of
the book is "Capitalism versus the climate" because we have got a clash.

HAYES: When you talk about sort of unlimited growth and the kind of
ideology around growth and the fact that things are dependent on growth,
right? A business could be making 50 percent profit this year; but if it
is going to make less profit next year, even if is going to be profitable,
it is going to have a hard time in capital markets, right? So, there is a
sense that like Taco Bell always got to sell more food, so they like invent
a fourth meal and everyone got to sell more.

There was an era of conversation about this in the 1970s, sort of
limits the growth and there was this feeling that those people were wrong
and proven to be wrong because they were predicting all kinds of things
that did not necessarily come true, mass starvation, for instance. What do
you think the lessons are from that fight in the 1970s about this battle
over whether we can have eternal growth or not?

KLEIN: Well, I think that where the environmental movement has gone
wrong in the past has been in making these scarcity based arguments that we
are going to run out of resources and we are all going to starve or we are
going to run out of fuel, right?

You know, we are running out of petroleum. The problem that we
actually face is not that we are hitting peak oil. It is that we have too
much fossil fuel. It is that they keep finding new reserves. They keep
finding new ways to get it out of the ground.

So, yes, these scarcity based arguments, a lot of them, have been
proven wrong. That is not the argument I make in the book. One thing that
the limits of growth authors got right is they warn that we were going to
overburden the earth`s natural syncs with pollution. And, on this, it is
absolutely right.

Where we are hitting the limit is what our oceans can absorb. We are
seeing rapid acidification and what our atmosphere can absorb. So, they
got it right on pollution and they got it wrong on the scarcity questions.
And, that is the real problem. This will not just happen naturally. We
will not just run out of fossil fuel just in time to save ourselves. We
actually need to deliberately get off the stuff.

HAYES: And, that becomes the question about, "OK. Well, how do you
make that happen? Because, the strongest argument I hear from people,
frankly -- sadly, when I am arguing people and I have these arguments when
I was talking to someone from coal country who says, "It is not, oh, global
warming is not happen." They will say, yes, it is happening. It is, well,
if we do something, China is then just going to emit and this is a big
problem and it is like you are in an airplane with a no smoking section.
And, you do not smoke but you are just getting everyone else is smoke.

KLEIN: The issue is that, that the logic of competition within our
countries and also between our countries is preventing us from responding
collectively to what is genuinely a collective crisis. You know, I have
hanged around with the climate and the ultimate collective crisis. It
forces us to work together.

And, I have gone to these climate change denier conferences. I have
interviewed some of the leading climate change denier, and this is the part
that they hate the most. This is when they say it is a communist plot.
What they mean is that we cannot respond to this without a redistribution
of wealth, because there has to be.

We have to help developing countries to leapfrog over fossil fuels
that requires transfers of technologies, that requires a justice-based
approach. And, to them, that is the end of the world. Like I said, it is
not end of the world. It is just the end of that highly individualistic
zero sum game kind of thinking.

And, it is possible to do this. It just is not possible to do this
without having a real debate about what kind of values we want to govern
our societies. And, part of the problem I think we face is that we have
got -- the whole discourse of the green movement for the past 20 years has
been -- OK, it is the opposite of what the climate change deniers claim.
They have been desperately trying, a large part of the green movement, have
been desperately trying to reconcile this crisis with free market.

HAYES: Right. Life will be the same. It is just the thing you plug
it into is going to be different and everything is going to be the same.
This is a really provocative book, an excellent book. I have a lot of
different thoughts. Maybe we will continue after the show, but it is
really great to have you here.

KLEIN: Great to talk with you, Chris.

HAYES: All right. Naomi Klein. Speaking of climate change, this
program we know, in just over two weeks we will premiere our brand new
series "All In America Coal Country." From West Virginia to North Carolina
to North Dakato to Kentucky to Georgia, to Mississippi, we examined
everything from coal`s impact on politics and health to what the future of
American energy could look like.

That will be a long series starts right here on MSNBC at 8:00 P.M. on
October 6th. You do not want to miss it. And, that is "All In" for this
evening. "The Rachel Maddow Show" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thanks, man.

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