Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Tuesday, September 30th , 2014

Read the transcript from the Tuesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

September 30, 2014

Guest: Peter Hotez, Steven Horsford, Tom Ridge, Kai Bird, Todd Rutherford,
Philip Cook


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

REP. STEPHEN LYNCH (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I wish to God you`d protect the
White House like you`re protecting your reputation.

HAYES: Harsh words on the Hill for the Secret Service.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever heard of these guys?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Someone should be held accountable.

HAYES: And a push for lethal force.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The would-be intruder cannot be stopped by a dog or
intercepted by a person. Perhaps more lethal force is necessary.

HAYES: Is more White House security really the solution? I`ll ask former
Homeland Security chief, Tom Ridge.

Then, the first Ebola case diagnosed in the U.S.

Plus, the attorney for a man shot by a South Carolina trooper joins me

How much do you drink? Surprising numbers on just how much alcohol America

ALL IN starts right now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ah, thanks. I needed that.


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

We are following breaking news out of Texas tonight where doctors have
diagnosed the first case of Ebola here in the United States.


this hospital has tested positive for Ebola virus, the cause of Ebola virus


HAYES: The patient, an adult man is currently being treated in isolation
at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas. He left Liberia 11 days
ago and arrived in the United States on the 20th of September to visit
family. About four or five days later, he developed symptoms. He sought
care, was placed in isolation and, today, the test came back positive for

In confirming the diagnosis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
made it clear, Ebola is not an airborne disease and it can only be
transmitted when the patient is already showing symptoms.


DR. THOMAS FRIEDEN, DIRECTOR, CDC: Ebola does not spread from someone who
is not infectious. It does not spread from someone who doesn`t have fever
and other symptoms.

We will contact anyone who we think has had any likelihood of having had an
exposure to the individual while they were infectious. At that point, at
this point, that does not include anyone who might have traveled with him
because he was not infectious at that time.


HAYES: While the CDC says this is the first time a patient outside Africa
has been diagnosed with this particular strain of Ebola, they also made it
clear they do not expect the disease to spread.


FRIEDEN: The bottom line here is that I have no doubt that we will control
this importation or this case of Ebola so that it does not spread widely in
this country. It is certainly possible that someone who had contact with
this individual, a family member or other individual, could develop Ebola
in the coming weeks. But there is no doubt in my mind that we will stop it


HAYES: Joining me now is NBC News producer and reporter Charles Hadlock
who is in Dallas.

Charles, take me through the timeline here. We don`t know if this person
is a U.S. citizen or not. He left Liberia, presumably, he was tested,
right? There`s some protocol for flights departing Liberia to the U.S. in
which airline passengers are tested, correct?

CHARLES HADLOCK, NBC NEWS: Yes. That`s right. This is the first case
diagnosed in the U.S.

But the man is actually from Africa. He was in Liberia 11 or 12 days ago.
And before you get in a plane on Lagos, Nigeria, or any of the large
airports that fly to the U.S., you are screened. Your temperature is

Apparently, he did not have a fever at that time. That means he is not
contagious with this disease. He flew on a flight to somewhere in the
United States. We don`t know yet. But he has family here in Dallas. And
that`s where he ended up on September 20th.

Now, four days later, he appeared at the hospital complaining of symptoms.
They treated him, but he did got show all the signs of Ebola. He came back
on the 28th and was admitted at the time. And they did a test yesterday.
It was shipped off to Austin and Atlanta. This afternoon, it was verified
that this man does, indeed, have Ebola.

What will happen now, the CDC is sending teams of people here to retrace
his steps during the four or five days he was on the ground here in Texas.
They`re going to interview his family. They`re going to backtrack exactly
where he was.

He was not staying at a hotel. He was staying with friends and that`s
where the CDC will start their investigation.

Back to you, Chris.

HAYES: So, we have -- the key point here is that we have an incubation
period for the blossoming of symptoms. Luckily, the way Ebola functions is
that during that incubation system in which a patient is not symptomatic,
they also cannot transmit the disease -- thank goodness. Otherwise, we
would have a much bigger issue.

HADLOCK: Right, right.

HAYES: Right? So what the CDC has is kind of basic epidemiological
detective work is which they have to go now find every single person he
might have had contact with during that four, five, six-day period in which
he was showing symptoms.

HADLOCK: Correct. And the question is, did this man know he was exposed
to Ebola back in Africa? And if so, did he know that and use this time to
get to the United States, perhaps, for treatment? That`s one of the
questions that they`ll be looking at. But right now, we don`t know. Take
it at his word that he was not sick when he got on that plane headed to the

HAYES: Yes, I mean, given the way that that disease has moved through
Liberia, given, also, that the symptoms don`t obviously manifest in the
first place as Ebola as opposed distinct from a cold or a flu in the
initial phases. It seems at this stage, to give him the benefit of the

Charles Hadlock, thank you so much. Appreciate it.


HAYES: It is most likely that because the American health infrastructure
is so good, Ebola will not spread in the U.S., as the CDC director said.

But here`s the thing. As long as it continues to absolutely ravage West
Africa, we will almost certainly continue to see patients test positive
here after having travelled in the region, because as long as the outbreak
is not contained at its source, it will continue to spill over.

Just two weeks ago, the president committed to sending 3,000 U.S. troops to
the most effective areas to help stop the spread of the virus and
coordinate relief efforts. The first of those troops have started to
arrive. A team of U.S. Navy engineers began working this very weekend on
construction of a tent hospital outside Liberia`s main airport.

HAYES: Joining me now is Dr. Peter Hotez. He`s founding dean of the
National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine.

All right. Doctor, I want to start at an incredibly basic level, if that`s
OK with you, OK?

Tell me what an infectious disease is and tell me the method by which Ebola
is transmitted!

disease is a disease that`s associated with another organism, whether it`s
a microorganism like a virus or a bacteria, or a larger organism like a
parasite. And oftentimes, these infections are transmissible from one
person to another.

The good news is that the transmissibility of Ebola is actually rather low.
Many people are surprised to hear that. It`s not nearly as infectious as
something like measles or whooping cough or many other viral pathogens such
as influenza. So, that`s the good news for us.

HAYES: And the other thing that struck me is this kind of syncopation
effect in terms of the timeline of when you transmit the virus, when you
get the virus, and when you show symptoms, and whether you can give it to
someone else when you`re asymptomatic. I remember when I was doing
research and reading about the AIDS epidemic, part of what made it so
fearsome was this long latency period when someone could go around and have
no idea that they were, in fact, infected, show no outward signs of
infection, and pass the disease along. That does not exist in the case of
Ebola, am I right?

HOTEZ: That`s right. You are only going to pass Ebola from one person to
another if you`re sick, and when, of course, you have Ebola, you`re very
sick. So, that`s why the people at most risk are for Ebola virus
infection, for instance, health care workers who are actually handling the
secretions of infected patients or loved ones or handling secretions or
blood, or those who are burying the dead of loved ones.

So, it`s a fairly restricted group. The reason why we`ve seen this massive
outbreak in places like Liberia or Sierra Leone or Guinea is because their
healthcare infrastructure have been completely decimated after years or
decades of civil war. There`s a very poorly functioning health system,
making it difficult to isolate patients. And all of the things that we can
do here in Dallas, here in the United States.

So, I think Dr. Frieden was correct that the risk of this creating an
epidemic in Dallas or in Texas is practically zero.

HAYES: These are the fatality numbers. Over 600 people in Sierra Leone,
648 in Guinea, Liberia, 1,830 people have died. That doesn`t show the
number of cases, which is over 6,500.

What you just said strikes me important. Earlier, there had been some
thought that actually this strain of the virus was actually more
contagious. That it had a more rapid life cycle. That it was a more
potent strain. It now appears that it`s actually anymore potent, nor does
it reproduce any faster than earlier strains. It`s actually about the
social fabric of the health infrastructure in those countries that has been
the determining condition for how quickly and how powerfully it spread.

HOTEZ: Yes, I think you said it very nicely.

"The New England Journal of Medicine" just published an article which can
measure the infectivity of an organism and the likelihood it`s going to be
transmitted. We call it (INAUDIBLE) zero value.

And for Ebola virus, this outbreak has been calculated between one and two.
That means an index case, it`s no more likely to transmit to one or two
people, as supposed to some of the things we`ve talked about earlier,
measles or whopping cough, where it can be as high as 10 or more.

So, the single person can infect 10 or 20 people. Fortunately, we`re not
dealing with that now.

HAYES: So, we`re going to see what they`re going to do in Dallas, right?
There has to be a much bigger version done in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and
Guinea, across Africa in which health care workers are basically doing this
kind of detective work to find, isolate, treat and quarantine all of the
people that might be infected. You can imagine the scale of logistical
challenge they have on their hands there if you just think about what
people down in Dallas have to do.

Dr. Peter Hotez, thank you so much.

HOTEZ: Thank you.

HAYES: We`ll have much more to come, including the director of the Secret
Service on defense, trying to explain why it seems the Secret Service is in
chaos. I`ll talk to someone who was at that hearing and some pretty strong
words for the director.

Plus, former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge will be here to
answer some questions about where we`ve gone wrong with our approach to
security. That`s ahead.


HAYES: Here`s a question for you. Answer truthfully. How many alcoholic
beverages would you say you consume in a week? Five? Ten? None?

Coming up, I`m going to show you where you rank on a graph of America`s
drinking habits. It`s probably going to blow your mind.


HAYES: Today, there was yet another report from "The Washington Post" that
during a September 16th presidential trip to Atlanta, a security contractor
with a gun and three prior convictions for assault and battery was allowed
on a elevator with the president.

Today, the director of the United States Secret Service, Julia Pierson,
came before a Congressional House Committee to defend what is increasingly
beleaguered and embattled agency, following a major White House security
lapse and a series of bombshell reports from "The Washington."

First, there is the White House fence jumper from 11 days ago who we had
been told was detained inside the front doors of the north portico of the
White House itself but who, we learned yesterday, actually ran through
first floor of the White House and was tackled. And today, we learned,
always by happenstance, by an off-duty Secret Service agent who just
happened coincidentally to be in the house and leaving for the night when
he saw the intruder running by.

It was high theater and high dungeon on Capitol Hill in today`s hearing.


JULIA PIERSON, SECRET SERVICE DIRECTOR: It`s clear that our security plan
was not properly executed. This is unacceptable and I take full
responsibility, and I will make sure that it does not happen again.

REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: I have very little time, and I`m not --
the American people want to know if there is a president safe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you just let it linger out there that there was no
weapon? It was wrong. It was inaccurate.

fence be built. One that, for example, could curve, you know, still be
historic, that wrought iron fence, but with the curves going outward so
you`d damage one of your body parts if you try to get over it.

REP. CHRIS COLLINS (R), NEW YORK: The problem doesn`t seem to be the
fence. The problem seems to be the fact that someone jumped the fence, ran
70 yards, went into the White House with nobody stopping them.

LYNCH: This is this Secret Service against one individual with mental
illness. And you lost. You lost. And you had three shots at this guy.
What happens when you have a sophisticated organization with nefarious
intent and resources going against the Secret Service?

REP. JOHN MICA (R), FLORIDA: Have you heard of these guys? It`s not very
costly. You subscribe. But that can be installed. It`s a simple

REP. STEVEN HORSFORD (D), NEVADA: We don`t need a long, lengthy review for
someone to be held accountable.


HAYES: Director Pierson also answered questions about a 2011 incident
which occurred before she became head of the agency, an incident in which a
shooter managed to get seven bullets in the White House, squeezed off an
assault rifle, and the Secret Service did not realize those bullets had hit
the White House until four days later.

Pierson was, in fact, brought in to lead the agency in the wake of a major
Secret Service scandal, you may recall.


LESTER HOLT, NBC NEWS: What at least one expert is calling the biggest
scandal in Secret Service history.

REPORTER: They`re alleged to have brought prostitutes back to their hotel
rooms. Sources say there was a dispute over a payment which was brought to
the attention of authorities.


HAYES: Joining me now, Congressman Steven Horsford, Democrat from Nevada,
and a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Congressman --

HORSFORD: Hi, Chris.

HAYES: -- today was a bit of a pinyata exercise, I have to say, having
watched the hearing, although may be not unjustified.

Do you feel like you got clarity on exactly what happened, what went wrong,
and what`s being done to fix it?

HORSFORD: Well, during the general open session hearing that we had, there
were a number of unanswered questions that committee members had on both
sides of the aisle. As you know, Chris, we went into executive session and
were able to answer more in-depth questions to make sure that the president
of the United States is safe.

And I continue to be gravely concerned as the ranking member, Mr. Cummings
has said that there`s a lack of trust and confidence right now in how the
Secret Service is being run from the top. And we need them to have a surge
of resources to make sure that the events that have transpired recently and
prior to this never happen again.

HAYES: The executive session, just to clarify, that`s a close session,
right, with no threat, and which that more security detail can be offered
to members without exposing that to the public.

There was also a question today and I feel like this was not clarified,
which is that there is a real issue here with the truthfulness of what the
Secret Service said. I mean, they said he only got to the portico. They
said he was unarmed. Neither of those things had proven to be true. He
did have a small knife on him. He did actually get into the first floor of
the White House.

Did you feel like you had adequate responses to whether Pierson was misled
as director of Secret Service, or she was willfully misleading others in
giving false information?

HORSFORD: Yes, I think Director Pierson has done a disservice to the
president of the United States. This president should not have to worry
about his security and safety or that of his family or the staff of the
White House. I think that Director Pierson failed to disclose in a very
open and transparent way all of the information that she should have known.
And if they were holding back information, it was wrong. And it`s part of
what we tried to get out today.

What I want to see going forward, however, is that the president is safe,
that his family is safe, and that we`ve the resources in place so that the
White House can remain open, as the, you know, centerpiece of our nation`s
capital to the public when they visit the nation`s capital.

HAYES: Do you think we`re going to see? I mean, it seems to me -- I`ve
already seen calls for higher fences and moving checkpoints out. The day
afterwards, I got to say this, it almost seemed like an "Onion" article.
The day afterwards, there were other fences put outside the White House
fence that were only about four feet high, which didn`t seem like they are
really addressing the problems as far as I can tell.

Do you think you`re going to see calls to barricade the White House more?

HORSFORD: You know, I really hope not. What the director told us is
they`re completing their internal review. What I asked her is what is
being done immediately in order to make sure that the safeguards that can
be put into place now are. We were assured that that is happening.

We also asked what other resources, technology or tools they need in order
to guarantee that the president of the United States is safe.

HAYES: And to that final one, quickly, do you have any comment on the
latest piece in "The Washington Post" about this incident, in a elevator
with a private contractor who is armed in the elevator with the president
which, apparently, is a violation of protocol?

HORSFORD: If it`s true, someone needs to be held accountable. This is
about a lack of competence, and a problem with the culture in the agency.
It`s not just about cash and additional resources.

HAYES: Clearly not.

HORSFORD: And ultimately, someone needs to be fired over it.

HAYES: Someone needs to be fired. Congressman Steven Horsford, thank you
very much.

HORSFORD: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: All right. So, what if the answer to the security breakdown isn`t
more power and authority given to the people that screwed up in the first
place? That`s next.


HAYES: Major security lapses tend to follow a pattern in this country.
First, there`s a big security failure, and there`s a period of political
grandstanding, and finger pointing, and bureaucratic frenzy.

And then, inevitably, comes the only possible course of action -- more
security. No matter how and why our security apparatus failed us, we tend
to respond to it failing by making it bigger. Security lapses tend to be
thought in this country by higher fences, bigger walls, more people with

And today, one line of inquiry on the fence jumper incident came from
Congressman Jason Chaffetz, was echoed by Congressman Chris Collins,
basically along the lines of this guy should have been shot.


REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R), UTAH: I want it to be crystal clear. You make a
run and a dash to the White House, we`re going to take you down. I want
overwhelming force. Would you disagree with me?

PIERSON: I do want our officers and agents to execute appropriate force
for anyone attempting to challenge or breach the White House.

COLLINS: When they jump the fence, there should be an immediate
understanding this person should not be here and there should be an
immediate understanding that there`s not a restraint factor here. This is
not the nice, cuddly Secret Service that you`ve got on our property, let`s
move you back off.


HAYES: That is noted by a former Secret Service director, Ralph Basham, a
shooting would have also created an uproar.


here today discussing why an Iraq veteran possibly suffering through post-
traumatic stress disorder, armed with only a pocket knife was shot dead on
the North Lawn when the president and first family were not on the


HAYES: Joining me now is Tom Ridge, first secretary of the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, who served under President George W. Bush.

And, Secretary, I saw you nodding your head along the remarks of the former
Secret Service agent talking about how they could just as easily been in a
hearing with a dead Iraq war veteran. Do you think that was a good point
he made?

relevant point. I think actually, your introduction to my piece in this
evening`s conversation was very appropriate. Right now, we`ve got a lot of
political grandstanding. We`ve got a lot of finger pointing. Obviously,
what happened was unacceptable. The recent revelations about a security
guard with somehow got through a background check if a background check was
even initiated, that`s a problem.

But I think you have to put it in a broader context, it`s not a money
problem. It`s not a personnel problem. They got money, they got
personnel. People threw out the word "culture" a little bit too easily,
although it does suggest that the kind of attention to detail that they
historically paid has been lost. Somebody looked the other way when this
individual jumped the fence, so be it, others have jumped the fence,
they`ve been apprehended.

But I think the emotions ought to be cooled down. The two people that got
to be most concerned about this is the president and the vice president,
I`m sure they are, and in collaboration with the chief of staff and others
working with Secretary Johnson -- I`m absolutely confident they`ll repair
what`s broken. Obviously, something is broken, but nobody is in the
position to identify exactly what that is.

HAYES: It`s fascinating to hear this from you, because, of course, you
were the person who oversaw the implementation of this massive
reorganization and expansion of the American security apparatus, in the
wake of the biggest security breach in American history.

RIDGE: Right.

HAYES: We had, in 2001, our spending on the variety of things that`s` come
to be called the Department of Homeland Security was about $16 billion. By
2011, it was $69 billion. And it seems to me that we only have one way of
responding to security problems, which is more security, either in money
and resources in invasiveness.

Is there anyway to respond in a way that doesn`t end up being a one-way

RIDGE: Well, listen, I think it`s a very appropriate observation you just
made. I think when I started, we had 180,000 people. They tell me there`s
another 40,000 or 60,000 people that have been on top of that. I think
probably some more folks at NSA (ph) and air marshals and obviously more
people at the border, whether or not we needed to see that massive growth
of people, and whether or not it enhanced our security remains to be seen,
I have not done a deep enough dive to draw any conclusions.

But I dare say that you should always be prepared to rethink about what
you`re doing. And sometimes, it is a matter of protocol and internal
effort and coordination that requires somebody to sit down, understand
completely and do rigorous self assessment what went wrong and then fix it.

And sometimes, it doesn`t need additional money. Sometimes, it needs more
technology. Sometimes, it just means better leadership. Somebody is
setting the bar higher, raising expectations and then training and
executing on that game plan.

It doesn`t always mean more barriers and more bodies. And I`m afraid the
first -- I mean, some of the members of the House today was more and more
barriers and more and more challenges -- more and more physical. I don`t
think we want to turn our White House into a fortress.

HAYES: You know, I`ve been stuck watching the debate, which we are going
to talk about in a moment over ISIS and the intelligence about it in which
you`re getting talks about whether what the Defense Intelligence Agency
knew and what the CIA knew and what the NSA knew.

And of course, we have -- you know, over a dozen intelligence agencies and
the intelligence community and there was legislation and the Office of
Director of National Intelligence created specifically in the wake of the
9/11 failure to solve this problem. And yet here we are in 2014 and it
doesn`t look like the problem has gotten any better.

RIDGE: I obviously was privy to some of those discussions when they
created the department and I remember the several folks voicing concerns
that maybe you`re going to layer to your point earlier, one bureaucracy on
top of another.

I think when it comes to the ISIS example, and I think, frankly, for as bad
as what happened with regard to the White House a couple days ago, I do
think we had to sit back and say the director took total responsibility.
Obviously, she`s in charge.

She`s in top of -- she`s the commander of this operation and she accepted
accountability and responsibility. That`s an unusual event in this town,
generally. I look back and candidly, I took a look at the president,
basically pointing out the DNI perhaps being responsible.

At the end of the day, leaders accept responsibility if people in there
employ and make a mistake. At the end of the day, she accepted
responsibility. And, as bad as it was, I think we`ll let Secretary Johnson
and perhaps the president and the vice president and their team decide what
corrective actions should be taken.

Everybody is (inaudible) to fire or do this, do that. Let those in charge,
let Secretary Johnson and others make those decisions. It`s not for
Congress to make that decision. It`s really up to the White House.

HAYES: There is a lot of CYA happening in Washington. Former secretary of
homeland security, Tom Ridge, thank you.

RIDGE: Thank you.

HAYES: All right, so what is the biggest blame game going around right now
in Washington? I gave you a hint and I`ll tell you next.


HAYES: We`ve just alluded to the big national security controversy in
Washington right now over who is to blame for the intelligence failure that
left the U.S. unprepared with the rapid expansion of ISIS in Syria and
Iraq. It all started with President Obama`s interview on "60 Minutes" over
the weekend.


intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that. I think they
underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean, he didn`t say that just say that we
underestimated ISIL. He said we overestimated the ability and the will of
our allies, the Iraqi army, to fight.

OBAMA: That`s true. That`s absolutely true.


HAYES: Now, the intelligence community does not like being thrown under
the bus. They`ve been fighting back in a number of mostly anonymously
source reports and along the "New York Times" piece today full of
attributions to nameless officials in which you will encounter a variable
spider web of finger pointing.

Intelligence community and the military blaming the White House. The White
House blaming the Iraqi government. Iraq policymakers and the
administration blaming the Syria policymakers.

But two things are important to keep in mind in all this. The first is
that several high ranking members of the intelligence community have
previously said on the record that they didn`t fully appreciate the
militants` ambitions.

James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence who the president was
quoting in his `60 Minutes" comments told the "Washington Post" the U.S.
had underestimated ISIS and overestimated the Iraqi army.

While the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers,
said his agency`s intelligence could have been stronger. And General Mike
Flynn, until recently, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told
the "Wall Street Journal," quote, "We underestimated the strength, the
cohesion and the leadership of ISIS."

But even more fascinating than who knew what, when, is the story of at the
heart of all this back and forth. It`s the story of what has essentially
become an open war between the intelligence community and the White House.
And this is not the first time the intelligence community has gone to the
matched to defend its turf. It is by now a proud American tradition.

Joining me now, Kai Bird, he is a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer and
author of "The Good Spy," which is an incredible biography of a CIA
operative who worked through the decades in the Middle East.

The reason I want to talk to you, Kai, is this is something that the CIA
and the intelligence community, they`re almost better than reputation
management and bureaucratic warfare than anything else, arguably.

KAI BIRD, AUTHOR, "THE GOOD SPY": Well, they are. This is an old story.
And you know, in my opinion, I think the president was right to engage in a
little finger pointing at the intelligence community. This was a failure,

And it was a failure, you know, historically. I think the best analogy is
perhaps to the tent offensive when the intelligence community in Vietnam in
January of 1968 failed to predict this massive offensive across the DMZ.

This is an old story. The intelligence community occasionally will have
failures. It relates to human intelligence. And, also, I think the
president was right to intimate that it was a failure of divining human
intentions and motivations.

That`s at the heart of the problem here. You can`t always find out what
you know from simply cameras on drones and satellites and interceptions
intelligence. You have to understand human intentions. This is, of
course, the great failure on the CIA and the intelligence community in
general. These days, they don`t emphasize the collection of human

HAYES: So you got the situation in which it`s very difficult. On one
level, I want to say you could look at the CIA in particular or the U.S.
intelligence community as a string of failures.

I mean, there is the fact they didn`t anticipate the Berlin Wall coming
down. There is the fact that they didn`t anticipate the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait in 1991 even though there is, you know, tons of troops at the

There`s of course 9/11. There is a whole bunch of series and you could
turn around and also say this is very difficult work. So what ends up
being the case is that these agencies get very good at hedging their bets
and then covering for themselves if something goes wrong. And I feel like
that`s what we`re seeing play at right now.

BIRD: Yes, exactly. There are a long list of intelligence failures. Look
at the 1979 revolution in Iran. No one predicted it. The collapse of the
cold war. Everyone thought that the Soviet Union was going to go on

But human intentions and motivations are very hard, very, very hard to
figure out. This is the purpose. If the CIA has a purpose, it was to
collect human intelligence. And that meant 30 years ago, for instance, in
the day of Robert Aims, the man I wrote about as the good spy.

That meant trying to become close, even befriending terrorists. I`m afraid
these days, that kind of human intelligence relationship just isn`t
invested in as tolerated. Very few people in the agency speak Arabic.
It`s an old business that`s gone by the wayside.

HAYES: There were reports today, one of the things that came across in
here, that there was a lack of real human intelligence in Iraq just to get
a sense of the texture of what was going on, on the ground. Kai Bird,
thank you for your time.

BIRD: Thank you.

HAYES: All right, the attorney for the un-armed black man shot by a South
Carolina state trooper that was captured on dash cam video will join me


HAYES: LeVar Jones, the 35-year-old man shot at point-blank range in this
video by former South Carolina State Trooper Shawn Gruber is, according to
his lawyer, walking with a cane right now as he recovers from a gunshot
wound to his hip.

Meanwhile, his family is speaking out for the first time since the
shooting. In a statement released yesterday that reads in part, "The
notion of life did not exist for LeVar as he heard gunshots coming from
Officer Gruber at the gas station based on no trigger or instigation except
the color of his skin or perhaps his unyielding compliance."

On September 4th, Jones said he was on his job, driving for a medical
courier company when then State Trooper Gruber stopped him in a gas station
for a seat belt violation. Gruber asked Jones for his license then opened
fire when Jones reached back into his truck to get it.


HAYES: As we reported yesterday, a newly released version of that dash cam
video shows the contemporaneous account Gruber offered to a person who
appears to be his supervisor that differed in some crucial ways.


HAYES: He kept coming towards me. Gruber was fired from his job as a
state trooper and charged with assault and battery, which means he is
looking at 20 years in prison. Last week, he pleaded not guilty. His
attorney says the shooting was justified as the trooper feared for his life
and the safety of others. Now there`s a very open question. What happens

Joining me now is the attorney of LeVar Jones, Todd Rutherford. Mr.
Rutherford, let me first ask by asking how your client is doing? How his
health and state mind is?

cane, Chris. First of all, good evening. He is obviously traumatized by
the events of that afternoon and he continues to be traumatized because he
watches it over and over again and his family is watching it.

He gets numerous phone calls of people asking him, how did you live through
that? How did you survive? He wonders himself how he did it. But for the
prayers and the fact that he is a devout Christian and a devout American, I
don`t how he survived either.

HAYES: It`s so striking to me A, how intent he is on compliance. He
clearly is from the very beginning and then the surreal nature of the
conversation that happens between your client and the man who has just shot
him. I mean, your client is apologizing to the guy who has just shot him.

Have you talked to him about his mind set during that entire event? How he
perceived what was happening about what that conversation was like as he
laid on the ground bleeding?

RUTHERFORD: Chris, I think it was as unreal to Mr. Jones as it is to
everybody watching. Mr. Jones heard gunshots, he turned towards Trooper
Gruber and all of the sudden saw Trooper Gruber firing at him. He raised
his hands in the air, as the statement said, unyielding compliance.

He raised his hands in the air to only be shot at again. He then tells the
trooper, why did you shoot me? I was only trying to do what you told me to
do. He then puts his hands behind his back having done nothing other than
take his seatbelt off as he entered the parking lot of a convenience store.

That`s all he had done and even when given commands by that trooper, he
tried to obey them at his own peril. He ended up getting shot in the hip
by a trooper who was way, way out of line, who did not comply with his
training, who simply was aggressive, had his gun in his hand at the stop
when he got out of the patrol car and fired those four shots at Mr. Jones.

HAYES: What, if anything, can you tell us about what happens afterwards.
He`s taken to the hospital. Is there any official contact from the state
highway patrol or anyone else saying are you OK? We`re sorry? Is anyone
following up to make sure that he`s been treated effectively?

RUTHERFORD: Chris, at this point, no one has apologized to Mr. Jones
especially Mr. Gruber. Mr. Gruber had his opportunity at the first court
appearance to apologize to Mr. Jones, that was never done.

Mr. Jones was laid on the ground. He was handcuffed, taken to the hospital
and cuff today a gurney. He laid there until almost midnight when he was
finally un-cuffed by a trooper that had remembered that he left his
handcuffs on him and went back to the hospital to take them off.

HAYES: He was handcuffed until when?

RUTHERFORD: He was handcuffed, remained handcuffed until midnight that
night when a trooper came back to the hospital having remembered that he
didn`t have his handcuffs. He went back to the hospital and finally un-
cuffed Mr. Jones.

And that`s when Mr. Jones was free to leave the hospital. Up until then,
he remained handcuffed from the time he was shot in the hip from having
done nothing but have his seatbelt off in the parking lot of a convenience
store. He remained handcuffed from the time he hit the ground until about
midnight that night.

HAYES: Todd Rutherford, the lawyer for LeVar Jones, thank you for your
time tonight.

RUTHERFORD: Thank you.

HAYES: That is unbelievable. All right, so how much do Americans drink?
The answer may surprise you next.


HAYES: So, over the last couple days, I`ve been obsessing over a chart
with how much Americans drink. This graphic posted on "Washington Post"
want blog based on research by Duke public professor, Philip Jay Cook.

It breaks up American alcohol consumption into 10 segments based on how
much people drink per week. What it shows at the first three segments,
that 30 percent of the entire American population, don`t drinks at all,
zero drinks a week. They abstain.

The next 30 percent, barely drink. They have anywhere from what seems to
be a sip of alcohol 0.02 drinks to just over half a drink per week. So
that`s another 30 percent of Americans who basically don`t drink. They
don`t abstain, but they don`t also really drink.

And now, this alone I will say is news to me. I`m Irish Catholic. I grew
up in Irish Catholic family. I genuinely didn`t really understand that a
full 60 percent of Americans basically don`t drink alcohol.

Then you move into the 70th, 80th and 90th percentile of the American
population and you start to see people who drink. The 70th percentile of
people, just over two drinks a week, still not very much. The 80th percent
of people have six drinks a week. That`s a drink every night.

And then you get the 90th percentile. Those are people who are having just
over 15 drinks a week. That`s basically two drinks a night. That`s pretty
much how I roll, but then you get to the top 10 percent of drinkers in the
U.S. and that`s where things get quite frankly, a bit disturbing.

Because that`s people who are drinking on average almost 74 alcoholic
drinks a week. According to one club that`s 18 bottles of wine a week or
just over 4.5 bottles of Jack Daniels.

Now if you`re a person who is not wrestling with alcohol addiction, it`s
very hard amount of alcohol to comprehend drinking. It`s so much that if
that group moved down to the 90th percentile, if they went from drinking
all of that booze to what people like myself drink, total ethanol sales
would fall by 60 percent.

And joining me now is Philip Cook, author of "Paying The Tab." He is a
professor of Policy and Economics at Duke University. OK. These are real
stats? I should believe these numbers?

PHILIP COOK, AUTHOR, "PAYING THE TAB": Yes. They are based on a federal
survey that is one of the best that we have and they interviewed 42,000
people and asked them how much they drank and asked them in considerable

I took those data. They are publicly available and analyse them to get as
you said you were talking about except for one thing that I should tell you
and that is that if you multiply is up from that survey and said the
national total how does that compare with sales, the answer is just half.

HAYES: OK, so people are under-reporting.

COOK: They`re under-reporting by one-half.

HAYES: So people are underreporting, but in some ways underreporting is
even more disturbing when you`re thinking about what`s going on in that top

COOK: I think yes, I think especially people in the top (inaudible)
probably don`t have a very good idea of how much they are drinking and you
know, when they say they have a drink, what they mean is that they take a
water glass and pour it full of whiskey and a few ice cubes. That`s three
or four drinks.

HAYES: There`s a massive implication for the entire structure of the whole
alcohol and spirits industry, which is that they`re customer-based. The
people who are consuming a majority of their product are the people who are
in that top (inaudible), right?

COOK: Exactly, yes. The industry needs the heavy drinkers to preserve
their sales and their profitability. Let me just say, there`s nothing
unusual about the alcohol industry, in that respect. That`s true in pretty
much every consumer industry. We have the famous 20-80 rule. If you`ve
gone to business school, you know about this.

HAYES: Which is 20 percent of your customers are 80 percent of your sales.

COOK: Exactly and that`s what`s going on in alcohol too.

HAYES: Although it seems qualitatively different in the case of alcohol
because I think someone from the outside looking in, and obviously I`m not
a medical professional or addiction expert, but I think someone who looks
at that number on the 10th decile saying these people that have a problem.

So what you`re basically saying is that alcohol industry exist as it makes
money basically on a core group that are people that are problem drinkers.

COOK: Yes, that top is definitely where the numbers are concentrated. You
know, there is no surprise about that. So that`s where we get all of the
trauma, the car accidents, the child abuse, the organ damage, the liver
cirrhosis. It`s concentrated there. That`s where it is, by and large.

HAYES: Obviously we have experimented with one policy to deal with that,
which was one of the great policy failures of all time in our history,
which of course is prohibition. Are there ways of changing that curve of
equalizing it in some ways, of bringing down and reducing the amount that
folks are in that kind of problematic decile?

COOK: There certainly are ways and they have to do with alcohol control
policy, which does hurt back to both the prohibition days. We`re not
talking about prohibition, we`re talking about simply changing the terms in
which alcohol is available.

The policy that I`ve advocated for years and years has been to make sure
that we don`t allow alcohol to be too cheap. It turns out that if it`s too
cheap then people drink more and they have more problems.

HAYES: So there`s actually a pretty close. There`s actually a good
literature on if you increase alcohol taxes. You actually do reduce not
just consumption. You actually reduce consumption in that problematic top
amount of drinkers, as well. We have a very low alcohol tax. Philip Cook,
thank you so much for your time.

COOK: Thank you.

HAYES: All right, that is ALL IN for this evening. The "RACHEL MADDOW
SHOW" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.

RACHEL MADDOW: Good evening, Chris. Thanks to you at home for joining us
this hour.


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