Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Monday, March 16th, 2015

Read the transcript from the Monday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
Date: March 16, 2015
Guest: David Feige, Susan Criss, Bruce Fretts, Leon Wolf, Daniel Levy,
Neil Irwin

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

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

ROBERT DURST: There it is. You`re caught. Killed them all, of
course.

HAYES: The shocking finale to "The Jinx."

ANDREW JARECKI, DIRECTOR, "THE JINX": He is very frank about the
things that he`s frank about.

HAYES: And the arrest of Robert Durst.

DICK DEGUERIN, ROBERT DURST`S LAWYER: Bob Durst didn`t kill Susan
Berman.

HAYES: Tonight, as "The Jinx" filmmakers cancel all interviews, and
as Durst waives extradition to L.A. on murder charges, the judge who
presided over his last murder trial joins us.

Then, criticisms of conservatives on Ferguson from conservatives.

Plus, a new ad on the eve of the Israeli election.

CHUCK NORRIS, ACTOR: I`ve done three movies in Israel. "Delta Force"
being my favorite.

A new theory of bracketology on the eve of March Madness.

And a new look at celebration on the eve of St. Patrick`s Day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don`t you want to celebrate Ireland`s great
accomplishments, like Michael Lohan and vomiting into a bag pipe?

HAYES: ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

Moments ago, the Los Angeles County district attorney announced that
Robert Durst, heir to one of New York`s greatest real estate fortunes, a
man who has been tied to three murders, three murder disappearances and
acquitted of one, has been charged with one count of first degree murder
with special circumstances of murder of a witness and lying in wait and gun
use allegations.

Durst is currently being held in Louisiana without bail, awaiting
extradition to Los Angeles. The capital murder charge makes Durst eligible
for the death penalty. Prosecutors say they have not decided whether or
not they would pursue that option.

Durst was arrested the day before the stunning finale to an HBO
documentary series called "The Jinx."

We were supposed to speak with the filmmakers tonight, but they
canceled all media, citing concerns they would are called as witnesses in
the case. More on that later.

First, the new case against Robert Durst. Durst was arrested over the
weekend in New Orleans. According to authorities, he was in possession of
a .38 revolver and was checked into a French Quarter hotel under a fake
name. Today, he appeared in court and agreed to be extradited to
California to face murder charges in the 2000 death of his friend Susan
Berman. She was found dead in her home on Christmas Eve, almost 15 years
ago, a single gunshot wound to the head. Durst was a suspect in her
killing, but never charged.

But now, Los Angeles officials say they have new evidence linking him
to her murder. Los Angeles County district attorney saying prosecutors
have been working with the LAPD for the past two years on the cold case
murder. Robert Durst extradition is currently delayed while New Orleans
prosecutors decide on other charges. But his lawyers say they are eager to
start a murder trial in California.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK DEGUERIN, ROBERT DURST`S LAWYER: Let me just say that we came
here to waive jurisdiction, and go back to California and get it on. Bob
Durst didn`t kill Susan Berman. And he`s to end all the rumor and
speculation. We`re ready to go to California and have a trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: This extraordinary turn of events looks to have been catalyzed
by Robert Durst`s own participation in the HBO documentary series "The
Jinx."

Director Andrew Jarecki told his impressions of Robert Durst last
month before the series.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JARECKI: He is very frank about the things she very frank about. You
know, people concerned themselves with things that he says that maybe turn
out not to be true, but he is disarmingly honest about a lot of things that
you or I would never consider to be things that we would give away if we
could imagine being in his situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Last night, that series, which had been years in the making,
"The Jinx", came to a stunning conclusion, the final episode, as a
microphone appeared to pick up the sound of Robert Durst himself on a
bathroom visit immediately after his final interview with Jarecki mumbling
under his breath.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DURST: There it is. You`re caught. You`re right, of course. But
you can`t imagine. I`m having difficulty with the questions.

What the hell did I do? Killed them all, of course.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Killed them all, of course.

Over the last three decades, Robert Durst has been linked to two
deaths and a disappearance. He only went on trial for one of them. That`s
the 2000 death of his neighbor in Galveston, Texas. Durst admitted to
shooting the 71-year-old, dismembering his body and dumping the pieces into
the bay.

At this 2003 trial, his legal team argued it was in self defense. The
jury agreed and he was acquitted after five days of deliberations.

But the reason he was in Galveston in the first place, according to
his testimony, is because New York prosecutors reopened the case into the
1982 disappearance of his wife, Kathy, who has long been presumed dead. In
connection with that case, investigators sought to speak to Durst`s close
friend, Susan Berman. But before they could speak with her, she was found
dead in her home, shot in the head.

An anonymous letter, believed to have been mailed the day she was
killed was sent to the Beverly Hills PD alerting them to a cadaver at her
address. Police were never able to link that letter to anyone and the case
went cold.

But during the making of the documentary "The Jinx", filmmakers came
into possession of another handwritten letter sent from Robert Durst to
Susan Berman before her death. They noticed the writing on the envelope
looked very similar to the letter alerts police to her body.

Then, as shown in last night`s incredible finale of the documentary
series, the filmmakers questioned Durst about the two letters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DURST: The writing looking similar and the spelling is the same so I
can see the conclusion. The cops would draw. But whether the writing,
whether you can conclude they are from the same person --

JARECKI: And I think, this is a comparison of the two, right? Which
is --

DURST: Very similar.

JARECKI: So I guess the question is, did you write the cadaver note?

DURST: No, I didn`t write the cadaver note.

JARECKI: So you wrote one of these but you didn`t write the other
one?

DURST: I wrote this note, but I didn`t write the cadaver note.

JARECKI: So, can you tell me which one you didn`t write?

DURST: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: In the documentary, it appears it was that line of questioning
that led Durst to mumble to himself that he, quote, "killed them all."

And now, late today, Los Angeles County district attorney has
officially charged Robert Durst with one count of first degree murder, with
special circumstances of murder of a witness, and lying in wait and gun use
allegations for the death of Susan Berman.

Joining me now, former public defender David Feige, professor at the
National Criminal Defense College, author of "Indefensible", our go-to for
legal guidance.

All right. David, so --

DAVID FEIGE, NATIONAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE COLLEGE: Yes.

HAYES: -- first of all, do you -- I mean, as an experienced criminal
lawyer, what was going through your head when you saw that tape of him in
the bathroom having this conversation with himself that sounds massively
incriminating?

FEIGE: It was shocking, I have to tell you. And oddly, my reaction
when he was confronted with the letters was not, oh my God, this guy is
clearly guilty. He was so calm.

HAYES: Yes.

FEIGE: He was so deliberate. I came out of that thinking wait, this
is the revelation, this big confrontation? And I did not know the bathroom
mumblings were coming, and I have to say, the very beginning just nailed it
for me, "You`re caught."

HAYES: What do we make of this legally? OK, we all heard this. I
think it is easy given the context of this guy. If you look at it and
you`re kind of taken Occam`s razor approach to this, as opposed to like,
you know, sitting in a jury box talking about reasonable doubt.

FEIGE: Right.

HAYES: You have suspicions. You listen to this, those suspicions get
strengthened. Is that going to make it into court? Is that an admissible
piece of evidence in a Los Angeles criminal court?

FEIGE: So, let me divide that into two questions. Will it come in?
And should it come in?

The answer to will it come in is, yes? The question of, should it
come in, is probably yes. And what I`d say is, the difference between the
probably and the definitely is the politics of this prosecution.

HAYES: What do you mean by that? What is there a difference between
will it come in and should it? Let`s talk about talk should it come in?
Under the law, why is it not 100 percent solid that it should come in?

FEIGE: Well, OK, because first of all, let`s be clear: it`s an out of
court statement, right, by the declarant, offered for the truth of the
matter. That makes it absolutely hearsay.

The question is whether it falls under a hearsay exception. In
California, it pretty clearly does under 1220, which is an admission by a
party. This is pretty much an admission. It`s pretty clear. And there`s
no question, Durst is a party.

So, under the hearsay exemption, it`s almost certain to come in.
Then, there are constitutional questions to the question of does it, come
in, right? Three relevant amendments, the Fourth, the Fifth, and the
Sixth. There is some a possible question about whether it was Fourth,
search and seizure. Does he have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

My suspension is, they will say it`s the bathroom, how could he have
known?

HAYES: And he`s miked.

FEIGE: But he was miked and he knew he was miked, and he undoubtedly
signed a bunch of consent forms. I mean, Andrew Jarecki is a terrific
director. Believe me, he has that ironclad or I don`t -- I got to assume
he does. So, that sort of out the window. It`s not really self-
incrimination unless he argues that Jarecki was acting as an agent of the
police, and that`s going to be a tough one, right?

HAYES: This is a key point and this is something we`re going to talk
about in a little bit, the timeline of when Jarecki started to talking to
law enforcement, because whether this gets in, whether this is admissible
is going to have to deal with whether there`s determination made that they
were acting as an agent of law enforcement, which is going to get to a time
line that we`re going to discuss in just a little bit.

So, stay right there. David Feige, thank you very much.

FEIGE: My pleasure.

MADDOW: In 2001, Robert Durst was arrested in Galveston, Texas, and
charged with the murder of his 71-year-old neighbor, Morris Black. Durst
admitted to chopping up Black`s body, placing the pieces in trash bags and
dumping them in the Galveston Bay. His $2 million defense team argued that
it was all in self-defense, that Durst was, in fact, the victim of an angry
neighbor who confronted him with his gun. But a struggle ensued and the
gun went off. And in a panic, Durst chopped up his body and dumped the
pieces in the city.

The jury bought that defense and after five days of deliberations,
Durst was acquitted of murder.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE: Foreman, I understand you have a verdict?

FOREMAN: Yes, your honor.

JUDGE: Will you hand it to the bailiff?

Will the defendant please rise?

For the verdict of the jury is such, the jury finds the defendant,
Robert Durst, not guilty.

DURST: Did they say "not"?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

DURST: Are you sure?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Did they say not? Are you sure?

Joining me now is the judge that read that verdict and president over
Durst 2003 trial, retired Texas District Court Judge Susan Criss.

Ms. Criss, your reaction to what has happened in the last 24 or 48
hours with the case of Robert Durst?

SUSAN CRISS, FORMER TEXAS DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: Well, you always have
to expect the unexpected with Robert Durst and the things going on in his
life. Every time you think it is as shocking as it could be, something
else happens that lets you know this case is so far from being over.

HAYES: You sat in that courtroom, and that trial is taken by many as
an object lesson in the ways that someone with ample resources can get
something out of a justice system that someone without resources could. Is
that fair conclusion when you watch a $2 million defense of a man with
millions of dollars who admits to dismembering his neighbor, walk out a
courtroom a free man?

CRISS: Well, that`s the conclusion a lot of people had drawn. And he
can certainly afford the best lawyers in the state, if not the country, and
they did their job. There`s no question.

But that`s not why he won his trial in my opinion. He won that trial
because the state didn`t do their job. They came to court unprepared.
They were -- they had not thought in advance of what questions they were
going to ask. They challenged nothing that the defense did. The evidence
they didn`t present.

And in that situation the lawyer -- the guy with the prepared lawyers
is going to win. But it wasn`t just having those -- that dream team of
lawyers that got him out of this.

HAYES: You have to make rulings on admissibility all of the time, or
you did when you were a judge. Obviously, evidentiary laws are different
in California than they are in the jurisdiction in Texas, but the
constitutional issues are the same.

What is your sense about the admissibility of that stunning piece of
tape that we heard last night?

CRISS: Well, I agree with some of the things that your expert had
said already about the hearsay exceptions. But there is also another
exception called excited utterance. Another reason would be to put it in
that if he was so startled, by saying he thought he was caught, that that
is another exception.

Even if they were an agent of the police, and I don`t think they were,
was he -- was this knowing (ph) voluntarily made? Well, yes. He contacted
them. Knowing what the subject matter of the interview was. He came to
them after many, many, many discussions. He voluntarily let himself be
miked up. And it`s not the first time knowing that mic knowing that is
still on when the interview stops.

So, it`s going to be real hard for him to say he was tricked or
coerced or that he had an expectation of privacy, or that this was taken
from him in any way knowingly or voluntarily.

Now, one of the odd things, one of many odd things about this is,
there is not going to be any case law on whether the confession of someone
who goes into a television interview voluntarily and admits to being a
serial killer gets admitted. So, as usual, there is no precedent for
anything that happens in this case.

HAYES: Judge Susan Criss, thank you very much.

The time line of events in Robert Durst life as shown in "The Jinx" is
raising a lot of questions tonight. It`s prompting to ask whether the
people behind the series intentionally misrepresented it to create
suspense. More on that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: You are a documentarian, but this is an authorized biography?
I mean, what is this?

JARECKI: Well, I think it was clear that it was not going to be Bob`s
story.

HAYES: Right.

JARECKI: It was not going to be an evening. It wasn`t dinner theater
with Bob Durst, you know? It was going to be unique in that Bob Durst was
going to talk to us for the first time ever.

But at the same time he knows the kind of deep dive that we do. You
know, the things that we have worked on. We are sort of obsessional about
our research.

So, if you wanted to do a pop piece about yourself, you`re not going
to call me, you would call somebody else. So, I know that he was prepared
for us to do the kind of work that we were going to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That is part of my interview with the director of "The Jinx",
Andrew Jarecki, a few days before the series premier last month. After
participating in the series, Robert Durst was arrested for murder on
Saturday, the day before the final episode of "The Jinx" aired.

Is the timing of his arrest convenient? I`m supposed talk to Andrew
Jarecki again tonight, along with his co-writer, Marc Smerling. But
they`ve abruptly canceled their appearance. The reason they gave, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Breaking news at this hour: Robert Durst, the subject of the
HBO documentary series "The Jinx" has been charged with first degree murder
in connection with the shooting death of his friend Susan Berman in Los
Angeles nearly 15 years ago.

The filmmakers Andrew Jarecki and Marc Smerling were supposed to be
here tonight, to discuss their series. I interviewed Jarecki before the
show premiered last month, and we booked tonight`s interview last week.

But this afternoon, Jarecki and Smerling abruptly canceled their
appearance, not only on this program, but with other media outlets as well,
including "The Tonight Show", offering this statement, "Given that we are
likely to be called as witnesses in any case that law enforcement may
decide to bring against Robert Durst, it is not appropriate for us to
comment further on these pending matters."

That decision followed an entire morning interviews in which Jarecki
spoke to several different outlets about the case, and the timeline of
events surrounding Robert Durst arrest in New Orleans on Saturday.

A top official at the Los Angeles police department telling "The L.A.
Times" the arrest was not tied to Sunday`s series finale of "The Jinx."
"We based our actions on the investigation and the evidence. WE didn`t
base anything we did on the HBO series."

Jarecki told ABC News he`d been working with law enforcement for
years.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there any kinds of deals over the timing of
the arrest?

JARECKI: No, of course. I mean, we -- (a), we don`t have that kind
of power, we`re not in charge of the arrest timing, and we have no idea of
the arrest timing. In fact, I was very nervous about it. I was on the
phone with our main contact in law enforcement about 4:00 in the morning,
two nights before, and I was saying, I`m uncomfortable. And I have
security. I`ve never had security in my life. My family is uncomfortable.

And I feel that this arrest should be made, but I understand you need
to do what you need to do. But tell me where we are and I didn`t get any
color on it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: As to the time line behind making "The Jinx", that too was
discussed at length, particularly the question of when the filmmakers`
found apparent bathroom confession caught on tape after Robert Durst`s
second and final interview with Andrew Jarecki.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JARECKI: And he got up and say goodbye and we thought that was the
end. But his microphone kept recording, we always leave it on him, he
knows that, and he went to the bathroom while it was recording. And it
wasn`t until months later that we had an editor listening to material that
we had just sort of left behind, thinking, well, now, we`ve got to listen
to everything we got, go back and finish the series. And we discovered a
shocking piece of audio.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "The New York Times" said two years, you said it
was months later when you found this.

JARECKI: Many months. I mean, it was obviously for us a shock,
because it was many months since we sat down with him, and then, after
sitting down with him, we though, well, we`ve got this sort of revelation,
which is, he was unable to determine which of the two handwritings that we
were showing was his own, and in fact, he we think both of them were his
own.

And then after that, he got off. And it was not until many months
later that we actually, you know, realized that the more interesting
revelation may have been the secret revelation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: And in extensive interview today with Bruce Fretts in "The New
York Times", Jarecki gave a date when that audio was discovered, June 12th,
2014.

Joining me now is "New York Times" contributor, Bruce Fretts, who
managed to talk with Andrew Jarecki and Marc Smerling before the media
blackout began.

Welcome.

BRUCE FRETTS, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Thank you.

HAYES: So, the timeline here is difficult to pin down.

FRETTS: Yes.

HAYES: And they seemed a little squirrely, frankly, when you tried to
pin them down. Was that your sense?

FRETTS: Yes. Well, that`s what I started the interview with. My
editors were interested in sort out some of the discrepancies and the
timeline.

So, I start out by asking about this one particular, the second
interview, the one that we see where they confront him with the letter
seemed to happen as you watch the film, after he had been arrested on his
brother`s door stoop for a violation of order of protection. This sort of
made it seemed like that led to the interview.

But when you actually look at the debate, it seems like the interview
happened before the arrest. And maybe they had played around with the
timing a bit. So that raised some questions and they didn`t really have a
direct answer for me.

HAYES: Yes. So, it seems like there`s a chronological issue, which
is that in the way things appeared basically were in 2012. We jump ahead
to 2013. We jump back to 2012 without any time slates telling us --

FRETTS: Right.

HAYES: -- that what we seen has been rearranged chronologically.

FRETTS: Exactly, yes.

HAYES: The deeper more profound issue here, right, which has to do
with the duty of the documentarian, and what the role they are inhabiting -
-

FRETTS: Yes.

HAYES: -- is when they discover -- you know, they`re investigating
this open case, and we`re getting these dates, 2012, 2013, this is two or
three years ago, right? The evidence is floating around. You have this
person who is expected of doing horrible violent things.

FRETTS: Yes.

HAYES: And now, he`s being arrested. And just like, I can`t cash out
-- like when do they talk to who?

FRETTS: Well, I mean, their explanation is that the interview
happened two or three years ago, almost three years ago, and they didn`t
discover the audio until a few months when they hired new editors who came
in and were listening to the end of the tape that haven`t been loaded into
the editing machine. So, that`s their explanation.

But in any case, they definitely held on to the evidence for some
period of time before the arrest was made. Now, if they turned it over
right away we don`t know, but there is some lack of clarity here on exactly
when they started working with law enforcement.

HAYES: I think there is also sort of an ethical issue here, right,
about like if you -- like what role are you inhabiting when you discover
some important bit of evidence.

FRETTS: Right.

HAYES: I don`t think a journalist has any requirement to turn
evidence over to authorities. I mean, if you are a journalist and your
fidelity is to the story and reporting it out.

FRETTS: Right.

HAYES: But there is a timeline issue, it`s not usually the case that
you`re -- you know, waiting three years to publish.

FRETTS: Right. Well, I mean, the thing about "The Jinx" is that it`s
kind of amalgam of drama and journalism. I mean, there`s reenactments
within the film. They made a dramatic film about this case, that spurred
this whole documentary.

So, you know, it seems like they manipulated some of the evidence for
dramatic effect. That spurred the whole documentary. So, it seems like
they manipulated the elements for dramatic effect. But they are a
combination of journalists and filmmakers to begin with. So, perhaps that
is to be expected.

HAYES: Yes, I feel like we`re sort of standing on really interesting
ground right now. Of course, the pod cast, the serial life of someone who
has been convicted, who is doing time for murder that he said he did not
commit. This story as well, in which you sort of sit in that kind of
interesting place between journalism and something that feels more like
true crime entertainment.

FRETTS: Yes, it`s entertainment, I mean, it`s HBO, it`s prime time.
It`s on right before "Girls", you know? I mean, this isn`t hardcore
network journalism. It`s something different.

HAYES: Yes. And yet at the same time, the fascinating irony is that
everything they did is now going to be in legal proceedings.

FRETTS: Yes.

HAYES: And so, if there is things edited, there are things left out -
- there`s not a chain of evidence, that`s now going to become a legal issue
precisely because the power of what they did was so immense that you now
have pulled it right back into the real world of a legal proceeding.

FRETTS: And that`s why I think they stopped talking. They realized
that they were starting to reveal things that might come up later in a
trial, that they might not want to have to answer for.

HAYES: Bruce Fretts of "The New York Times", thank you very much.

FRETTS: Thank you.

HAYES: All right. I`m going to talk to someone who says the way the
conservatives have reacted to the DOJ`s Ferguson report is bad for America.
And here`s the kicker: he himself is a conservative himself. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Police have arrested a suspect in the hooting of two police
officers in Ferguson, Missouri. 20-year-old Jeffrey Williams was arrested
Saturday and was charged the next day with assault in the first degree in
relation to last Thursday`s shooting of two police officers during a
protest outside the Ferguson police department.

Both officers survived their wounds. The suspect, according to law
enforcement authorities, acknowledged firing the shots, but maintains the
police officers were not his target.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOB MCCULLOUCH, ST. LOUIS COUNTY PROSOCUTING ATTORNEY: He may have
had a dispute with some other individuals, or felt some dispute. We`re not
sure we completely buy that part, but in any event, it is possible he was
firing at some at some other people and the officers, of course, were in
the path.

However, it`s still an assault in the first degree. It`s a class A
felony.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Prosecutors also said Mr. Williams had, according to the New
York Times, quote, "attended the demonstration the evening of the shooting
as well as previous rallies. Several protest leaders, however, quickly
took to Twitter to deny that Mr. Williams was one of them or that they had
even seen him among the crowd the night of the shooting."

And today in an interview with NBC News, Mr. Williams lawyer stressed
the following in this order. It was client`s intent to shoot police. He
was not a demonstrator, and he later added his client did not take the
shots in question.

JERRYL CHRISTMAS ATTY. FOR JEFFREY WILLIAMS: I think I can be clear
on the fact that this was not an ambush shooting, that there was -- there
was not any goal to target the police and that he is not part of the
protest community.

I don`t think my client was involved in this shooting is what I`m
saying. I think we have the right person in custody.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The question of whether the alleged shooter was a demonstrator
like just about everything in Ferguson has polarization people in very
intense ways. That polarization was notably apparent in the days following
the Justice Department`s harsh report on the Ferguson Police Department.

Civil rights proponents and progressives embraced it for the most
part, many saying anything less than the complete dismantling of the
Ferguson police department would not be enough.

While those who tend to side with law enforcement in these matters,
including many, many conservatives accuse the Justice Department report of
being predictably biased against the police.

But our next writing on the conservative blog Red State makes the case
that conservatives should care very much about many of the findings in that
Justice
Department report.

Joining me now Leon Wolf, contributing editor at RedState.com, author
of the piece.

Many conservatives are blowing it on the Ferguson DOJ.

Leon, it`s a really fantastic piece. It`s something I`ve been banging
on about, so thank you for writing it. What`s your basic case here?

LEON WOLF, REDSTATE.COM: Well, I think that a lot of people on both
sides of the ideological spectrum are really kind of missing the boat when
it comes to Ferguson, and it`s unfortunate in the way that it`s shaping our
national dialogue.

As I`m sure you`re aware, Chris, there were actually two department of
justice reports issued concerning Ferguson. The first one dealt with the
actual shooting of Michael Brown, and the second one dealt with the
Ferguson P.D. at large.

Liberals, for the most part I think, are ignoring the first of those,
which tends to kind of decimate the hands up, don`t shoot, narrative. While
conservatives have, in large part, ignored the second part of that, which
shows that not withstanding what you feel about to Michael Brown, there was
some serious problems
with Ferguson P.D. that ought to be addressed.

HAYES: Yeah, let me about that in quick succession.

So, the first report on the shooting, right, finds that essentially
there`s no cause for federal civil rights charges. And there`s sort of two
standards there.

One is that they don`t have, they can`t make a federal civil rights
case, which is actually a harder case than just say, manslaughter case in
the actual jurisdiction, but the second essentially reiterates some of the
things that Machulla found about the credibility of various witnesses vis-
a-vis, hands up, vis-a-vis, the encounter that happens, and the physical
ballistic evidence, whether it corroborates some of those witnesses versus
others.

In terms of the Ferguson part of that, and you`re right that it
basically, I think, backs up largely the determination of the grand jury
and Bob McCulloch. In
terms of the Ferguson part of it, what about it do you think is something
that sort of, Conservatives should be especially attentive to?

WOLF: Well, I think that conservatives, as much as liberals, or even
more so in many cases, are attuned to civil rights issues. They feel very
strongly about them and they oppose violations of civil rights by the
police.

I think where the disconnect comes in a lot of time is that
conservatives are less likely to belief that they occur, or that they are
as wide spread as they might be.

And so, what I think is important for people to focus on is what this
report shows is that in Ferguson, and I don`t think that Ferguson is
especially unique in this regard --

HAYES: No.

WOLF: Is that these civil rights violations are relatively common
place. They come from essentially a top down pressure in many
municipalities. It comes from city hall, it comes from city managers, that
basically exerts pressure on police to write more tickets for the purpose
of bolstering the city`s revenue.

HAYES: This is why, this is why I was expecting sort of widespread
conservative outrage in the report. Because in some ways, it`s the worst
vision of big, bad government.

I mean, here you have like, you have -- essentially turning armed
agents of the state into revenue collectors first and fore most. Like, this
whole thing is about extracting money from people for a public till. Which,
when I think about like, when we talk about taxes as confiscation or all
these other things, that just seems like a nightmare scenario.

WOLF: It absolutely is.

And not only in this case, but also if you look at the Eric Garner
case. I mean, look at the offense that brought him to the attention to the
police. Selling looseys on the street. It`s absurd.

I mean, you know, people focus on the police, and I think there are
issues with the police that need to be addressed, but also, we need to
address these municipal ordinances. The increasing reach of the state.

And one the things that I covered in my post that was most infuriating
to me is the facial overbreadth (ph) of a lot of these statutes that allows
the police, in many cases, to stop people for no other reason than
committing what you could call contempt of cop.

HAYES: That`s a really, really good point.

Leon Wolf, thank you, and thank you for writing it, and thank you for
appearing. I really appreciate it.

WOLF: Thanks for having me on, Chris.

HAYES: Alright, Chuck Norris fact, it`s not only desperate American
politicians who turn to the actor for last minute campaign add. Now,
Benjamin Netanyahu has, as well. I am not making that up, and you`re going
to get to see it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHUCK NORRIS, ACTOR: I`m Chuck Norris, and I would like to say hello
to all of my friends in Israel.

JON VOIGHT, ACTOR: Hi. I`m Jon Voight. I love Israel.

NORRIS: I watched Prime Minister Netanyahu`s speech before congress.

VOIGHT: President Obama does not love Israel.

NORRIS: I have done three movies in Israel, Delta Force being my
favorite.

VOIGHT: He doesn`t want Bibi Netanyahu to win this upcoming election.

NORRIS: So I ask you to vote for Prime Minister Netanyahu on election
day.

VOIGHT: I pray to God to keep Israel safe, and America as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: In America, you know a campaign is going badly when it has to
bring in right-wing celebrities to make cheaply produced, last minute
pitches. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose Likud party has
fallen behind in the home stretch going into tomorrow`s parliamentary
elections. Multiple polls have shown Likud trailing four seats behind the
center-left Zionist union.

And, in what appears to be a last ditch attempt to sure up his base
and draw support away from smaller, right wing parties, Netanyahu
celebrities to make is stepping up the nationalist rhetoric.

In a rambling Facebook post that read like some kind of info wars
conspiracy theory, he blamed his faltering campaign on an illegitimate
coalition of leftist politicians, media outlets and NGOs, funded by shadowy
tycoons and foreign governments. Quote, "Those foreign organizations
understand that if the Zionist Union is in charge, they will give up
everything. They`ll withdraw to the 1967 boundaries and they will divide
Jerusalem..."

Yesterday, Netanyahu warmed a right wing rally in Tel Aviv of the
danger posed by a potential left wing government. Reassuring the crowd that
as long as Likud is in power, there will be no concessions or withdrawals
from the occupied territories.

Thanks, in large part, to his hardline on settlements, critics have
long questioned the Prime Minister`s commitment to a two-state solution,
but the separate Palestinian state alongside Israel. Something he publicly
endorsed
back in 2009.

His administration has consistently rejected those questions, as did
his spokesman Mark Regev when I asked him about it last summer, during the
Gaza War and after the collapse of U.S. led peace talks.

MARK REGEV, NETANYAHU SPOKESPERSON: When you want to see a situation
of two states for two peoples, where you have an independent Jewish state
living side by side and an independent Palestinian state in peace and in
cooperation.

HAYES: Today, however, almost six years after committing to establish
a Palestinian state, Netanyahu gave the lie to his spokesman and proved his
critics right.

In an interview published on the N.R.G website, he said, quote, "I
think anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and
evacuate lands, is
giving attack grounds to radical Islam against the state of Israel..."

Asked if that meant there would be no Palestinian state if he were to
continue as Prime Minister, Netanyahu responded correct.

I spoke with Daniel Levy of the European Council on Foreign Relations
who worked on peace talks under two Israel Prime Ministers and asked for
his reaction to Netanyahu`s apparent reversal.

DANIEL LEVY, EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, I think
beyond Israel`s shores, Prime Minister Netanyahu policies and actions all
suggested he was never serious. He`s been dishonest on the Palestinian
issue, just as I imagine he`s being dishonest today on the Iran issue.

This is actually a rare moment of truth telling by the Israeli Prime
Minister. Unfortunately, for an Israeli leader to be dissembling his
intentions towards the Palestinians is not so new.

In the domestic contents, this seems to be Prime Minister Netanyahu
desperate. Doubling down on a strategy where he`s fighting with other right
wing parties for the vote of the home base, rather than trying to reach out
to for the center.

That does not bode well for him.

HAYES: Yeah, there`s a sense in which he seems to be now pivoting to
right.
Trying to ward of challenges from ----, among other, who are fighting for
that same block of votes.

Is this a smart electorial tactic that we`re seeing from Netanyahu
down the stretch?

LEVY: Well, I don`t think so. I think that this is more likely to
turn away further, more centerist, soft right voters, who are more
interested in cost of living issues, and the cost of housing in the
squeezed middle class, in the working
poor, and they may well go to other parties, as they seem to be doing if
the polling is to be believed and if the momentum is with the opposition.

Doubling down on a strategy where you`re fighting for the hard right
vote is unlikely to reclaim the lost ground if the poles are to be
believed.

HAYES: How much do American politics, American endorsements, Jon
Voigt, Chuck Norris, a string of American Republican conservatives, how
much -- is that theater? Is that for our consumption weirdly here? Does
that matter to Israeli voters?

LEVY: Zero.

It is purely for your consumption, Chris.

You know this is a prime minister who has, you know, become a card
carrying measure of the GOP. I don`t know who is using who, whether it`s
the Republicans using him to fight against the president or he is using
them to try and sabotage a potentially very good Iran nuclear deal and drag
people to war.

But no, this nonsense does not play out in any meaningful way with the
Israeli electorate.

HAYES: The Israeli center-left, the Labor Party, which has now formed
into a coalition called The Zionist Union with Tzipi Livni who people may
have heard of. If they have a lead of four or five plus seats, and Israeli
politics involves 10, 11 parties, half a dozen perhaps in a coalition.

But if that lead is real, if it is extended, if it bears out, Herzog
could form a coalition not together with Netanyahu and the speech at a
settler rally and the comment on no Palestinian State make that even more
difficult, but he could form a coalition with centrists, with Likud
breakaway faction, with the ultra-orthodox, this is a kind of crown heights
(ph) crew, not the settlers, the people who are religiously fundamentalist,
but are not the kind of chauvinist nationalist settler right that have been
in the current government.

HAYES: Fascinating. Daniel Levy, thank you very much.

LEVY: Thank you.

HAYES: Every year, I love this time of year, spring is around the
corner. And during this particular week there are three big things that go
together: massive drinking, St. Patrick`s Day, and NCAA brackets, not
necessarily in that order, but we will be talking about them in that order
ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TINA FEY, ACTRESS: Well 911 is still busy. What can be causing so
many medical emergencies today. Oh, right, an Irish religious festival.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Yes, tomorrow is St. Patrick`s Day and the city of Chicago
celebrated
this weekend with a parade on Saturday under sunny skies and as you can see
in this time lapsed video of the annual dying green of the Chicago river.

The vast majority of revelers were, well, I`m just sort of assuming
here, well behaved, just out for a good time, certainly those folks in that
shot.

But in the neighborhood of Wrigleyville near Wrigley Field, things got
a little ugly, but the website Crime in Wrigleyville and Boydtown,
documenting the mayhem. Among the lowlifes, an intoxicated woman banging
her head on the concrete, a group of 20 men fighting inside a McDonalds --
wonder if that tape will show up on Fox News on an endless loop -- a man
lying unconscious on the sidewalk as passersby took selfies with him,
someone passed out in the bathroom at Walgreens, and a 20-year-old, quote,
wearing a green vest with blood all over his face.

I used to live in Chicago and it did not take long to learn not to go
anywhere near Wrigleyville on Saint Paddie`s weekend, or really any other
time when there`s not a Cubs game.

But since many Americans aren`t celebrating until tomorrow, we wanted
to take this opportunity for a public service announcement. And it`s just
this: guys, hold it together. Seriously.

Well right, when we come back, some much happier St. Patrick`s News.
Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Top of the morning to ye on this gray, drizzly
afternoon. Kent O. Brockman (ph) live on Main Street where today everyone
is a little Irish, except of course for the gays and the Italians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The city of Boston where more than 15 percent of the
population is
of Irish ancestry, held its St. Patrick`s Day parade today, and it was a
historic one.

For the first time in the parade`s 114 year history, two LBGT groups
were permitted to march in the parade under their banner. Out Vets, which
represents gay military veterans, and the gay rights group Boston Pride.

The reversal prompted the Boston mayor Martin Walsh to break his
boycott and become the first mayor to march in the parade in 20 years.

Now, New York City holds its parade tomorrow. And there is some
progress there, too, to report on. For the first time, an openly gay group
will be allowed to march under it`s own banner, that group is out
Out@NBCUniversal, our very own, an LGBT rights and support group at NBC
Universal, which includes MSNBC.

Now, this is a battle that goes back decades, when a small group of
openly gay New Yorkers marched as guests of another group in 1991 after a
compromise brokered by then Mayor David Dinkins.

The gay marchers were booed and mocked throughout the parade with
spectators yelling anti-gay epitaphs and some just screaming the word AIDS.

Out@NBCUiversal is the only LGBT group allowed to march under its
banner this year. In a statement New York group Irish Queers said that
while it welcomes this cracking of the veneer of hate, so far Irish LGBT
groups are still not able to march in our community`s parades. The fight
continues.

New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio agrees. He`s vowed not to march
until the parade`s organizers become more inclusive of gay groups.

The inclusion of one LGBT group in this year`s parade is important
progress. But until gay groups are fully welcomed in New York City and
everywhere else, we will not yet have finally put the ugly scenes of the
past behind us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: So I don`t know if you know this about me, but I love
basketball, obsessively love basketball. And every year for years I would
fill out a bracket -- one or two or three brackets sometimes. And today is
the day when you get the emails inviting you to join your friends from high
school bracket, and your office bracket. And I`ve stopped filling out
brackets and I`m going to tell you why I stopped filling out brackets, I`ve
stopped doing it, because it makes the tournament sad for me.

And the reason is, is that you fill out a bracket and you pick some
team you care nothing about to go to the Final Four, and they are a one or
two seed, and then some amazing Cinderella team comes along and all of a
sudden they`re up against that team. And your entire heart wants to root
for George Mason or Virginia Commonwealth University, but you can`t because
your stupid bracket has, you know, Duke beating them in the Sweet 16.

I don`t care about Duke. I want to root for the team that`s awesome.
So I stopped filling out brackets so I can root for the team that is
awesome.

Other thing about brackets is their engineered so that the safest
thing to do is just give the best seeded teams all of the way through.

Well, there is a new bracket on the market this year that tries to get
rid of that wrinkle. Joining me now Neil Irwin, senior economics
correspondent at The New York Times where he writes for the Upshot.

So, Neil, the idea here is the problem you`re best to just have the
number ones go through, the twos beat the 15s, and all of the way through.
But that is no fun. How have you guys engineered your point system to
reward picking upsets?

NEIL IRWIN, THE NEW YORK TIEMS: So, the idea this is kind of like the
stock market or like horse racing or like all kinds of markets out there
where it doesn`t matter, it`s not just about picking the winner, it`s about
picking a winner that nobody else picked.

So, you get more points based on how many people picked a selection.
So, for example, Kentucky is the overwhelming favorite. They`re a
fantastic team. So you should get more points if you pick a upset against
Kentucky than if you go with a
leader, that`s the idea.

HAYES: And that`s not the way most brackets work, right. Most
brackets just score by round, so, you know, games in the first round are a
certain point, games in the second round are another set of points and it
doesn`t matter whether you`re getting the 1/16 game right or you`re getting
the 5/12 game right.

IRWIN: Yeah, sometimes there a bonus for an upset. But this is
really a market based approach. The people pick a team, the more you get
rewarded by going the other direction.

So it really rewards you if you want to pick a bunch of upsets.

HAYES: Wait a second, it`s dynamic so as people fill out the brackets
it`s actually in real-time, like say Vegas odds, changing the points based
on how
favorited a team is?

IRWIN: Exactly. So you can come back on Thursday right before tipoff
and make some final selections based on where the odds are settling.

The idea is that this is a market mechanism. And wherever people
place their bets.

You know, not all of the eight teams are favored over all the nine
teams, the nine seeds. It`s not a perfect -- you know, based on the
selection committee, they don`t get it exactly right if you believe the
open market. And that`s how this works.

HAYES: Well, that`s interesting, too, right, because what ultimately
what your bracket will do will show the kind of real odds, right, the
revealed preference independent of the actual seeding numbers?

IRWIN: Right. So for example, Georgetown is a four seed. They`re
playing, though, all over on the west coast in Oregon against Eastern
Washington, which is a spunky team basically playing a home game. So,
that`s -- they have less odds. They have less favorable odds than most four
seeds do because they`re in not a terribly favorable situation.

This is the kind of dynamic pricing we have that affects what the
payoff is if you pick the right upset or pick the right favorite.

HAYES: According to the USA Today, the odds of picking a perfect
bracket are 1 in 9.2 quintillion, a number that I was unfamiliar with until
I read that number off the screen -- you know, I didn`t read it just there
-- you know, in the script earlier.

But it`s basically impossible to get the whole bracket correct, right?

IRWIN: That`s right. You know, that`s why you see sometimes somebody
will do a you win a billion dollars if you get it entirely correct. They
never have to pay that out.

HAYES: Buffet did that, yes, right exactly. I will promise -- I will
promise you a billion dollars if you get this correct. Buffett and Quicken
Loans, but of course they know that no one will get it correct.

IRWIN: Exactly. The odds are overwhelming not only that you won`t
get it correct, but that no one on Earth will get it correct.

HAYES: All right, Neil Irwin from the Upshot, you can check that out
at the Upshot website over at The New York Times.

If you are going to do a bracket, if I were going to do a bracket,
that`s the one I would do because I can sort of vote with my heart a little
bit rather than my head. Thank you very much.

That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts now.

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

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2015 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2015 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