Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Monday, April 20th, 2015

Read the transcript from the Monday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
Date: April 20, 2015
Guest: Judith Miller, Barbara Lee, Anthony Weiner, Peter Neufeld

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

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

Saddam Hussein`s men plot to retake Iraq by inventing ISIS. Tonight, an
explosive new report from "Ders Spiegel" on the national origins of the
Islamic State.

And the former "New York Times" reporter Judith Miller on the deception
that led America to war.

Then, Ted Cruz has the Conch.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: The next ten months will be a dangerous time.
It`s going to be like "Lord of the Flies."

HAYES: Eighteen Republican hopefuls square in a New Hampshire battle
royale.

And Anthony Weiner on Hillary Clinton`s return to the Granite State today.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, we`re back into
the political season.

HAYES: Plus, amazing police restraint caught on tape.

OFFICER: No, man, I`m not going to do it.

HAYES: And the FBI makes a bombshell admission about its use of junk
science to get convictions.

ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

A bombshell report by Germany`s "Der Spiegel" this weekend reveals just how
much the new war in Iraq is the same as the old war in Iraq, as ISIS
releases new video claiming to show a massacre of Ethiopian Christians in
Libya, supposed proof of the group`s expansive reach.

And the U.S. announces more charges against American residents conspiring
to help ISIS in Syria. The German newspaper`s report provide stunning
evidence that the group`s rise was actually planned and engineered by the
former members of Saddam Hussein`s Baathist regime in what has effectively
been an effort to restore the Sunni rule that was ended by the American
invasion in 2003.

Well, we knew before about the links of the between ISIS and former
Baathist officials, "Ders Spiegel" has now obtained handwritten document it
says were drawn up several years ago by a former colonel in Saddam
Hussein`s air defense force, a man known as Haji Bakr (ph), mapping out a
detailed command structure for the nascent group, a strategy for
infiltrating new territory under the cover of religious institutions, using
a complex network of spies.

Quote, "What he put on paper page by page was carefully outlined boxes for
individual responsibilities was nothing less than a blueprint for a
takeover. It was not a manifesto of faith, but a technically precise plan
for an Islamic Intelligence State."

According to "Ders Spiegel", that state was modeled on Saddam Hussein`s
infamous security and surveillance apparatus and the people behind it were
some of the same ones who served in that regime and later helped led the
insurgency against he U.S. and coalition forces who toppled Saddam.

So, while the Islamic State`s apocalyptic rhetoric and religious claims may
be what draw teenage girls from London to Syria and what informs the widely
held perception that ISIS poses a new and dire threat to the West, "Ders
Spiegel`s" reporting suggests this is actually the same people fighting the
same war they`ve been fighting for the last decade, plus, the U.S.
government`s current campaign against ISIS is just an outgrowth of what we
started back in 2003.

I`m joined by someone very family with that period of American history,
Judith Miller, former reporter for "The New York Times", whose coverage of
Saddam Hussein`s weapons program has blamed for a helping to build the Bush
administration`s case for war in Iraq. She writes about the controversial
time in her career on a new book, "The Story: A Reporter`s Journey".

Judith Miller joins me now.

Thank you for being here.

JUDITH MILLER, AUTHOR, "THE STORY": Thank you.

HAYES: When you look at this news, the news out of Iraq, do you -- do you
feel guilty? I mean, do you feel like you have a piece of that? That you
own in some deep professional or moral sense what`s going on there?

MILLER: No, I don`t feel guilty. I feel that as a reporter I did the very
best job I could to disclose to the American people some of the
intelligence information that the president and the former vice president
got that helped them form their decision to go to war. And as the
information evolved, I continued to stay with the story. I went to Iraq to
cover soldiers hunting for the weapons we thought were there and everything
--

HAYES: It`s the "we" right? Who is the "we"?

MILLER: Yes, "The New York Times" and American press who were more or less
reporting the exact same story in the lead-up to the war.

HAYES: You don`t think this is a disaster? You don`t look at this --

MILLER: I never said that. You said that.

HAYES: I`m asking you.

MILLER: Of course, this is a disaster. It is a disaster.

HAYES: No, but I mean all of it, right?

MILLER: The Iraq war was a disaster. The way in which it was fought was a
disaster. And I covered that year after year. I kept going back and
reporting on it.

HAYES: But you don`t feel like you played some role in bringing that
about?

MILLER: No.

HAYES: You genuinely don`t think that?

MILLER: No, I don`t think so. I relied on the sources who had been right
about the buildup of al Qaeda, had been right to warn about Osama bin Laden
and his threat to the United States. No one wanted to listen then. They
eventually did when the Twin Towers were attacked.

I was relying on the very same sources who had warned me about anthrax and
the threat to the United States.

HAYES: That remains tremendously contested, right, about anthrax?

MILLER: No, the FBI has blamed two individuals for it, one of whom
conveniently committed suicide, so we can`t contest his being charged with
it.

HAYES: But here`s what part of what I think is frustrating about watching
all of this unfold, right, is the sense that I mean, you write in your book
-- you write, basically saying as a citizen, as a person, you favored
regime change, right? You say that --

MILLER: Because I had covered Iraq since 1976.

HAYES: That`s right. And you know Saddam Hussein was brutal, he had done
horrible things, having covered Saddam`s brutal regime for so long, I
privately --

MILLER: And his abuse of chemical weapons against his own people.

HAYES: That`s right. But isn`t -- do you take away a lesson from this?
As we watch essentially former Baathist reconstitute themselves, wage this
permanent war, as we watch the cascade of effects of regime changes in a
place like Libya, do you think now -- do you see why people thought regime
change was a bad idea there? Has it changed your mind about regime change
as a following?

MILLER: No, I think regime change, people were very divided even before
the war about the wisdom of the invasion. Some --

HAYES: But I`m asking you verb did you changed your mind about the idea of
regime change?

MILLER: No. Had I known, however --

HAYES: You had not changed your mind on that?

MILLER: Wait a minute. If he did not have weapons of mass destruction, I
would have never favored an invasion. It was only because I was persuaded
by the intelligence.

HAYES: You`re operating this role and you`re favoring an invasion.

MILLER: No, no, I did not favor it in print. Others favored it in print.
I never did. I`m a reporter. What I was doing was reporting on the
intelligence.

HAYES: This strikes me as the difficult disingenuous thing to deal with,
or not disingenuous, right, maybe it`s just the nature of the job.

MILLER: It is the nature of the job.

HAYES: You thought it was a good idea to get rid of him.

MILLER: Yes.

HAYES: And you`re writing these articles, but that feeling had nothing to
do with articles that you wrote that ended up being a huge part of
supporting the war.

MILLER: No. I don`t think that President Bush and Dick Cheney decided to
go to war because "New York Times" and "the Washington Post" and every
paper in the country was reporting the intelligence that they were getting.

You know, for this book, I went back and I interviewed Dick Gephardt, one
of many of the Democrats who supported this war --

HAYES: Yes.

MILLER: -- based on the intelligence.

HAYES: Well, believe me, if Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt are right, I
would be giving them the same question, absolutely.

MILLER: Yes, but the point is the intelligence is what it was.

HAYES: But everybody`s got to own it, right?

MILLER: I own it. That`s why I wrote this book.

HAYES: The book doesn`t own it. The book says --

MILLER: Yes.

HAYES: It really doesn`t. It says my sources were wrong. It says my
sources were wrong.

MILLER: That`s right.

HAYES: Go ask the editor at "Rolling Stone" about what happens when your
source is wrong.

MILLER: No, no, that`s a very difficult situation. "Rolling Stone" did
not ask the basic questions they needed to ask. We did.

HAYES: So, you`re saying that the editors talked to the anonymous sources.
Did they have any access to them?

MILLER: They definitely asked all of the questions.

HAYES: Did they have access to them?

MILLER: Our editors asked every question.

HAYES: Did your editors have access to those anonymous sources?

MILLER: Some of them, yes.

HAYES: But not all of them.

MILLER: There were almost no anonymous sources in our stories. Almost all
of then were quoted by name.

HAYES: No, no, there were a lot of anonymous sources in terms of quoting.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: Almost every one was quoted by name. I did not write those
stories alone. More than half of my stories were written with other
colleagues at the "New York Times."

But look, Chris, no one was reporting something substantially different
about the WMD intelligence.

HAYES: Strobo and Lander (ph) were.

MILLER: That`s right. They had no specifics. There was nothing we could
work with.

HAYES: The only thing specifically was the general thrust of what true.

MILLER: And that is accurate. They were accurate, but not because -- let
me give you an example. When Michael Gordon and I had just reported that
in fact the CIA had diverted a shipment of aluminum tubes that no one knew
existed, three days before that paper had reported that there was no new
intelligence.

Now, you can argue that the intelligence was thin or that the intelligence
community misunderstood what they had. What you can`t argue is that there
was no new intelligence.

HAYES: OK, part of the problem is there is tons of data, right? So, you
can`t say -- it --

MILLER: Not that`s available to you and me. Not that`s available --

HAYES: That`s precisely the problem. This is what we had to learn, right?

MILLER: We have to work very hard.

HAYES: There are thousands of individual data points. So the whole
problem from an epistemic standpoint is one can truthfully report
intelligence that totally paints the wrong picture about what is actually
happening.

MILLER: But that`s not what`s happening.

HAYES: And that continues to be the case in national security reporting
long after Judith Miller has left the "New York Times".

MILLER: That`s not what happened here. The intelligence community, men
and --

HAYES: Some of them did and some of them didn`t.

MILLER: -- women of good faith, did the best they could, but they were
terribly wrong. And what should bother all of us, I think, is that 16
intelligence agencies, which are paid billions of dollars to get it right,
got it wrong, and may be getting it wrong today.

HAYES: Let`s remember where the horse was and where the cart was, OK? The
intelligence community was being dragged behind a vision of regime change
that, of course, was --

MILLER: What do you mean dragged behind?

HAYES: Everybody -- we know all of the trips that the vice president made
to the CIA to bring --

MILLER: Wait a minute, we have --

HAYES: -- we know for a fact that the policy of regime change, Wolfowitz
himself said, quote, "WMD was the thing we could all agree on". Right? So
--

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: Wait, wait. Let`s just remember, you want to talk about the
intelligence, which has been well litigated.

MILLER: So has this issue of pressure and distorted intelligence.

HAYES: Yes.

MILLER: Rob Silverman, the Senate Select Committee on intelligence, you
can roll your eyes, but these were bipartisan reports that looked at that
issue and they didn`t find any pressure on analysts. They got it wrong.

HAYES: There are analysts that will tell you to this day they were
pressured, that Dick Cheney came into my office.

MILLER: You know what, they didn`t say that when they were testifying
before these commissions or the Congress. And I have a lot of questions --

HAYES: So what`s the lesson here? What`s the lesson?

MILLER: And I have a lot of questions about people who after the fact say,
I had doubts. My resignation letter was in my desk.

HAYES: What is the lesson?

MILLER: Maybe it`s the lesson that Colin Powell drew in his own book on
leadership, when he said, where were these doubters when I was giving my
speech at the U.N. and the president?

HAYES: Wasn`t it your job to go find them, though?

MILLER: We tried the best we could. We never stopped looking.

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: Having covered Iraq -- I`m quoting from your book. "Having covered
Iraq and the region for decades, I simply couldn`t imagine that Saddam
would give up such devastating weapons or the ability to make them again
quickly once international pressure subsided."

This is you coping to I think honestly to your credit some confirmation
bias, right? The point is that you weren`t trying to --

MILLER: Not confirmation bias.

HAYES: Of course, it`s confirmation bias.

MILLER: It`s the conclusion that I had reached based on what the
intelligence analysts and experts were telling me. I had worked with
international inspectors for 10 years, they were all saying the same thing
-- he`s still hiding stuff, we think, with high confidence.

HAYES: Did Judith Miller from before this reporting episode and the Judith
Miller afterwards obviously learn some things, have different thoughts
about reporting --

MILLER: That`s why I wrote the book.

HAYES: Right. But my question is, are there deeper thoughts about
American foreign policy and about war and what the threshold for war should
be?

MILLER: You know, when I left Anbar province in 2010, what you were just
showing on the screen there, Chris, Anbar province, the murder rate there
was lower than in Chicago. I think that the Iraq that I left after
covering those soldiers who were there stabilizing the place, they were
pretty confident that we had -- they had succeeded in their goal.

HAYES: They were wrong.

MILLER: Because we left.

HAYES: No, because -- here`s why, because the people who live in Anbar are
going to win in the end, right? The people who live in Anbar and who want
to fight for Anbar will win in the end.

MILLER: But the point is they weren`t fighting as long as we were there.
They were not fighting.

HAYES: How long should we stay in Iraq?

MILLER: You know, we`re still in Germany and Italy and Japan.

HAYES: Forty, 50 years?

MILLER: But not as combat soldiers. To provide support to a government
that has support. When the Iraqi Sunnis stopped supporting Maliki, that`s
when ISIS was able to regain a hold. I know very well these were
Baathists. That`s what the soldiers were worried about. That`s the story
I covered and went on covering.

The sin in journalism is not a wrong story. It`s not going back to correct
a wrong story. That`s what I`ve tried to do both in my journalism and in
this book.

HAYES: The wrong story is a sin, too.

Judith Miller, thank you very much. I appreciate you coming on.

All right. Congressman Barbara Lee will be with me when we return.

(COMMERICLA BREAK)

HAYES: All right. Joining me now Congressman Barbara Lee, Democrat from
California, she knows a thing or two about remaining skeptical about
military intervention.

As you see this new report from "Ders Spiegel" and my exchange with Judith
Miller about what`s going on in Iraq -- what lessons do you draw in
informing the way you are thinking about conducting your role in Congress
as we think about the possible authorization of the use of military force,
for the ongoing campaign against ISIS in Iraq, possible intervention in
other places, et cetera?

REP. BARBARA LEE (D), CALIFORNIA: I think what`s important is first we
always need to recognize that a military solution is not the only option,
and give equal weight to other options and alternatives at that time, but
going back --

HAYES: Let me stop you there for a second. Does Washington do that? Is
the conversation on Capitol Hill any more -- or any less dominated by
military solutions now than it was 12 years ago?

LEE: I think we`re building that type of critical mass on Capitol Hill.
When you look at members of Congress and the Progressive Caucus, the Tri-
Caucus, Black Caucus and Democratic Caucus, and when you look at the vote
as it relates to the resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq, you
will see -- I believe it was 132 or 133 members of Congress, mostly
Democrats who voted against that authorization, but I think what`s
important as it relates to Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction and the
presentation of, quote, "the intelligence data".

If you remember correctly, the U.N. was conducting an inspections process,
and during that period I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee when the Bush
administration decided to use force and go to war. I offered an amendment
which, of course, the committee did not pass, but I took it to what we call
the Rules Committee, got a rule and brought it to the floor. What that
resolution said was, look, let the inspections process continue --

HAYES: And they were coming back and saying, we`re not finding anything.

LEE: Yes, let`s determine if there are weapons of mass destruction. I got
that amendment to the floor. Guess what? I got 72 votes for it. We need
218 just to get it passed. So, I share that because we have to remember
the history that there were alternatives. We could have waited to
determine whether or not the intelligence was accurate and factual.

HAYES: So, let me ask you this. You`re in a Congress right now that said,
oh, we need the president, we need an authorization for use of military
force. And basically, as far as I can tell, no one is really doing much
about it.

But as soon as the president strikes his preliminary deal with Iran,
Congress is rushing to have a vote to say whether up or down. What do you
make of that?

LEE: Well, I believe, first of all, as it relates to the president, I just
have to say I think he`s doing a phenomenal job in trying to make sure
there are no nuclear weapons in Iran, and that he addresses that in the
deal. And, in fact, we have not authorized the use of force in terms of
Iraq once again and what`s taking place in the Middle East as it relates to
ISIS and Iraq and the whole nine yards. And we need to do that. We need
to debate and we need to decide whether or not we`re going to authorize
that war which began last August, OK?

HAYES: Yes.

LEE: Secondly, that`s the contradiction and the hypocrisy in the Congress.
There is no way the Congress should undermine what I think is a diplomatic
path that could lead to a nuclear -- non--nuclear Iran.

HAYES: And it also strikes me, if you want to say, you should want to say
on peace and war, not just one, which is not apparently the way it`s
working in Congress.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee, thank you very much for joining us. Great to
have you here in New York.

LEE: Thank you. Good to be here.

HAYES: Oh, wait, it`s on -- many Republicans, one Democrat to send in New
Hampshire. We got it cover from all angles, Sam Seder, Michael Steele, and
Anthony Weiner.

Plus, in mind-blowing admission, the FBI says forensic examiners have been
giving flawed testimony to get convictions for over 20 years. Some of
those convictions resulted in executions.

That`s all coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRUZ: The next 20 months are going to be a Hobbsian state of nature. It`s
going to be like "Lord of the Flies." But let me tell you something,
January 2017 is coming.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: This weekend in New Hampshire, Republican presidential candidate,
Senator Ted Cruz, managed to use three distinct, colorful, violent
references to describe the coming election cycle, the anorthic nastiness of
the human state of nature as described by philosopher Thomas Hobbs, the
outbreak of savagery whether a group of boys are stranded on an island in
"Lord of Flies", and the HBO fantasy show "Game of Thrones" with the
comment January 2017 is coming, an echo of that show`s off stated warning
winter is coming.

The battle for the GOP nomination this year actually isn`t all that
different from "Game of Thrones", though hopefully with a lot less
bloodshed. Like the show, the primary fight will have a big cast of
characters battling and scheming for power, and there can only be one
survivor. Considered what played out this weekend in Nashua, New
Hampshire, just 200 miles or so from the Wall, where 18 different
presidential hopefuls gathered to make their play for the throne.

For now, at least, they focus the rhetorical armies on another.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: Hillary Clinton is going to raise $2.5
billion, which -- that`s a lot of which Chipotle, my friends.

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: When Hillary Clinton travels, there`s going
to need to be two planes. One for her and her entourage, and one for her
baggage.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: This listening tour is something
out of North Korea.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Huh? Hillary Clinton jokes will not do the job much longer. The
race is expected to be perhaps the most crowded and contested in history.
Just like in "Game of Thrones", the combatants will eventually have to
battle each other head on. And they`ll be doing it in an environment in
which even the most seemingly minor missteps have the potential to be seen
as a damning side of ideological betrayal. At Scott Walker learned this
weekend when he called America, quote, "arguably the greatest nation in
history," prompting "Weekly Standard" writer Steven Hayes to tweet
incredulously, "arguably?" with the hashtag.

It`s a sort of thing that makes a candidate long for the comparatively
pleasant company of dragons.

Joining me now, MSNBC contributor Sam Seder, host of "Minority Report", and
MSNBC political analyst Michael Steele, former chair of the Republican
National Committee. Both of these gentlemen, of course, are contestants in
our epic fantasy draft show.

MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.

HAYES: All right. Before we get into substance, we`re going to play a
game. You guys ready?

STEELE: Always.

HAYES: Michael, ready?

STEELE: I`m ready.

HAYES: I think we got 18 -- 18 candidates in New Hampshire this weekend.
I`m going to go back and forth between the two of you and see if you can
name every once.

SAM SEDER, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, gosh.

STEELE: Oh, geez, all right.

HAYES: Yes, get nervous.

I`m going to start with you, Sam.

SEDER: Well, Jeb Bush.

HAYES: Jeb Bush, done.

Michael?

STEELE: Marco Rubio.

HAYES: Rubio, done.

SEDER: Chris Christie.

HAYES: Done.

Michael?

STEELE: Bob Ehrlich.

HAYES: Bob Ehrlich, correct. Give him a ding.

Sam Seder?

SEDER: Marco Rubio?

HAYES: Didn`t you say Marco Rubio?

STEELE: I said Marco Rubio.

SEDER: All right. Ted Chris.

HAYES: Done.

Michael Steele?

STEELE: Carly Fiorina

HAYES: Yes, Fiorina, yes.

SEDER: Rand Paul.

HAYES: And Paul, yes.

Michael?

STEELE: John Kasich.

HAYES: John Kasich is correct.

Yes?

SEDER: Lindsey Graham.

HAYES: Lindsey Graham, yes. Oh, you guys are going to get this. Let`s do
it.

STEELE: Let`s see, Lindsey Graham was the last one?

HAYES: Yes.

STEELE: Oh, Scott Walker.

HAYES: Scott Walker, correct. Yes, boom.

SEDER: Bolton.

HAYES: Bolton, yes, the stash.

Michael Steele?

STEELE: Let`s see, Bolton, Scott Walker, hmm --

HAYES: Former, I`ll give you a hint here -- how about a former New York
governor.

STEELE: Oh, oh, yes, Pataki.

HAYES: Pataki.

Long Island congressman.

SEDER: Peter King.

HAYES: Boom.

Former Texas governor, Michael.

STEELE: Perry?

HAYES: Yes. There`s still more.

SEDER: Oh, my God. How about this?

STEELE: I`ll do another one.

HAYES: Yes?

STEELE: Bobby Jindal.

HAYES: Yes, Bobby Jindal. We`ve got 1, 2, 3 more.

SEDER: I know that Ben Carson couldn`t make it.

HAYES: A man who won`t run under any circumstances, but says he will.

SEDER: Huckabee.

HAYES: Nice, that him, too.

There`s another one who won`t run but says he will, national laughingstock.
National laughingstock.

SEDER: Are we talking about them already?

HAYES: The Donald. Donald Trump.

And finally Jim Gilmore. Go Google Jim Gilmore.

OK. Now that that`s out of the way. Michael, this is my favorite headline
of the day. Scott Walker apparently is the pick of the Koch brothers, who
Nick Confessore off the record behind closed doors, they say they want him
to be the candidate. How important is that?

STEELE: It`s huge. In fact, I`ve heard it from a number of circles far
removed from the Koch brothers that Scott Walker has a lot of energy. He
is I think for a lot of the establishment types and conservatives the
fallback. He`s the guy that is going to take care of the Bush problem,
with Jeb, and help them sort of segue beyond, you know, the Marco Rubios
and others who don`t necessarily have the presidential gravitas at this
point.

He`s a sitting governor. I`ve said this for a while and we have talked
about this. I think this race changes dynamically when the Republican
governors get in. You`ve seen the lob that Chris Christie has thrown in on
Social Security. You`re going to see these guys come from a space of
governing that changes the way these candidates talk, and the donors and
political class like that.

SEDER: The Scott Walker thing is really no surprise. I think the last
time we were on together, it was the day that the Koch brothers announced
they were going to dump $900 million into this election. Look, six, eight
years, the Americans -- the AFP and Scott Walker`s campaign were virtually
indistinguishable. In fact, there`s still investigations going on about
that in Wisconsin. So, this is no surprise.

HAYES: How much -- the big question to me, and we were having this debate
earlier today, right? There is this sense about in the new Citizens United
era, right, you can last much deeper than you used to. The question is,
have the rules changed?

SEDER: What you`re seeing now is everybody is paring up with their
billionaires. When Chris Christie goes out in New Hampshire and he starts
talking about cutting Social Security, he is talking to one person in
America, his name is Pete Peterson. He is trying to get his billionaire so
that he can go through the race. You got Marco Rubio his billionaire now,
this guy in Florida used to sell cars. You have Scott Walker with his
billionaire. Jeb Bush has got his minions. Who knows gets Foster Friess?

And what`s fascinating about it, aside between the two positions that Jeb
Bush impossible to run away from, immigration and --

STEELE: Common Core.

HAYES: Common Core --

SEDER: Well, Common Core, he`s already done a back flip on that.

A general overall notion of climate change.

HAYES: Right.

SEDER: There`s no ideological difference between any of this is
candidates.

HAYES: That`s right.

STEELE: That`s true.

SEDER: There`s more ideological difference in the "Game of Thrones."

HAYES: That`s a great point, Michael, is that he space that people are
trying to carve out is going to largely be sort of identity rhetorical as
opposed to substantive, although as we go down the debate process, you`ll
see people starting to stake out distinct positions.

STEELE: That is very true, and you see where we are already before this
thing really takes off when you have Scott Walker say that the United
States is blaring the greatest nation and all of a sudden people are like,
they`re going to parse that, you know?

So this is what you`re talking about. Because the space, the ideological
space between a Jeb Bush and Ted Chris is not as wide as a lot of people
pretend it is --

HAYES: Thank you.

STEELE: -- they are going to carve as hard as they can. Sam is right,
they start with the billionaires, because the billionaires -- it`s sad
we`re at this point that these folks are having the conversation first with
people who are going to write checks rather than with the American people
who are the ones who will vote them in.

HAYES: You know, in Greek democratic theory, they always say and I`ll
translate from the original Greek, start with your billionaire and work
out.

SEDER: Of course.

HAYES: That`s the old -- Sam Seder, Michael Steele, who are inarguably two
of the greatest pundits in history. Thank you both.

STEELE: We`ll take it and go.

HAYES: Exactly.

All right. It feels like the campaign season is really in full swing as
Hillary Clinton campaigns with a baby in New Hampshire. Anthony Weiner
will be here for more 2016 talk. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Believe it or not, it is only day nine of Hillary Clinton`s 2016
presidential bid. And today her campaign van rolled into familiar
territory, New Hampshire. It`s granite state of course is home for the
first primary of the election season and the place where Clinton pulled out
a surprising victory during her last presidential run in 2008.

Today, New Hampshire voters got more of the low-key road trip campaigning.
First last week in Iowa, a small child got carried around a bakery at one
point.

In addition, there were small group gatherings and talk of actual
substance. While major policy roll outs are not expected this early in the
race, during a roundtable discussion, Mrs. Clinton talked about everything
from insurance coverage for mental health, to universal Pre K, to the
challenges of drug abuse.

The campaign found itself fielding, or in most cases, not fielding
questions surrounding an upcoming book from a conservative author, titled,
Clinton Cash. The book reportedly examines donations to the Clinton
Foundation by foreign nations.

New York Times, which obtained a copy of the book, reporting, Clinton Cash,
quote, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton
Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors
from Mrs. Clinton`s State Department in return.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The campaign says the examples cited a free trade
agreement for
Colombia and reconstruction for Haiti were Obama priorities, not Clinton`s.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: As for the candidate herself, she tried to brush off the bubbling
controversy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, we`re back into the
political season, and therefore we will be subjected to all kinds of
distraction and attacks, and I`m ready for that.

I know that that comes unfortunately with the territory.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Joining me know, Anthony Weiner, former Democratic Congressman of
New York, also Clinton supporter, married to one of Hillary Clinton`s top
aides.

Welcome. Good to have you here.

ANTHONY WEINER, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE OF NEW YORK: Thank you.

HAYES: We`ll talk about the foundation stuff in a moment.

I thought this tweet was fascinating. This was by Byron York, a
conservative writer. A good, good political journalist, covering the event
today. He said, Journal is tweeting Hillary event, New Hampshire event is
boring. Yes it is, but its covering serious, important stuff, gonna get
word of mouth. And I saw Maggie Herman of the Times saying this reminded
her of the 2000 Senate race. And a lot of people have been drawing that
parallel when she did the listing tour in New York.

WEINER: Well, you know, I think a lot of things that people forget in all
of our analysis of stuff is that you actually learn as a candidate a great
deal when you go out and just talk to citizens, like the old fashion way.

When you`re Hillary Clinton, that`s really hard to do.

HAYES: Right.

WEINER: And so I think this is really just her having a very comfortable
level with citizens
that she`s talking to now --

HAYES: Wait, stop there for a second.

You`re saying, I think there`s two ways to interpret this. That, okay, the
strategy is to to show
her in small environments, humble, etcetera. You`re saying, you actually
think there`s some genuine
desire to talk to people because it will make you a better candidate?

WEINER: You know, every campaign has they moments where a candidate
references something, a Joe the plumber moment.

HAYES: Right.

WEINER: References something as happened on the campaign trail that struck
them.

We have this cynical notion in our world, oh, that`s phony, that`s someone
who has created the idea, this (inaudible) is still that ideal.

In fact, as a candidate, particularly one like Hillary who has been off the
(inaudible) for so long, this is actually a very helpful process. That`s
why, by the way, she was the one that kind of came up
with this idea.

So, you know, there`s a tendency, and we do it for a living, guys like us,
to try to figure out waht the metta viewpoint that we`re all supposed to
have of this. From the candidate`s perspective, she`s going to get better.
And, the citizens that are watching the conversation go on, they connect to
it because they`re like, I would want to ask the candidate that.

HAYES: The thing I`ve been thinking about is there was a New York Times
magazine profiled Jerry Seinfeld a few years back, and it was about how he
like will still just go to the Comedy Cellar on a random night and just do
just five minutes because if you are a comedian, the way you hone your
craft is the feedback of people.

And if you are a politician, you cannot be a good politician in the absence
of feedback with
voters.
WEINER: Right. And, the other thing is you really do learn the language
that people are speaking, the way they refer to their challenges, the way
they refer to the issues that are out there. You get better at it.

I know there is this tendency, particularly with Hillary, to say she`s done
it all before, but let`s remember something. A lot of people don`t remember
from 2008, don`t know the story of her upbringing, don`t know the story of
how committed she`s been to a lot of these things. So, it kind of works
both ways.

Not only is she getting a chance to listen to citizens talk about their
concerns, but she`s also
saying something else. I`m taking nothing for granted in Iowa, nothing for
granted in New Hampshire, I`m doing the very best I can to have these
conversations with the balance of cameras around, but all of that being
said, I think it`s really helping her out.

HAYES: Martin O`Malley has been giving a few interviews, it looks like he
may get in the race. He`s pretty clearly sort of carving out a space to
Hillary Clinton`s left, at least in sort of the profile so far.

You had this quote about Bill De Blasio. You know, there`s been this kind
of suedo controversy about whether he`s going to endorse or has an endorser
yet, this notion that he is somehow this spokesperson for some wing of the
party that Hillary needs to audition for, I think is wrong, not helpful.
She was working on a progressive issue in health care when Bill De Blasio
was still smoking pot at NYU or wherever he went.

I like the or wherever he went.

WEINER: Well, I actually didn`t remember. Look, by the way, I think Bill
De Blasio has been an excellent mayor. I write a column for the Daily News
and I`ve been very supportive of his policies.

I think the thing that struck me kind of viciously was a couple of things.
One, he`s kind of like he`s (inaudible), he`s family, you know, you don`t
ask your family member to audition. I want to see what you`ve got going.
And the other thing is, look, I think there`s this mythology that Hillary
has somehow not been there on important progress everybody issues.

Remember, the motherlode of progressive issues of our generation might be
the fight for health
care, and she created the CHIP Program, the Children Health Insurance
Program. She was the one that bears the battle scars for trying to do
national health care first.

And, I think there`s another thing about this. I mean I love Bill De
Blasio, I mean, he defeated me, I voted for him at the end of the day. You
know, I believe that this mug probably has more supporters in Iowa than
Bill De Blasio does. I think that frankly all of want to watch the campaign
unfold and I honor him for wanting to do that, but this notion of like, I`m
going to, I want --

HAYES: Forget altar, though. I mean, right? Let`s talk about, just for a
moment, about foreign policy. I mean, right? I mean, there`s a debate to be
had. Should we have bombed Libya? Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of
State at the time, we know from reporting that she was an advocate of that
NATO intervention. Libya is a mess right now. In the absence of a primary,
there`s nowhere to go with the discussion about what the heck --

WEINER: I think that`s fair, except there`s -- first of all Hillary
clearly doesn`t believe there
would be an absence of a primary. She`s talking about the primary and her
campaign talks about statistics about how difficult it is to win and
everything else. I think Martin O`Malley does wind up
running. There is going to be a primary.

And by the way, you know, she`s going to Iowa, going to New Hampshire.
She`s proceeding as if there is. She`s only taking primary election money,
things like that.

So, clearly she doesn`t -- I don`t begrudge having a conversation about it.
I just kind of think on the announcement day you don`t -- you know, you
don`t do this whole stuff about I want to see what she has to say.

Bill de Blasio is going to support her. I`m going to support her. I hope
overwhelming numbers of Democrats are going to support her. But it`s going
to be because she works for it.

HAYES: I`m taking a wait and see attitude.

Former Congressman Anthony Weiner, thanks for your time.

WEINER: My pleasure. Thank you.

All right, the five year anniversary of the oil spill we could all watch in
real time that BP would
like you to forget. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: It`s five years ago tonight the Deepwater Horizon rig, which was
drilling an oil well for BP 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana exploded.
11 workers were killed. The rig burned for 36 hours before sinking into
the water. 5,000 feet below the surface oil kept spewing from the blown-
out
well.

Live cameras showed thousands of gallons gushing out every day for day
after day after day, 87 days total. By the time the leak was stopped, more
than 3 million barrels worth of oil has spilled into the Gulf, the worst
oil spill in U.S. history.

And as much as BP wants you to think it`s all better, it`s really not.

OK, still ahead, a police encounter video that ends a lot differently than
so many others we`ve shown you lately. That`s coming up. Stick around,
you`ll want to see it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Tonight we have new video of a police encounter with a double
homicide suspect in New Richmond Ohio. Dispatch had warned officers the
suspect he could be armed, yet the bodycam footage showed Police Officer
Jessee Kidder exercising incredible restraint while confronting him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JESSE KIDDER, POLICE OFFICER: Get your hands up. Get your hands up! Get
your hands up right now!

Stop. Stop right there. I don`t want to shoot you, man. I don`t want to
shoot you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ll shoot you I`ll (EXPLECTIVE DELETED)

KIDDER: (inaudible) step it up.

Don`t do it man. Don`t (EXPLETIVE DELETED)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No you won`t. No you won`t.

KIDDER: Get back. Get your hands out of your pocket.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shoot me! Shoot me!

KIDDER: Get your hands out of your pocket now.

No, man, I`m not going to do it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shoot me. Shoot me. Shoot me.

KIDDER: Step it up now. Do not -- back up.

(EXPLETIVE DELETED) back the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) up. Get down on the
ground.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Officer Kidder has said his family bought him a body camera after
the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. He
talked to local NBC affiliate WLWT about what was going through his head
during the encounter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIDDER: Get your hands up.

He jumped out and he sprinted towards me. I had my firearm already drawn
on him. And I told him to put his hands up in the air. And he was
screaming as he was yelling "shoot me, shoot me." She he has got arms at
his side while he was running at me. And that`s the first thing I noticed.
He put his hands in his pocket there. So my eyes are watching that hand
right now, nothing else.

Get your hands out of pocket now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Knowing backup was on its way, Officer Kidder kept
back pedaling while the suspect insisted Officer Kidder shoot him.

KIDDER: I was trying to open a dialogue with him, you know, I don`t want
to shoot you, just
get on the ground. But he wasn`t having it. He just kept repeating shoot
me. At one point he said shoot me or I`ll shoot you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Then the suspect charged.

KIDDER: And he got towards my face right as I lost balance. I`m thinking
at this point that if he goes in to attack me that I will have to use
deadly force to defend myself.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And just in the nick of time there`s the sound of
backup.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Over the past several months we have shown a number of police
encounter videos, often showing very disturbing behavior on the part of law
enforcement. There`s been several police officers both and off the air who
said to me that these videos often do not properly capture the difficulties
of making life-and-death decisions during interactions with suspects.

What this video shows is a testament to that incredibly difficult task. It
is also an illustration of a situation that could have ended very well
easily in death, and didn`t. And that is a testament to Officer Jesse
Kidder`s bravery and commitment in bringing a deadly force situation to an
incredible peaceful resolution. The question we are left with is, how do
we create policing nationwide that produces more peaceful outcomes?

COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Years after FBI first started reviewing its flawed forensic hair
analysis testimony, the bureau has formally acknowledged that before 2000,
for over 20 years, almost every single examiner from the FBI laboratories
microscopic hair comparison unit gave flawed testimony at almost every
single trial they participated in.

According to The Washington Post, of the almost 300 cases the bureau has
review so far, examiners overstated the forensic evidence to the
prosecution`s benefit nearly 95 percent of the time.

Quote, "those cases included 32 people who have been sentenced to death, 14
people have already been executed or died in prison," and according to The
Washington Post the FBI reportedly knew of several troubling cases for
years, but only told the cases prosecutors their findings.

Since 2009, five men whose trials included false testimony from FBI experts
have been exonerated. Every single one of them served 20 to 30 years in
prison for rape or murder.

I`m joined now by Peter Neufelt who is co-director and co-founder of the
Innocence Project, which collaborated with the FBI on its unprecedented
review of the cases.

Peter this is just staggering thing to find out. You have got this unit in
the FBI. You`ve got local law enforcement around the country collecting
hair samples, sending it to the unit, the unit sending back their analysis
and then coming to testify in the trial, right.

PETER NEUFELD, INNOCENCE PROJECT: That`s what they would do.

HAYES: OK.

So, first of all, like what is hair analysis?

NEUFELD: Sure. What they`re actually doing is, let`s say they find a
foreign hair lying on a deceased victim. They`ll send that off to the FBI,
and let`s say I`m the suspect. And they think it`s a head hair. So
they`ll pluck a number of my head hairs and they`ll send that to the FBI.
And the FBI will microscopically compare the hair found on the victim with
my hairs to see are they similar or not?

HAYES: And then they will send an expert to trial to say, sometimes...

NEUFELD: Well, the problem was is that sure, they may be similar, but they
had no idea how many people would also have similar hair. And so...

HAYES: I mean, they`re literally sitting in a lab going like this thing
looks like this thing.

NEUFELD: They are under the microscope. But that isn`t the biggest
problem. The biggest problem is all they could say is that two people had
similar hair. But instead what they would say is
the chances of the hair coming from anyone else are 1 in 10,000.

HAYES: Based on...

NEUFELD: Base on nothing, numbers taken out of the hip pocket.

HAYES: Really? That bad?

NEUFELD: Yeah, it`s that bad.

So, in other words, unlike DNA where we have these vast databases to allow
you to give a number, there were no databases for hair at all. And they
did this for 25, 35 years. And not only did they do it without any
databases, but supervisors and management let them do it. It went
unchecked. Lawyers didn`t catch it. Prosecutors let it happen. Judges
didn`t care. Everybody in the criminal justice system was at fault.

And you mentioned only five people who have already been exonerated through
FBI testimony. In fact there`s another 70 people who have been exonerated
with hair testing given by state analysts who were trained by the FBI.

HAYES: Well, then the question is, like is this a salvageable forensic
method?

NEUFELD: The method it can be used as a screen as long as you now do DNA
testing after you do the microscopic review to see if in fact this is a
match and if it has some probative value.

HAYES: So what should -- I mean, you`ve got hundreds of cases that are now
tainted by
this. I mean, what do you do? How do you unravel this?

NEUFELD: Well, you may have thousands of case tainted by it, OK?
Fortunately, the FBI to their credit and the Department of Justice to their
credit, are very serious about a duty to correct, and a duty to notify
defendants and defense attorneys of this problem. And they are working
hard at it. And we are grateful for that.

But they haven`t done enough to identify the cases. There could be several
thousands more cases. But they`re not in their computer database, so it`s
hard for them to find them.

Once they find them, they write letters to local prosecutors to say, hey,
could you find the transcript for us? And if they don`t answer, not much
more is done in terms of follow-up.

So, there`s already 700 cases in the initial 2,500 they looked at where
prosecutors simply haven`t
responded. They can`t accept that. They have to go out there and they
have to get the transcripts, they have to review them and they have to
right the wrongs.

HAYES: And they brought you guys in? I mean, it`s sort of amazing you
guys are working together.

NEUFELD: We`re working together, because we went to them. When there were
three quick exonerations in rapid succession a few years ago in Washington
involving three different FBI analysts who is testified about hair matches
where the DNA exonerated them. We looked at the transcripts, and in every
single case they grossly exaggerated the probative value of the evidence.
Their testimony...

HAYES: So you went to the FBI and said you have a problem here?

NEUFELD: Yes. And they acknowledged the problem, to their credit. And
they said will you work with us to try to fix it?

HAYES: Very quickly 20 years from now, what is going to be the thing we
look back on the way we`re looking at this? Like, are there other kind of
methods that are being used now...

NEUFELD: There are many methods involving pattern evidence, impression
evidence, and trace evidence where they didn`t have databases and made they
probablistic statements that simply had no basis in science.

HAYES: Yeah, this extends -- I think there -- Radley Balko did an amazing
piece about bite marks, some around bite marks.

NEUFELD: We`ve had 24 exonerations involving bite marks.

HAYES: Unbelievable. All right, Peter Neufeld, thank you very much for
being here.

NEUFELD: My pleasure

HAYES: That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow show starts
right 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