Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Wednesday, May 27th, 2015

Read the transcript from the Wednesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Date: May 27, 2015
Guest: Dave Zirin, Jeremy Schaap, Matt Welch, Cristina Beltran, Chuck
Todd, Xeni Jones


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

LORETTA LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL: They corrupted the business of
worldwide soccer to serve their interests and to enrich themselves.

HAYES: The United States takes on the most powerful sports
organization in the world, arresting over a dozen men for bribery and

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Greed that drove them to use and exploit their
positions for cash.

HAYES: Then, a set back for the president`s immigration policy
provides an opportunity for Hillary Clinton.

While presidential candidate Rand Paul takes on his party`s war

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: ISIS exists and grew stronger because
of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately.

HAYES: Plus, the photographer who sold other people`s Instagram
photos as art.

And my interview with Rashida Jones about the documentary she produced
about porn, the Internet and the girl next door.

RASHIDA JONES, ACTRESS: It`s a cultural society which allows for like
any girl to feel like it`s a good choice.

HAYES: ALL IN starts right now.


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

It is massive multibillion dollar organization that runs the most
popular sport on the planet, and tonight, it is at the center of the
unprecedented global corruption prosecution, suggesting it is effectively
been functioning as an international criminal syndicate for years.

FIFA, the powerful organization that runs global soccer, has long been
viewed as wildly corrupt under long-time president Sepp Blatter, with
rampant allegations of bribery and shakedowns involving top FIFA officials.
But despite a widespread perception of flagrant and barely veiled
corruption, FIFA has long been able to operate with near total impunity and
almost zero accountability. That is, of course, until now.

This morning, newly installed U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch,
along with officials from the FBI and IRS announced racketeering,
conspiracy and corruption charges against 14 people. Including an official
alleged to have taken more than $9 million in bribes.

A total of nine FIFA officials were indicted, along with sports
marketing executives alleged to have paid them bribes and kickbacks.


LYNCH: These individuals, through these organizations, engaged in
bribery to decide who would televise games, where the games would be held,
and who would run the organization overseeing organized soccer worldwide.


HAYES: Early this morning, Swiss law enforcement officials entered
the five-star Baur Au Lac Hotel in Zurich, Switzerland, and arrested six
top FIFA officials who were staying at the hotel ahead of FIFA`s annual

At about the same time, in the U.S., FBI raided the Miami headquarters
of FIFA`s confederation that oversees soccer here in North America. Its
president, Jeffrey Webb, is among the indicted. And U.S. officials saying
their investigation has just begun.

There`s widespread speculation about a potential indictment for the
79-year-old Sepp Blatter, the FIFA president in power for 17 years who`s
been described by detractors as a dictator. Blatter was widely expected to
be re-elected to a fifth term on Friday, and FIFA says it does not plan to
delay that election despite today`s indictment.

In a statement today, Blatter said, quote, "We welcome the actions and
investigations by the U.S. and Swiss authorities and believe it will help
to reinforce measures that FIFA has already taken to root out any
wrongdoing in football."

Questions are also being raised about the 2018 World Cup, which FIFA
awarded to Russia, as well as the 2022 World Cup, which FIFA awarded quite
controversially to Qatar, despite searing heat and the fact that stadiums
are being built by migrant workers in slave labor conditions, hundreds if
thousands of whom have died already.

Separate from the U.S. led investigation, the Swiss have seized FIFA
documents and open criminal proceedings in connection with allocation of
the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. At a press conference following the
indictment today, a FIFA spokesman said the plan to hold those events in
Russia and Qatar had not changed.


WALTER DE GREGORIO, FIFA SPOKESMAN: The World Cup 2018 and 2012 will
be played in Russia and in Qatar. Russia and Qatar will be played. This
is what is fact today. I don`t go into speculation what will happen
tomorrow or after tomorrow and so on. This is what I can tell you. Not
more and not less.


HAYES: Figure the center of all this, the most powerful sports figure
in the world, Sepp Blatter, is a subject of a searing new documentary from
Jeremy Schaap of ESPN`s "E60", which details many of the charges leveled
against Blatter and FIFA and features interviews with those who say they
have witnessed bribery firsthand.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I witnessed the team offering different members
money in exchange for their vote.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was there in the room, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How much money?




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To three different --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To three different members.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Three different members.

What did they say?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The members? Oh, they agreed. They agreed I
mean, there wasn`t -- they didn`t take much convincing, let`s put it that


HAYES: The reporter of that, Jeremy Schaap, will join me in a moment.

First, joining me now, Dave Zirin, sports editor for "The Nation",
who`s also done some amazing reporting at FIFA, who wrote a great book,
discusses Brazil`s World Cup experience, "Dance with the Devil".

So, the big surprise here is not the allegations embedded. The shock
is that it`s happened. That some accountability has been brought to the
organization, right? I mean, that`s the thing that everybody around the
world -- I mean, around the world tonight and all day, people going, I
can`t believe they did it, they`ve arrested these people?

DAVE ZIRIN, THE NATION: Exactly, because it`s become a cliche over
the last two decades about FIFA being corrupt. It`s an eye roll. I mean,
people in the International Olympic Committee look at FIFA and say, damn,
you guys are corrupt.

And Sepp Blatter is so identified with this corruption. Chris, this
was the headline of "The New York Times" today. FIFA officials arrested on
corruption charges, Sepp Bladder isn`t among them.

It had to be made clear by "The New York Times" in the headline form.
And so, the surprise to me is two things, the first is that FIFA, any --
frankly, any multibillion dollar global corporation is actually being held
to account for their corruption -- that in and of itself is a shocker,
something that drops the jaw.

The second part, though, I think we need to look at is that they were
able to keep this so secret and do this in a way that even leading members
of FIFA said, that they thought this year`s FIFA Congress would be, quote-
unquote, "boring" or even more boring than usual. And yet, the United
States was able to pull off a transatlantic sting involving Swiss
authorities, using anti-terror statutes given to the Justice Department
after 9/11 to go after FIFA.

I mean, this isn`t just a crazy story. I mean, this is a movie for
goodness sakes.

HAYES: Yes, I want to -- I want to be clear here, there`s so many
things to unpack here. But, first, just to reiterate the human stakes
here, at some level -- you know, I`m a sports fan, I`m not a huge soccer
fan, but I heard about FIFA forever.

It took me a while to get it, about -- you know, OK, well, they`re
bribing each other about where they build their stadium. I want to show
you the statistics about worker deaths that was published in "The
Washington Post" today, comparing the death toll -- that`s one worker death
for various international sporting events. London, Vancouver, South
Africa, Brazil, Sochi, Beijing -- that is Qatar, that`s the 2022 World Cup.

I think it`s almost 2,000 if I`m not mistaken.


HAYES: Those are human beings, basically in situations of slave labor
who are being driven to build stadiums in the desert, essentially on this
rush job, because it appears or possibly they were bribed -- FIFA was
bribed into awarding them the games. I mean, that`s the real human stakes

ZIRIN: Yes, you could not imagine a worse country to host the World
Cup than Qatar, a place that`s 125 degrees during the summer. They`ve
already said they`re going to play the World Cup in the fall, which is
going to disrupt all of the leagues throughout Europe.

But that`s not even the most serious part. The most serious part is
that the World Cup in Qatar is being built by slavers, basically. I mean,
it`s being built under conditions of slavery, conditions that are so dire,
that as Robert Silverman wrote today in "The Daily Beast", after the recent
environmental catastrophe in Nepal, they`re actually preventing the workers
from going home for funerals, not giving them their passports, forcing them
to stay and do their work.

I mean, we`re talking truly monstrous acts. I`ll put on top of that,
everything I`ve witnessed in Brazil over the last two years. The 250,000
people displaced. The entire communities that were shunted aside to build

I mean, FIFA is a neo-liberal Trojan horse that goes into different
countries and does whatever they need to do, there are interests in those
countries that benefit greatly, while populations get so slammed, that you
even had people in Brazil by the millions protesting FIFA.

HAYES: Right.

ZIRIN: I had a friend in Brazil who said to me, the word FIFA was as
awful as the word FEMA in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.


ZIRIN: So, that is -- that`s the steaks that we`re looking at, is
that FIFA`s corruption has a real human cost.

HAYES: Yes, that`s important to keep in mind the story. Dave Zirin,
always a pleasure. Thank you.

As promised, joining me now, Jeremy Schaap, host of "E60 Reports" on

First, Jeremy, I just want to say, kudos for just phenomenal reporting
on the story, you`ve been doing it for years. The "E60" story is

Let`s start with a basic question, this gets to the heart of it, we
were talking today like what is FIFA, in a legal sense. What is this
entity? Is it a corporation? Is it a nonprofit? Is a global club?

Like what is it?

JEREMY SCHAAP, ESPN: It is a nonprofit. It is registered as such in
Switzerland, along with 65 other international sports organizations, Chris,
and local organizations and regional organizations in Switzerland.

And one of the problems here is that the Swiss system does not allow
for vigorous oversight of organizations such as FIFA, when we were recently
in the Swiss capital to conduct interviews for our show on FIFA and Sepp
Blatter, we spoke to a Swiss parliamentarian, (INAUDIBLE), who is working
to affect change in this regard, he wants FIFA to have his designation
switched, from what it is now, a nonprofit, that enjoys the same kind of
status, and lack of oversight as a yodeling organization, as he memorably
put it in our interview, to something more befitting a global billion
dollar behemoth, which is what FIFA is, of course.

HAYES: So, you`ve governance procedures design to oversee a yodeling
club that are fit on a billion dollar enterprise. It has tons of --
creates tons of value, has tons of values and it appears from the
allegations and some of your reporting that essentially has been basically
selling off what it has to the highest bidder in the case the American
charges here, this is actually about broadcast rights. Am I right about

SCHAAP: Well, it`s about many things. You know, we`re talking about
selling off the rights to play host to the World Cup, because they talked
about 2010 in South Africa, extorting money from South Africa, so it could
play host to the 2010 tournament. We`re talking about corruption
allegations surrounding the 2011 presidential election at FIFA. Sepp
Blatter at that time was re-elected for a fourth term and there were a lot
of corruption allegations swirling not around him in this case, but around
his opponent, Mohamed bin Hammam of Qatar.

But we`re also talking about those television rights, the marketing
rights, the sponsorship rights, all the kickbacks from marketing firms that
want to prophet from official FIFA sanction events.

This isn`t the first time this has happened by any means. In 2001,
there was a scandal involving ISL, a Swiss marketing company. And after a
7-year investigation, the Swiss authorities determined that ISL executives
had paid off sports officials at FIFA and other organizations tens of
millions of dollars, including more than a million and a half dollars to
Sepp Blatter`s predecessors, the president of FIFA, (INAUDIBLE) of Brazil.

HAYES: OK. So, Sepp Blatter who you just mentioned. Your -- the
piece you did for "E60" sort of opens with him. Reciting at Oxford, a
litany of the most caricatured view of him as essentially an
internationally Bond villain.


HAYES: He is really seen that way. I mean, every thing about him
almost -- the big question today, and you heard Dave talk about how "The
Times" had to note that he had not been indicted, is what happens to
Blatter. He`s the guy at the center of this. Can he quarantine himself
from this investigation?

SCHAAP: Well, that`s what he`s done for a long time.

Now, we reported a few weeks ago that he had decided it would be
unwise to set foot on U.S. soil. And he`s said, well, maybe I`ll come to
the United States next year, when perhaps the statute of limitations might
have expired on some of the charges that might be brewing with this

He attended 7 Gold Cup finals in a row in the United States after
being elected president of FIFA in 1998. He skipped in 2013 after the
federal investigation started and he`s said that he`s going to skip this

That being said, he`s done a very good job over the years of not being
caught with his hand in the cookie jar. And I think one of the good
reasons for that is frankly that I don`t think he`s had his hand in the
cookie jar. People, even his most persistent critics, will tell you, he`s
not someone necessarily interested in personal enrichment, in lining his
own pockets, he lives very nicely indeed in Zurich, he`s paid a lot of
money, probably about $5 million U.S. dollars a year.

He doesn`t pay for anything, he loves power, like a true Bond villain,
he`s done everything he could to perpetuate that power. That being said,
I`d say his position is more precarious than it has ever before been.

HAYES: And I want do ask Jeremy about the Qatar games, there`s a lot
much speculation, you saw the rep for FIFA saying, look, we don`t know. As
of now, they`re going to go on in Russia and Qatar.

But they`ve already moved the games once in terms of the scheduling
for Qatar. You`ve got the death toll. You`ve got this insane
unsustainable situation that you have done incredible reporting on.

And there`s a real question now, is this the straw that breaks the
camel`s back? Do they say, we`re yanking the game`s from Qatar?

SCHAAP: I think it`s a fair question, Chris. If you`d asked me last
flight at this time, I would have said 100 percent, 2022 is going on in
Qatar, as Sepp Blatter has vowed repeatedly. He`s said words to the
effect, over my dead body is 2022 going to be anywhere other than Qatar.

But I think the landscape has shifted a little bit, certainly in the
last 24 hours, and there might be a stronger movement afoot now to actually
have a revote. Certainly, there are provisions within FIFA`s charter that
would justify a revote. Whether the pressure becomes something that Sepp
Blatter responds to, that`s an open question.

HAYES: Jeremy Schaap, thank you again. And excellent work on this.
It`s just been great reporting.

SCHAAP: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: All right. Still ahead, a blow to President Obama`s
immigration initiatives open up a window for one of his would be

Plus, Rand Paul attacks his party`s war hawks even as the Republican
base grows more hawkish.

First, a brand new contender joins the presidential campaign. Just
don`t Google him.



MICHAEL STEELE, FORMER RNC CHAIR: Let`s just make it 15, because
that`s before 16.

HAYES: That`s right. I like your strategy, I like the way this is --
this is how you round the RNC. OK. Ready?

Oh. We got Santorum.

ANNOUNCER: Rick Santorum, the sweater vest days are over. He`s back
with a new look and probably some new ideas, we`re really not sure. All I
know is, don`t Google him. He`s former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.

HAYES: That will work. You got it, you`ll take it?

STEELE: That`s going to have some legs.

HAYES: Will Rick Santorum appear in any debates or not?


HAYES: He will?


HAYES: You heard it first.

STEELE: Rick, I`m calling you, baby. Many.


HAYES: Michael Steele was a confident man when he drew Rick Santorum
in our draft. That confidence was at least partially born out this evening
with Santorum making the official announcement that he`s running for
president once again.

That`s another 100 points on the board for Michael Steele, who`s
already got a pretty strong lineup with Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders.
It`s enough for him to pull into the lead with the grand total of 300

We`ll still a long way to finish line. The more candidates the GOP
has to fit on the debate stage, the more things are guaranteed to get
interesting in our own fantasy draft. We`ll keep you posted on all the
developments from the campaign trail in our fantasy candidate draft, you do
not want to miss it.


HAYES: So, Rand Paul has a problem, OK? He`s not polling
particularly well in the primary race. Most recent national poll puts him
in sixth place. And he`s self-proclaimed iconoclasm often makes him an
outlier in the GOP field.

While Senator Paul may paint that as an asset, some of his most
iconoclastic views on the risk of U.S. interventionism now appeared to be
out of favor with the GOP base he`s courting on the trail.

In the latest NBC News/"Wall Street Journal" poll, 27 percent of
Republican primary voters said national security terrorism should be the
government`s top priority ahead of the deficit, job creation and economic
growth. That problem for Rand Paul is only likely to grow, as ISIS
continues to take territory and expand its reach throughout the Middle
East, and the more hawkish candidates crow about how it`s a result of
American weakness.

Now, enter Rand Paul`s new book and his current book tour -- the
perfect opportunity to introduce himself to the American public and GOP
voters. And the center has seemed to moderate his anti-interventionist
stance in recent months -- today, he pulled no punches.


PAUL: ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party
who gave arms indiscriminately and were snatched up by ISIS. ISIS is all
over Libya because the same hawks in my party loved -- they loved Hillary
Clinton`s war in Libya, they just wanted more of it. But Libya is a failed
state and a disaster. Iraq really is a failed state or a vassal state now
of Iran.

So, everything that they`ve talked about in foreign policy, they`ve
been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep
saying and pointing fingers otherwise.


HAYES: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal perhaps seeking to remind
everyone he exists, hit back at Rand Paul, calling him, quote, "Unsuited to
become commander-in-chief, has become impossible to imagine a President
Paul defeating radical Islam and it`s time for the rest of us to say it."

Interestingly, that statement came from the state of Louisiana`s
office of the governor, not from a political group like Jindal`s
presidential exploratory committee.

With Chris Christie today slamming Paul`s efforts to reform NSA
surveillance, and Lindsey Graham giving the impression he`s getting into
the race solely to troll the Kentucky senator, Rand Paul may find himself
very unpopular on the Republican debate stage.

Joining me now, Matt Welch, editor of "Reason" magazine.

So, I`m fascinated by how Rand Paul is playing this, because I think
he`s got a dilemma, which is that his foreign policy views are what
distinguish him from the rest of the field. At the same time, if that --
if Rand Paul style foreign policy was a stock, the price on that would be
trading down year over year quite a bit among GOP primary voters, don`t you

MATT WELCH, REASON: Year over year, yes. But let`s not forget what
happened last week, right? All the Republican candidates, with the
exception of Rand Paul, were stumbling all over their tongues trying to
figure out how to answer a simple question of, was the Iraq war justified
and have to do it, right?

HAYES: That`s a good point.

WELCH: I mean, the assumption that the Republican base is more
hawkish, this is true compared to a year ago, but it`s not very deep. You
can say, you can foreground that security is the most important thing right
now, but what to do about it is actually the most important next question.

And Republicans, and especially hawks haven`t had good answers about
that. The attacks on Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, compared to Bernie Sanders
today, all this kind of stuff, they almost all don`t talk about what we
should be doing.

HAYES: That`s right.

WELCH: They know we`re against American weakness. We`re against
Iran. We`re against Vladimir Putin. But how do you get to the next step?

Rand Paul is saying, the next steps that these people have come up
with have backfired by and large, and they don`t have a particularly good
answer to that. So, I think you place this, because it`s him against the
hawks, one against ten, he can differentiate himself.

And this will help in early states like New Hampshire, where you have
a lot of live free and die people who are sick of war. As Americans, I
think they`re pretty war weary right now. So, he`s betting he can
differentiate himself, when you have a sea of Lindsey Grahams out there who
are coming out and trying to take out his knees.

HAYES: Well, that`s what I found interesting about these comments.
In the trajectory of him, right? It seemed to me, as you had the kind of
rise of ISIS and this more hawkish mood sweep over the United States
Congress. Members of both parties frankly, and the Republican party, you
saw him, I think sort of trim his sales a little bit, triangulate, I`m for
the air strikes against ISIS, we have to defeat them, which itself was a
little bit of a deviation from what I would have expected from him.

This to me signals the kind of doubling down, a kind of like, OK,
let`s have this fight. Let`s have this debate, this policy disagreement in
the Republican primary?

WELCH: Well, let`s keep in mind also that the provisions of the
Patriot Act are set to expire on Monday, and this is because of Rand Paul.

So, the fight was happening anyways over an issue that he`s -- he came
to office talking about -- he`s been talking about it since his first day.
So, if you`re going to be having a fight about the Patriot Act anyway, you
may as well lump it all in right bow, because it`s a fight that he has
always led.

I interviewed him two years ago, during the height of the Syria
deliberations, which he basically led the opposition to the Syrian war and
was victorious in that, and he put it to me, on any given day, 80 to 20,
he`s outnumbered in the Senate in percentage-wise among his Republican
colleagues when it comes to foreign policy. But when he talks to people in
Kentucky and elsewhere, it`s 80/20 in the other direction, including among
military personnel, who are sick of war.

So, that`s the gamble, and you`re right, it is a gamble, but it`s also
the main differentiating factor of him, besides the fact that he`s actually
a radical libertarian when it comes to cutting government in ways that most
Republicans have stopped being years ago.

HAYES: That I think is true. But I also think that what`s happening
with the Patriot Act right now, is particularly fascinating. It may
actually last. I mean, it is surprising it`s gotten to this point.

It`s been mismanaged by a lot of people who wanted to keep it going.
I think they had the worst side of the argument frankly on things that, for
instance the courts have stepped in and said are frankly unconstitutional,
like bulk collection of all the cell phone metadata. But do you think he`s
winning that argument in the Republican primary, or has he simply
outmaneuvered his opponents?

WELCH: That`s a good question. I think -- Andrew McCarthy from "The
National Review", who is on the opposite of this from Rand Paul and me and
I suspect you, had a piece a few days ago, saying Rand Paul has won this


WELCH: I think the argument is wrong in his point of view, but
broadly in the culture, he`s won the argument. A majority of
conservatives, a majority of Republicans are against bulk surveillance,
bulk metadata collection. So, it`s -- the people who want this to keep
going on are in Washington.

HAYES: Yes, Matt Welch, always a pleasure. Thank you.

WELCH: Thank you.

HAYES: All right. Still ahead, how a court case just opened up a
campaign opportunity for Hillary Clinton. But first, my interview with
actress Rashida Jones.


JONES: It`s like "The Hunger Games".


HAYES: Exactly. It totally is "The Hunger Games".

JONES: Except it`s not food. It`s -- I don`t know.

HAYES: What is it?

JONES: Movies?

HAYES: Fame.

JONES: Fame.



HAYES: More people visit porn websites in any given month than
Netflix, Twitter and combined. And while pornography maybe big
business in America, it is not particularly lucrative for most of its
participants. The documentary Hot Girls Wanted dives into the decidedly
unglamorous world of amateur porn following several late teens in search of
fame and fortune.

I sat down with one of the film`s producers Rashida Jones to discuss
the changing role of pornography in our society.


HAYES: In some ways this movie is about show business. It`s about,
like -- if a Hollywood blockbuster is the top of show business in payscale
and fame and status, then this movie is about people making pro-am --
professional-amateur pornography at what I think is fair to say, the lowest
rung on the ladder of show business?

RASHIDA JONES, FILMMAKER: I was thinking about it in terms of like
what it must be like for an 18-year-old girl to go to her parents or not go
to her parents or to just leave and say, I`m going to pursue this thing.
And I feel like it was probably similar to people leaving in the `60s and
`70s and going do L.A. to act, right, because it wasn`t really considered
like a prestigious legitimate thing to do after high school, right?

HAYES: It was disreputable in some ways. Like it required a
conversation with mom and dad.

JONES: I think that there`s a lot of reasons it`s become okay to
pursue this kind of thing now. But I do think it`s all about the same
things that Hollywood is
about -- it`s like glamour, fame, quick cash, success, access.

HAYES: When you watch this film, or when you watch cuts of it, like
what was your relationship to what you were seeing? Did you want to pause
and say, please stop, please don`t do this? I found myself kind of wanting
to do that at a number of points.

JONES: Yeah. I mean, I think you know the filmmakers did a really
good job of continuing to push your comfort level throughout the course of
the film. I mean, not so much like you know they`re very delicate about --
actually there`s not really nudity in the film. I mean, there`s maybe like
one topless shot.

Sorry, that`s probably a disappointment for some people, but yeah, I
wanted to understand the psychology of young women who would do this and
then what you kind of realized through the course of making the film is
there isn`t a psychology, it`s not like there`s a -- there`s one kind of
girl who does this, it`s the cultural psychology which allows for any girl
to feel like it`s a good choice.

HAYES: What is that cultural psychology?

JONES: I think I`ve been vocal about the conflation of pop culture
and pornography. And, you know, I think it`s like, it`s no longer
marginal, it`s no longer subversive, it`s no longer taboo to be in porn, to
work in porn. And like there`s a lot that`s good about that. But the bad
side of that is that you just don`t have a ton of information how you get
from point a to point b, which is a successful porn star.


HAYES: Documentary Hot Girls Wanted debuts on Netflix this Friday.

We`ll have much more of my interview with Rashida Jones then.

Up next, how one person`s Instagram photo can become another person`s
art without any kind of permission.


HAYES: An exhibition at an art fair here in New York this month has
created something of a stir on social media, because the works of art in
question, you see them there reportedly being sold for $90,000 each,
consisted solely of giant screen shots of other people`s Instagram photos
used without permission.

Richard Prince, well known as an appropriation artist, commented on
Instagram photos, then took screenshots of them, enlarged them and printed
them on canvas.

A woman in one of the photographs spoke out, where, but Instagram, of
course, after learning that a picture of her had been sold for $90,000.

She wrote in part, quote, it`s just a screenshot, not a painting of my
original post. No, I did not give my permission, and, yes, the
controversial artist Richard Prince put it up anyway.

For years, Prince has been making slight adjustments to other people`s
stuff and calling it his own. In 2008, he was sued by photographer Patrick
Cariou for copyright infringement after Prince took Cariou`s images of
Rastafarians, made some alterations, and put them into his own exhibit.

Prince`s image is the one with the electric guitar.

Though Prince was initially ordered to destroy his pictures, he
eventually won an appeal for most of the works in question, because, as the
New York Times reported in 2013, the appeals court found that Prince`s work
manifested an entirely different aesthetic from Cariou`s pictures.

Last year, Prince and Cariou reached a private settlement for the
pieces that remained in dispute.

All this got me thinking about the stuff I post on Instagram and the
fact that I have no idea who owns it. I`m sure I checked a box agreeing to
some terms of service, but of course I didn`t actually read those terms.

Joining me now, Xeni Jardin. She`s tech editor -- journalist and
editor at

So, first Xeni, what do you think of this from a sort of I`m torn here
because I think -- you know, us in the sort of world of creative commons
and Boing Boing obviously has a view on intellectual property that`s fairly
expansive. But this also seems kind of a jerk move, frankly, on the part
of Richard Prince.

XENI JARDIN, BOINGBOINB.NET: Kind of a jerk move really sums it up,
Chris. I mean, whether or not this is legally fair use is to me kind of
beside the point.

It`s okay to be a jerk on the internet or in the art world, but it is
a cardinal sin to be a boring jerk. And in my opinion that`s kind of what
Prince is here.

You know, he became famous, and perhaps rightly so, in the 1970s for
appropriating images like the cowboy smoker from the Marlboro man ads.
People of our generation understand what that means and we know that back
then the big, iconic, cultural images of the day were all controlled by
gigantic corporations, right. And that`s not the case now. I mean, anyone
with an Instagram account and an internet connection can become an artist.

HAYES: That is the point is that it`s a difference between punching
up and punching down, right. I mean, or sort of sending up -- it`s like,
well, here`s this giant multimillion dollar tobacco company, and here`s
some random Instagram user who I`m not going to make money off of. And it
got me thinking of the fact that in some senses, right, there`s a little
bit of a thin line between what he`s doing and what all social media
companies are doing, which is they`re all running restaurants in which we
come in and bring the ingredients and cook the food. Like that`s what
social media is. It`s like all the content, all the stuff you look at is
just the people who the customers are making.

JARDIN: You know, to Instagram`s credit, they could have licensed
these images to Richard Prince under the terms of use of their service, but
they didn`t. And Richard Prince, I just -- it seems like a ripoff, when
somebody who`s an established well known artist who`s 65 years old is
selling things for $100,000 or so -- photographer Clayton Cubit (ph) I
think said it best on Twitter, watching Richard Prince try to do Instagram
is like watching your dad try to rap. And unless your dad is Dr. Dre or
Ice-T or Kanye West or something, it`s just going to look awful.

Did you see how the Suicide Girls responded to that, though, the
Suicide Girls are these grouped of kind of edgy alt models, some of whom
were appropriated in the Richard Prince exhibit -- the model you referenced
with the blue hair I believe is a Suicide Girl. They`re now selling copies
of Richard Prince`s prints for 90 bucks instead of 90,000 bucks.

HAYES: It`s a hall of mirrors.

Can I go back to something you just said, which is important, key
here? Instagram could have licensed these. I mean, this is a key point
here, right?

JARDIN: Yeah, it is.

HAYES: Under the terms of service, they actually did have the
intellectual property title on these images, because you pass them over
when you take them and post them on Instagram, right?

JARDIN: Yeah, if you read terms of service carefully, there`s
definitely plenty of wiggle room for them to have done this, but it would
have been complete suicide, no pun intended.

Richard Prince is trying desperately to remain relevant using
techniques that made a lot of sense in the analog time when he became
famous. But they don`t make a lot of sense now. And he`s making these
kind of creepy old grandfather comments
on the prints that were in the Gogosian show (ph), or were in the Gogosian
show (ph). And these women have no way to respond to that.

It`s kind of like picking on somebody who can`t respond to you. And
that`s what feels so wrong.

The beauty of the internet is that everyone has a voice. And Richard
Prince is kind of taken their voices away. I think the best thing we can
do is just ignore him entirely.

HAYES: Do you think we`re going to see a situation develop in which
more content, whether it`s photos or things people write, posted on large
platforms like this, end up being sort of reappropriated or end up being
used? I know there were ad campaigns at one point that were grabbing
images off of Facebook, and there was sort of litigation around that.

It seems to be the case we will head toward more confrontations like
that the
more there are images and other contents being uploaded?

JARDIN: Yeah. I mean, we`re entering a whole new world of copyright
here. But I think for those of us who are interested in experimenting in
different kinds of intellectual property law, it just really stinks to have
somebody like Richard Prince become the fair use story that everybody is
talking about. It`s just lame work, Chris, I`m sorry.

HAYES: Xeni Jardin, thanks for joining us.

JARDIN: My pleasure.

HAYES: Still to come, how Hillary Clinton is seizing an opportunity
from an Obama administration set back.


HAYES: There are any number of ways to get on stage at a concert --
you can know the artist, know someone who knows the artist or you could
just tweet. That was enough to get Entertainment Weekly`s Chris Ratcliffe
a serenade by MariahCarey earlier this month. His employer, I`m sure,
helped as well.

It all started at the Billboard Music Awards when Ratcliffe, a Mariah
Carey superfan, tweeted out from Entertainment Weekly`s account, "watch
Mariah Carey deliver a career spinning performance at the BBMA`s." To his
surprise, she tweeted back, "thank you, I enjoyed the moment.

Seizing on his moment, he responds, "we`re in the house for your Vegas
show tonight, too darling, would love to have a festive moment after the

Bold but rewarded. A few DMs with team Mariah later, next thing he
knows two young women in maid outfits, of course, suddenly appeared, I was
blindfolded, placed in pink fuzzy handcuffs, and instructed to get on the
circular bed on stage. I couldn`t see anything, and I could barely move,
but I could hear the crowd erupting. And Mariah`s sweet voice serenading
me to "Touch My Body."

Lucky for Ratcliffe, there is a picture and a tweet of the magical
event that way he knows his serenade wasn`t just a vision of love.


HAYES: Federal appeals court dealt the Obama administration another
setback to its executive action on immigration, although possibly just a
temporary one.

OK, the U.S. court of appeals for the fifth circuit up held a lower
court`s decision to delay the implementation of President Obama`s
immigration action while
the merits are its legality are being litigated up through the courts.

But as noted by the New York Times, quote, the decision by the fifth
circuit to leave the Texas judge`s injunction in place does not necessarily
mean the Obama
administration will lose the larger case, that is whether they have the
authority to do what they`re doing.

The full consideration of the underlying case on whether the Obama
administration exceeded its authority in its immigration plan announced
last November, will be heard by the fifth circuit on July 6. And in fact
the Justice Department has decided not to appeal the fifth circuit`s
interim ruling of the Supreme Court, an indication, perhaps, it still sees
a good chance of success on the substantive issues in the lower court.

Nevertheless, the right saw the fifth circuit`s temporary ruling as a
big defeat for the Obama administration.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In fact, the fifth circuit court came court came
down on the side of the public interest and said, it is not in the interest
for these kind of top-down fiats to be imposed on 26 states that have
objected to the costs and consequences of unfettered open borders.

HAYES: Then there is presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who may
have easily refrained from commenting either way on the fifth circuits
decision since the final legal ruling is yet to be made. But instead,
interestingly to me, the former secretary of state chose to insert herself
into this fight. Tweeting, "fifth circuit is wrong on immigration. POTUS
followed precedent, took steps for families, when GOP House wouldn`t. Must
continue to fight.

And that`s just one piece of a much larger Hillary Clinton strategy,
which is very clearly focused on maintaining and growing what you might
call the Obama coalition -- people of color, single women and younger
voters. The director of Latino studies at New York University, Cristina
Beltran, and the moderator of Meet the Press Chuck Todd join me right here
at the table after the break.

HAYES: All right, joining me now, moderator of Meet the Press Chuck
and Cristina Beltran, director of Latino Studies at NYU. Great to have you
both here. Great to have you both here. Great to have you here in New
York, Chuck.

So, here is what I found fascinating about this. If you go back to
the time machine, obviously times have changed, right. And you think about
Bill Clinton facing a similar thing in `92, when the entire strategic class
of the Democratic Party was like, stay away from wedge issues, win back
those white working class -- the idea that he would have gone out of his
way to tweet that, about a fifth circuit decision is just -- it is

CHUCK TODD, MEET THE PRESS: Right, this is the guy, the only wedge
issue they did was the death penalty.

HAYES: In the other direction.

TODD: In the other direction.

These were the type of wedge issues. But it all goes to the point you
made just before the break, which is -- this is a simple number`s game.
And if Hillary Clinton wins north of 65 percent of the Hispanic vote, it`s
game, set, match. You cannot lose states like Colorado, Florida, frankly,
Virginia, and people forget that it`s a growing Hispanic population, that
has helped move Virginia from its lean red area to being a full fledged
right down the middle swing state And so that`s what this is all about pure
and simple.

HAYES: Just to get a look at the exit polling, Obama took 71 percent
of the Hispanic vote, 44 percent spread against Romney.

This also seems to me like an issue -- it is a wedge issue in reverse,
right where you can tell she thinks she`s got the better part of this
issue, and she`s pressing at every opportunity?

CRISTINA BELTRAN, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Yeah, no, she`s going to run
with this. And it makes a lot of sense for her to do that. I mean, it`s
really interesting because people forget that in 2008 during the primary,
Hillary Clinton did a lot better with Latino voters than Obama did.

HAYES: In fact, there was a big question in that primary.

BELTRAN: Would they shift over.

TODD: Well, we went through this whole African-Americans versus
Hispanics issue...

BELTRAN: And that ended up being really a myth, but there was
certainly, because people have a history with the Clintons, they felt a
confidence in their economic policy. So, she has a base that she`s trying
to build on. And I think also because among Latino activists and Latino --
people involved in the immigrant rights movement, those folks are angry at
Obama, and disappointed at him, and they know that the only reason he`s
doing a lot of this is because of activist push back on him.

So, they know that they want to get him to sort of do this. Hillary
doesn`t have the baggage of Obama, so she gets a pickup on the larger
Latino support and then try to parley that without having his baggage. I
mean, that`s her hope anyway.

TODD: Well, yes, but don`t forget she`s been very slow on this issue.

HAYES: She has been.

TODD: Don`t forget...

HAYES: The drivers licenses. Remember that moment.

TODD: Right, candidate Hillary Clinton was so nervous about the
politics of this issue that literally she was trying to take a poll during
the debate. And you can watch her, she was flip-flopping all over the
place. And that`s what this is.

BELTRAN: But this says so much about the fact that look at what the
Latino politics condition is right now. The amount of anti-immigrant
sentiment has become so radical and so intense that just to be not actively
hostile constitutes a fairly...

HAYES: But here`s the things that`s so fascinating about the
political competition, it is so intense among the people it is intense
with. But the calculation that was made by this White House and the
calculation that is being made by the Hillary Clinton campaign is that it
is deep, but not wide, right. The people that are worked up against

BELTRAN: Are never going to support her.

HAYES: Are -- deeply don`t like it, but are fairly narrow part of the
electorate. That`s the bet they`re making.

TODD: Well, it is not only that, it throws a grenade into the
Republican primary, which is, you basically have the Marco Rubios, the Jeb
Bushes and even a Scott Walker who really do not want to have immigration
as an -- now Scott Walker has made a political calculation now to move to
the right on immigration.

HAYES: Right, he sort of renounced his previous.

TODD: He is -- basically, he is pulling the Mitt Romney and saying,
well, look this is the path to the Republican nomination, you can`t do

But what it does is it puts then the Republican Party has this intense
debate about immigration over here, maybe some loud voices end up being the
face of some of the rhetoric that the eventual nominee is going to wish
wasn`t there, like, you know -- or the eventual nominee slips like a Mitt
Romney does and says self-deportation becomes this rally cry. And no one
thought Mitt Romney was really this anti-immigrant guy eight years ago.

HAYES: That was not his identity.

TODD: That was not who he wanted to be.

HAYES: It got forced in the primary...

TODD: Correct, the primary created that.

BELTRAN: And I mean, that`s fundamentally really critical to how this
whole thing is going to play out, because right now what`s interesting is,
people like Rubio and Jeb Bush have the story, but Hillary has the policy.
I mean, Hillary can
get up and actually talk about her support for immigration reform. I don`t
know what Jeb Bush plans on saying right now, or Rubio.

HAYES: Oh, I tell you if Jeb Bush wins the next day he will come out
in favor of CIR. I think there`s not a question.

TODD: Neither Jeb -- and I tell you, this going to be an interesting
question for Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, do they roll it back? If this
policy that the president is trying to do after it gets litigated and...

HAYES: On the merits, right.

TODD: And let`s say it gets implemented, then would they roll it
back? I don`t think Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush would roll it back, I don`t
think they would, I don`t think a Rick Perry would.

I mean anybody that has governed or represented a large Hispanic
population isn`t going to do it,

But it`s tough politics.

HAYES: Right. And as you and I were saying in the break, that
litigation on the merits -- right now we`re talking about the stay and
whether people are going to get these temporary, you know, to start the
process when it`s legally unclear whether they`ll actually be able to do
it, that`s all going to happen in 2016.

TODD: That Supreme Court ruling and decision about the executive
power of the president to do this, happens in the middle of the
presidential campaign.

HAYES: All right. Chuck Todd and Cristina Beltran, thank you both.

That`s All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts right


<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