Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Thursday, August 20th, 2015

Read the transcript from the Thursday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Date: August 20, 2015
Guest: Jennifer Palmieri, Katie Packer Gage, Dan Savage, Jeffrey Lewis


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

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There`s a very big question
as to the anchor babies.

JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Anchor babies, as they`re

TRUMP: Anchor babies.

HAYES: From bad to worse.

TRUMP: I`ll use the word "anchor baby." Excuse me, I`ll use the word
"anchor baby."

HAYES: Donald Trump`s ugly rhetoric spreads.

REPORTER: Do you regret using the term anchor babies yesterday on the

BUSH: No, I didn`t. I don`t! Do you have a better term?

HAYES: Tonight, the backlash from inside the Republican Party.

Plus, Trump mimics executing an American POW.

TRUMP: We get a traitor named Bergdahl, a dirty, rotten traitor. In
the old days, bing, bong.

HAYES: Tonight, Bowe Bergdahl`s lawyer responds.

And the supposed deal maker that turns out to be less than meets the

The remarkable press conference from former President Jimmy Carter.

JIMMY CARTER, FORMER PRESIDENT: I`ve had a wonderful life.

HAYES: And an admission of hypocrisy after the Ashley Madison hack.

JOSH DUGGAR: Let`s stand together for marriage.

HAYES: Dan Savage will join me on Josh Duggar, when ALL IN starts
right now.

DUGGAR: Stand up for marriage.


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

And what started off as a pretty ugly immigration debate within the
Republican presidential race has now gotten somehow even uglier thanks to
the front-runner Donald Trump.

After bursting into the race with warnings about Mexican rapists, this
week, Trump put the issue of birthright citizenship, that`s the conferring
of citizenship status of anyone born here, put that front and center, and
now, using a deeply loaded phrase that`s offensive to many, "anchor
babies", to describe American infants.


TRUMP: Here`s what`s happening. A woman is going to have a baby.
They wait on the border. Just before the baby, they come over to the
border. They have the baby in the United States. We now take care of that
baby, Social Security, Medicare, education -- give me a break.


HAYES: A press conference before Trump`s New Hampshire town hall last
night, a reporter pressed him on his use of a term that many call


REPORTER: Are you aware that the term "anchor baby," that`s an
offensive term? People find that hurtful.

TRUMP: You mean it`s not political correct, and yet everybody --

REPORTER: Look it up in the dictionary. It`s offensive.

TRUMP: Give me a different term. Give me a different term. What
else would you like me to say?

REPORTER: The American born child of an undocumented immigrant?

TRUMP: You want me to say -- I`ll use the word "anchor baby." Excuse
me, I`ll use the word "anchor baby."


HAYES: While Trump rival Jeb Bush supports birthright citizenship,
that meaning he doesn`t wan to repeal the 14th amendment, he conceded in a
radio interview that something`s got to be done about those so-called
anchor babies.


BUSH: If there`s fraud or if there`s abuse, if pregnant women are
coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to
be greater enforcement. That`s legitimate side of this. Greater
enforcement, so that you don`t have these, you know, anchor babies, as
they`re described, coming into the country.


HAYES: Asked about those comments at a press conference today, bush
managed to both criticize Trump`s rhetoric and defend his own use of some
of the same language.


REPORTER: Do you think the term "anchor baby" is offensive?

BUSH: No. No. I -- if there`s another term that I can come up with,
I`m happy to hear it.

This whole immigration debate is hurtful for a lot of people. Really
hurtful -- I`m not talking about my family here, I`m talking about in
general, when you just, you know, huge, just kind of a tidal wave of
accusations or bombastic talk.

There are a lot of people that share the immigrant experience, and
when they hear this, what they hear is, you don`t think I`m part of this,
you don`t think I`m part of this country.

So, I think we ought to tone down the rhetoric a little bit, talk
about solutions, and get on with fixing things in this country.

REPORTER: Anchor baby, is that not bombastic?

BUSH: No, it isn`t. Give me another word.

REPORTER: The children born of undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

BUSH: That`s not another word -- that`s a seven -- look, what I said
was, it`s commonly referred to that. That`s what I said. I didn`t use it
as my own language.


HAYES: On this question of a possible replacement phrase, Hillary
Clinton offered a suggestion on Twitter. They`re called babies.

Jeb Bush is by no means the only GOP candidate to take up Trump`s ugly
language. Witness Bobby Jindal, himself a child of immigrants, and a
direct beneficiary of birthright citizenship.


TV ANCHOR: Do you find that phrase offensive or not?

offensive is Hillary Clinton, the left, when you look at those Planned
Parenthood videos, they refuse to call them babies. They call them fetal
specimens. Folks are too easily offended and they`re too politically
correct. I`m happy to use the term, but the real issue here is we need to
secure our border.


HAYES: Even Marco Rubio, another beneficiary of birthright
citizenship, who unlike Jindal, it has to be noted, opposes the repeal of
the 14th Amendment, even Rubio tipped his hat to the anchor baby bogeyman.



JOHN HARWOOD, CNBC: Is not birthright citizenship one of the things
that makes America exceptional?

RUBIO: Yes, I -- yes. And that`s why I`m not in favor of repealing
the 14th Amendment. But what`s the flip side to have that argument?
There`s a legitimate issue embedded within this debate. And that is, you
have people coming to this country, expressly for the purpose of having


HAYES: Trump`s venom is not just infecting the other candidates.
Whether he intended to or not, his toxic approach to immigration is
leeching out into the broader public.

Take Iowa radio host, Jan Mickelson, who`s hosted a majority of the
Republican candidates on his show, some multiple times, and is widely
regarded as an Iowa caucus kingmaker on the right. Mickelson`s plan for
the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in this country --


JAN MICKELSON, WHO NEWSRADIO: So, if you are here without our
permission, and we have given you two months to leave, and you`re still
here, and we find that you`re still here, after we`ve given you the
deadline to leave, then you become the property of the state of Iowa. And
we have a job for you. And we start using compelled labor, the people who
are here illegally, would therefore be owned by the state and become an
asset of the state rather than a liability and we start inventing jobs for
them to do.


HAYES: Now you might hear that and say, well, really, who`s this guy?
He said something I find odious.

But even after standing by those comments in a follow up interview
with Media Matters, Mickelson announced he`s getting a special visit on his
show from another presidential candidate tomorrow. Tomorrow, Ted Cruz will
be appearing on his show.

And there`s the disturbing story to have two brothers in Boston, who
allegedly beat up a homeless man because he was Hispanic. According to the
"Boston Globe," one of them already has a past hate crime conviction for
attacking a Moroccan man after 9/11. This time, police said the alleged
attackers were inspired by Donald Trump. One of them reportedly told the
police that Donald Trump was right. All these illegals need to be

Trump was asked about the incident last night in New Hampshire. This
was his response.


TRUMP: I haven`t heard about that. I think that would be a shame.
But I haven`t heard about that.

I will say, the people that are following are very passionate. They
love this country. They want this country to be great again. And they are
very passionate. I will say that.


HAYES: Joining me now, Jennifer Palmieri.

Great to have you here in New York City.


HAYES: OK. What is your response to what is going on in the
immigration debate on the Republican side?

PALMIERI: I mean, the clip you just showed about these two brothers
in Boston is like a little taste to think how disturbing it can be to have
this kind of rhetoric coming from the Republican front-runner and then
embraced by, you know, as you showed, at least, every Republican candidate
that we`ve seen that`s been asked about it.

HAYES: Well, Jeb Bush said, he -- in his defense, in that interview,
which I should note, the Hillary Clinton campaign today texted people who
could then text back, and then hear that Bill Bennett clip --

PALMIERI: You could text insult, yes --

HAYES: You could text insult, and they would call you back. So you
want people to know what he said.


HAYES: In that clip, he does say, "as people describe them".

PALMIERI: But, you know, this is -- I think this is what we want to
make sure voters understand about Trump being in the race, is that he may
be -- he may be the most bombastic, he may be the most colorful, he may get
the most attention, but the other candidates are happy to follow along with
him. And they may be somewhat more moderate, as Governor Bush was maybe
attempting to do.

But fundamentally, they`re embracing that concept. They`re embracing
the concept of anchor babies. And where does that lead? This is a pretty
fundamentally core premise of what it means to be American.

HAYES: To be clear, the Clinton campaign, Hillary Clinton, the
candidate, is not in favor of repealing the 14th Amendment.

PALMIERI: No, no, no she`s not. She thinks that they`re not anchor
babies, their babies, and they`re not just babies, they`re American

And it is -- it`s, you know, it`s pretty telling, it`s one thing to --
it`s surprising when you hear Republican candidates say that they want to
repeal DACA, which means they want to put DREAMers in danger of being
deported. But to want to go back to such like a core, you know, part of
literally of our Constitution, to undo, and to play pretty fast and loose,
just even with embracing this term, but to try and distance yourself from
the actual policy, it shows how, I think, dangerously extreme this group of
candidate -- crop of candidates is getting.

The debate`s helpful that way, right? The debate we had a couple of
weeks ago, I felt like they are -- they have been trying to maybe distance
themselves from Trump or not, not be too closely linked to him. But you
see them all on the same stage together and they may try to behave
differently from him, but they all have the same policies.

HAYES: But here`s where things get tough, right? It`s very easy in
the relative sense for Hillary Clinton to tweet that out and take a stance
in favor of not repealing the 14th amendment, right?


HAYES: But the substantive issue is, what do we do about the 11
million people there, there`s a comprehensive immigration reform bill,
bipartisan, passed 70 votes in Senate, killed in the House. OK, Fine,
Hillary Clinton`s president.

The math looks exactly the same. She can say whatever she wants and
have the best views in the world on immigration. You tell me the road from
"A" to "B" so that the lives of those people actually improve given what
the math is right now.

PALMIERI: We think it`s going to be a big part of the campaign, and
that the support of the country is overwhelming for comprehensive
immigration reform. People do think we need to deal with it. They don`t
think that deportation is a good solution. They do think we need to
enforce the borders better. Hillary Clinton certainly agrees with that.
We do need to do that as well.

And you know, is the -- I hope that she`s elected president and I
think that this is going to be a big -- you know, immigration was a really
big issue in 2012. It was a big issue in 2008. I think it was bigger in
`12. And I`m surprised to see it happening, but it may be even a bigger
issue in 2016.

And I think it`s a question, is the Republican Party going to try to -
- if they`re going to continue to go down this path, I think they`re going
to have hard time in the general election, not just at the presidential
level, but in Congress as well. And, you know, so it will be part of the
campaign. She`ll be advocating for comprehensive reform. And if you don`t
get it, she has already put a lot of thought into what you can do to
mitigate the circumstances for families if people aren`t separated, people
who, you know, otherwise are --

HAYES: In terms of further executive action. That`s obviously not a
great solution, but it`s better than the situation that we have now, where
President Obama`s had to move to protect DREAMers. She has some ideas on
how you can go further and protect their parents as well. People who are,
you know, otherwise here, good, law-abiding citizens, working hard, trying
to be Americans.

HAYES: Bernie Sander`s response in a "New York Times" magazine
article, an interview about Donald Trump surge in the poll says, not much,
when you think of it, not much. I think Donald Trump`s views on
immigration and slurring the Latino community is not something that should
be going on in the year 2015. It`s to me an embarrassment to our country.

Is there a distinguishing policy difference between Bernie Sanders,
Martin O`Malley, and Lincoln Chafee and Hillary Clinton on immigration?

PALMIERI: She has put forward a policy on how if we`re not able to
get comprehensive immigration reform, how she would go further with
executive action to try to protect, like, the parents of DREAMers, so that
they can stay in this country. So, she has -- I don`t believe any of the
other candidates have put out -- have articulated that.

So, you know, she`s all about -- the woman is very focused on solving
problems. And obviously, legislation`s ideal, but she has some good ideas.

HAYES: OK. Let me ask you about the e-mails. Is there something you
can do to make this stop?

PALMIERI: I think -- is there something we can do to make Republicans
stop trying to use --

HAYES: Well, not just Republicans -- it`s the press, right? People
want -- there`s now the thumb drive has been turned over, the server has
been turned over, the 300 plus have been flagged for possible review.

Do you feel like you guys have done everything? Or is there a
conversation that`s happening in that campaign office that says, we should
do this and this will put a stop to it?

PALMIERI: We think that -- I`ll tell you what we think that we should
-- how we are handling it and how we think we should handle it, is that
particularly in the last couple of weeks, and I think during August is a
good time to do this, is to try to do more education. Because there`s a
lot of coverage of this, and it`s very confusing.

So, there`s a couple of things that we want to make sure that voters
understand about this, because we understand that they have questions about
it. It`s also true that they never ask Hillary Clinton about it. They ask
Hillary Clinton about things that are going on in their own life --

HAYES: That I actually believe. But --

PALMIERI: It`s true. You can watch it not happen, because at town

But people have questions, it`s really confusing. This is what we
want them to understand. She -- this was in keeping with what other
secretaries of state have done, it was permitted under State Department
guidelines at the time that she was the secretary of state. She has said
if she would have to do it over again, she would do it differently. She
thought this would be easier. It obviously was not.

HAYES: Let`s be clear, this was a mistake to do it this way.

PALMIERI: She has said that she would do it differently. She thought
this would be or easier, it was not. And so, so that.

HAYES: Right.

PALMIERI: But classify -- misusing classified information, that`s a
serious concern. So we want to make sure everyone understands, she treats
classified information very carefully. She would never deal with it
online. She dealt it with in hard copy, in meetings, et cetera. It`s not
something that she would deal with on the computer.

And State Department, as they have confirmed many times, she e-mails
that were considered classified by the State Department at the time. What
is happening now is because the e-mails are being made public, other
departments, who think they have equities, are looking at these e-mails,
and they are deciding that they think that this should be made -- that
something should be classified, because of some concerns they have.

But that does not change the fact that she was secretary of state,
State Department --


HAYES: Let`s explain that to people. That word, "equities," means
nothing if you haven`t worked in the White House.


HAYES: So, when you do and do the State of the Union inside the White
House, right, you have to go to all the departments that have equities.
That`s people whose turf you`re on substantively, right?

What you`re saying, other departments have seen some of that stuff and
said, I`m not sure if that coming out of DHS or that returned to DOD should
have had a different classification that meant that it shouldn`t have been
out there, right?

PALMIERI: Yes, they just are a different view.


PALMIERI: There was a good example of this that was released
yesterday, in an e-mail that we saw. State Department by a career foreign
service officer, and specifically identified SBU, which means sensitive but
unclassified --


PALMIERI: -- said to Hillary Clinton and a number of career
officials, they all received this on their classified system, so they all
have the same situation that she was in. And another department came in
later to say that they thought that that should be classified.

So, we think we need to explain it. But understand, she`s going to
testify at the Benghazi committee hearing in October. We`ll see how much
of that`s about Benghazi. But then --

HAYES: Then we`ll on to the next thing by then. All right.

PALMIERI: Well, yes, we don`t think the Republicans are going to stop
attacking here, but we`ll handle that.

HAYES: Jennifer Palmieri, good to have you. Come back. Definitely
come back.


HAYES: Coming up, why the Republican candidates should move out of
Donald Trump`s way of immigration, if they don`t want a repeat of 2012.

Plus, how the bombshell report that meant the end of the Iran deal
turned out to be less than it claimed.

And the later, the information of 30 million users of the Ashley
Madison dating web site just out there on the Internet comes a question,
what are we supposed to do it with? We, journalists, those stories just


HAYES: Among the more despicable displays from Donald Trump last
night was this.


TRUMP: Take Sergeant Bergdahl. Does anybody remember that name?

So, so this is the way we think. So we get a traitor named Bergdahl,
a dirty, rotten traitor --


Who, by the way, when he deserted, six young beautiful people were
killed trying to find him, right? And you don`t even hear about him
anymore. Somebody said the other day, well, he had some psychological
problems. Well, you know? You know, in the old day, bing, bong, when we
were strong, when we were strong.


HAYES: If you couldn`t follow that, that was a joke about summarily
executing him.

Bowe Bergdahl`s lawyer responded today on behalf of his client, who is
being prosecuted by the Army, saying in a statement, "This is the lowest
kind of demagoguery. Mr. Trump`s comments are contemptible and un-
American. They are a call for mob justice."

Bergdahl`s lawyer went on to point out his client is not charged with
treason. The army prosecutors are planning on presenting no evidence that
people died searching for his client and that Trump`s comments directly
threaten his client`s right to a fair trial. He concluded, "No American
should have to put up with unprincipled behavior, especially from a person
seeking public office. Mr. Trump must stop vilifying this young man, who
suffered five years of brutal captivity at the hands of the Taliban. He
deserves to be judged on the basis of evidence rather than slander from
someone who`s never worn our country`s uniform."

When we come back, there`s new backlash to some of Mr. Trump`s other
observations, this time from his fellow Republicans.

Stay with us.


HAYES: He called for self-deportation of undocumented immigrants in
2012 and he won just 27 percent of the Latino vote in the presidential
election. Now, voices in the Republican Party perhaps mindful of Mitt
Romney`s fate are raising the alarm on inflammatory rhetoric from the 2016
crop of GOP presidential candidates. "Hill" pointed out today the former
senior adviser to Mitt Romney called Trump`s immigration plan a Punji stake
pit for other candidates", in reference to a common booby trap used in
Vietnam. "And they should not fall into a trap of looking like they oppose

Earlier today, I spoke with Katie Packer Gage, who served as deputy
campaign manager of the Mitt Romney campaign in 2012, about a piece she
wrote back in June, headlined, "Don`t repeat Mitt Romney`s mistake on

I asked her what message that piece was sending to fellow Republicans.


actually didn`t write that part of it. That was a headline that was
assigned to the piece. Just to be clear.

You know, I think that when I was trying to convey by the piece that I
wrote is that some of these candidates, you know, they sort of lurch
around, trying to, you know, chase the shiny object, during presidential
primaries. And it can sometimes come back to haunt you in a general
election. And I think it`s really, you know, applicable to what`s been
happening in the last couple of days, with all this talk about repealing
the 14th Amendment, you know, Donald Trump called the 14th amendment to the
constitution unconstitutional. I`m not sure how that`s even possible.

And I think, you know, it`s rhetoric that`s a big turnoff, not only to
Latino voters, you know, that are a critical voting bloc in a general
election, but also to women voters, who don`t like that kind of tone. And
it`s problematic for us. And I just -- it was a caution, really, to our
Republican primary candidates, you know, to be mindful of that. It`s not a
particularly great primary strategy. And it`s a really bad general
election strategy.

HAYES: You know, there`s two ways of thinking about this. One is
that it`s so early, all this stuff will be a distant memory by the time the
general election sets in. And there are people who will say, hey, look, I
remember when everyone was saying that the shutdown was going to be the
death knell of the Republican Party in 2014. That didn`t work.

And there`s another theory that says, no, this kind of rhetoric does
lasting harm among voting groups. They hear it and it stays with them.

Which of those, do you think, is a more accurate description?

PACKER GAGE: Well, it depends on the situation. In the case of the
shutdown, you know, the thing that sort of saved the Republican Party in
2014 was that the sort of specter of Obamacare was so bad, and the
president was so unpopular, that it did sort of negate the shutdown,
ultimately. But you can`t always count on getting that lucky and something
really good happening for your party.

And, you know, these media clips are going to live forever. We`ve
already seen how quickly the Democrats and the Clinton campaign have turned
around some of the comments by both Trump and Bush, and, you know, trying
to associate Governor Bush with Mr. Trump. And, you know, it`s not
something that you`re going to be able to run away from in a general
election. And I think all these candidates just need to be mindful of, you
know, the way they`re talking about these issues being something that can
be a turnoff to certain key voting blocs.

HAYES: One of the other things you discuss in the piece you wrote,
which I think is an important thing to zero in on is, your research, your
both polling research and focus group research suggests that the block of
real sort of stridently hard-lined anti-immigration voters, even within the
Republican Party, is smaller than you might think. It`s extremely vocal.
It`s a group of people that are going to vote on this issue. It`s the
number one issue for them.

But, in terms of the numbers, the raw numbers of the base, it`s
actually not that large. Expand on that a little bit.

PACKER GAGE: Well, what we saw, and we were looking at early state
primary voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, you know, all of
those states. What we found is that it`s roughly about a fifth of
Republican primary voters that are saying that this is a critical issue,
that anybody that doesn`t, you know, speak harshly on immigration is, you
know, not somebody that they can support.

At the time we did this survey, most of those voters were going to Ted
Cruz. They weren`t really voters that are available even to the other

And so, you know, trying to lurch to the right on this issue is, you
know, at best, you know, you get some applause from, you know, commentators
and really hard right, you know, political entertainers, as I like to call
them. But you`re not really attracting a broad swath of Republican voters,
who really are saying that what they`re looking for is somebody that`s
going to articulate a plan, that starts with border security, and that has
some hurdles for those that are currently here and are undocumented before
they can get to legal status.

But it`s not a deal breaker for them to consider some sort of legal
status for those millions of immigrants that are currently here illegally.

HAYES: But, then, you know, what you just articulated, starting with
border security, hurdles for people already here. I mean, you have
described the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate with, you know, what
was it, 70 votes, something like that, that died in the House. And it died
in the house because that house caucus was quite beholden to the one fifth
of the voters that you`re talking about.

And that has been the kind of implacable logic of this issue, all the
way back to McCain/Kennedy in the mid-aughts, which I covered as a
reporter. That seems to be the problem, right, is that those who care
about killing immigration reform, who care about this harsh rhetoric, care
about it more than the voters who have other views care about it on the
other side.

PACKER GAGE: Absolutely. And that`s the reason we did this research
in conjunction with the partnership for a new American economy to say,
look, don`t be so afraid. This is a very loud, very local -- I`m sorry,
very vocal minority within the Republican Party. And you can be for some
kind of reasonable plan, and, you know, get support from a majority of
Republican primary voters and also find yourself in a stronger position for
a general election.

And, you know, ultimately, you know, that`s what we want to see, you
know, the Republican Party do, in the long-term.

HAYES: It`s a real open question about, what happens in this process
as it continues to unfold.

Katie Packer Gage, appreciate your time tonight.

PACKER GAGE: Thanks for having me.


HAYES: Up next, President Carter`s truly heartfelt and touching truly
heartfelt and touching press conference today about his cancer diagnosis.


CARTER: Hope for the best and accept what comes, you know? We -- I -
- I think I have been as blessed as any human being in the world.




wonderful life. I`ve had thousands of friends and I`ve had an exciting and
adventurous and gratifying existence. But now I feel, you know, this is in
the hands of god, whom I worship. And I`ll be prepared for anything that


HAYES: Truly remarkable scene in Atlanta today, as the world watched
former president Jimmy Carter speak publicly for the first time about his
diagnosis. The 39th president revealed that cancer has spread to his
brain. Doctors discovering four melanoma spots after removing a tumor from
his liver earlier this month. The 90-year-old Carter told a roomful of
reporters he
will undergo radiation treatment and he reflected on what`s to come.


CARTER: I`m perfectly at ease with whatever comes. I do have deep
religious faith, which I`m very grateful for. And I was pleasantly
surprised that I didn`t go into an attitude of despair or anger or anything
like that. I was just completely at ease.


HAYES: Carter said he initially kept the news of his illness from his
wife of nearly 70 years, Rosalynn, who was in attendance today.


CARTER: Well, the best thing I ever did was marrying Rosalynn.
That`s the pinnacle of my life. And we`ve had 69 years together. Still

And -- so that`s the best thing that happened to me.


HAYES: Carter said he would scale back his public schedule, but still
plans on spending Sundays as he usually does.


CARTER: I plan to teach Sunday school this Sunday and every Sunday as
long as I`m, you know, physically and mentally able, in my little church.
And we have hundreds of visitors who come to see the curiosity of a
politician teaching the bible.


HAYES: Today, we saw a man of deep faith facing his own mortality
with astounding grace, reflecting on his life`s work as an advocate for
peace and
justice. And in a blazer and blue jeans, Jimmy Carter remained true to
form, humble and optimistic, demonstrating immense grace and courage.

"I think I`ve been as blessed as any human being in the world," he
said, "so I`m thankful and hopeful."


HAYES: Yesterday, the Associated Press published a story that was
greeted as an absolute bombshell, a bombshell so massive, it might just
well kill the Iran deal, a story so explosive, it supposedly proved every
one of the deal`s critics right.

So what did that story say? Well, it said this. UN to let Iran
inspect alleged nuke work site. Now because the story came from the AP,
that headline appeared in hundreds of news outlets across the country and
around the world. And it caused a major freakout among the deal`s critics
on the right.

Lindsey Graham released a statement saying, quote, "allowing the
Iranians to inspect their own nuclear sites, particularly a notorious
military site, is like
allowing the inmates to run the jail."

John Cornyn saying, "trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and
report to the UN in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and
incredibly reckless."

Plenty of other congressional Republicans pounced as well as did a
certain celebrity presidential candidate.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you heard about the secret deal that was cut
with Iran, allowing Iran to inspect its own nuclear facilities? What do
you think about that?

DONALD TRUMP, REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER: I think it`s crazy. I think the
whole Iran deal is the dumbest deal you can imagine. I think it`s going to
go down as
one of the worst deals in in the history of this country, maybe of the
world. I`m not surprised to hear there are side deals.

The White House doesn`t know what they`re doing.


HAYES: So some very interesting things have happened since the AP
first posted that story, which concerned a single military facility called
Parchin, which is not believed to be an active nuclear site.

First, the AP removed most of the actual revelations in its story and
alternate information, though many of the initial article`s claims were
later reinstated. Then two senior U.S. officials told NBC news that, in
fact, nuclear inspectors would be on the ground at the site to supervise
the Iranians. And those nuclear inspectors said that claims that Iran
would be conducting its own inspections were disturbing and misrepresent
their work.

And that`s just the beginning of the problems of the supposed
blockbuster story that many now see as a deliberate attempt to kill the
deal via misleading
information leaked to one of the most respected news outlets in the

A short time ago, I spoke to one of the few people who knows what`s
really going on, Dr. Jeffrey Lewis. He`s a scholar at the Middlebury
Institute of International studies in Monterrey and founding publisher of
the arms control wonk website. He told me what has happened at the Parchin


a long time ago, between 1996 and 2002, the Iranians did some work that was
probably related to developing a design for a nuclear weapon. They took
explosives and they
used that to squeeze metal. And that`s an important test.

So, that information got revealed to the IAEA. They`ve done an
incredible investigation. They found the former Soviet scientist who had
worked there. They got a bunch of documents, the guy had even published
papers on his work there. And they basically said to the Iranians, hey,
what`s up, like, the jig is up, we know what you`ve done, and the Iranians
have been stalling to keep them out.

So what`s finally happening is the Iranians are agreeing to answer
questions and provide samples and photographs and actually let a group of
IAEA officials in.

HAYES: Now, the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Association, is
the essentially policeman for the world`s nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
They`re the inspectors. They were in Iraq. They`re the ones that monitor
and inspect, right?

Now, they are being...

LEWIS: Yeah.

HAYES: part of this deal let into this facility in Parchin.
The sense that one got from reading the initial AP was that the Iranians
were going to be able to take their own samples and then just give them to
the IAEA, and say, yeah, that stuff`s from Parchin. Is that what`s going
to happen?

LEWIS: Yeah, that sounds terrible, right?

But, no, that`s not what`s going to happen. I mean, it`s a wonderful
destructive leak. And you`ve kind of got to admire the people who did it.
But as best I can tell, what`s going to happen is this.

The Iranians have to answer questions about this facility. And the
IAEA has already conducted an incredibly thorough investigation. And the
last step of that is for the Iranians to submit some samples and to submit
some photographs and video.

The trick is, can the IAEA authenticate the photographs? And as I
say, there will also be a site visit later. One thing that didn`t get
mentioned, the reporter, George John, for AP, who wrote this just kind of
said, well, it`s not clear how they`re going to authenticate it. Like,
that`s a really important deal. And my understanding is, the IAEA is
incredibly confident that they can authenticate the samples and
authenticate the pictures.

And my understanding is also that they briefed the U.S. about this,
and we red teamed it at one of the national laboratories and that they`re
confident. So we have a lot of armchair inspectors who think they know
better than the IAEA. But, like, I don`t think they do.

HAYES: OK. But just walk me through this. So you say, so it is true
Iran will hand over, from Parchin, some body of samples, videos, and
photos. And they say, this is the stuff you`re asking for, here it is.

The degree to which that strikes a layperson as an invitation at
cheating, what I`m hearing you say, is that the actual investigators who
have a body of
data about this facility, whether the international ones or the American
ones, are
confident that they`ll be able to tell if the Irans are cheating when they
hand that stuff over?

LEWIS: Right.

And, one of the things that was so frustrating about the AP stories,
if you read the notes, the has now. He has made the notes that he took on
the document
available, it specifically says that the IAEA has a plan to authenticate
the samples and photographs. And he just kind of says, but we don`t know
how that`s going to happen. And it`s frustrating, because you think like,
wow, if we had a
real reporter here, maybe they would ask that question and figure that out,
because it`s pretty important. And as I say, I think both the IAEA and the
U.S. government are pretty confident that they have in place a solid
technical plan to do that.

But, again, let me say one more thing. There`s also a site visit.

HAYES: There is going to be a site visit? Same IAEA inspectors will
go to
Parchin at some point?

LEWIS: Yeah. The director general and the deputy director general
who is
the top inspector, they are going to go -- the Iranians are calling it a
courtesy visit. I don`t care what the Iranians call it. They can call it
anything they want. The point is, George John left that detail out of the
story. I`m not sure why.

HAYES: All right, so here`s what I`m hearing, just to sum this up.
We`re talking about a body, IAEA here, who has already kind of doggedly
uncovered some level of possible deception, possible untoward activity at
this facility, has built up a level of data about it, know the facility
well, have some sort of fingerprints for what was going on there, and
they`re confident that they can use this methodology to satisfy their own
questions about that facility.

And the question is whether we think they`re the ones who are right
about this or Lindsey Graham.

LEWIS: I think that`s exactly right.

And it`s worth noting, you know, a lot of this is effective, because
people don`t know how IAEA inspections work. I`ve even say former IAEA
officials say this has never been done before, even though it has. The
South Africans submitted video, the Brazilians take their own photographs
of their facility. There are procedures in place to do this.

But it sounds bad, right. And then once it sounds bad the great thing
-- and again, you`ve got to -- like, hats off to the people who figured
this out. Now people can demand that the IAEA produce all of this
confidential information to
prove them wrong, which of course will destroy the IAEA`s credibility,
because it can`t -- Vienna cannot leak like Washington and get away with

HAYES: All right. Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, thanks for your time.


HAYES: Still to come, as the first big name comes out associated with
the hack of dating website Ashley Madison, it raises the question of what
we as journalists should do with these revelations. Dan Savage is here to
discuss, ahead.


HAYES: Breaking news tonight on Presidential candidate Deez Nuts, who
as we told you last night is a fictional candidate who appears to be a 15-
year-old boy in Idaho who filed with the FEC and who is polling at 9
percent among North Carolina voters in the new PPP poll. When he is
presented as a third party candidate in the Hillary Clinton versus Donald
Trump matchup.

The New York Times political reporter, Trip Gabriel tweeting, "why did
PPP include #deeznuts in three state polls? The name makes people laugh
it`s a long election, its director tells me."

Gabriel adds, PPP says they`ll be polling Deez Nuts nationally next
week. Stay tuned for that. We`ll be right back.


HAYES: Yesterday, the first big headline out of the hack of the
infidelity website Ashley Madison appeared on Gawker. And because we were
wrestling, frankly, with the journalistic ethics of what to do about it, I
did not talk about it on this show, even though I have very little positive
feeling, frankly, towards the
person at issue.

Today, that person issued a public statement, so it is now officially
news. That person being Josh Duggar. Yes, that Josh Duggar, the oldest
brother of the now canceled formerly hit TV show on TLC, "19 Kids and
Counting," the Josh Duggar who just two months ago was embroiled in a
scandal revolving around his molestation of minors, an offense never dealt
with properly by law enforcement. And the Josh Duggar who was also a very
vocal lobbyist for the conservative Family Research


JOSH DUGAR, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Yet the constitution protects
Americans from having a new view of marriage judicially forced upon them.
And only one other nation in this world has had a court impose the
redefinition of marriage and we are standing today to say, let the people`s
voice be heard and let`s stand together for marriage.


HAYES: Yes, for marriage.

Now, in response to the Gawker story that Josh Duggar had a paid
Ashley Madison account, Mr. Duggar has released a statement, which reads in
part, "I have been the biggest hypocrite ever. While espousing faith and
family values, I`ve been unfaithful to my wife. The last few years while
publicly stating I was fighting against immorality in our country, I was
hiding my own personal failures."

And as noted by several news outlets, including USA Today, the
original statement from Josh Duggar since amended on his website, included
the line, I
have secretly, over the last several years, been viewing pornography on the
Internet and this became a secret addiction.

Now, there`s a real question about how the press will handle the
additional revelations about who may have had an account with Ashley
Madison and what do we
make of Mr. Duggar`s admission, especially now the AP is reporting that
hundreds of White House, Congress and Pentagon employees apparently used
their work emails to register.

I`m not quite sure what we should be doing with that information, so
I`m going to call in an advice columnist.

Dan Savage will join me next.


HAYES: Joining me now, syndicated columnist and host of the Savage
Lovecast, Dan Savage.

All right, Dan, the Duggar news I think you have a pretty clear view
on. What`s your take on that just to start out?

DAN SAVAGE, HOST, SAVAGE LOVECAST: Well, I think outing is a brutal
tactic. I wrote when the Ashley Madison hack news first broke a month
ago, that I believe all of these people, the 33 million people whose data
was compromised had a right to privacy. And I was -- I objected to the
glee with which so many people greeted the news that all of these alleged
cheaters -- not everyone who gets on that site intends to cheat, some
people are just fantasizing. And some people who do cheat have cause to

And there`s this glee that all these people are going to get their
just desserts. And I was -- I pointed out that I thought that that was
terrible, these people were private people and a right to privacy.

Josh Duggar is not a private citizen. He is a public figure who has
benefited politically and financially from attacking other people for their
marriages, for their sex lives, for how they conduct themselves, for their
alleged, in his opinion, immorality. And so, his morality is germane. And
his hypocrisy makes him in this instance a legitimate target for an outing
of this sort.

HAYES: Yeah, I mean, he was also -- I mean, this was his entire
essentially, was scolding people about marriage and policing other people`s
marriages and their morality.

But then there`s going to be like, OK, so, the AP traced many of the
accounts exposed by hackers back to federal workers, two assistant U.S.
attorneys, information technology administrators in the executive office of
the president, it goes on and on. It`s like, you know, we`re going to see
the same thing happen
that happened to the Sony hack. Is someone`s going to report it, then it`s
going to be out there, and then it`s going to be news.

SAVAGE: Then you report on the reporting, to get around, you know,
not having the dirt on your hands from reporting it in the first place.

HAYES: Right. But then it will be out there, right?

SAVAGE: It will be. But how much are you going to advance it? And I
have actually read one story already that I think got it right where I
believe it was the AP contacted some people, a White House administrator
and some other people in congress whose data was there. They were able to
track them down. And they said they weren`t going to use their names.
They weren`t going to name them, because they had not been accused of
crimes. But then they added, and they are not elected officials, which
says, you know, we have a double standard here. That elected officials in
the United States don`t have a right to the same privacy an individual

But I think an elected official who is not a hypocrite, who hasn`t
attempted to politicize other people`s private sexual conduct choices,
marriages, should not have their name put out there either.

HAYES: This is what I think is so sort of dystopic about this is that
I have watched as the stamp -- what I think is happening in our world
through sort of hacks and social media, is that the standard that was once
applied to say, the president of the United States, or public figures is
essentially trickling down. We have this like trickle-down sense of who a
public person is. Such that like, random people on the Internet get lit up
all the time over stuff that, you know,
could be private in another universe. And now we`re like confronting the
next chapter of this, right?

SAVAGE: And when are we going to have collectively the there but for
the grace of god go I moment? OK, so I wasn`t on Ashley Madison. I wasn`t
trying to cheat. But, maybe I`ve sexted. Maybe I`ve joined other websites
or I have a fetish and I`m on a kink site or whatever it is. I`ve done
things that if they were dragged out into the light of day, would make me
look terrible, it would embarrass and humiliate me and compromise my
relationships and my professional life.

And just at some point, we all have to look at the Internet and think,
you know what, we`re all compromised. We all need to give each other a bit
of a break. And unless something really cuts to the heart of someone`s
public life, unless it exposes them as a hypocrite and a liar, as Josh
Duggar has been exposed, I don`t
think that we should, even if we can`t keep it out of the media or off of
Twitter or whatever, I don`t think that we should hold that up as proof
that that person is unfit to serve or unfit to do whatever it is that
they`re doing when their pants are on.

HAYES: You know, the deeper point here is something you`ve written
about a lot and I`ve really liked. And, you know, I`m someone who no one
identify as a social conservative, in my policy views. But in my personal
life, I`m kind of a social conservative. I`ve been with the same woman
since I was 19. We`ve been together 17 years. It`s the most remarkable,
miraculous, transformational thing that`s ever happened to me. The
relationship is completely formative. I cherish it with all of my being.
And I want other people in my
life to have that.

You know, I`m constantly like needling my friends, when you going to -
- you know? And at the same time, it`s like, my appreciation and love for
that, for that kind of relationship, is precisely why all of this
puritanical glee bums me out. Because it`s like, you need to give people
the space to work their stuff out. Like, people -- like, monogamy is
complicated and people need that space, so that things aren`t blown up and
destroyed when they don`t have to be.

SAVAGE: Exactly.

You also need to give people the space to be able to forgive and
continue on. There are people who want to stay with their partners who
have strayed, who have cheated on them. There`s been an incident and they
want to stay with them. And they find a lot of people who are in that
position, who are the wronged party, they find it harder to patch their
marriage up when their friends and family and coworkers all know about the
affair and are shaming them for not leaving.

Remember how Hillary Clinton was shamed in the `90s for not leaving
Bill. And I don`t think anybody now looks at their relationship and says,
yeah, she should have left him. People look at it and think, yeah, you
know, that was a
marriage that survived and should have survived and is valuable and they
both seem to enjoy and love each other, in the way that they do.

And marriages can survive an infidelity, but they`re less likely to
survive it under the kind of pressures frankly that the Clintons faced when
that was
infidelity was revealed.

HAYES: Focus on the log in your own eye rather than the mote in your
neighbor`s, as it says in the bible.

Dan Savage, thank you very much.

That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow show starts now.
Good evening, Rachel.


<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