Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Monday, August 31st, 2015

Read the transcript from the Monday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Date: August 31, 2015
Guest: David Cay Johnston, Tim Carney, Jeanne Shaheen, Jess McIntosh, Sam
Seder, Jane Eisner, Josh Earnest


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

Trump`s campaign, it`s avant-garde.

HAYES: Republicans play "follow the leader".

CHUCK TODD, MEET THE PRESS: Do you want to build a wall north of the
border, too?

about that in New Hampshire.

HAYES: As the Republican field follows Trump further to the right on
immigration, will they also sign on to his plan to raise taxes?

guys making a lot of money, they`re paying very little tax.

HAYES: Then, as Bernie-mentum publics up in Iowa, Hillary picks up a
major endorsement in New Hampshire.

And Martin O`Malley makes a loud noise about restricting debates.

process has never been attempted before.

HAYES: We`ll have both sides of the Democratic debate tonight.

And the president goes to the front lines of the fight against climate
change. We`ll get our first look at Obama in Alaska when ALL IN starts
right now.


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

The Republican presidential field has found the perfect slogan for
2016, courtesy of its current front-runner. "Forget love, it`s time to get
tough." That line is the centerpiece of a wildly inflammatory video Donald
Trump released on Instagram attacking Jeb Bush for Bush`s stance on


JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, they broke the law, but
it`s not a felony. It`s kind of -- it`s an act of love.


HAYES: Repeats what`s become a central theme of the Trump campaign,
the idea of the inherent criminality of undocumented immigrants, Hispanics
in particular, which draws on decades of anti-immigrant rhetoric from the
nativist right. That rhetoric is contradicted by most of the hard evidence
we have which shows that first-generation immigrants tend to commit crime
at a much lower rate than native-born Americans, even lower than second
generation immigrants.

That means if you swapped out the 11 million undocumented immigrants
in this country, replace them with 11 people born here, you`d probably end
up with a higher crime rate.

That said, Trump`s new ad with its racialized fear-mongering is
drawing comparisons to the infamous Willie Horton ad run against Michael
Dukakis in 1988, perhaps the most notorious attack ad in the history of
presidential politics. Ironically, it was created by a group supporting
none other than George H.W. Bush, father of Jeb.

Trump`s demagoguery on immigration no longer surprises. What
continues to astound is how quickly and transparently the rest of the
candidates are falling all over themselves to keep up with him. We saw it
with Jeb Bush`s partial, tentative, occasional embrace of the term "anchor
baby" and now this weekend with Scott Walker talking about building a wall
on the border with Canada.


TODD: We don`t talk about a northern border where if this is about
securing the border from potentially terrorists coming over. Do you want
to build a wall north of the border, too?

WALKER: Some people have asked us about that in New Hampshire.
They`ve raised legitimate concerns, including law enforcement folks that
brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a
half ago. So, that is a legitimate issue for us to look at.


HAYES: Someone on Twitter commenting, "I want Trump to start claiming
things like he`s eaten 1,000 bees in his life so we can see Scott Walker
try to eat a bunch of bees."

And there was Chris Christie this weekend comparing foreign visitors
to FedEx packages.


FedEx can tell you where that package is. It`s on the truck. It`s at the
station. It`s on the airplane. It`s back at another station. It`s back
on the truck. It`s at our doorstep. She just signs for it.

Yet we let people come into this country with visas and the minute
they come in, we lose track of them.


HAYES: Bobby Jindal escalating his call for the designation Indian-
American among others to be retired.


move away from hyphenated Americans. We`re not African-Americans or Asian-
Americans, Indian-Americans, rich or poor Americans. We`re all Americans,
and the reason this is so important -- immigration without integration is
not immigration. It`s invasion.


HAYES: While the Republican field is content to follow Trump`s lead
on immigration, the one place the party apparently will not go is raising
taxes on the rich. "The New York Times" reports today, Republicans are
extremely wary of Trump`s populist tone on that issue. So far, Trump has
notably declined to sign the famous Grover Norquist pledge not to raise
taxes that basically all Republican candidates sign.

And he sounded, well, almost like Bernie Sanders in a recent interview
with Sarah Palin.


TRUMP: Some of these people like some of these hedge fund guys,
they`re making a lot of money, they`re paying very little tax. It`s unfair
to the middle class.

We have to create a new -- I mean, we have to help the middle class.
The country, as you know better than anybody, the country was based on the
middle class. They`re the ones that really had so much to do with what we
all have now. And they are being treated horribly.


HAYES: Joining me now, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay
Johnston, a widely published columnist and visiting lecturer at Syracuse
Law, author of numerous books about the tax code.

Well, I find the trepidation on the part of the other Republican
candidates in the field and the Republican establishment about this
fascinating because one thing we know is that poll after poll, Republicans,
Democrats, independents, raising taxes on the rich is pretty popular.

they`re not appealing to the mass of voters, particularly non-Republicans.
They`re appealing to the donor class. That`s what you`re seeing here with
things like Trump`s fantasy plan that will have a 1 percent tax rate at the

It`s not worth the coin to collect a 1 percent tax. And this is just
the tax fairy that is the logical outgrowth of Grover Norquist`s long-ago
pledge that so many Republicans bought into and are now stuck with.

HAYES: Well, that`s what`s been interesting to me that Trump refuses
to sign the pledge and this hedge fund loophole, which maybe you can
explain a little bit. What he`s talking about, there`s a specific loophole
called the carried interest loophole, which Trump appears to be talking
about. It`s been a bete noire of folks left, right and center for a long
time, in fact. It`s had its defenders among Chuck Schumer and some other
Democrats from New York who stuck up for it.

I mean, what is the loophole that he`s talking about?

JOHNSTON: Well, the one he`s talking about carrying interest,
basically the compensation you earn for the work you do as an investment
manager isn`t taxed at the same rates you and I pay for our paychecks.
It`s taxed at the much lower rates for capital investments.

But the really bigger scandal there is despite a reform law by
Congress that doesn`t appear to be working, hedge fund managers can live by
borrowing against their assets and therefore, they don`t recognize the
income. They can defer the income into their funds, pay no taxes, and have
them continue to grow and live on borrowed money. You and I can`t do that.
If you`ve got a billion dollars, you can easily do that.

HAYES: Well, here`s the perfect thing to me. You know, it is a
natural populist issue. It`s an issue that would actually have some
appeal, I think, to the Republican base. To say, you know, these finance
hedge fund guys, they`re all giving money to Democrats, anyway. They look
down their noses at you, they`re not like you and me -- says Donald Trump -
- and we should raise taxes on them. That is a perfectly wide-open
political issue to drive a truck through, that because of the donor class,
Republicans just won`t take that bait.

JOHNSTON: Well, the real underlying problem, Chris, is that we have a
tax system designed for the middle of the last century. That`s why I`m
writing a new tax code that would completely change this and have a 21st
century tax system.

But the Republicans through the Grover Norquist pledge and the anti-
tax rhetoric have locked themselves into a position where Trump is the only
one as a rogue out there who`s willing to talk about the fact that our
system is fundamentally broken. It`s unfair. It allows some very wealthy
people to pay literally no tax or very little tax while a single worker who
makes about $80,000 a year works all of Monday just for Uncle Sam.

HAYES: And this -- it`s amazing to me how little traction this is
able to get in presidential -- in Republican politics because of the donor
class. But, also, you`ve got a situation where the anti-tax politics of
the Republicans came up with that were very successful for them
particularly in the 1980s and Reagan. It happened at a time of
considerably higher marginal rates.


HAYES: I mean, at a certain point you can`t keep running on tax cuts
winning, getting taxes cut, and expect there to be the same enthusiasm for
your tax-cutting agenda election after election.

JOHNSTON: Well, at some point man up and pay your taxes. The capital
rate is 20 percent. That`s not an outrageous rate to pay by I think almost
anyone`s definition unless you don`t want to have the United States with
our liberties and our military and all the other benefits we get from
living in this country.

But that`s where Trump, I think, is doing a good thing as critical as
I`ve been of him. I`m glad he`s pushing the Republicans to address this
and hopefully they will react in a better way than they have on the wall
and now the proposed wall in Canada where instead of talking to Americans
as the land of the brave, they talk to us as the land of the fearful.

HAYES: Yes. I think we can take a little tough talk on the carry the
interest loophole. A Gallup poll, the rich paying taxes, too little? Too
much 11 percent. Fair share 25 percent. That`s what the populace says.

Thank you, David Cay Johnston. Always a pleasure.

JOHNSON: Thank you.

HAYES: I`m joined now by Tim Carney, senior political columnist at
"The Washington Examiner".

And, Tim, you`ve been one of the most honest and dogged chroniclers of
the ways in which the Republican establishment can kind of deviate from
some of its own sworn ideological commitments in terms of smaller
government or end to cronyism. What do you make of Trump`s entrance in
that respect?

TIM CARNEY, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Well, on the carried interest
question, I do think it`s some place when you look at policy people, I do a
fellowship at AEI and half my colleagues agree there should be a way
capital and labor income are taxed the same. When Dave camp, the
Republican chairman of the ways and means committee, proposed a tax reform,
he talked about closing the carried interest loophole.

The problem that is when they talk about this, all of a sudden you get
the left, the Democrats, excited. Oh, this is a tax hike, this is a tax
hike, more revenue. When camp was pushing, we`re going to cut taxes in
some places and then get rid of loopholes in others and that`s not a place
that ends up getting any bipartisan support because in both parties the
special interests have so much sway that the loopholes have more political
clout than the idea of lower rates.

HAYES: That is definitely true. I think that in some ways you get a
situation here where there`s political hay to be made. I mean, what`s
interesting to me is there`s a fairness argument being made by Trump and
it`s the kind of argument that is pretty anathema to Republicans. Right?
So the actual amount of money we`re talking about, talking about the
carried interest loophole, it`s pretty small. It`s not going to plug any
huge deficits. It`s not going to pay for a new social program on the grand
scheme of things on the government balance sheet, it`s pretty small. What
it is, it`s a fundamental populist argument about fairness.

And I do wonder whether from your perspective as a dyed in the wool
conservative, someone who spends his time around conservatives, whether
there`s any traction there in the base or not.

CARNEY: Well, I`ll answer the broader question which you were
referring to earlier about sort of Wall Street. Do they get special
benefits that upsets conservatives? And the answer is yes. I don`t know
if the answer was yes before sort September or October of 2008 when you had
George Bush with the help of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi push through the
bailouts, but nowadays, there is this question, are these Wall Streeters
getting special benefits? Are all of Chuck Schumer`s best friends getting
special benefits?

HAYES: Right.

CARNEY: And the fact that --

HAYES: He has best friends who are not just Wall Streeters.

CARNEY: Yes. But labor and capital both make -- are both sources of
generation of value. Things come out of working or investing. We need
both of them. That capital, that investment, should be privileged over
labor, is dubious.

But on the other hand, you have the complication there is a corporate
income tax, that you have all these other things, and so, a broader tax
reform that would equalize these things, what makes it impossible is all
the special interests in Washington. They -- if you say I will cut your
rates and get rid of the loopholes, every special interest lobbyist almost
will say "No," even though that increases the general welfare of the U.S.

HAYES: Let me ask you a question, a personal question, sort of, Tim.
You`re a religious person, a person of faith, you believe deeply. And I
wonder -- and you`re connected to folks who also have deep religious faith.

What do you make of Donald Trump about faith?

And it strikes me and I`m not really in a position to judge anyone`s
interior life as far as they -- but it seems preposterously put on to me.
You as someone who is in a better position, how does it strike you?

CARNEY: Yes, I don`t -- I`m not comfortable judging people`s faith.
I think his comments about the Bible were -- you know, seemed like a very
surface understanding. Reminded me of Howard Dean saying that Job was his
favorite new testament book. On the other hand, as a Catholic, we always
get criticized for not knowing the Bible well enough. We spend too much
time reading the catechism, I guess.

So, many politicians use their faith as a cover story. If Donald
Trump comes across as another one of those, on the other hand, you know,
it`s in his heart, it`s in his soul. I`m not somebody to say what`s going
on there. I wish sort of politicians didn`t drag it out and use it as a
sort of cover story, but on the other hand, I don`t know what`s in Donald
Trump`s heart.

HAYES: That`s a very honest and respectful answer. Tim Carney, thank
you very much.

CARNEY: Thank you.

HAYES: Still ahead, as Bernie Sanders closes the gap, the Hillary
Clinton campaign brings out the big guns, securing Senator Jeanne Shaheen`s
endorsement in New Hampshire. I`ll talk with the senator about her
decision and its timing.

Plus, President Obama brings climate change on his visit to the
Alaskan Arctic.

Meanwhile, an already historic hurricanes season has -- look at that,
three separate hurricanes simultaneously race through the Pacific.

Those stories and more, ahead.



and do something like that. You know, in Ohio, we felt it was appropriate.
A guy saw that mountain when he was one of the first up there, named it
after the president, no reason to change it.


HAYES: Presidential hopeful and governor of Ohio, John Kasich, among
those crying foul tonight after President Obama officially renamed Mt.
McKinley. The mountain was originally named after -- well, originally
officially named after Ohioan William McKinley back in 1896, by a gold
prospector who admired the then-candidate`s support for the gold standard,
which was just incidentally a terrible idea.

President McKinley never visited Alaska and Alaskans have long called
the mountain Denali after an indigenous name, and they have sought to have
its official name changed. For decades, a below the surface proxy war,
Ohio`s congressional delegation has successfully fought off attempts to
take McKinley`s name off the peak by the Alaskan delegation.

Until now, President Obama, issuing an executive order returning it to
its native name, Denali. A step to reflect the heritage of Alaskan
natives. And while Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski thanked the president
for the decision, Ohio Senator Rob Portman blasted it as another example of
the president going around Congress. Speaker of the House John Boehner who
represents Ohio said he was deeply disappointed in this decision.

All of this as the president makes his very first visit to Alaska
today to highlight the effects of climate change even as he faces intense
criticism for allowing Shell Oil to drill off the Alaskan coast.

I will ask his press secretary about that ahead.


HAYES: In the Democratic primary battle contest, presidential
candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, between the two, they have
already been certain benchmarks along the way. Now, Senator Bernie Sanders
has been drawing the biggest crowds basically from the beginning. And the
question was, as people watch these crowds, what does that mean in terms of
actual support?

After all, congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul used to
draw big crowds without it ever really showing up very strongly in actual
polling. Now, Sanders has been surging there as well, first pulling within
striking distance in the polls in New Hampshire primary voters, and then
actually ahead in the Granite State.

Now, the response of Sanders` skeptics was -- well, he`s the senator
from Vermont. It`s just next door. A strong in New Hampshire is to be
expected. In fact, in Iowa, Hillary Clinton is up by 30 points. Yes, she
used to be.

But now in the latest "Des Moines Register" poll, Sanders is pulling
nearly even with Clinton in Iowa, once you factor in the nearly 5 percent
margin of error. Other polls still show her with a sizable lead.

So, at some point, you have to say whatever the predictive value of
polling right now, which may be de minimis, at this point Bernie Sanders is
running a heck of a campaign and he is clearly competitive with Hillary
Clinton. And that probably explains some of the decisions the Clinton
campaign has made to remind everyone just how formidable their operation
is, and it is formidable, including her campaign`s recent claim that
Clinton has secured one-fifth of the total delegates she needs from super
delegates pledging their support.

And this weekend, we learned that a key high-profile endorsement will
be made publicly next Saturday by Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire.
Earlier today, I spoke with Senator Shaheen and asked her why she decided
to make this endorsement now.


SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D), NEW HAMPSHIRE: I actually was one of most of
the Democratic women senators who urged Hillary Clinton to run. I think
almost two years ago now. And so, I have been clear that I was going to do
everything I could to help her get elected once she got into the race. So,
I`m very excited she`s in the race. I`m going to keep working hard. New
Hampshire is obviously an important state. It`s one where she has a lot of
support based on the 2008 race.

So, I`m -- this was not a secret as far as I was concerned.

HAYES: So, here`s one way people will interpret the timing. They
will interpret the timing in the following way, that there is polling
showing Bernie Sanders leading perhaps New Hampshire, new polling showing
him very close in Iowa. The Clinton campaign`s announcement of the super
delegates they locked up as a kind of shot across the bow to the possible
entrance of Joe Biden, to other competitors in the race saying, look, this
is a formidable campaign. We have the home state senator of the first in
the nation primary.

Fewer will interpret this as a kind of muscle flexing. Are you
comfortable with that interpretation?

SHAHEEN: Oh, listen. People are going to interpret all kind of
things between now and the actual primary season. You know, polls are
going to go up and down. You all who are the analysts are going to find
all kinds of reasons for why people do things.

But the fact is, we`re getting into the fall now, the campaign season
is going to heat up. And so, it`s a great time to be out there doing what
I can to help Hillary get elected.

HAYES: You know, I`m curious. Your read on the pulse of New
Hampshire voters right now, particularly with respect to immigration. You
survived in a dismal year for Democrats. You were one of the very few
bright spots in last year`s election. It was a tough fought race.

What is your sense about your home state voters, what they are looking
for, and particularly whether some of the extremist rhetoric on immigration
is speaking to some of the constituents you have in New Hampshire?

SHAHEEN: Well, I think there`s a lot of frustration out there among
the electorate. And I some of the language that`s been used around
immigration speaks to that frustration.

I believe we need comprehensive immigration reform. We`ve got a
system that`s broken and we need to fix it. That was the bipartisan
position of the Senate. We passed a bill, unfortunately, the House never
took it up and so it didn`t go anywhere.

But we need to address this in a real comprehensive way and the
extreme rhetoric around this issue has not fixed the problem. It`s not
going to fix the problem. We need to address it on all levels. Border
security, making sure that we can get immigrants who are here who are
working hard to make sure that they can pay their taxes, that they learn
English, that they get in line behind those people who have been here
legally, and really fix the problem. And, unfortunately, the rhetoric is
not going to do that.

HAYES: There`s been a lot of talk recently -- there was a big article
that interviewed a number of Democratic politicians and officials about the
ongoing story about Secretary of State Clinton`s e-mail server which has
entered this kind of endless byzantine universe of, quote-unquote,
"scandal", and I`m putting that in air quotes, as of now. There are people
expressing their frustration with her campaign`s handling of it.

What is your response to them?

SHAHEEN: You know, I`ve known Hillary Clinton for a very long time,
even before bill Clinton started running for president and before she
became first lady. I served as governor during the Clinton administration.

I worked with her when she was a senator. I worked with her as
secretary of state. I trust Hillary Clinton. I believe she is the most
experienced person best able to do the job as president. That`s why I`m
supporting her.

And, again, I think we`re going to see a lot of partisan attacks.
We`re going to see a lot of accusations go back and forth, but I want to
elect the person who I think is most capable of doing the job as president,
and that`s why I`m supporting Hillary.

HAYES: But some of those -- just a sort of follow up, I mean, some of
these attacks on the handling aren`t partisan in the sense they are coming
from fellow Democrats.

SHAHEEN: Well, again, I`ve been a Democrat for a long time and I can
tell you that sometimes my biggest critics are members of my own party, so
people are always going to criticize. You can`t please everybody. I think
she needs to continue to work hard. She needs to point out why she`s
different than her opponents, what she thinks we need to do in this country
to make sure the middle class has opportunities again, to make sure we
invest in our infrastructure and our education and the people of this
country so that we can grow the economy and stay competitive.

And that`s the case that she`s going to be making to the American

HAYES: All right. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, I appreciate you taking
the time tonight. Thank you.

SHAHEEN: Thank you.


HAYES: Up next, President Obama continues to push for support for his
Iran deal, this time sitting down with the Jewish press. We`ll bring you
that interview ahead.


HAYES: Missed the ongoing battle over the Iran deal? A battle in
which there`s been a heightened focus on Jewish lawmakers and leaders,
President Obama sat down with Jane Einser in what she described as, quote,
the first one-on-one interview he granted a member of the Jewish media
since becoming President in 2008.

President Obama made the case for the Iran deal while also shamelessly
pandering to a certain Upper West Side demographic by lamenting the loss of
legendary H&H Bagels in Manhattan, also disclosing his favorite kind of

Joining me now, editor in chief of The Forward Jane Eisner.

Why do you think you got this interview?

JANE EISNER, THE FOWARD: Well, I think the president really wants to
talk to our leaders through The Forward. And obviously wanted to engage
not only on Iran, but also on the fraught tensions between him and the
Netanyahu administration.

This has been a difficult time for the Jewish community, this Iran
deal has really divided a lot of people, not just lawmakers, and it was a
chance for me to ask him the questions that I have as well about the deal.

HAYES: What -- what do you make of the focus that there has been on
both Jewish lawmakers and Jewish leaders in -- with respect to the Iran
deal, which obviously is driven marginally by the riff that`s grown up
between Israel and the
U.S. and AIPAC and other groups sort of lobbying, but also feels to me a
little uncomfortably close to anti-Semitic tropes about the sort of cabal
of Jewish power wielders.

EISNER: Well, I feel uncomfortable about it, too.

Look, I think the unprecedented talk that Netanyahu gave to congress
in March about the Iran deal really set up a kind of fight with him and the
administration and put a lot of Jews in a really awkward situation

People who do want -- because people want to support the Israeli
government. Most Israeli leaders have voiced opposition to this deal. And
I think there`s a natural tendency among American Jews to pay attention to
what goes on in Israel and to at least consider what Israelis themselves
say about their own security, so that was a persuasive kind of statement.

On the other hand most Jews here still are Democratic, very supportive
of this president and probably much more desirous of having a diplomatic
rather than anything else in Iran.

It really created this push and pull and I think some of it is because
the Jewish community you find is so much more vocal about this than other
people. It feels very close.

You know, Iran hasn`t been shy about saying what it thinks.

HAYES: Particularly Ahmadinejad, the previous...

EISNER: And the current supreme leader. I mean, we can`t ignore that
he has also said some pretty nasty things about Jews and about Israel.

So it does feel closer to home, I think, for American Jews than
perhaps for others.

HAYES: What was the debate like over Carter`s Camp David Accords?
Sadat and Begin. And was there similar -- was that tension similarly
fraught when that big peace deal was struck?

EISNER: Well, I don`t think so because there you had a democratic
president aligned with the government of Israel.

Here you have a Democratic president who is at odds with the leader.

HAYES: And very public and at times quite bitter and intense way.

EISNER: Well, and to me that`s what`s so disturbing and fascinating
what`s going on now when you`ve had other disputes between American
administrations and Israeli governments, and there have been.

HAYES: Very back channel, very off the front page.

EISNER: But not only that, it`s when Republicans have been in the
White House. Now you have Democrats there.

HAYES: Poppyseed bagel with a smear was his favorite bagel.

EISNER: It is. He said he doesn`t mind locks and capers, but he
really goes just for a smear.

HAYES: All right. Janes Eisner, thank you very much.

EISNER: You`re welcome.

HAYES: Coming up, President Obama becoming the first sitting
president to visit the Alaskan Arctic as he brings the focus of the urgency
of dealing with climate change.


HAYES: Today President Obama embarked on the first leg of a historic
three-day trip to Alaska. He`ll become the first U.S. president to go
north of the
Arctic Circle and call for dramatic action on climate change from the part
of the
world where its effects are the most readily visible and alarming.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: this year we had no snow. We had 80-degree
summer. We`ve just really watched the glaciers change and dramatic

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Scientists say this year alone the average
will lose 30 inches of thickness.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s about 25,000 glaciers in Alaska and almost
all of them are retreating, losing mass and shrinking.


HAYES: Consequences of rapidly melting glaciers across the Arctic
will not only have profound environmental consequences but diplomatic ones
as well as the
president presses international leaders and policymakers to urgently
address climate change, the U.S. prepares for a future diplomatic dispute
over oil drilling and shipping rights through contested Arctic territories.

Disputes over the Arctic are not just happening in contested
territory, they`re happening in Alaska as well. In fact, the president`s
trip, which he tried to focus squarely on climate change, comes just after
the White House gave approval for additional oil drilling in the state.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it is hypocrisy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just last week, the administration gave the
final OK to Shell to drill for oil off the northwest coast while fossil
fuels are partly to blame for climate change.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For somebody like President Obama who presumably
understands the science and understands the numbers, it`s effectively like
drill, baby, drill.


HAYES: Joining me now from Anchorage, Alaska, is White House Press
Secretary Josh Earnest who is traveling with the president.

Josh, the main line I`ve heard from folks in the kind of climate
movement, environmentalists, environmental scientists about this trip is
it`s great he`s
going there. It`s great he`s drawing attention. It is hypocritical for
this president to approve drilling in the Arctic, which is something that
is going to facilitate further climate change and go to the Arctic and talk
about the need to bring dramatic things to stop climate change.

How do you respond?

the president takes a very pragmatic approach to all this stuff. The fact
of the matter is, this president has made an historic commitment on behalf
of this country to transition us to a low carbon, clean energy economy.
And whether it`s the clean power plan rule or some of the efficiency rules
that we put in place, no president has done more.

The fact is, though, we`re not going to make this transition overnight
and it is better to be in a position where we`re relying on American oil
and gas than on
trying to import oil and gas during that transition period from including
some of the most volatile regions of the world.

Now the fact is as this American oil and gas is being extracted, it is
also being subjected to the most stringent environmental and safety
standards of any other country in the world. So we`re doing this safely,
we`re doing this in a way that`s the in best for our economy, and at the
same time we`re making an historic commitment to transition our economy to
a low carbon economy both because it`s in the best interest of our planet,
it`s best interest of our economy, and it`s in the best interest of the
public health of our children and our communities.

HAYES: Let me just to respond once on this or say what critics would
say which is that pragmatism in this case can be essentially a bargain with
oblivion, that the practical solutions, which as we sort of phase things in
and business as usual for awhile and we keep taking oil out of the ground.
At a certain point, more aggressive strategies, meaning leaving oil in the
ground are going to have to
happen and there`s no place that illustrates that more clearly than what is
happening in the Arctic in terms of the pace of what we`re up against.

EARNEST: Well, Chris, you`re right. One of the reasons that the
has traveled to Alaska is that there are communities in Alaska that are
dealing firsthand on a daily basis with the impacts of climate change. We
know that the impacts is having a disproportionate impact here in the
Arctic, and this is one of the things we`re here to highlight.

But, look, when it comes to the president`s record on taking steps to
fight climate change, he takes a back seat to no one. In fact, the
president is leading the world to make significant commitments as a part of
this UN process that`s supposed to come to a head in December where we can
make historic progress by working with the world, by leading the
international community in the direction of fighting carbon pollution and
fighting climate change.

Let me say one other thing about this, Chris, which is that in terms
of making this transition that`s so critical to the success of our economy
and the future of our planet, the president has also dedicated significant
investments in renewable energy and that`s why you`ve seen solar energy
increase 20 fold since
the president took office, wind energy has tripled, all of this dependent
the significant investments that this country has committed to under
Obama`s leadership and that`s why the president is proud of his record, but
he`s also committed to making sure that we`re going to do the right thing
both for our planet and for our economy.

HAYES: From the White House`s perspective, is the political battle
over the facts here, the sort of denialism that we`ve seen in some corners,
is that more or less over in terms of how the president and how this
administration thinks about the duration of his term?

EARNEST: Well, Chris, what we certainly have seen -- I think the vast
majority of the American public understands that we can to longer be in a
position where we`re denying climate change. I think there are some
members of the Republican Party, including at least a couple running for
president, who haven`t gotten the memo yet, but the fact is there`s a
consensus in this country now that climate change is real, that climate
change is, however, something we can do something about.

And by taking steps to fight carbon pollution and to fight climate
change, we can actually make a difference in terms of the future of our
planet, we can also do some good things for our economy. We know that a
growing sector of our economy is going to be the renewable energy sector
and so making smart investments in wind and solar and in energy efficiency
isn`t just good for the planet, it`s a good economic strategy as well.
That`s why the president is committed to it.

And there still does seem to be a debate in the Republican Party about
whether climate change is real. President Obama and the vast majority of
the American public do acknowledge that climate change is real and that`s
why the president has put forward a common sense but effective strategy for
dealing with it in a way that`s good for our economy.

HAYES: All right, Josh Earnest from Alaska, looks gorgeous there.
Enjoy, thanks for joining us.

EARNEST: All right, thank you, Chris.

HAYES: Got some late breaking news in the brewing McKinley gate
scandal. Donald Trump weighing in. President Obama wants to change the
name of Mt. McKinley to Denali after more than 100 years, a great insult to
Ohio. I will change back, exclamation point, make McKinley great again.

Still ahead, is the Democratic debate schedule rigged to give Hillary
Clinton the edge? We will tell you who is openly and unabashedly
criticizing DNC leadership. That`s coming up.


HAYES: For the very first time in recorded history there are three
major hurricanes in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. Hurricanes Kila
(ph), Ignacio (ph) and Jimena (ph) seen here from left to right, all formed
at the same time, all three of them were classified as category 4
hurricanes on Saturday night.

Now Kila (ph) and Ignacio (ph) have since weakened. And only Jimena
(ph) seen here in a photo, taken from the International Space Station, is
still classified as a category four storm.

The hurricanes are getting fueled by the unusually warm Pacific Ocean
and ever increasing El Nino effect, according to The Washington Post. As
of this week, El Nino has surpassed the two degrees Celsius threshold in
one of the key regions of the Pacific Ocean, something this region hasn`t
done since the most powerful El Nino on Record in 1997.

Just keep in mind, that`s two degrees, two degrees does all that.

That`s what we`re looking for globally with climate change, and that
means a lot more of this kind of record breaking weather. We`ll be right



unprecedented in our party`s history. This sort of rigged process has
never been attempted before. Whose decree is this exactly? Where did it
come from? To what end? For what purpose? What national or party
interest does this decree serve? How does this help us tell the story of
the last eight years of Democratic process?


HAYES: Martin O`Malley is questioning why the Democratic National
Committee will hold only four debates before next February`s Iowa caucuses.
DNC has sanctioned six debates in total so far including two after Iowa,
but that is not enough according to O`Malley.

So on a Friday, the former Maryland governor, speaking at the DNC
summer meeting told party leadership to their faces not only are they wrong
but that limiting the number of debates is detrimental to the democratic


O`MALLEY: How does this help us make our case to the American people?
One debate in Iowa? That`s it? One debate in New Hampshire, that`s all we
can afford?

And, get this, the New Hampshire debate is cynically wedged into the
high point of holiday shopping season so as few people watch it as

Is this how the Democratic Party selects its nominee? Are we becoming
something less?


HAYES: O`Malley never name checked DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz
who was sitting just a few feet away. But things seemed awkward between
the two of them when they shook hands after that speech.

Earlier today when we asked the DNC for a statement on O`Malley`s
comments, we were referred to something Wasserman Schultz said on Friday in
which she told CNN producer, that quote, "he chose to use that 15 minutes
to focus on debates as opposed to his candidacy. That was certainly his

O`Malley is not alone in being frustrated with the number of
presidential primary debates. Washington Post reporter Philip Rucker (ph)
tweeted, quote, "asked if he agrees with O`Malley calling DNC debate
process rigged, Bernie Sanders says I do."

Now, it is not uncommon for a candidate who is trailing the polls to
want more debates as a way to make up ground on the frontrunner.

But, both Martin O`Malley and Bernie Sanders` criticism raises the
deeper question of whether the Democratic Party institutionally is, as of
this moment, genuinely committed to having an open and competitive primary.
We`ll debate the Democratic debates next.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you feel the party is unfairly supporting one
candidate over the rest of the field?

O`MALLEY: I think they were, but I`m hopeful after today that the
broader Democratic Party has woken up to this injustice and we`re going to
have more debates.


HAYES: Martin O`Malley on Friday suggesting the DNC had stacked the
deck in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Joining me now, Jess McIntosh, spokesperson for Emily`s List; and
MSNBC contributor Sam Seder, host of the majority report podcast.

Jess, let me start with you. To me there`s a real question.
Obviously facially, right, it`s an open, competitive process, but we all
know the reality of the Democratic Party, the Clintons are massively
influential. We`ve already go, you know, 20 percent of the total delegates
locked up in the Clinton campaign. Like, can you honestly say the
institutional Democratic Party is neutral and looking for an open
competitive primary?


I mean, as someone who works for an organization that has endorsed
Hillary Clinton, that is openly supportive of Hillary Clinton`s candidacy,
the Democratic national committee is a neutral party. It just is. They
don`t play favorites with a front-runner. They have six debates already
scheduled. I don`t see where there`s a lot of traction to be gained by
saying six is somehow rigging the democratic process.

It`s not unprecedented to limit the number of debates. You in fact
have to limit the number of debates. The question becomes where do you
limit it? Do you limit it at four, do you limit it at at six, do you limit
it at eight? I think they came up with a decent solution.

HAYES: Well, you don`t have to limit. I mean, basically what
happened the last time around on the Republican side was basically people
competed in a million different debates and there kept being more. The
Republicans and the Democrats this time decided if you want to unsanctioned
debates you were penalized but that rule, which we should be clear, is both
parties this time around that is unprecedented.

MCINTOSH: But look what happened to the Republican field last time.
I think that if the point is to have a substantive conversation about what
kind of agenda and where the differences are, I don`t know the debates the
way have them today are the best way to do it.

And six, I think, is plenty of time to air those differences.

SAM SEDER, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I`ve got to say I think the last in
2008 we had a lot of debates.

HAYES: A ton.

SEDER: A ton. And I think they were extremely helpful. And I think
-- look, I understand the reason the Republicans want to maintain
discipline because they convinced themselves it hurt them the last time
around. The fact is they had a flawed candidate. They have a flawed

But the idea that the Democrats can`t actually have a debate of
substance. I mean, look, I think it`s pretty clear that the theory here
was that the Republicans are trying to contract their race. We want to try
to contract ours from the democratic perspective.

I think frankly it is going to backfire because the Republican race is
not what I think the Republicans anticipated.

HAYES: Certainly not at this point.

SEDER: Right. And I don`t think it`s what the Democrats anticipated

And I think at the end of the day I think it`s wrong to limit the
debates. I think it`s wrong to sanction people if they go outside of the
apparatus. I mean, the DNC doesn`t have to be the only people who are
having debates.

But on top of that, I think it`s going to backfire and I think this is
going to hurt Hillary Clinton if that was part of the agenda. And it`s
hard to imagine it wasn`t, because I think -- look, at the end of the day,
there has to be an affirmative case that`s put out there and the
Republicans are drawing a lot more attention than people anticipated.
There is a void there.

HAYES: What do you think about...

MCINTOSH: No, the idea that the Republicans are somehow drawing an
affirmative case for themselves is not at all what`s happening. Democrats
are actually talking about and agenda of what they want to do for people
when they`re president.

The Republicans are trying to out crazy each other.

SEDER: Well, that`s true. But they`re certainly drawing a negative
view of Hillary Clinton. I mean, the poll that came out, that word
association poll, I mean she is not being helped by the situation.

And I think -- look, the bottom line is, regardless of how you slice
it, it looks like the Democrats are hiding. When you schedule four debates
and three of them are on the weekend and one is buried in the middle of
shopping, and then there`s two that are floating around after the votes...

MCINTOSH: We have the caucuses at the beginning of the year. You
have to debate around the holiday season.

I mean, I think, that look, I don`t every....

SEDER: You don`t have to debate exclusively around the holiday
season. You can have more than one debate at that time.

And so it looks like the Democrats are hiding.

MCINTOSH: It doesn`t look like they`re hiding with six debates. I
don`t envy the people who are involved in these negotiations at all.
Because it is 100 percent impossible to make everybody happy. There is
just no chance.

HAYES: Right. But here`s my question. Here is my question.

It does seem to me -- I mean, six doesn`t seem like oh, that`s way too
few. What does seem fair to me, though, is -- you know, there is an
asymmetry of attention. That asymmetry of attention has to do with a lot
of features of the Republican primary which are not things that you want to
replicate to produce attention or not a blueprint model.

That said, I think Sam`s point the more coverage the better, right?
If you believe in the party`s platform, if you believe the internal debates
the party are having are compelling and speak to the American people, than
the more of that you get it would seem the better.

MCINTOSH: I think that every candidate is laying out their agenda and
their platform and I think it gets the coverage it gets. I wish it got
more. But that they are making the case to the American public what
they`re going to do when they become president. That`s not what the
Republican side of the aisle is doing. And so they`re sucking up all the

That`s sort of the media landscape we`ve got. And so we`re seeing
coverage. There`s no way that we`re going to compete with what Donald
Trump is doing on a daily basis.

HAYES: Here is one of the ironies, one of the paradoxes I think of
this race. The more competitive the Democratic race is, in some ways it`s
worse for Hillary Clinton because it`s more competitive but in a way the
coverage is better because to the extent that it`s not competitive and
she`s treated as the nominee already or she`s already treated as
essentially she`s two years into her first term, that coverage is back.

And so in a weird way, I actually think it`s in her interest more

Jess McIntosh, Sam Seder, two of our draft card contestants.


<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