Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Friday, October 16th, 2015

Read the transcript from the Friday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Date: October 16, 2015
Guest: Nick Confessore, Jennifer Bendery, Tad Devine, Danny Boyle, Neela


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

Whether don`t blame him or don`t blame him, but he was president.

HAYES: The Republican primary is fighting over 9/11 again.


HAYES: Jeb Bush attacks Donald Trump for citing his brother`s record
as the RNC chair warns of disaster for his party. Then -- why Donald
Trump`s self-funding deception has big implications.

TRUMP: I`m funding my own campaign. Nobody else is.

HAYES: Plus, new bombshell evidence that the Benghazi committee is a
plot to stop Hillary.

And the man behind "Steve Jobs."

DANNY BOYLE: He`s a wonderful like OK, I have to rethink what I
think. You know, I have to think different.

HAYES: My interview with director Danny Boyle when ALL IN starts
right now.


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

At this hour, Donald Trump is wrapping up a campaign rally in
Tyngsboro, Massachusetts, where he has spent a lot of time, frankly,
reading off poll numbers, but has yet to address the attack he faced today
from Jeb Bush over the September 11th attacks. The back and forth kicked
off this morning when Trump said this on Bloomberg TV.


TRUMP: When you talk about George Bush, say what you want, the World
Trade Center came down during his time. If you --

BLOOMBERG TV: Hold on. You can`t blame George Bush for that.

TRUMP: He was president. Okay? Don`t blame him or don`t blame him,
but he was president. The World Trade Center came down during his reign.


HAYES: Jeb Bush took umbrage at that comment tweeting, "How pathetic
for @RealDonald Trump to criticize the president for 9/11. We were
attacked and my brother kept us safe."

The tweet mirrored a comment Jeb Bush made last month in the second
GOP presidential debate.


BUSH: You know what? As it relates to my brother, that`s one thing I
know for sure -- he kept us safe. I don`t know if you remember, Donald.


Do you remember the rubble?


HAYES: Jeb Bush is outraged at Donald Trump for having said something
that is incontrovertibly true. George W. Bush was president when nearly
3,000 Americans were murdered in the worst terrorist attack in U.S.
history. Now, he`d been president for about nine months. And even after
hearings and years of reporting on the 9/11 Commission and its report,
there continues to be a tremendous deal of debate about what could have
been done if anything to prevent that attack. But there is no debate about
who was in charge when it happened.

The larger campaign question is about the fact that Jeb Bush still
doesn`t appear to have figured out how to talk about his brother`s

Joining me now, MSNBC contributor Josh Barro, correspondent with the
"Upshot" in "The New York Times."

This strikes me as a classic Donald Trump gaffe where he will say
something and he says it in a kind of irreverential way and the tone is a
bit offensive, but a lost times I think what he`s saying particularly about
his primary foes is basically true. In this case, you know, you can say
George W. Bush, it wasn`t his fault. You can say a lot of things.

It did happen while he was president.

JOSH BARRO, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I don`t even know that this is a
gaffe. I think it`s another Donald Trump thing where he draws out Jeb Bush
to associate himself more closely with his brother. I mean, do you think
Donald Trump did any damage to himself with this comment?

HAYES: True.

BARRO: He`s said much more awful things that did no damage to him.
So, certainly, I don`t think this was a gaffe at all.

HAYES: And that gets to the point about part of the problem that I
think the Jeb Bush campaign has never solved from day one, from the first
wave of bad publicity they got, which was about Jeb talking about Iraq and
going back and forth about whether it was a bad idea or not, would you have
done Iraq again knowing what we know now, that they have never solved the
problem of what is your relationship to your brother`s presidency.

BARRO: Yes. And I think at some point you kind of have to own it,
right? I think Jeb is saying what he`s saying for two reasons. One, I
think this is an emotional thing for him. I think that he believes his
brother was a good president and did a good job on this stuff and wants to
defend his record.

But people who are really put off by the idea of another Bush
presidency were never going to vote for Jeb anyway. George W. Bush still
polls well with Republicans. Half the Republicans still think we found
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was a poll that was done in
January. So, if Jeb is going to pick --

HAYES: Maybe he should run on a victory lap about the WMD we found.

BARRO: Right. I mean, it`s like if there`s a significant well of
support for his brother and for his brother`s anti-terrorism policies which
there is in the Republican Party --

HAYES: And you heard it. I mean, that was the high point of that
debate for Jeb Bush was that moment. That was the most raucous applause
the guy has gotten possibly all campaign.

BARRO: And I think what Jeb means when he says he kept us safe, I
think it`s related to the sort of deranged approach that a lot of Americans
on all parts of the political spectrum have had to terrorism in the wake of
September 11th, which is there came this idea that terrorism is common and
is a leading source of mortal threat to Americans.

And the fact that we have not had another major terrorist attack since
September 11th is therefore a demonstration of extraordinary effort by the
government to prevent such attacks.

In fact, attacks like this are extremely rare. It was not a normal
thing there would be an attack like this and the fact that there was not
another attack like that during his presidency or during President Obama`s
presidency is not a demonstration that something materially changed in how
good we were preventing these things.

But a lot of people do think that. They think it was extraordinary
that there were no further similar terrorist attacks on American soil.

HAYES: And in fact, that has become essentially for all -- that`s
sort of the singular talking point for the George W. Bush legacy. That`s
the reason that he keeps going back to that.

BARRO: Yes. And I think -- I don`t think there`s evidence for the
idea it`s likely there would have been similar follow-up attacks if not for
the policy changes in that presidency. Certainly that -- I don`t think
there`s evidence that the Iraq war was something that prevented further
attacks like that. But I think a lot of people really think, well, gee,
there wasn`t another of these. That was a sign that something changed and
they were doing something right.

HAYES: Reince Priebus who`s the head of the RNC had this thing today
about how if the GOP doesn`t win in 2016, we`re cooked as a party. "I
think we have become unfortunately a midterm party that doesn`t lose and a
presidential party that`s had a really hard time winning. We`re cooked as
a party for quite a while if we don`t win in 2016."

What do you think?

BARRO: Didn`t people say this before the 2012 election, that
Republicans had really gotten their hopes up? And Republicans really,
really thought they were going to win that election.

HAYES: They sure did.

BARRO: Mitt Romney really thought he was going to win that election.
In the end, I mean, they lost, but they didn`t lost that badly. It was,
what, 3 1/2 points.

I think, you know, Republicans will survive a loss after 2016, just as
they survived a loss after 2012. Of course, better for the party to win.
But I think Reince Priebus certainly in 2017 will not be --

HAYES: Reince is like I`m cooked.

But the other thing about it I think it speaks to is staring down the
barrel of this essentially structural divide in government which I think is
in some way is the kind of subtext that stalks this whole campaign. It`s
something that`s very hard for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to talk
about. It`s something Republicans don`t want to talk about because they
don`t want to admit that they`re going to be relegated to essentially the
role Democrats were for much of the sort of post-war period as the party
governing out of the House with a Republican president.

BARRO: Yes, I would not be too triumphalist if I were a Democrat
about the idea that Democrats were --

HAYES: No, I`m not.

BARRO: -- winning every presidential election going forward --

HAYES: No, I just think the decks are stacked on both sides in
interesting ways.

BARRO: It`s clear the Republicans have a clear advantage in off years
but, you know, presidential election results are moved by a lot of things,
especially the economy. It`s not such an overwhelming advantage that
Republicans can`t win in 2016, especially, you know, we`re seeing warning
signs in the economy. If things get worse then I think --

HAYES: It`s a whole new ball game.

BARRO: Very likely a Republican wins.

HAYES: All right. Josh Barro, thank you.

Donald Trump`s presidential campaign filed its first report with the
Federal Election Commission yesterday. In addition to some pretty
hilarious details, that Trump spent more on hats than Bobby Jindal raised
in three months, we learned that Trump has pulled off something pretty
incredible when it comes to how he`s funding his campaign. If you`ve been
watching, Trump`s speeches you`ve seen him make a point again and again and
again that seems to be very important to him.


TRUMP: The fact is I`m the only self-funder. I`m putting up my own
money. I`m funding my own campaign.

I`m self-funding my campaign.

I am self-funding my campaign.

We`re turning down millions of dollars.

I`m self-funding my own campaign. I`m putting up my own money.

I`m using my own money.

I`m spending all of my money.

I`m self-funding.

I`m self-funding my campaign.

I`m self-funding my campaign. I`m not taking money from hedge funds
or anybody else.

People come up, they want to give you lots of money. Lobbyists,
special interests, donors, they want -- and I keep turning them down.


HAYES: All right. Well, we now know that his claim there that he is
Mr. Self-Funded is not really true. Trump has only spent about $2 million
of his own money on his campaign and has not given it a single dollar in
four months.

Instead, his campaign is largely being funded by donors. I mean, the
campaign has raised $5.8 million from donors. It has only spent 5.6
million, which technically puts it in the black.

Now, the fact that Trump has raised all that money doesn`t change the
fact that he is one of the few people in this race who can claim
legitimately not to be controlled by big money. Trump reported donations
from 74,000 donors, who gave an average of just $50.

But the fact is, so far, this entire enterprise has been pretty low
impact on Trump`s personal fortune. And at a certain point to pay for
advertising and staff and the ground game and all the things you have to do
in a serious presidential run, Trump will either have to start raising a
lot more money or start writing $10 million and 20 million checks to his
campaign, and that I suspect is when we`re going to find out just how
serious this presidential run is.

Joining me now, Nick Confessore, national political reporter "The New
York Times."

I mean, that to me was the real takeaway was -- wait a second, this
whole thing has essentially been a free ride for Donald Trump. He`s flying
around, he`s a rich guy anyway, he`s got his private jet. He`s flying
around, cameras are following him, he`s doing well in the polls and there`s
very little sacrifice from him financially.

NICK CONFESSORE, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Look, he`s paying for his plane
flights out of his own pocket. He`s paying for some staff, you know, from
his business organization. But people who are his fans are paying for the
campaign. And it`s amazing --

HAYES: People are sending this guy -- his whole shtick is how rich he
is and he`s self-funding. They are, without them working very hard to
fund-raise, they are sending him money.

CONFESSORE: He raised $4 million last quarter from people who just
sent him money online. And it`s amazing, right?

It`s become a self-fulfilling branding exercise like -- and look, he`s
winning. He`s winning the race. He`s ahead in the polls. So you can`t
say it`s not working for him, right?

But he`s not spending his own money anymore.

HAYES: The other strike thing about it was that the burn rate`s very
low because they don`t have a big campaign organization, right? I mean,
they`re not spending money. They don`t have a huge staff. They`re not
buying advertising. What -- are they spending money on anything? What are
they spending money on?

CONFESSORE: He has the smallest staff in the top five or six
candidates that we saw. He spent more on baseball hats and t-shirts in the
third quarter than he did in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina

HAYES: Really?

CONFESSORE: Yes. So, look, and it`s the story, right? Like --

HAYES: So he is -- this is the Trump hat has been one of the main
expenditures of the Trump campaign. In fact, a bigger expenditure than,
say, field organizers in Iowa.

CONFESSORE: Or advertising. Yes.

HAYES: That includes advertising too.

CONFESSORE: No, no, no. Also advertising is less than the hats. And
the hats are the message. The hats are the message, right?

The whole point of this is like Donald Trump. And now, those hats are

HAYES: And the other sort of big money fight that`s happening on the
Republican side is this fight between Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush basically
over who`s raising more money, who has more cash on hand, and who is more
beholden to essentially mysterious dark money super PAC donors. What`s
going on between the two of them?

CONFESSORE: All right. So, basically that these two guys are
fighting for fifth place and it`s very important to them, right? Because
they believe when all the dust settles and Donald Trump drops out and Ben
Carson flails and Ted Cruz can`t expand, then magically at the end, these
two guys will be the people.

So, what`s happening is that Bush spent a lot more. He built a much
bigger organization but he couldn`t raise that much. And so, he`s
basically ended with about as much cash on hand as the fall begins as Marco

And all the stuff you`re hearing is irrelevant. They`re about tied
for cash on hand for the primary. On top of that, yes, there`s a huge
super PAC for Jeb Bush and a very huge 501c-4 group, this non-profit groups
for Marco Rubio, which is paying for almost all of his campaign
advertising, which is a point of contrast for the two campaigns. There`s
less transparency in the money for Marco Rubio.

HAYES: Right. Let`s be clear, the super PAC unlimited donations but
there is some transparency.

CONFESSORE: Disclosure of donors.

HAYES: 501c4s do not have to disclose.


HAYES: So, Marco Rubio, we just don`t know who`s paying for his

CONFESSORE: We have no idea.

HAYES: We have no idea.


HAYES: It could be someone, we don`t know. But Jeb Bush we do know.

CONFESSORE: It could be Sheldon Adelson. We don`t know.

HAYES: Yes, that`s right.

So how much -- I mean, all these reports, right? Are on the old hard
money system like, you know, regime. How much does that even matter?

CONFESSORE: Well, look, it does matter. Ask Scott Walker. At the
end of the day, you do have to pay for your own campaign salary, your own
plane ticket. You can`t outsource all of it. And, in fact, it`s hard to
outsource things effectively to a super PAC like get out the vote.

So, you have to have money to pay your bills and keep your lights on.

HAYES: Super PACs are sort of design in some ways or optimized for
ads, right? They can take in a lot of money, hire a consulting firm, they
could run ads. That`s a fairly low overhead, high dollar thing you can do.

But actually running a campaign, say, field staff in Iowa, that`s a
much harder thing to outsource to a super PAC.

CONFESSORE: Because you can`t do it that way. You have to be in
touch with your own voters and your own voter contact effectively to be a
good campaigner.

HAYES: All right. Nick Confessore, always a pleasure. Thank you.

CONFESSORE: Thank you.

HAYES: Still ahead, the Benghazi committee continues to unravel,
leading to Clinton`s testimony next week. More evidence comes out that it
is a plot to stop Hillary Clinton.

Plus, for years, Exxon was a loud voice in denying the existence of
manmade climate change. What they were doing behind closed doors tells a
very different story. That report`s coming up.

HAYES: And later, when it comes to the argument over who really won
the Democratic debate, there is one definitive measure, at least for the
moment. We will look at those stories and much more ahead.



comment on what Joe`s doing or not doing. I think you can direct those
questions to my very able vice president.


HAYES: For those keeping track at home, Biden watch is still on.
Now, the vice president is sending a message to former staffers through a
top aide. Ted Kaufman, who served as Biden`s chief of staff in the Senate
and then went on to replace Biden as senator when Biden became vice
president, wrote in a letter to Biden alumni, "The vice president is
determined to take and give his family as much time as possible to work
this through."

Kaufman closing the letter with this: "If he decides to run, we will
need each and every one of you yesterday."

As to whether the vice president may have missed a key milestone this
week, the first Democratic debate, Biden`s own brother says that doesn`t
matter. Quote, "Everybody`s trying to make hay out of the idea that Joe`s
decision is based on something other than an internal barometer. That`s
simply not true. It`s all about the dialogue between his head and his

And as that dialogue continues, it`s a good time as any to check the
scoreboards in our ALL IN 2016 fantasy candidate draft. God, I love that

This week`s debate has given some of our -- participants with big d
Democratic draft picks some additional points. We have a tie for the lead
here. Joy Reid and Michael Steele both earning 2,100 points. Jess
McIntosh has 2,000 points. Sam Seder still in this thing with 1,800
points. And well, Josh Barro is chugging along, Carly Fiorina and Ted
Cruz, he has 1,000 points.

That`s your ALL IN fantasy draft candidate update for this Friday
evening. We`ll be right back.



JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: You`re scheduled to testify in front of the
Benghazi committee in the House of Representatives in a few days. What are
you expecting and how are you preparing?

to expect. I think it`s pretty clear that whatever they might have thought
they were doing, they ended up becoming a partisan arm of the Republican
National Committee with an overwhelming focus on trying to, as they
admitted, drive down my poll numbers.


HAYES: As the House Select Committee on Benghazi wrapped up its
interview today with Huma Abedin, long-time aide to Hillary Clinton, it
continues to be hit with allegations it is a partisan operation out to get
Democratic presidential hopeful. After two House Republicans said
essentially that Trey Gowdy, the committee chairman, has asked people to
look at what the committee is doing.


REP. TREY GOWDY (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: It all focused on the words that
people are not on the committee used. Focus on the actions of those of us
who have been on the committee for the last year and a half. And, Megyn,
out of the 54 witnesses that we have interviewed, 41 of whom by the way no
other committee interviewed, not a single one of them has been named


HAYES: The Benghazi committee may not have interviewed any named
Clinton yet. She`s scheduled later this month. But they have interviewed
several people connected to the former secretary of state.

According to a new report today from "The Huffington Post", Trey Gowdy
has been focused on those allies in closed-door Benghazi meetings. Now, a
source telling them there have been 53 interviews and depositions with
witnesses called in for Gowdy`s probe. Gowdy has attended fewer than 10 of
the 53.

But the interviews, which were described by "The Huffington Post" as
staff led, that Gowdy has attended include: Cheryl Mills, Clinton`s chief
of staff when she was secretary of state. Jake Sullivan, Clinton`s former
deputy chief of staff and current adviser. Sidney Blumenthal, long-time
Clinton adviser. And Brian Pagliano, a State Department staffer.

We should note that Gowdy did not attend the interview of Huma Abedin.
Other committee witness interviews that Gowdy did not go to according to
"The Huffington Post", three of the four diplomatic security agents who
actually survived the attack. Also, CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell and
former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Flynn.

A spokesperson for the congressman said Gowdy has attended to far more
matters that do not involve Clinton than those that do, including ones
involving the White House, State Department on witness document production,
and the CIA.

Joining me now, Jennifer Bendery, she`s political reporter of "The
Huffington Post" who broke this story this afternoon.

Jennifer, the Gowdy folks will say, well, you know, we`ve been doing
tons of stuff, some of the stuff we`ve been doing has been, you know, we`ve
been looking at documents, we`ve been interviewing a lot of people.
Anyway, Elijah Cummings who`s the Democratic person, he`s missed a lot of
hearings too.

What`s the story here?

distinction to be made between Trey Gowdy only going to eight or nine out
of 53 of these witness interviews and Elijah Cummings going to a small
amount too. Trey Gowdy`s the chairman of this committee. He is making the
case that this is a legitimate investigation, they have a legitimate
purpose to get to the bottom of the 2012 Benghazi attack and yet, if you
look at his track record of going to these interviews, he`s going to maybe
10 max out of 53 and of those, at least half of them are with Clinton,
specifically with people who are Clinton allies.

So, just the message there doesn`t suggest that this is an evenly
weighted investigative process. He is primarily looking at these people
who are all former or current Clinton allies. What does that tell you?

HAYES: Yes, what struck me the most was the contrast between Mike
Morell of the CIA, whose interview he did not attend and Brian Pagliano who
is a fairly as I understand it, not particularly high-level State
Department staffer who is the person who set up the server that has been in
question and who again, I may be wrong and you can correct me here, had
nothing to do with the response to Benghazi itself.

BENDERY: Well, and don`t forget, today they brought in Huma Abedin,
Hillary Clinton`s top aide, who was not involved in this at all. The
reasoning for bringing her in was purely because she works for Hillary
Clinton. So, she doesn`t have any direct link to anything to do with
Benghazi other than she works for Hillary Clinton.

HAYES: Yes. She --

BENDERY: The reasoning for some of these people is just oh, you work
for Hillary Clinton, you`re probably important to this probe that we`ve
been doing for almost a year and a half for almost a year and a half.

HAYES: And now, we`re going to get, I mean, part of the problem that
strikes me also is the weird secrecy behind this. I mean, you`ve got a
situation in which this isn`t being done in public, it`s being done behind
closed doors, the transcripts are not being made available even when
witnesses like Cheryl Mills actually request them to be.

And so, everything is being done via leak and sources as opposed to
any modicum of transparency.

BENDERY: One thing that Democrats have been saying through this is
that the ones that we do hear about are often leaked by Republicans on the
committee and they`re primarily private meetings with Hillary Clinton
allies or aides. So, it creates this image that the ones we do hear about
are all Clinton people, which makes it look like, hey, this whole
investigation really is centering on Hillary Clinton.

HAYES: What are your expectations in covering this committee for this
big marathon day of testimony, I think it`s going to happen next week.
That will be public, my understanding, that we will have access to that.
There is someone who is reported as saying they`re hoping they can just
keep her up there and she`ll break.

How long is this thing going to go?

BENDERY: I mean, "The Huffington Post" published a story earlier
today about how Hillary Clinton`s people are looking at the way the
president of Planned Parenthood carried herself a week or two ago when she
took five hours of grilling from Republicans in a different committee on
Planned Parenthood. So, Cecile Robert -- Richards, she handled herself
very well, didn`t crack, took a lot of heat during that meeting. And so,
if Hillary Clinton`s looking at her as a model for the way she`s going to
go into this one, then she`s not going to crack either.

HAYES: All right. Jennifer Bendery, thanks for joining me.
Appreciate it.

BENDERY: Up next, did Hillary within the debate or was it Bernie that
came out ahead and how much really does it matter in the long run? We`ll
take a look at that next.


HAYES: There`s been a lot of debate about the Democratic debate, in
particular whether the broad consensus from pundits that Hillary Clinton
won the debate would be proven wrong by subsequent polls.

Now, as it turns out, three post-debate polls all show Hillary Clinton
winning over Bernie Sanders. But that`s a really pretty meaningless
metric. This is not a debate meet in high school. It doesn`t matter
whether the judges think someone won or not.

There`s only one metric that really decides the winner of a debate in
the context of a campaign. It is the polling after the debate. Not
polling about who won but who voters support for president. That of course
is the whole point of this enterprise. Does that polling move in a
candidate`s direction after the debate?

On the Republican side, Carly Fiorina`s a classic example. Her
support shot up the most in the week after that second debate. And by that
metric, the early indications we have are that Hillary Clinton won this
debate. In New Hampshire, Clinton has regained the lead for the first time
in any poll of that state since early August. Clinton 37 percent, Sanders
35 percent in the latest Suffolk University/"Boston Globe" poll. That is,
however, within the margin of error, but it represents a major swing from
the last month in which several polls including NBC News and Marist showed
her trailing Sanders by double digits in that state.

Now, while a post-debate surge in the poll numbers sometimes signals a
turning point, it can just as easily represent only a short-term bounce.
That`s the other lessons we`ve gotten as to who wins a debate. Mitt
Romney, the man who pretty clearly won his first debate with President
Barack Obama in 2012, can tell you all about that.

Joining me, Tad Devine, senior adviser for Bernie Sanders`
presidential campaign.

Mr. Devine, what is the strategy for victory for Bernie Sanders going
forward? How -- I have a good sense of the Hillary Clinton strategy,
racking up endorsements from members of -- prominent members of the
political establishment in the Democratic Party, locking up super
delegates, spending a lot of money, particularly in Iowa. What is -- what
is the Sanders strategy?

is, Chris, excuse me, to begin in Iowa and New Hampshire and try to win
support from voters.

We believe a nominating process is very favorable for Bernie Sanders.
It begins in Iowa, a place that he`s been to many times, where we`re
building a very strong organization on the night of the debate. We had 90
debate watch parties in Iowa that night, very well attended. On to New
Hampshire, where as you mentioned we`ve led in polls -- by the way, I
wouldn`t jump to the conclusion that the debate
has really affected Hillary`s standing in New Hampshire. Almost $3 million
of paid
television advertising that they started on August 4, which we have yet to
answer I think has had a lot to do with her better numbers in New

HAYES: That`s interesting.

DEVINE: And it`s contributed to it.

And in Nevada where a poll came out last week, Bernie was at 34 in
Nevada. The NBC poll that came out today saying his support with Latinos
had shot up to the mid 30s.

I think we can see a nominating process beginning in those states
where Bernie Sanders can do very, very well.

Second, we`re building a fund-raising mechanism that will allow us to
compete effectively with the Clinton campaign. I believe as of today we
have as much cash on hand as they do. I look very closely at their
reports. They`ve got some liabilities there. They`ve got some spending I
think that`s going to be reflected probably in the next quarter and not in
this one. And I think we`re going to be able to go toe to toe with them
because we`ve built a fund-raising mechanism that is from the bottom up and
not the top down.

99.9 percent of the people that have contributed to Bernie Sanders`
campaign can contribute again. We`ve raised more money, had more
contributors in the first
two quarters than any presidential campaign in history, including Barack
Obama`s re-election as president of the United States.

So what we`re building is something that can go the distance. We`ll
have the resources. I think we have the best message. I think we have a
very strong messenger. And I think we have a very good chance of winning
this nomination.

HAYES: So, you -- what I`m hearing from you in some ways is -- this
isn`t -- you know, sometimes you`ll see a campaign with high stakes play
for Iowa and New Hampshire, right. We`ve got to come in there or the
momentum would ebb.

What I`m hearing from you is you feel the donor base, the small donor
base that has been built by the campaign, the operation, the grassroots
organizing you`ve done, means that you can create a viable campaign that
can move past the first two, three, four contests into South Carolina, head
toward Super Tuesday and
actually just -- and keep essentially raising enough money to keep that

DEVINE: That`s right.

And I`ll tell you, as a test case of this theory, in the last two
weeks since we had a big push at the end of the last quarter and then the
debate which has been a phenomenal fund-raising event. We have raised more
money in small dollar contributions, under $200, in those two weeks than
Hillary Clinton`s campaign did in the previous three months.

We`re building something that can be potentially very big and

And by the way, it reflects what Bernie Sanders wants to do. He
wanted to build a campaign that could take on a corrupt system of fund-
raising in America. And he`s doing it in the real world.

HAYES: So then the question becomes -- you talked about the
advertising. I was looking at your FEC report, there`s been essentially
zero. You guys have not done a lot of TV ad buys.


HAYES: None, right? So that`s going to happen at some point, right?
I mean, you guys are going to have to go big up on the air at a some point,
particularly in Iowa and New Hampshire.

DEVINE: Yeah, we will, Chris. We`ve got the resources to do it now.

You know, I`ve estimated -- they`ve spent $5 million on TV in Iowa and
New Hampshire. I think probably another million and a half on production
and research to go with that TV. They`re close to 7 million in

We`re at zero in the same column.

The only way we`re going to beat them is to force them to spend down
and to have more resources closer to the election when it counts. I think
that reflects our strategy. It also reflects the way Bernie approaches
campaigns. He`s a very grassroots kind of guy. He`s built organizations
like this all his life. We will be there with the media. We will have the
resources to do it. And we`ll compete for voters when they`re paying the
most attention, which is later, not earlier.

HAYES: Tad Devine, you know your briefing book. You`ve been looking
at those numbers. You`ve got that spreadsheet in your head. And that was
a very, very articulate, transparent look at the strategy. Really
appreciate it. Thank you.

DEVINE: Good to be with you.

HAYES: All right, coming up, the shocking report that Exxon hid
supporting the existence of manmade climate change while publicly enforce
the agenda of climate change denial. That`s next.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t believe that nicotine or our products are

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe nicotine is not addictive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe that nicotine is not addictive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe that nicotine is not addictive.

UNIDENITIFIED MALE: And I, too, believe that nicotine is not


HAYES: We now know of course those gentlemen were lying. A series of
investigations and lawsuits later revealed that big tobacco knew full well
cigarettes were not only addictive but massively harmful to human health.
And that was the scandal, not just that their product was dangerous, but
that they knew it
was dangerous and addictive and lied about it for decades. It`s why the
tobacco companies have had to pay billions of dollars in settlements and
why in 2006 they were found guilty of civil fraud and racketeering for
deceiving the public to maintain profits.

Now, some bombshell new reporting suggests a possible parallel in the
fossil fuel industry. Since the mid `90s Exxonmobil has spent millions of
dollars to
spread denial and doubt about manmade climate change. In 1997 then
chairman Lee
Raymond campaigned fiercely against the Kyoto protocol telling a conference
in Beijing, "the case for so-called global warming is far from air tight.
There`s a lot we really don`t know about how climate will change in the
21st Century and beyond."

But recent reports by the L.A. Times and the Pulitzer prize-winning
"Inside Climate News" document how Exxon`s own scientists were researching
and drawing conclusions about climate change as far back as 1977.

One of them reportedly informed the company`s management committee,
"there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which
mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide
released from the burning of fossil fuels."

Then toward the end of the 1980s "Inside Climate News" reports "Exxon
curtailed its carbon dioxide research."

But even that in the early `90s researchers and engineers at Exxon and
a subsidiary were still incorporating climate projection models into their
planning for arctic operations according to the L.A. Times.

In response, two California congressmen have now written a letter to
Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking her to open the same kind of
investigation into Exxonmobil the government pursued against big tobacco.

Joining me now, Neela Bannerjee. She`s a senior reporter for "Inside
Climate News." And Neil, how much do we know about what Exxon knew and
when inside their company about what essentially their product was doing to
the atmosphere?

NEELA BANNERJEE, INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS: I think at this point we know
quite a lot. Exxon, one of their senior scientists told a management
committee, which is the top executives of the corporation, in 1977 in a
very neutral report about the emerging science of climate change.

And from then on Exxon not only tracked the science but they did their
own in-house research that was on par with anything that academics or the
government were doing. And in fact, academia and the government welcomed
Exxon`s research. And the reason Exxon was doing this was because they
knew that if the science was true that at some point there would be limits
on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and they thought at that time
in the late 70s and 80s that the best way to address those possible limits
or constraints would be to do really good science so they could have a seat
at the table and a legitimate voice in the process.

HAYES: So that`s fascinating. So, their scientists way back 38 years
ago are saying, look, the stuff that we pull out of the ground when it gets
burned releases carbon dioxide and that is heating the Earth, we`ve got
scientists coming to some agreement on this, and they`re thinking OK, well,
we`re a company that`s made of scientists, right? I mean, a place like
Exxon, petrochemical companies and
fossil fuel companies depend on scientists for everything they do. We need
to sort of know this science so that when inevitably they come to regulate
us we could have a negotiation about that.

But then they also started doing something else, right? Which was
essentially funding folks to confuse people about the science itself.

BANNERJEE: Well, you know, there was some overlap in that. But
basically -- so the period that "Inside Climate News" looked at was from
about 1977 to 1986. And at that time they weren`t involved in any denial

I mean, they actually talked about uncertainty, but they talked about
uncertainty in the way that other scientists in academia and government
did. Their questions were not beyond the pale.

And so what we have gathered is that at around 1989 that marks when
there was a shift in the internal thinking and the thinking at the
executive level about what to do on climate change. And that was when
Exxon joined this group called the Global Climate Coalition, which sounds
very green, but in fact they were put together to fight any policy reaction
to climate change.

HAYES: So instead of -- I mean, at a certain point they decided oh,
rather than just accept this as a fait accompli, this thing`s going to get
regulated, and
figure out how we can manage, maybe we can just confuse people or be part
of a large effort to muddy the waters enough that we can just keep doing
what we`re doing.

BANNERJEE: You know, we -- our research hasn`t gone that far. And I
think other people have done that research about what they were involved
in, but there was some kind of decision made that the approach to have a
seat at the table by
doing cutting-edge research was just not the way to go for them, and they
decided that it was not enough just to be neutral and to, you know, keep
producing fossil fuels but that actually they needed to be a very loud and
articulate voice about the uncertainty and about -- and use the uncertainty
as a wedge to kind of confuse the issue, yes.

HAYES: Neela Banerjee, "Inside Climate News," thank you very much.

Coming up, he`s directed Trainspotting, Slum Dog Millionaire, 28 Days
Later, now he`s taking on the story of Steve Jobs. My interview with Danny
Boyle, fascinating guy, ahead.


HAYES: Some stunning video out of southern California where
torrential downpours trigger mudslides and flash flooding late Thursday.
Nearly 40 miles of interstate 5 were completely shut down today and only
partially reopened tonight. Rivers of mud swallowed cars stranding
hundreds of drivers. The severe drought makes the region especially
vulnerable to flash flooding.

More thunderstorms are expected in Southern California later tonight
and over the weekend.


HAYES: There are some major developments concerning the U.S.
airstrike that killed 22 people at a hospital run by Doctors Without
Borders in Afghanistan.

As the Associated Press reports, American special operations analysts
were gathering intelligence on the hospital just days before it was
destroyed by a U.S. military attack. According to the AP, those analysts
believed it was being used by a Pakistani operative to coordinate Taliban

What is still unclear at this time, the AP reports, is whether the
commanders who ordered the air strike were aware the site was a hospital or
knew about the allegations of possible enemy activity within it.

Earlier this month, an American aircraft, an AC-130 gunship, attacked
a hospital being run by Doctors Without Borders in Kunduz, Afghanistan.

Kunduz had been recently overtaken by the Taliban and Afghan and
American forces were in the process of retaking it.

The air strike on the hospital run by the Nobel prize-winning non-
profit killed 22 people. In the days since that strike, the Pentagon story
on what
transpired and why has shifted.

The key to understanding what really happened as NBC News`s Jim
Miklaszewski reports, may come from gun, camera video and cockpit
recordings from inside
the AC-130 gunship.


JIM MIKLASZEWSKI, NBC NEWS: The cockpit audio that was taken during
that time, we`re told that some of the military on board the air force
special operations forces who fly those gunships and fire the weapons
expressed some concern about the target itself and at least one person
apparently questioned
whether the air strike was legal.

Now, the people we`re talking to indicate that it could be a war crime
if in fact the crew on board knew it was a hospital and that there were
civilians inside.


HAYES: All right, those details have yet to be definitively

But in the meantime Doctors Without Borders continues to call for an
independent international investigation.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Apple co-founder Steven Jobs has a favorite story
Apple`s impact on the country. He told it this year at the annual
shareholders meeting.

STEVE JOBS, CO-FOUNDER APPLE COMPUTER: I received a letter from a 6-
and-a-half-year-old boy a few months ago, which to me completely sums up
what we`ve accomplished in the last few years.

And it reads, "Dear Mr. Jobs, I was doing a crossword puzzle and a
clue was as American as Apple blank. I thought the answer was computer,
but my mom said it was pie."


HAYES: Steve Jobs is as American as apple pie, up there with Thomas
Edison, the Wright Brothers, Benjamin Franklin -- larger than life,
American inventor who helped shape the world as it is today.

And now, well, I should say once again he is the subject of a new

Steve Jobs, it opens nationwide October 23rd written by Aaron Sorkin,
who won
the Oscar for Social Network about the founding of Facebook, and directed
by Danny Boyle who an Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire.

The movie looks at Steve Jobs in three different phases of his career,
each involving the launch a particular project. And it shows Jobs as an
incredibly driven person obsessed with control.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t feel rejected.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because it`s not like the baby is born, the
parents look and say nah, we`re not interested in this one.

On the other hand, someone did choose you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s having no control. You find out you`re out
of the loop when the most crucial events of your life were set in motion.
As long as you have control. I don`t understand people who give it up.


HAYES: I recently sat down with director Danny Boyle and began by
asking why he doesn`t consider this film a biopic in the traditional sense
of the word.


DANNY BOYLE, DIRECTOR: It`s about this guy, Steve Jobs, and he`s --
if you had to -- his motto was think different, right? OK. That`s a big
thing about him. And of course that`s what this does. It`s like Sorkin,
Aaron Sorkin the writer, he chooses not to do a conventional biopic, which
is you know, the biopic, the skimming stone that hits on all the best bits,
and cradle to grave and stuff like that. He just does something completely
different which is that he takes three iconic moments and actually just
looks behind them immediately.

And you get an insight into a guy that you think you know about. We
have a wealth of information we think we have about him. And it tries to
actually reassemble that behind the scenes, literally behind the scenes.

HAYES: So that`s interesting. When you say it was amazing that what
you were reacting to in some ways is the deftness of that structural
innovation that
Sorkin brings to it, right, to take -- which comes through in the movie,
right. I mean, it`s -- you -- that is a very unconventional way of telling
the story

BOYLE: It is.

Because he revolutionized a lot of industries. I mean, like half a
dozen. I mean, unbelievable: music, animation, computers, phones, desktop
publishing and product launches. And they used -- there`s a joke in the
Walter Isaacson book, that he was to product launches what Vatican 2 is to
church meetings.

I mean, he literally reinvented the whole thing and said this is it.
And everybody`s followed the template now and they launch toothbrushes now.
I mean, anything they`ll launch with a kind of CEO walking around and kind
of chatting in a friendly style.

So to take those -- to take that public image of him, which is the
image he wanted to give you, and to go wait, justify before you get to
that, in the 40
minutes before he walks out on stage, here are six important people and
what happens to them and him in the moments before he walks out on stage.

It`s a wonderful like OK, I have to rethink what I think. You know, I
have to think different. So that was the idea of it.

HAYES: When I think about you I think about Slumdog Millionaire,
which is this massive exuberant tapestry, extremely colorful, a million
different locations, right? And this is people talking in rooms,
basically, like how do you approach that as a director?

BOYLE: There`s a couple of things really. You say what`s the organic
life of it? And of course it`s this man`s restlessness, actually, which
is as restless as Mumbai. You know, so you`re actually doing it through

HAYES: That`s the animating energy that`s...

BOYLE: Yeah. That drives the film, really. And you`re driving it
through him. And we always used to say it`s the sound of his mind, which
is a wonderful image of the idea of this.

And he`s restless. And it`s his refusal to slow down or look back
which drives a lot of the tension of both personal with his daughter and
refusing to acknowledge that she was his daughter, and friendship,
professionally with Woz. He will not acknowledge that the shoulders of
giants that he`s standing on. He refuses to do that. He is the innovator.
He will only look forward. He doesn`t want to look back. We`re not going
that way, we`re going that way.

So you get this kind of restlessness that you get in a city like
Mumbai, and then you kind of like -- you build on that.

HAYES: You try to kind of cage that because you`re getting him -- you
know, so much of it is driven by him, by that sort of restlessness, the
sound of his mind. And also this -- the conflict. I mean, the fact that
he bumps up against everyone who`s sort of in his path.

BOYLE: And he`s uncompromising. I mean, it`s a wonderful thing for
drama. You find this uncompromising character, willful. I mean, his
heroes were King Lear and Ahab from Moby Dick, you know, willful reality
distortion figures who believe they can change the world.

And he did change the world. And what are the costs of actually doing
that is obviously the human side of the story really.

But the energy of the piece comes from the character.

HAYES: Fassbender`s performance is fascinating. And one of the first
things that struck me about it was I realized that as iconic as Steve Jobs
is if you asked me to do a Steve Jobs impersonation I`d have nothing. I
can conjure the guy. I can think of him. And if you asked me to do like a
Bill Clinton impersonation I
could do it, right?

So in some ways it`s -- even though he`s playing this iconic figure he
doesn`t have to do that kind of caricature thing because in some ways we
think of Jobs, we think -- I don`t think we associate a sort of set of
personality quirks, deliverance quirks. So you just -- I found you just
believe him as Jobs right away.

BOYLE: Yeah. That was always the idea is that it wouldn`t be about
slavishly trying to actually make him look like him every kind of moment.
You trust a different, slightly more intangible process where the actor is
working from the inside out.

So it`s not about the outside getting everything looking right,
getting the mannerisms, all that kind of stuff. You make a few gestures
towards it, but the rest is up to the actor and working internally.

And there`s an extraordinary thing went on in this process, this kind
of meta process in a way, which is Michael Fassbender kind of battling with
the script, almost in the way that Steve was battling with the forces that
we were resisting. And he finally manages to get on top of it.

So he came to dominate it in a way that it was interesting. Jeff
Daniels, who`d worked with Sorkin`s material before, said that you have to,
once you get on top of it, once you battle your way to the top of it and
dominate it, it`s a ride then, you know, it`s got a kind of rhythm that
just feels like it`s not everyday speech. It`s way too fast. The
sharpness of thinking is unbelievable. But it feels like it is, like we`d
want to be.

And he became that. And it becomes effortless in a way. And he would
-- we were fascinated, the crew, everybody, watching him in that third
section. He was just riding it then. And he could have almost done
anything. He could have read a cookbook to us for hours on end and we
would have just sat there mesmerized by it.

And you realize that he`d arrived at this point where it is the crest
of the wave. It was going to break over everyone and the world was going
to change. And of course it`s a great moment for drama where you go that`s
great, the success is
great, but what have you got to do personally? You know, on the personal
level. And he has to make -- he has to be reconciled with his daughter.

He has to admit, as he does, and it`s self-knowledge, that he is the
author of the most wonderful -- wonderfully made products but he is also at
the same time himself poorly made. And in that he finds a kind of
redemption, I suppose, with his daughter.

HAYES: Danny Boyle, real pleasure. Enjoyed it. Thank you very much.

BOYLE: Thanks, Chris.


HAYES: That is All In for the evening. Rachel Maddow Show starts
right 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