Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Monday, October 19th, 2015

Read the transcript from the Monday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
Date: October 19, 2015
Guest: Jennifer Bendery, Matt Bennett, John Nichols

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

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

JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Does anybody actually blame my
brother for the attacks on 9/11?

HAYES: The Republican feud over 9/11 continues.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The World Trade Center came
down. So when he said we were safe, that`s not safe.

HAYES: And Donald Trump starts hitting harder.

TRUMP: Why did we attack Iraq and now we have the mess where the
whole Middle East is screwed up?

HAYES: Then the wheels continue to fly off the Benghazi committee.

REP. TREY GOWDY (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Shut up talking about things you
don`t know anything about.

HAYES: Plus, what we now know about Joe Biden`s campaign plan. The
Texas teen arrested for clock making shows up at the White House. And as
"SNL" does Bernie --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m the only candidate up here who`s not a
billionaire. I don`t have a super PAC. I don`t even have a backpack.

HAYES: Can a socialist win a presidential election in America?

BILL MAHER, COMEDIAN: They hear socialist they think herpes, Bernie.

HAYES: Tonight, how Bernie Sanders plans to take on the stigma
surrounding the "S" word.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have to make
the movement, if you like, to correlate what we`re talking about.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

Donald Trump has managed to find the Achilles heel not just of his
rival for the presidential nomination, Jeb Bush, but of the entire
Republican political establishment. And it is the legacy of George W.
Bush. A legacy that was rejected wholesale by voters in 2006 and 2008.
But that the Republican Party still has not been able to reconcile.

Now, Trump is openly exploiting that vulnerability and forcing the
party to relitigate George W. Bush`s record on terrorism and war.

It all started with an exchange at the second Republican debate where
Jeb Bush defended his older brother against criticism from Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Your brother and your brother`s administration gave us Barack
Obama because it was such a disaster, those last three months, that Abraham
Lincoln couldn`t have been elected.

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

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

Donald, you remember the rubble?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: It was a big applause line for Jeb because "he kept us safe"
is a very familiar refrain for Republicans defending George W. Bush. But
Friday, when Donald Trump quite factually noted that George W. Bush was
president on September 11th, 2001, he apparently crossed some sort of line.
Jeb fired back on Twitter calling Trump pathetic and insisting his brother,
quote, "kept us safe."

Then yesterday, they took their battle to the Sunday talk shows. On
FOX News Trump maintained that what happened on 9/11 does not qualify as
being safe.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Am I trying to blame him? I`m not blaming anybody. But the
World Trade Center came down. So when he said we were safe that`s not
safe. We lost 3,000 people. It was one of the greatest -- probably the
greatest catastrophe ever in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Jeb continued to defend his big brother, but he couldn`t
explain away a parallel to the Republican stance on Benghazi.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: It`s what you do after that matters. And that`s the sign of
leadership. It`s not -- it`s not the -- does anybody actually blame my
brother for the attacks on 9/11? If they do, they`re totally marginalized
in our society.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: But how do you respond to critics who ask if
your brother and his administration bear no responsibility at all, how do
you then make the jump that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are
responsible for what happened at Benghazi?

BUSH: Well, I -- the question on Benghazi, which is -- hopefully,
we`ll now finally get the truth to, is was that -- was the place secure?
They had a responsibility in the Department of State to have proper
security. There were calls for security. It looks like they didn`t get
it.

And how was the response in the aftermath of the attack? Was there a
chance that these four American lives could have been saved?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: And this morning, Trump called in to "Fox & Friends" where his
break with Republican orthodoxy was so confounding, it was almost too much
for co-host Brian Kilmeade.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN KILMEADE, FOX NEWS: If you really wanted to stop bin Laden
would he declare war on us in 1996, you would have taken him serious and
killed him. We had multiple chances on him from `96 until 2000. We didn`t
take it.

And I will say this. They said Bin Laden determined to attack the
U.S. at home. Didn`t say where, didn`t say who, didn`t even see this plot.
Why would you pick this argument? Because this is a Michael Moore leftist
I hate everything Republican argument. Why would you take this?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Again, to be clear, Trump`s only argument was about who was
president on 9/11, 2001, which is not really something open to debate as
far as I understand it. But then he was asked about Bush response after
9/11. He brought up what may be an even sorer subject for Republicans, the
Iraq war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Post-9/11 many people, many Americans would say
that President George W. Bush did everything in his power and did indeed
keep us safe free from another attack. You would not deny that, would you?

TRUMP: Well, we attacked a different country which I think was the
wrong country. I think attacking Iraq --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But it did keep us safe here at home.

TRUMP: I think that was a huge mistake.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did he keep us safe at home?

TRUMP: Well, we haven`t had a major problem at home. I agree with
that. I`m not -- I never disagreed with that.

But we attacked a country. We spent $2 trillion attacking a country.
And you know what we have for it right now? Zero.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We could have had a lot more --

KILMEADE: Having said that too. That we won that war. The surge
worked. Like in all military escapades with America we get it wrong in the
beginning, we get it right at the end. And it was thrown in the street.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Trump hasn`t let up since then, continuing to hammer the Bush
legacy on Twitter even tweeting an article about how Jeb himself was
criticized in the wake of the attacks when he was governor of Florida the
state where the hijackers were able to get driver licenses.

This all comes as the new NBC News/"Wall Street Journal" poll shows
Trump getting his best results to date among GOP primary voters, right at
that 25 percent mark we`ve been talking about, with Ben Carson nipping at
his heels and Jeb Bush coming in a distant fifth.

Even more dismal for Bush, 44 percent said they could not see
themselves supporting him compared to just 36 percent who said they could
not support Trump.

Joining me now, MSNBC political analyst and former RNC chair Michael
Steele, and MSNBC contributor Sam Seder, host of "Majority Report".

Michael, let me start with you. This does seem to expose the fact
that at its core, the Republican Party has not figured out how they are
reconciled to George W. Bush`s legacy, what they think about it, and how
they`re going to talk to voters about it. And even if it weren`t Jeb Bush,
it seems like that`s a thing that Republicans are going to have to figure
out how to talk about.

MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I think you`re right to some
degree on that. There`s this whole battle right now between relitigating
the past and trying to put the country at least conversationally on a
better footing in talking about how we deal in, you know, a post-9/11 world
with an ISIS and all of that. So, I think you`re seeing some of that
tension bear itself out right now with a lot of the GOP.

My takeaway, there are a couple of takeaways, but one of them that I
have is that one of the beneficiaries of this conversation is Rand Paul
because a lot of what Trump is talking about, despite his, you know,
trashing Rand Paul at various times, is exactly what Rand Paul was saying
about how we prosecute the things, how we look at these wars, and what role
we should be playing and what position the party should be take going
forward. So, if nothing else, I think there may be a greater stimulation
of that debate within the party overall.

HAYES: You know, part of what`s been strange about this to me, Sam,
is there`s just -- to separate logically, right? There is the contention
that I blame George W. Bush for 9/11, right? And then there`s the
statement "he kept us safe." and you don`t have to say I blame him. You
can say, yes, no president could have figured that out or the bureaucracy
was so screwed up or the makes were made at so many different places.

But he kept us safe just is not factually true. But it is absolutely
dogma among a lot of folks.

SAM SEDER, MAJORITY REPORT: It is the last vestige that conservatives
have that they can basically hold on to George Bush`s legacy. Right?
Because they now say he was a profligate spender. They say that --

HAYES: And many of them say Iraq was wrong.

SEDER: But the one thing is that he kept us safe.

And the fact is he didn`t. I mean, by any measure whatsoever. Now,
maybe he couldn`t have. And that`s a perfectly legitimate arguable point
to make despite the memos, despite the fact that they were told early on in
the administration that non-state actors were the greatest threat. That is
an arguable position. But the idea that he kept us safe is like well, but
for the cake I just ate I`m on a great diet.

I mean, the bottom line is he didn`t. And so they can`t let go of
that because once you let go of that what does the Republican Party offer?

HAYES: Michael, do you think that`s a defensible statement he kept us
safe?

STEELE: Yes, I do. I take a lot of exception with what`s just been
said. Because you`re looking at this contextually. Did bill Clinton keep
us safe in the first 9/11 attack? What did our intelligence community tell
us about that? Did Franklin Roosevelt keep us safe in Pearl Harbor?
Because --

HAYES: No, he did not. But that`s --

STEELE: But --

HAYES: That`s a great --

(CROSSTALK)

STEELE: I got it. But this is my point.

HAYES: That`s a great historical example. Pearl Harbor was massively
controversial. People were enraged that America had been constantly
(INAUDIBLE). They were hearing and commission.

STEELE: But keep in context what Jeb Bush was saying. He was not
talking about the period before 9/11. He was talking about since 9/11.
And that`s typically how most Republicans have argued that particular
point. Well, no, no.

HAYES: That`s correct. That is a correct statement. That is how
Republicans have argued the point.

STEELE: You`re arguing something that most Republicans don`t argue.
So what Donald Trump has done is he`s taken it to the very beginning of the
9/11 crisis, not post-9/11, which is how Jeb and a lot of Republicans argue
the statement he kept us safe.

SEDER: But, Michael, with all due respect, that`s exactly the point,
is that for some reason Republicans only count history from 9/12 and
everybody else counts history from before 9/12/2001. That`s the bottom
line. There is no -- you can`t choose when you start history and have
people look at you seriously.

(CROSSTALK)

STEELE: Yes, but Chris, you can`t -- but you cannot sit there --
Chris, you have no intelligence, you have no evidence that suggested to the
State Department, the NSA, the Pentagon, or anyone else that 9/11 was going
to happen when 9/11 did.

So, you`re presuming -- let me finish my point.

(CROSSTALK)

STEELE: You`re presuming, gentlemen, you`re presuming that our
government deliberately allowed it to happen.

HAYES: No.

STEELE: And that`s just not the case.

HAYES: That`s my point, Michael.

I just want to be very clear about there`s these two different
contentions, right? Bush is to blame for 9/11 or Bush failed, right?
That`s one contention. You can debate that. You can even say no, he`s not
to blame.

But the contention being made, the affirmative endorsement of George
W. Bush`s legacy that`s being made is he kept us safe. That is the same
that has been put forward. I just don`t see how that`s defensible unless
you count as you said when Republicans tend to count at 9/12. Which fine,
you can say everything changed at 9/11. And after that forget about Iraq -
-

STEELE: You have to admit that the world changed dramatically after
that.

SEDER: Well, no. Actually, the world didn`t change dramatically
after that.

STEELE: Uh, yes. You don`t get to go through the airport the same
way you did. You don`t get to do a lot of things the way -- you have a
whole lot of structure put in place.

SEDER: Our policy changed.

(CROSSTALK)

STEELE: That probably should have been put in place before --

SEDER: The bottom line, that when the Bush administration came into
office on January 20th when they went to that pass the baton program where
the NSA chief under the Clinton administration passed the baton to Condi
Rice, the Clinton administration said it`s non-state actors that you`ve got
to watch out for and Condi Rice came in and said we have to watch out for
countries like Iraq. There was a policy decision as to what was going to
attract their attention.

Now, we can debate whether or not they really screwed up or not. But
you cannot make the argument that he kept us safe i.e., he prevented a
terrorist attack on his watch. He didn`t. He prevented two or three --

STEELE: Sam, you`re now jumping -- I would bet you before Donald
Trump had made that statement today that was not the conclusion that you
drew, at least you didn`t write that conclusion when the Jeb Bush made that
statement at the last debate.

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: Let me also make that point --

STEELE: So it`s a lot of hype. A lot of looking backwards and
projecting here.

HAYES: I just want to be clear here. We had a national reckoning
about this. There`s this thing called the 9/11 Commission, of course. It
was massively, you know, publicized. It sold 200,000 copies, the original
report.

It comes up with all sorts of things, signs that were missed, things
that were done. Some of those things are at the highest levels in terms of
the security apparatus in the White House and some of them are very low
level about an FBI memo in Minneapolis that doesn`t get kicked upstairs
about why are these people taking flight lessons.

So, we`ve had a national reckoning on this. To me, this question of
why it`s rearing its head right now in this campaign has to do with Jeb
Bush has not figured out and the Republican Party has not figured out this
central question of what is my relationship, in Jeb Bush`s case, to my big
brother, what is my relationship to his legacy, what am I willing to say
about him and the Republican Party says elect us to the White House, we
want to run someone. Yes.

STEELE: Chris, I`ll give you that. That`s a very fair point, because
it is part of the national conversation simply because of that
relationship, because there`s a lot of folks who want to know will you
behave, think, perform the way your brother did or do you do something
differently? And Jeb has not answered that question clearly.

HAYES: And there`s this Ryan Lizza piece in "The New Yorker" this
week which interestingly quotes a lot of folks who are in Jeb`s circle who
are also foreign policy advisers to this president, this is on Iraq
defending the invasion of Iraq, basically saying it was sort of fly
papered. But these are the folks -- I mean, the other thing is it`s more
than the last name it`s more than the fact they look similar. There`s some
substantive overlap here.

SEDER: I mean, the bottom line is I don`t think the Republican Party
thought they were ever going to have to relitigate this.

STEELE: True.

SEDER: Because I think the Republican -- people running for president
was we`re not going to raise this --

HAYES: We`re just not going to talk about it.

SEDER: Only Donald Trump was willing to do that.

HAYES: Michael Steele and Sam Seder, that was excellent, spirited and
illuminating. Thank you, gentlemen, both.

STEELE: All right, guys.

HAYES: Still to come, sources say Vice President Joe Biden will
announce his decision on a presidential run within the next 48 hours but
sources have been making similar claims for months.

Plus, registering every drone in the U.S., interesting idea. There
are some other machines that are much more dangerous than drones.

And later, the newest evidence that Bernie Sanders is a political
phenomenon. But could American voters ever actually elect a socialist?

We`ll look at those stories and much more, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: As Donald Trump and Jeb Bush relitigate the Bush 43 legacy,
the man polling second in the GOP field is also questioning America`s post-
9/11 strategy, particularly the decision to invade Afghanistan. It stems
from a claim he made at last month`s debate that if Bush had simply
declared the U.S. would become petroleum independent, then oil-rich Arab
states fearing less profits would have turned over Osama bin Laden in two
weeks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: How would you have gotten the
moderate Arab governments to turn over Osama bin Laden in two weeks? He`d
already been expelled by Saudi Arabia. He was already an enemy of those
moderate governments.

BEN CARSON (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I think they would have
been extremely concerned if we had declared and we were serious about it
that we were going to become petroleum independent because it would have
had a major impact on their finances. And I think that probably would have
trumped any loyalty that they had to people like Osama bin Laden.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But they didn`t have any loyalty to Osama bin Laden.
The Saudis kicked him out. He was their enemy.

CARSON: Well, you may not think that they had any loyalty to him.
But I believe otherwise.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: OK. Here`s where it gets baffling. Pressed on his own bin
Laden strategy versus going after bin Laden in Afghanistan, Carson had this
response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: I simply don`t understand how you think this would
have worked.

CARSON: Well, here`s the point. Here`s my point. My point is, we
have -- we had other ways that we could have done things. I personally
don`t believe that invading Iraq was an existential threat to us. I don`t
think Saddam Hussein was an existential threat to us.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wasn`t asking about invading Iraq. I was asking
about invading Afghanistan, which had been harboring Osama bin Laden.

CARSON: Well, I was primarily talking about Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Are you lost? I`m lost. I`m very lost.

Charlie Pierce writes in "Esquire" today, "Ben Carson confuses Iraq,
Afghanistan, past, future, space, time, whatever." Dr. Ben Carson
currently polling in second place.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TV ANCHOR: Ed Henry just put out in his FOX News alert, that he`s got
three solid sources who say that Vice President Biden is likely to run.

KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS: Sources close to the vice president say a
decision could come any day now.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN: A source tells CNN Biden is meeting with his top
political advisers this evening and that Biden associates are beginning the
staffing process for positions on a potential campaign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The latest reporting is that Vice President Joe Biden is
getting closer to making a decision on whether he will enter the
presidential race, a decision that could come as early as Wednesday.
There`s even a congressman who appears to have an inside track citing a
person close to the vice president.

Representative Brendan Boyle sent out this tweet earlier today, "I
have a very good source close to Joe that tells me Vice President Biden
will run for president. Watch out reporters."

No sooner had this news started appearing than people close to Biden
started sounding somewhat less definitive about the timeline. "New York
Daily News" quoted a former Biden staffer saying he has until Wednesday to
decide whether or not to go to Iowa and a short time after to decide
whether or not to qualify for all the ballots. There aren`t official
deadlines but these are practical deadlines."

Yes, practical deadlines. We`ve been hearing about quite a few of
those, but it seemed like a while now. In February, CNN reported that
Biden would make a decision by the end of summer. In June, "U.S. News and
World Report" wrote that Biden would make a decision by August 1st. On
August 8th, "The A.P." reported Biden was expected to make a decision 2016
decision after a week-long retreat. Later that month, "The A.P." reported
Biden would decide by October 1st. Then on October 5th, "Politico"
reported Biden was expected to make a decision a weekend before the first
Democratic debate.

And if it continues to go on this way, there`s part of me that thinks
we`ll be getting stories about Biden`s decision-making process up until
Election Day in 2016.

Joining me now Joy Reid, MSNBC national correspondent.

What do you -- what do you make of all this?

JOY REID, MSNBC NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It`s interesting. I spent
the better part of the afternoon talking to Biden people or people who`ve
in some capacity been around the vice president, worked with him et cetera,
and what you get is exactly what you said. You have some people who say,
yes, I think he`s going to do it his heart is in it. You have some so who
say, you know what, it feels like it`s too late, like the ship has sailed,
the staff are all gone, the fund-raising he`d have to do is going to be
really complicated because people are committed to Hillary.

It`s sort of a grab bag, and there`s one person who I think put it,
the smart one, you could literally have two people in a room have them both
talk to Joe Biden, one of them talk about his emotional content and he will
convince them he`s running, the second person talk to and he`ll just talk
from his head and will be convinced he`s not running. Ergo, nobody knows
if he`s running.

HAYES: Right. To me -- right. To me the cat inside the
Schrodinger`s box that is inside Joe Biden`s mind, he`s both alive and
dead. He is both -- he`s both -- he`s both -- he`s probably undecided at
this point. All I can conclude.

I guess the secondary question becomes, whether -- if you are the head
part talking, when are the hard deadlines and is there space for him?

REID: Well, here`s the thing. So, I did spend a lot of people
talking to people in Florida because, of course, the cash machines of the
Democratic Party are Florida and New York. The Florida cash machine really
starts kicking in when it gets cold in New York, which is when a lot of
fund-raisers do move South.

Now, a lot of those fund-raisers are really already committed to
Hillary Clinton. It would be really awkward for any of them to walk away
from her. So, the Florida money is going to be very difficult for Biden
even though honestly people love him, people he who know him as vice
president.

Some of the other questions people put to me is, why would Joe Biden,
any rationality person, jump in before Hillary Clinton does the Benghazi
hearings? Because you got to see how she does, right? If she acquits
herself well, there`s less and less and less space for Joe Biden.

HAYES: Well, and I was looking, and there`s new CNN polling out
today. We had NBC/"Wall Street Journal" is polling. CNN polling out today
that showed that post-debate, you had both Hillary Clinton and Bernie
Sanders going up, and Joe Biden who`s at 18 percent in that poll I think
was 22 percent before that poll.

So, in some ways, the winner of that debate was both Hillary Clinton
and Bernie Sanders and the loser was the guy who wasn`t there, Joe Biden,
because there`s a sense I think once people saw the debate that oh, this
abstract idea we had that we need someone who`s not there maybe isn`t true.

REID: That`s right. Because much of the Biden sort of love, and I
know people who really, really want him to win, who are Obama people who
want to, A, keep the Obama legacy whole and growing and the feeling is that
Biden would run on more of a keep the Obama years going sort of outright
campaign that Hillary won`t, or have some other deal of dissatisfaction
with Hillary.

But the problem is that the Biden boomlet only exists when Hillary
appears to be a candidate in trouble.

HAYES: Right.

REID: As soon as Hillary Clinton appears to be not just inevitable
but a strong potential candidate who actually can survive the obsession
with the e-mails, who can survive the Benghazi stuff, and who would
actually emerge into the general election pretty strong, the Biden balloon
starts to leak. And even among people who like him.

HAYES: So, we also have -- I mean, there are some people who seem to
think that he`s definitely in. Gabe Sherman has been reporting on this.
And Gabe`s got an interesting take, which is he`s already running at a
certain level.

REID: Oh, yes.

HAYES: Like what he is doing right now -- now, he may decide to not
continue to run, but this is a savvy person who`s been in public life for
most of his adult life. He says, "What`s clear is he`s in the race. When
a sitting vice president works the phones after his party`s debate,
stressing he is not ruling out running for president, that is the activity
a man running for president."

I actually think that`s a good way, instead of he`s undecided. He is
currently running. The question is, whether he`s going to get out or not,
right?

REID: Right. And I did have somebody say to me that, right, his
decision, if he looks in the mirror and says there`s nobody better for this
job than me, he`s already running in his mind. He`s just trying to find a
way to keep himself in the conversation.

HAYES: Right, but the psychology of that is strange because doesn`t
every politician on some level think that?

REID: Five hundred thirty-five of them.

HAYES: You couldn`t be -- you couldn`t be Joe Biden with Joe Biden`s
career and trajectory if you didn`t think that about yourself. The guy`s
already run twice for president.

REID: Exactly.

HAYES: And clearly he thought he was the man for the job.

REID: Here`s the other thing. It hasn`t been discussed that much, is
who would be the people who are leaking the information that he`s going to
run, he`s going to run, he`s just gearing up. A lot of that is coming from
people who would be part of a Biden campaign.

HAYES: Right.

REID: There`s a lot of self-interest too if you`re a potential Biden
staffer and you`re not already on a campaign, it`s good for you to start
priming the pump for a Biden run because that`s your future job, right?
That`s your future campaign. And if you want it even more than he wants
it, it`s in your -- it`s to your benefit to get this going and not let him
be forgotten.

HAYES: And that I think maybe explains a little bit of the
strangeness of the press around this. It`s almost become parody at this
point, right? The sort of people are talking about Mario Cuomo back in `92
and everyone wondered is he going to run or not. Same in `88.

REID: That`s the risk.

HAYES: They called him hamlet on the Hudson.

REID: Yes.

HAYES: That is the risk. At a certain point, people begin to say
like there`s got to be a certain decisiveness to run for the president of
the United States.

REID: To put it nicely, your trip to the loo has to be productive or
you need to leave the bathroom.

HAYES: Very nicely stated. Think about it.

Joy Reid, thank you.

REID: All right. Thank you.

HAYES: Up next, new regulations -- that was well done -- for a
rapidly expanding hobby because of its potential danger. If only the same
consideration would be made for another hobby.

And the Republican chairman of the Benghazi Committee says he has had
some of the worst weeks of his life. Does he expect matters to get better
when Hillary Clinton testifies this week?

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY FOXX, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION: The signal we`re sending
today is that, when you`re entering national air space it`s a very serious
matter. This isn`t riding your ATV on your own property. This is actually
going into the space where other users are also occupying that space.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Drone regulation is coming to America. Today, federal
officials
announced that recreational drones will need to be registered.

Now, recreational drones, the kind you see here on your screen, the
quadricopter kind of things, although that has more than four. They`ve
become wildly popular. Consumer groups estimate that hundreds of thousands
of them
could be sold this holiday season.

And now, federal regulators have asked a task force to come up with a
plan for a national drone registry in a month, just in time for your
holiday drone
shopping.

The reason for all this, the number of close calls between drones and
passenger planes have increased dramatically over the past year. Pilots say
drones are a growing threat to aviation. This year, according to the FAA,
nearly 1,000 unmanned drones were spotted in or near restricted air space.

Now, by creating this kind of national registry, regulators are hoping
to prevent a costly, perhaps terrible disaster.

All this of course is happening
against the backdrop of a national conversation about another type of
wildly popular machine sold in this country. We have no idea who owns these
machines, but they are responsible for the deaths of about 30,000 people in
this country each year.

And yet, talk of a federal gun registry would be fought tooth and nail
by the gun lobby, which would no doubt gin up all kinds of fears about your
Second
Amendment rights being taken away.

So, in summation, we have two machines. One kills about 30,000
Americans
each year. The other hasn`t, as far as we know, actually caused any deaths.
But it is the far less dangerous machine that is going to be regulated by
the government.
And something tells me the drone lobby right now is hard at work studying
how the heck the NRA managed to pull this off.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: House Republicans are returning to Washington after a
tumultuous week-long recess in which Representative Paul Ryan weighed
whether to run for house
speaker in the wake of John Boehner`s planned resignation.

It`s a job Ryan has repeatedly said he does not want, but which he is
facing enormous pressure to take amid concerns that no one else, no one
else could lead
the fractious house GOP caucus.

Over the weekend, sources close to Ryan told CBS News he is now open
to running, but only if he is not forced to horse trade with the deeply
conservative
house freedom caucus. And that`s a problem because members of the freedom
caucus are making clear they won`t back Ryan without concessions.

So, that`s headache number one for the Republicans who run the house.

Then there`s the fact that they need to vote to raise the debt limit
by November 3rd to prevent a possible default, and vote to fund the
government by December 11th to avert a government shutdown. Despite a
fractured caucus still
being led by lame duck John Boehner and staunch opposition to a clean vote
from
conservative hard-liners desperate to defund Planned Parenthood.

Yet all that, amazingly, may for now be on the back burner, because a
blockbuster event set to take place Thursday.

Hillary Clinton`s much anticipated appearance before the long, long-
running house Benghazi committee, a committee which has very much been on
the defensive after two congressional Republicans and a notable GOP
staffer, who worked on the committee, admitted it is a partisan political
exercise intended to undermine Hillary Clinton.

Democrats on the Benghazi committee, led by Elijah Cummings, pounced
onto those GOP comments. Today, they released a report that, according to
Cummings, found that "no witnesses we interviewed substantiated these wild
Republican conspiracy theories about Secretary Clinton and Benghazi."

Meanwhile, the Republican in charge of the Benghazi committee,
Representative Trey Gowdy, is casting himself as a victim whose reputation
has been unfairly
besmirched, telling Politico, "these have been among the worst weeks of my
life."
And stating that, quote, "attacks on your character, attacks on your
motives, are a thousand times worse than anything you can do to anybody
physically. At least it is for me.

Gowdy also charged that the recent outpouring of criticism of the
committee was designed to marginalize him ahead of Clinton`s testimony, a
claim that would be easier to swallow were it not for the fact that three
different Republicans have called the committee partisan in just the last
month.

Yesterday, facing more questions about the committee`s motives, Gowdy
offered a message to members of his own party. Shut up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TREY GOWDY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: I have told my own Republican
colleagues and friends, shut up talking about things that you don`t know
anything about. And unless you`re on the committee, you have no idea what
we`ve done, why we`ve done it
and what new facts we have found.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Joining me now, Jennifer Bendery, she`s a political reporter
for The Huffington Post who`s been covering the committee.

Jennifer, what do you make of Gowdy kind of both going on the
offensive and lamenting how unfairly besmirched he`s been?

JENNIFER BENDERY, THE HUFFINGTON POST: Well, I didn`t think that the
process of leading up to Hillary Clinton coming could get much more absurd.
But the last few days alone have just become almost hilarious.

I mean, we`ve got Trey Gowdy defending himself left and right from his
own party, telling people that the whole committee is a sham. But then,
just in the last couple of days he tried to embarrass Hillary Clinton by
talking about e-mails that she sent from her private server that has
sensitive information on them.

But it turned out the CIA said oh, no, that wasn`t classified
information. And Trey Gowdy said, yeah, well, we need to protect it. And
then he put it up on the committee website and outed the name of a CIA
source.

So it`s just like, it`s getting to the point where I`m -- people are
really wondering what is the whole point of this anyway.

HAYES: Yeah. What you`re referring to, there are these e-mails that
the
committee had chosen to redact, right? The committee redacted them and said
oh, this is sensitive stuff. The CIA came back and said no, it`s not
sensitive, it`s fine, it was actually fine that she e-mailed about that.

And then the committee ended up posting some unredacted stuff that
might have actually exposed someone in the CIA? Am I tracking that
correctly.

BENDERY: They posted the e-mails on the committee site in an effort
to show that they`re transparent about, you know, Hillary Clinton`s private
e-mail server
and stuff. But, they ended up leaving the name of a CIA source in the
subject line.

So they redacted her name in the e-mails, put it up on the committee
site, but left her name on the subject line, so anybody who went to the
website could
see the name of this CIA source that was supposed to be kept private.

Now, it was all in the context of Trey Gowdy trying to embarrass
Hillary Clinton for using her private e-mail server for e-mails with
sensitive information.
And he ended up putting it on the committee website.

HAYES: You also ended up in a situation where it just -- it looks --
I think that there`s been a kind of perfect storm for Gowdy because of
these Republican comments of Kevin McCarthy, and then the staffer who came
forward.

But, it also just looks to all the world watching this like they`ve
lost the plot. Like what is the thread here, other than an e-mail server?
You could hardly even imagine them doing the kind of investigation they say
when even when you look on the witness list were Huma Abedin, who had
nothing to do with anything with Benghazi there, and Leon Panetta, who`s
working in the heart of the national
security apparatus at the time is not being interviewed by them.

BENDERY: I mean, they continue to insist this is a serious
investigation into a serious issue and it all does go back to the horrible
events in Benghazi from three years ago.

But, if you look at the last couple of weeks leading up to the biggie,
which is Thursday`s hearing with Hillary Clinton, it just seems like more
and more things
are come coming out that make the whole committee look like a circus. And
that there`s not a whole lot of substance to work with.

HAYES: Do you -- what do you buy -- you`ve been covering the
committee for a while. Gowdy`s idea that this has been done in the run-up
to Hillary Clinton`s testimony, that essentially, this is an attempt to
marginalize or call into
question the credibility of the committee before she testifies.

What do you make of that? Is that what`s going on? Was it more self-
inflicted wounds, some combination of both?

BENDERY: I mean, it might hold some more water in that argument if
it wasn`t Republicans themselves who were saying that the committee was set
up to go
after Hillary Clinton. That`s a pretty big faux pas if the Republican-led
committee is arguing this is a serious investigation and it`s not about
Hillary Clinton.

You`ve got Republicans coming out of the woodwork saying that this is
about Hillary Clinton, and then you`ve got him making allegations about her
use of her
private e-mail account, and her misusing it with sensitive information, and
in the end she wasn`t misusing it and Trey Gowdy`s the one putting
sensitive information on the internet.

HAYES: You know, it strikes me as I think about how they`re going to
play this on Thursday, that in some ways Gowdy and his fellow Republicans
are caught between two conflicting imperatives.

One is, if you really go after her and you give your sort of base what
it wants, you confirm people`s worst fears about this essentially being a
partisan
witch hunt, taxpayer-funded operation, research organization.

If you don`t, if you try to sort of go out of your way to show how
decorous and serious you are, then what do you end up with? You`ve
essentially allowed
yourself to be defeated.

It`s unclear there`s either path forward that can work for them.

BENDERY: I mean, at this point, we`ve got three days until Hillary
Clinton is coming to the Hill. I mean, if it`s this late in the game, I
mean, what are they supposed to do? They`ve got to stick by their word. No,
this is serious, we are
following this through. They`re going to do their best -- do the best they
can to
treat it like a serious matter.

Because if they bail two or three days before the hearing, I mean,
this is like the big one. This is like the big climax with Hillary Clinton.
So they can`t go back now.

HAYES: Yeah. All right. Everyone`s going to be watching that.
Fascinating to see how that plays out.

Jennifer Bendery, thank you very much.

Coming up, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders will address what it
means to be a Democratic socialist, especially now that he has this thorny
question out of the way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERNIE SANDERS, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, last week I bought
my
second pair of underwear. That`s a joke. Please don`t write it down. That
was a joke. I have an ample supply of underwear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AHMED MOHAMED, STUDENT: I didn`t think I was going to get any support
because I`m a Muslim boy. So, I thought I was just going to be another
victim of
injustice. But thanks to all my supporters on social media, I got this far
thanks to you guys.

I see it as a way of people sending a message to the rest of the world
that just because something happens to you because of who you are, no
matter what you do, people will always have your back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed saw a massive outpouring of support
last month after he was pulled out of class in Irving, Texas, interrogated
by police and put in handcuffs because of a homemade clock he took to
school to impress his teachers.

And among the hundreds of thousands of messages Ahmed got on social
media, was one from President Obama, who tweeted "cool clock, Ahmed. Want
to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to
like science. It`s what makes America great."

The clock is still in Texas. Irving police tell All In no one has
picked it up yet. But Ahmed himself did make it to the White House tonight,
stargazing with scientists and astronauts on the south lawn as part of
astronomy night.

The president and Ahmed did chat briefly in the crowd, and Ahmed could
advance the cause of science by creating a singularity in cable news. All
he has to do now is whip up a Joe Biden decision countdown clock while he`s
in town.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY DAVID, ACTOR: I`m the only candidate up here who`s not a
billionaire. I don`t have a super Pac. I don`t even have a backpack. I
carried my stuff around loose in my arms like a professor, you know,
between classes. I own one pair of underwear. That`s it. Some of these
billionaires, they take out three, four pairs.
And I don`t have a dryer. I have to put my clothes on the radiator.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Bernie Sanders had yet another big pop culture moment over the
weekend on Saturday Night Live. Much like his dancing walkout on Ellen last
week, it was a moment that would have been inconceivable just a couple
months ago.

Now that Bernie Sanders is the man of the moment and unquestionably a
serious player in the 2016 presidential race, and a very competitive one at
that, we`re starting to see the s word being thrown around a lot more. As
in, Bernie Sanders is a self-described Democratic socialist.

And as the Vermont senator gets asked more and more about his
affiliation, conservatives, well, they are having a field day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This socialist slash
communist, okay?

BOBBY JINDAL, GOVERNOR OF LUISIANNA: They`ve got a socialist that is
gaining on Hillary Clinton.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a 74-year-old socialist.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: Then you`ve got the 73-year-old, angry,
curmudgeon
socialist.

BILL O`REILLY: Americans aren`t going to vote for a socialist.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He loves all the socialist and communist regimes
out there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the name of socialism 80 million people were
murdered
last century.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How close is socialism really to communism?

TRUMP: I call him a socialist slash communist. Okay? Because that`s
what he is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Over the weekend, Sanders promised he will be giving a series
of upcoming policy speeches, including one on what being a Democratic
socialist
means to him.

The real question, however, is what does it mean to voters, and are
the American people, even Democrats, really ready to vote for a self-
described Democratic socialist for president?

We`ll debate that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL MAHER, HOST OF REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER: They hear socialist,
they
think herpes, Bernie. We have to get --

SANDERS: Then what we do, is we have to make the movement, if you
like,
to correlate what we`re talking about. Because on every one of the major
issues I am talking about, the American people agree.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Joining me now John Nichols, Washington correspondent at The
Nation, author of The "S" Word: A Short History of a American Tradition
Socialism. And Matt Bennett, from Third Way, a think tank position towards
the right of the Democratic party. He also worked on both of Bill Clinton`s
presidential campaigns.

Matt, let me start with you. What do you think the odds are that
America would elect someone who calls him a Democratic socialist?

MATT BENNETT, THIRD WAY: Zero. I think there`s absolutely no chance
that America`s going to elect a Democratic socialist because, look, the
bottom line is
we are a centrist country. On our good days we`re center left, and on our
bad days we`re center right. But, we`re centrist.

And we`re not going to elect anyone who appears through their rhetoric
or their narrative to be too far off center and to be a little bit too
radical. And calling yourself a socialist, even with the qualifier of
Democrat in front of it, just isn`t going to work in America. It might work
in a small homogeneous place like Vermont or Sweden, but it`s not going to
work nationwide here.

HAYES: John, what do you think?

JOHN NICHOLS, THE NATION: Well, I`m always confident in America`s
ability to evolve and
to embrace new ideas. And, the thing I`m struck by is, if we were sitting
here 40, 45 years ago, we might well have had a number of people sitting
around saying you know, Ronald Reagan`s modern conservatism, it`s just too
extreme, it breaks
with the old right ideals, the older conservative ideals, and it`s going to
turn too many people off. It can`t possibly work.

Well, what Ronald Reagan did was to go out and explain how his ideas,
which people often dismissed as extreme, were really in sync with a lot of
American traditions, with a lot of American ideals, and he was successful.
He was elected president.

I think that there will come a time, and it could well be sooner
rather than later, when a Democratic socialist will explain that he or she
is a part of a distinct and distinguished American tradition that includes
Helen Keller and Albert Einstein and A. Phillip Randolph, the fellow who
called the march on Washington in 1963, and that frankly, you know, was
informed by folks like Norman Thomas, who
counseled FDR on issues like social security --

HAYES: But -- John, let me -- Matt, please go ahead.

BENNETT: I mean, Chris, we`re talking about things that happened 50
or more
years ago. I will grant that all of those were great Americans.

But, the bottom line here, is that we are living in a moment
regrettably for all of us Democrats, where people are highly skeptical of
government, and what they hear when they hear the word socialist is
somebody that wants -- that believes that every problem can be solved with
more government.

That is not what mainstream Democrats like Clinton are offering, but
it is what Sanders is selling. And it`s just not going to resonate at this
moment in
American politics.

HAYES: So, let me just sort of intervene here, because that`s an
empirical
claim. Right? So, about how this will resonate. We should distinguish
between
some sort of set of substantive policies that Bernie Sanders is advocating,
and the term that he`s using in the label. It might be the case that the
substantive policies that he`s advocating are quite popular and people are
turned off by the
label, vice versa, right?

There`s some data on this, and John I want to talk to you about this.
There`s been polling about would you vote for an ex president, Catholic,
woman, black, Hispanic, Jewish, Mormon, gay or lesbian, evangelical
Christian, Muslim, Atheist, socialist. Socialist comes in last. I mean,
that is not particularly promising, right? Below Atheist.

So, that seems to me like there is an actual branding issue here,
despite the fact that we`ve seen the favorabilities for socialism increase
in the wake of the
Great Recession. It does better among younger voters than older voters. But
there is a labeling issue here.

NICHOLS: Oh, sure. There always is with all sorts of ideologies.
libertarianism had a problem a while back.

The fact of the matter is that when we open up --

HAYES: Matt, I think we -- we lost John Nichols. Matt Bennett, your
arguing
skills apparently destroyed his satellite feed. So, I guess that`s kudos to
you.

Let me push back on you, because I think the point John made about
libertarianism is important, right?

These boundaries of who gets to decide what`s center and what`s not
center are not fixed, right? The way that they get established, actually,
is through this dynamic process of people campaigning on ideas. Ideas that
may seem totally far out when introduced and then work their way to the
center.

So what`s -- what`s to -- why give up before you even start?

BENNETT: Well, look, that`s undoubtedly true. But the other fact of
American
politics is you do have to kind of catch a wave. You have to be part of a
moment
that Americans are feeling.

One of the things you have to do to get elected president is to find
the moment you`re living in and show Americans how their lives are going to
be better as a result of your policies.

And again, because people are so deeply skeptical of government,
because they`re so jaded, in part because of what the Republicans have done
to government in the last few years, it`s a very tough sell to argue that,
for example, we
should have an entirely government-run health care at a time when even
Obamacare is
unpopular.

HAYES: John, like Democratic socialism in the U.S., John Nichols is
back.
He endures. He cannot be kept away.

I want to ask you this question, John. And I want an honest answer
from you.
You and I have known each other a very long time. We were colleagues at The
Nation.

You walk into the voting booth tomorrow in my make believe world.
John, your vote will determine the nominee, whether it`s Bernie Sanders or
Hillary Clinton.
Would you honestly vote for Bernie Sanders? Do you honestly think that were
he the Democratic nominee that he would have appreciably the same chance of
becoming the next president as, say, Hillary Clinton or one of the other
candidates?

NICHOLS: Well, I`ll counsel but I`m not here to endorse a candidate.

HAYES: Right.

NICHOLS: But if you`re asking me if I`m comfortable voting for a
Democratic socialist for the Democratic or the Republican nomination for
President of the
United States, I would say yes. And I`ll tell you why.

The fact of the matter is that we have just been through a scorching
economic crisis with the collapse of Wall Street and all the challenges
that came from that.

We`re in the midst of something very equivalent to the industrial
revolution, only now it`s a digital revolution with automation and so much
else.

To assume that this country can`t take on new ideas and embrace them,
I think is silly. I think the fact of the matter is, it might well be that
those with the bolder ideas are the ones that will attract people to the
polls.

HAYES: All right. John Nichols and Matt Bennett, thank you gentlemen
both.

That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts right
now.

Good evening, Rachel.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2015 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>






Sponsored links

Resource guide