Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Tuesday, October 20th, 2015

Read the transcript from the Tuesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Date: October 20, 2015
Guest: Charlie Pierce, Rebecca Traister, Thomas Fann, McKay Coppins, Betsy
Woodruff, Marq Claxton, Phillip Atiba Goff


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

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: How can you say the country
was safe? He`s just forgetting about one incident and that was a big

HAYES: Trump expands his argument on whether George W. Bush kept
America safe.

TRUMP: They knew an attack was coming.

HAYES: While Jeb insists the timeline for safety starts after 9/11.

TRUMP: When we were attacked, my brother created an environment where
for 2,600 days, we were safe. No one attacked us again.

HAYES: Now as Jeb takes on Trump, his brother goes after another 2016

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: President George W. Bush apparently not a big
fan of Senator Ted Cruz. He was overheard saying, "I just don`t like the

HAYES: Then, the ongoing "will he, won`t he" saga, Joe Biden takes a
swipe at something the front-runner said in the first debate.

of Republican friends. I don`t think my chief enemy is the Republican

HAYES: And Jim Webb, we hardly knew you.

JIM WEBB (D), FORMER SENATOR: I`m stepping aside from the Democratic
primary process.

HAYES: ALL IN starts right now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where is my time?


HAYES: All right. There`s a lot to get to tonight.

We are monitoring Capitol Hill, where the House Republican caucus just
wrapped up a meeting about who they want to replace John Boehner as
speaker. We could learn tonight whether or not Paul Ryan will heed calls
from his colleagues to run.

Joining us now by phone is NBC News Capitol Hill producer Alex Moe.

Alex, a meeting between Ryan and the House Freedom Caucus, that`s, of
course, those 40 lawmakers who have essentially leveraged their 40 votes to
hold a veto over House leadership, what do we know about what happened in
that meeting?

congressman actually just wrapped up speaking to the entire Republican
Party in the House of Representatives where he laid out what he said that
he believed needs to happen if they do in fact want him to run as speaker.
He laid out five different scenarios that he said needs to be met.

And if they can meet those, if they can actually unify as a
conference, then the three major caucuses within the House GOP can unify
together and get behind him, he will in fact be as speaker. He`ll be all

But he asks the members to go and talk with each other and see if he,
in fact, can be that unifying figure.

Jason Chaffetz, who is the chairman of the House Oversight Committee,
who is currently running for speaker has said he is dropping out of the
race. He supports Paul Ryan and really wants him to get in. So, Ryan is
about to address reporters shortly and talk a little bit about what he told
those -- that closed GOP conference meeting.

HAYES: All right, Alex.

I want tonight read a little bit of the statement that Brendan Buck,
who is Ryan`s spokesperson put out. Gives a little sense of where Paul
Ryan is.

To get the context here, of course, in the wake of Boehner`s announced
retirement, everyone thought Kevin McCarthy, of course, the whip would
ascend to become speaker. Kevin McCarthy, of course, said that thing on
Sean Hannity about how essentially the Benghazi committee resulted in
Hillary Clinton`s poll numbers coming down and he also faced a kind of
insurgent attack from the House Freedom Caucus, those 40 very hard right
lawmakers who have incredibly adept at leveraging those votes to
essentially veto and hold sway over the leadership.

Kevin McCarthy abruptly announced last week he would not speak -- seek
the speakership, or two weeks ago before the House recess.

That the left everyone looking to Ryan. Paul Ryan is the only savior
for Republican Party, seemingly incapable of governing itself despite
having the largest majority notice House since the 1920s. Despite 247
votes in the House, despite historic margins, the House Republican caucus
has seemingly been unable to do the basic work of government without
essentially breaking party line and getting Democratic votes.

And into this vacuum of power walked, we thought, possibly, maybe,
Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan you see there in that little bit of V.O. avoiding
questions from reporters earlier today. Paul Ryan has said and Brendan
Buck has been saying all along, Paul Ryan does not want this job. In fact,
he wants absolutely nothing to do with this job. Many suspect because A,
the House caucus is totally ungovernable and, B, because Paul Ryan quite
evidently the former VOP nominee of the Republican Party has aspirations
for much higher office.

Many people believe, probably rightly, House speakership would be the
terminus of any political career and therefore, kill those aspirations for
higher office.

Joining us on Capitol Hill is NBC`s Luke Russert.

And, Luke, Brendan Buck, who`s been a very busy man. He`s a
spokesperson for Paul Ryan. I mean, he`s basically spent two weeks telling
everyone, not happening, not going to happen. No, no, no.

Then, today, we get a Brendan Buck statement saying, OK, Paul Ryan met
with the House Republican caucus. He`s not a no. He`s got a list of

What happened?

LUKE RUSSERT, NBC NEWS: So, it kind of goes along what we`ve been
reporting over the last few days, which was that we knew that Paul Ryan was
open to taking the job. But the words that his aide said to us and those
close to him said to us was, he will take the job if the conference allows
him to take the job.

So, when you read into that, what does it mean? It means that Paul
Ryan wants a clear mandate. I`ve heard at least 235 votes on the floor of
the House of Representatives for the speaker`s job because if he takes it,
he doesn`t want to tread water like John Boehner`s had to do over the last
couple of years. He wants to enact a long-term vision for how he sees the
Republican Party should operate, to how it should go into the future.

This is a job he`s tried to avoid his entire time. When they`d been
in a new majority since 2011, there`s been whispers pushing Ryan, Ryan,
Ryan. He`s not wanted to do it. I really think what happened over the
course of the week was the pressure exerted on him was so great that he
really couldn`t say no because of a sense of a few things. One, duty,
Catholic guilt that if he were not to do it, then so many people in his
family that family being the House GOP conference would suffer.

And one thing that I heard today which I think makes a lot of sense,
there was a worry that he would be tagged permanently as somebody who ran
away from the most difficult challenges. What would that mean for the
future of his political career, especially if he had to work with the
speaker who would not nearly be as powerful as he would be as Ways and
Means chairman. He would be de facto speaker in the background.

So, that all played together and it seems that barring, the House GOP
Freedom Caucus going for his head, he`ll more likely than not end up with
this job at least unofficially by the end of the week.

But, Chris, House GOP Freedom Caucus, if we can predict what their
reaction is going to be, we should probably play the lotto every night.

HAYES: All right. Luke Russert, thank you very much.

I remember speaking with a few folks a few weeks ago in our editorial
meeting saying, Paul Ryan will end up as the speaker of the House. They
are not going to take no for an answer. Here we are two weeks later, and
the planets come to be aligning as we speak. We`ll keep monitoring the
situation and bring you more as it develops.

Meanwhile, in 2016 politics, Donald Trump smells blood in the water
and he`s not letting up in his attacks on the legacy of George W. Bush. In
fact, he`s going even further, no longer just arguing suffering the
nation`s worst terrorist attack means Bush did not keep safe, but now
saying the Bush administration ignored the warnings before 9/11.


TRUMP (via telephone): They knew an attack was coming. George Tenet,
the CIA director, knew in the advance there would be an attack and he said
so to the president. And he said so to everybody else that would listen.
That came out.


HAYES: Trump also went on to blame Bush`s war in Iraq for the current
Middle East chaos, totally heresy within a party that prefers to put that
blame on President Obama.


TRUMP: We went and attacked Iraq. They had no weapons of mass
destruction, as you know, and as we found out and as we found in spades.
So, they had no -- we destabilized the entire Middle East.

I mean, this is all -- the Middle East is a mess right now because of
Iraq, because we`ve totally destabilized and Iran now is taking over the
Middle East, taking over Iraq, taking over the oil. The other one that
gets some of the oil is ISIS. OK. So, we fueled and created ISIS out of


HAYES: In an op-ed for "National Review" today, Trump`s rival and
Bush`s little brother, Jeb Bush, tried to turn the tables, slamming Trump
for his lack of foreign policy knowledge and talking point from FOX News,
quote, "that Trump echoes the attacks of Michael Moore and the fringe left
against my brother as yet another example of his dangerous views on
national security issues."

Last night on FOX, Jeb advanced the notion widely held among
Republicans that his brother`s presidency or at least the part that counts
began on September 12th, 2001.


BUSH: His view of history is just wrong. The simple fact is that
when we were attacked my brother created an environment where for 20,600
days we were safe. No one attacked us again. And just a tip of the hat to
that and moving on to what the threats are today is what we ought to be
focused on.


HAYES: He may have undercut his own argument with this next line how
Trump sees Vladimir Putin`s moves in the Middle East.


BUSH: You can`t expect the Soviet Union whose only objective is to
prop up its client state Assad to take out ISIS. They`re not -- that`s not
their intention. And this lack of understanding of how the world works is
what the problem is.


HAYES: You did hear that, right? Jeb Bush referred to the Soviet
Union while blasting Donald Trump`s understanding of world affairs. Soviet
Union which hasn`t existed for two decades although it is true they have no
intention of taking out ISIS.

With George W. Bush back in the news, it was only a matter of time
before he made news of his own. Now he`s done that with some contentious
comments about one of his little brother`s opponents. According to
political report, it`s not the one you might expect according to the
report. At a fund-raiser on Sunday night, the former president went after
fellow Texan Ted Cruz telling the room, quote, "I just don`t like the guy."

One donor told "Politico", paraphrasing the former president`s
comments, "He said he found it opportunistic that Cruz was sucking up to
Trump and just expecting all of his support to come to him in the end."

Now, that`s actually a pretty fair characterization of his strategy.


tremendously helpful things to my campaign has been Donald Trump`s
candidacy. For one thing, it certainly made it interesting. But you know,
Donald has really framed the central issue in this primary as who will
stand up to Washington. Now, if that`s the central issue, the natural next
question is, OK, who actually has stood up to Washington?


HAYES: The George W. Bush camp is not denying the main thrust the
report responding, "The first words out of President Bush`s mouth on Sunday
night were that Jeb is going to earn the nomination, win the election and
be a great president. He does not view Senator Cruz as a serious rival to
Bush`s candidacy."

But a new national poll from Monmouth University tells a pretty
different story. Ted Cruz is in third place with 10 percent, double the
support for Jeb Bush who`s way back in sixth place, perhaps even more
brutal for Bush, his favorability rating among Republican voters has
dropped to 37 percent, down from 52 percent in August, a 15-point plunge in
just two months.

Joining me now, Charlie Pierce, writer at large for "Esquire" and
contributor to Grantland.

And, Charlie, this is my understanding of what we`re seeing play out
right now. It`s like Freud, it`s like the revenge of repression. The
repressed thing which is the Bush presidency will ultimately be your
undoing if you do not talk it out, figure it out and confront it. We are
now seeing that play out.

CHARLIE PIERCE, ESQUIRE: Yes, this just in from Wall Street. Popcorn
futures are exploding, all over the blue states.

This is debate we should have had in 2002. This is the argument we
should have had in 2003 and 2004. And who is it but, you know, the classic
bull in the China shop who has shown up and just scattered everything that
the Republican Party has tried to forget for 15 years all over the map.

HAYES: I find something so remarkable, this one little linguistic
tell. If I were the advisor to Jeb Bush, I would drill him in saying
President Bush, President Bush, or President George W. Bush. Stop saying
my brother.

Every time he refers to the guy, I understand he`s his brother. He
has deep personal emotional affection attachment and loyalty to his kin.
But there`s something that is so bizarre and unnerving about the my brother
kept us safe, my brother did this, my brother did that, like we`re back on
the neighborhood school yard lot talking about like who did what in a fight
or a wiffle ball match.

PIERCE: Yes, I mean, I`ve covered enough botching in my other gig to
understand that some fighters are just perfectly suited to take advantages
of the weaknesses of the other fighters. Donald Trump is perfectly suited
to take advantage of every weakness that Jeb Bush has as a candidate. He
has found -- I don`t care what issue you name, he has found Jeb Bush`s last
nerve and he`s jumped on it with both feet.

And now, the latest -- this latest thing where he`s relitigating the
negligence leading up to the 9/11 attacks and then going further now and
saying that the response, i.e., invading Iraq, is the reason for the
current situation. He`s -- I mean, he`s so far off the reservation, he`s
in another continent.

HAYES: You know, it always occurs to me, too, that there`s something
poetic about the fact that you have Donald Trump and Jeb Bush who are both,
let`s be quite clear, scions of famous families, who both inherited a
tremendous amount from their fathers, who both owe their careers, one man
who went into real estate after his father earned a fortune in real estate,
another man who went into politics after his father and his father`s father
went into politics, that here are these twos people on the national stage
and in some ways the best way to go the after Donald Trump is actually his
biggest weakness is the fact that he can`t outlive his father`s shadow.
But the worst person to make that argument is the person he`s up against
who is, of course, John Edward Bush.

PIERCE: Yes, and who has turned out much to the surprise of many
people to be as maladroit a politician as Mitt Romney was. You`re talking
about a guy who is now running fourth in the polls in the state where he
used to be governor. And he`s being buried essentially by amateurs.

HAYES: Yes. John Ellis Bush, of course, John Ellis Bush. Jeb Bush.
When we say Jeb Bush we`re saying John Ellis Bush but we go ahead with the
jab and exclamation for succinctness.

PIERCE: The exclamation point makes all the difference.

HAYES: That`s right. That ends -- that breaks the two Bushes.

Charlie Pierce, thank you very much.

PIERCE: Thank you.

HAYES: All right. Still to come, even though Joe Biden isn`t running
for president, at the moment, he`s taking shots at frontrunner Hillary
Clinton. We`ll look at what he`s saying and hwy.

Plus, the courting of Paul Ryan continues. But is he conservative
enough to impress the group that ousted John Boehner? The latest on the
negotiations that are ongoing between the two.

And later, what changes when an officer puts on a body camera and what
are the unintended consequences. A fascinating new study from the DOJ
looks at just that.

We`ll bring you those stories and more, ahead.


HAYES: Major news on Capitol Hill tonight. House Republicans just
wrapped up a meeting to discuss John Boehner`s successor as House speaker.
And Congressman Paul Ryan reportedly told caucus members he would run for
speaker if certain conditions, five of them at last count, are met. And he
is expected to address reporters any minute. We got our eye on that. So
do not go anywhere.


HAYES: All right. As the drama plays out on Capitol Hill, Joe Biden
in the Naval Observatory may not officially be a candidate for president,
at least not yet, but he sure sounded like one this morning in a forum
honoring Walter Mondale in Washington, where he seemed to take a pair of
shots at Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

The first was what appeared to be a reference to Hillary Clinton`s
comment in last week`s Democratic debate when she was asked what enemies
she was most proud of during her political career and Clinton responded in
part, probably the Republicans.

Note: Joe Biden`s choice of words today.


BIDEN: I still have a lot of Republican friends. I don`t think my
chief enemy is the Republican Party. You know, this is a matter of, you
know, making things work.


HAYES: That`s the second time in two days he made a point of noting
that he doesn`t see the Republicans as the enemy, using the word unlike

Biden went on to suggest that his words carried more weight with
foreign leaders than Clinton`s did when she was secretary of state.


HAYES: It really matters when people know you are speaking for the
president and you have his confidence. And like you and foreign policy, if
you notice, I will get sent to go speak to Putin or go speak to Erdogan or
go speak to whomever. And it`s because the secretary of state, we`ve had
two great secretaries of state. But when I go, they know that I am
speaking for the president.


HAYES: If Biden does enter the race it, looks like he will be facing
an uphill battle. Three new polls out today show Clinton with big leads
over Bernie Sanders and Biden, with Clinton attracting the support of about
half of Democratic primary voters. Her lead may be growing in the wake of
last week`s debate. Clinton was up 7 points from 42 to 49 percent in the
new NBC News/"Wall Street Journal" poll, while both Sanders and Biden saw
their support slip.

That wasn`t the only bad news for Biden. While 30 percent of
Democrats said they want to see Biden run, a larger percentage, 38 percent,
would say they prefer he stay out of the race.

Joining me now, Rebecca Traister, writer at large for "The New York

I feel you have strong feelings about this. Your reaction, I mean,
look, politics ain`t bean bag. Everyone here is a grown-up. Let`s just

said, like, Joe Biden enter the race.

HAYES: Yes, do your thing.

TRAISTER: Bring it.

HAYES: This is how we do it.

TRAISTER: No, no, I`ve always said we want more competitors in the
race. I`ve always thought it was good for everybody involved to have more
competitors, right?

But this is excruciating right now, because there`s this weird dance
about whether or not he`ll get in or not. It`s been going on for months.
But now, the timing is probably the worst it could have been.

Like a month ago, at least there was an argument.

HAYES: Right.

TRAISTER: That, you know, she was in real trouble, her poll numbers
were slipping. Now, there`s a degree to which that was blown up a lot over
the past three months, and she wasn`t really, you know, in a plunge.

HAYES: Well, there`s also a connection to the fact that people
started including Biden in polling which actually was taking some of her
support and look worse.

TRAISTER: But actually, not that much.

HAYES: Right, right.

TRAISTER: It should have been a red flag.

But, right now, we`re coming at probably the best moment the
Democratic field has had in months. They had a great debate, where not
only Clinton but Sanders came out really strong. There`s a really strong
field. Fifteen million people tuned in. Like there`s obviously interest
in this competition.

There`s not a clear path for Biden to run except by attacking Hillary,
which is what he`s doing now. But he`s doing it not as a candidate, just
as her sort of former colleague saying bad things about her and telling
sort of changed stories about what went on around Pakistan and the bin
Laden raid.

HAYES: Well, this is -- I want to play Biden speaking about bin Laden
today. Take a listen.


BIDEN: Every single person in that room hedged their bet except Leon
Panetta. Leon said go. Everyone else said, 49, 51, got to me and said,
Joe, what do you think? I said, you know, I didn`t know we had so many
economists around the table. I said, we owe the man a direct answer. Mr.
President, my suggestion is, don`t go. We have to do two more things to
see if he`s there.


HAYES: All right. That`s Joe Biden in 2012, not today. Today, he
basically said after that whole meeting one-on-one, I said go.

So, is the -- the idea the path to the Democratic primary nomination -
- and we`re getting a warning that Paul Ryan may be addressing us any
moment, stay right where you are. But the idea of the Democratic primary
nomination path is relitigating whose advice on the Osama bin Laden raid is
insane to me.

TRAISTER: Joe Biden is not a good presidential candidate. He has not
been a good presidential candidate in either of his two past presidential
forays. And actually, we forget that in 1998, he was drummed out not just
for plagiarism charges --

HAYES: `88.

TRAISTER: But fudging. `88, right.


TRAISTER: Fudging some past details about his life, right? He`s been
getting this enormous credit.

All politicians do that, right? Hillary does that. But he gets
credit for being authentic. And here he is futzing with details that had
been told differently by different people in the room.

HAYES: Including himself who made a shtick of the talking about how
he told them not to do the raid.

TRAISTER: Yes. Here, his timing is bad. The focusing on bin Laden
details and changing stories does not bolster the authenticity argument.
And, you know, he`s just not -- he`s not showing a real feel for what the
party wants, including hitting her on saying that Republicans are the

HAYES: And to me, there`s got to be thematic unity to what the
distinction is, other than taking ad hoc.

Rebecca Traister, thank you very much.

TRAISTER: Thank you.

HAYES: All right. Joining us now on Capitol Hill, back with us,
NBC`s Luke Russert.

Luke, we`re expecting, I imagine to hear from Paul Ryan and talk about
exactly is going on. What`s the latest?

RUSSERT: Yes, we expect Paul Ryan to come out. You know what, Chris,
here he is right now. So, I guess, we`ll take that live.

We`re having him walk up right now. I`ll sit down. I don`t want to
block my colleagues` shot.

But we`re going to see Paul Ryan explaining to the press corps what
would cause him to take the job. Let`s hear from the man, himself, right
now, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: Tonight, I shared with my colleagues
what I think it will take to have a unified conference and for the next
speaker to be successful.

Basically, I made a few requests for what I think is necessary and I
asked my colleagues to hear back from them by the end of the week.

First, we need to move from an opposition party to being a proposition
party, because we think the nation is on the wrong path, we have a duty to
show the right one. Our next speaker has to be a visionary one.

Second, we need to update our House rules so that everyone can be a
more effective representative. This is after all the people`s house. We
need to do this as a team. And it needs to include fixes that ensure that
we do not experience constant leadership challenges and crises.

Third, we as a conference should unify now and not after a divisive
speaker election.

And the last point, last point is personal. I cannot and I will not
give up my family time. I may not be on the road as often as previous
speakers. But I pledge to try and make up for it with more time
communicating our vision, our message.

What I told members is, if you can agree to these requests, and if I
can truly be a unifying figure, then I will gladly serve. And if I`m not
unifying, that will be fine, as well. I`ll be happy to stay where I am at
the Ways and Means Committee.

Here is how I see it. It is our duty to serve the people the way they
deserve to be served. It is our duty to make the tough decisions this
country needs to get our nation back on track. The challenges we face
today are too difficult and too demanding to turn our backs and walk away -
- global terror, war on multiple fronts, a government grown unaccountable,
unconstitutional, out of touch, persistent poverty, a sluggish economy,
flat wages, a skyrocketing debt.

But we cannot take on these challenges alone. Now more than ever we
must work together. All of us are representatives of the people, all
people. We have been entrusted by them to lead. And yet, the people we
serve, they do not feel that we are delivering on the job that they hired
us to do. We have become the problem.

If my colleagues entrust me to be the speaker, I want us to become the
solution. One thing I`ve learned from my upbringing in Janesville is that
nothing is ever solved by blaming people. We can blame the president, we
can blame the media. And that`s kind of fun sometimes.

We can point fingers across the aisle. We can blame each other. We
can dismiss our critics and criticism as unfair.

People don`t care about blame. People don`t care about effort.
People care about results -- results that are measurable, results that are
meaningful, results that make a difference in their daily lives.

I want to be clear about this. I think that we are still an
exceptional country with exceptional people, in a republic clearly worth
fighting for. The American idea it`s not too late to save, but we are
running out of time.

And make no mistake: I believe that the ideas and principles of
results-driven common sense conservatism are the keys to a better tomorrow,
a tomorrow in which all of God`s children will be better off than they are
today, the idea that the role of the federal government is not to
facilitate dependency but to create an environment of opportunity for
everyone, the idea that government should do less and do it better, the
idea that those who serve should say what they mean and mean what they say.

The principle that we should all determine the course of our own lives
instead of ceding that right to those who think that they are better than
the rest of us.

Yes, we will stand and we will fight when we must. And surely this
presidency will require that.

A commitment to natural rights, a commitment to common sense, to
compassion, to cooperation, one rooted in genuine conviction and principle
is a commitment to conservatism.

Let me close by saying I considered to do this with reluctance. I
mean that in the most personal of ways. Like many of you, Jenna and I have
children who are in the formative, foundational years of their lives.

I genuinely worry about the consequences that my agreeing to serve
will have on them. "Will they experience the viciousness and incivility
that we all face on a daily basis?

But my greatest worry is the consequence of not stepping up. Of some
day having my own kids ask me, when the stakes were so high, Why didn`t you
do all you could? Why didn`t you stand and fight for my future when you had
the chance?`

None of us wants to hear that question. And none of us should ever
have to. I have shown my colleagues what I think success looks like, what
it takes to unify and lead, and how my family commitments come first. I
have left this decision in their hands, and should they agree with these
requests, then I am happy and willing to get to work. Thank you.


REPORTER: What about, what happened in the past couple of weeks? You
put out a statement after telling (inaudible) within minutes. You were in a
very cagey (inaudible). You said that you had concern about consequences of
not serving. Is that the underlying issue?

RYAN: It is. This is not a job I`ve ever wanted, I`ve ever sought.
I`m in the job I`ve always wanted here in congress.

I came to the conclusion that this is a very dire moment, not just for
congress and not just for the Republican party, but for our country. And I
think our country is in desperate need of leadership.

REPORTER: Mr. Ryan, do you think that you possess the capabilities of
actually unifying this conference? They`ve gone after John Boehner`s head,
they`ve gone after Kevin McCarthy`s head. What assurances do you have that
you won`t be the next one?

RYAN: I laid out for our conference what I think it takes to unify
this conference, what I think it takes to have a successful speakership,
and it`s in their hands. I`ll leave it up to my colleagues to decide if I
am that unifying person.

REPORTER: What do you need? Do you need 235 votes?

RYAN: That`s what we always do.

REPORTER: Well, I mean in terms of would you want a unanimous vote?

RYAN: I laid it out today with our conference about all the various
groups having their endorsement and being that unified candidate.

[ inaudible question ]

RYAN: I`m not going to get into that now. I think that`s something
that`s got to be done as a conference as a whole by consensus.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.


HAYES: All right. Paul Ryan comes out and basically says the
following. All right, Republican conference, you want me so badly, I`m the
only person that could unify the caucus. I will do it once these conditions
were met.

He laid out the conditions and talked tonight in that brief speech,
clearly directed at the so-called house freedom caucus, that`s the 40
members who have been holding sway over the entirety of the 247-vote
Republican conference, with their unity and their essential threat of veto,
talking about how easy it is to blame but ultimately results have to be

Clearly positioning himself as someone who ala the Paul Ryan who
worked out the budget deal with Patty Murray and the Democrat from the
Senate, could get continuing resolutions passed, could avoid government
shutdowns. That was the stake he put in the ground.

Joining me now, Thomas Fann, senior fellow governing settings at The
Brookings Institution, co-author of, It`s Even Worse Than it Looks.

All right, Thomas, you wrote a book about this. About how abnormal
historically the Republican, particularly the Republican party and the
Republican house is.
We`re seeing that abnormality play out in terms of the sequence of events
that brought about the end of John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy not taking the
job. Now Paul Ryan essentially stipulating a variety of conditions, I
interpret to bring that Republican caucus to heal.

What are the odds that`s going to work?

THOMAS FANN, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Not high. Slim to none and slim
just left the bar.

Listen, it`s a tough, tough haul here. What I think Ryan has done is
met the challenge. He was supposedly the only person who could do this. If
he refused to try, then it would not play well with him but he sat down
some demands.

He didn`t articulate them in enough detail to know exactly how they
will play with the freedom caucus. My guess is he`ll get his unanimous vote
or close to it,
ahead of the vote, commitments ahead of the vote, and he`ll string out
rules changes so they won`t tie his hands, but, he still faces the reality
that a desertion of a modest number of the new radicals could -- will force
him to get
Democratic support to keep the lights on.

HAYES: Yeah, this is a key point. One of the things that`s being
negotiated here are some rules changes that would essentially empower
members over leadership quite a bit. It would give them an ability to bring
things to the floor.
It would sort of change procedural rules so that they would have greater
say over the constitution of legislation.

One of the things that he wants is, he wants to get rid of the motion
to vacate. There was a motion to vacate filed against John Boehner, which
is basically a formal document saying we want new leadership, we want a
coup, and saying that you can`t operate with that gun pointed at your head.

But what strikes me as the most likely scenario, the one you painted
it, he`ll get the unanimous buy-in now, but there`s going to be controversy
like the
ones that we`ve seen lined up in Boehner`s speakership six months from now,
months from now. And it`s unclear why the buy-in now is going to bind
anyone then,

FANN: Well, that`s exactly how I feel. And it`s important for people
to understand the problem is not one of ideological difference. Paul Ryan
is as no less, no more conservative than the freedom caucus, but he is a
pragmatist. He knows to actually enact a conservative visioning into law,
you need to win the White House as well as the house and the Senate. And
creating chaos in the House
is a formula for continued divided government and frustration.

So he -- he wants to be pragmatic. He wants to keep things running
along and he`s taking a chance that you know, that he can round up the
radicals for the period of time before the election.

But if the Democrats continue to control the majority, and I mean
continue to control the White House, it`s hard to imagine any speaker being
able to stay in

HAYES: All right, Thomas Fann, thank you.

I`m joined by the McKay Coppins, senior political writer for Buzzfeed
News, and Betsy Woddruff, the political politics reporter for The Daily
Two people that cover the Republican party and the conservative movement.

What do you make of what just happened.

important to understand where Paul Ryan`s head is at. There`s been a lot of
reporting about this.

I know that it`s important, if you look back over his last decade in
Washington, he has been working toward his current job as chair of the
house ways and means committee, basically his whole career. This was
actually his dream job.

It`s a wonky position, it`s not well-known outside of Washington, but
it`s incredibly powerful.

I actually believe him when he says that he never aspired to this job.
The person that he models his career after is Jack Kemp, who exerted
immense influence
over the Republican party, from house of ways and means committee, from
being kind of a public national figure.

Paul Ryan wants to be a unifying figure. And we`ve seen him, you
dabble in legislation where he`s tried to play that role. It`s remarkable,
I think, that he has gotten to the point now where he is essentially saying
that he`s going to do the job.

Let`s be honest, like that press conference that he just gave, there
is no way that after saying that you know, I`m willing to do it now if
these demands are met, that if one of his demands aren`t met, he`s going to
go, oh, never mind, I`m
not going to do it.

HAYES: Betsy, that`s what`s so fascinating about this sort of back
and forth, is each side trying to claim maximum leverage. So, the house
freedom caucus basically saying, yeah, we`ll vote for Daniel Webster. I
mean that was there first -- Daniel Webster is someone who widely is seen
as having no shot at being house speaker. But they said, you know, we`ve
got 40 votes for him tied up.

Then saying, you know, we could take or leave Paul Ryan. As soon as
everyone was like, Paul Ryan is the savior of the party, you start seeing
them talking to press like, Paul Ryan, well you know, he`s the squish in

Then Paul Ryan basically coming back and saying, I don`t need this
job. Here are my demands.

It seems to me like we are now in a negotiation, and there`s going to
be some horse trading.

BETSY WOODRUFF, THE DAILY BEAST: And Paul Ryan, in kind of a funny
way is saying to the freedom caucus, hey, guys, ball`s in your court. And
the one thing I think that`s really interesting given the timing of Ryan`s
announcement -- that it`s tonight -- is that this comes just a few days
after Ted Cruz went on the Sunday shows and said that -- and refused to say
that Paul Ryan was a true conservative.

I think what`s really important for context on all this is that some
of the goal posts for what it means to be conservative have shifted. Since
President Obama`s re-election, we`ve had two major issues galvanize the
Republican base, simultaneously galvanize them and divide them from the
corporate interests, but also back Republican candidates. Those issues are
immigration and trade.

The fact that Paul Ryan is almost adamantly against where sort of the
Trump base wing of the Republican party is at on those issues, that`s a
problem for him.
And look, his presser tonight was obviously a very effective. He`s very
sincere, or sounds sincere. But I`m not sure that that rhetoric, that sort
of come together, kumbaya approach is going to be enough to get these guys
to shift their gears.

HAYES: The point is is that nothing -- the physics of this have not
changed at all. All the specific gravity of the items in motion have
remained totally unchanged.

It doesn`t matter what Paul Ryan, how much time he wants to spend with
his kids, which, by the way, is awesome and kudos to him for laying that
down as a marker. But, they don`t care.

COPPINS: I think this is the problem with this. This negotiating
tactic doesn`t work because the house freedom caucus doesn`t actually want
him to be speaker. They don`t care. So saying, I`m not going to do it
unless you guys give into my demands doesn`t get him anywhere.

HAYES: But then there`s a test to that, right? The test is what
happens next? Because if they really don`t care, if the kind of
institutional force the
Republican party is so withered and so atrophied and so at a kind of low
ebb, then maybe they say screw it, we`ll roll the dice at Daniel Webster or
Webber, and they
do that.

I think you and I both think that`s not going to happen.

COPPINS: No, I don`t. I would say after this press conference, I
think the biggest hurdle was this. I think him now saying publicly, I`m
willing to do the job, means he`s probably going to get the job.

HAYES: There`s something almost Shakespearean about this. I mean,
this guy`s been saying, I don`t want the job, I don`t want the job, I don`t
want the job. And everyone`s saying, you`re going to take the job, you`re
going to take the job, you`re going to take the job.

I mean, there is this kind of like dramaturgical force that seems to
be pulling Ryan towards the house speakership which he himself doesn`t
appear to have the power to resist.

WOODRUFF: It`s true. He`s like (inaudible). He just wants to go back
to the
farm. It`s kind of hard to watch, you know? This poor guy just getting his

HAYES: Well, let`s be clear. This poor guy who is about to be one of
the most powerful people in the world. He`s going to be third in line to
the president of the most powerful country on earth.

Whether he`s going to have a hard time with Raul Labrador raking him
the Kohl`s.

COPPINS: Don`t you feel like John Boehner`s spirit was broken by the
end of that? I wouldn`t want that.

HAYES: It ain`t bean bag. You know what I mean? It`s the big league,
This is how it works.

McKay Coppins and Betsy Woodruff, thank you both.

We will be right back.

WOODRUFF: Sure thing.


UNINTENDED MALE: I didn`t know what the event was tonight. If I knew
it was a Paul Ryan rally for speaker of the house, I wouldn`t be here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t want to step on Paul`s message. Basically
he said he wants party unity before he agrees to run. It certainly
resonated with me. I think any of the others have to speak for themselves.
I thought he did an excellent job, made a great presentation and again, I
don`t want to step on his message, but they should endorse him. I`ll leave
it at that.


HAYES: The last week`s Democratic presidential debate, former
Virginia Senator Jim Webb`s presidential campaign had been virtually
invisible, with Webb
holding few public appearances, and his campaign largely ignoring

But today, for the first time since he announced his presidential run
in July, Jim Webb finally held his first major press conference to tell
eager reporters, I`m dropping out of the Democratic race.


that my views on many issues are not compatible with the power structure in
the nominating base of the Democratic party.

For this reason, I`m withdrawing from any consideration of being the
Democratic party`s nominee for the presidency.


HAYES: Webb last seen complaining he wasn`t getting enough time to
speak in the debate is the first Democrat to drop out. He claimed today the
Democrats are too invested in, quote, "interest group politics," and
indicated he may run as an Independent.


WEBB: I`ve also had some very smart political people say that because
of the paralysis in our two parties, there is a time when conceivably an
candidacy actually could win.


HAYES: Fair enough. There are now five major candidates remaining in
the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O`Malley,
Lincoln Chafee and this man, Lawrence Lessig, who was excluded from last
week`s debate, and who is running on a single piece of legislation designed
to break up our current oligarchy and restore citizen equality.

Quixotic, sure. But why the heck not?

Lessig is often left out of national polls, but he was included in a
new poll
from Monmouth University, which found Lessig with 1% support.

Now, that may not seem like much, but it puts Lessig ahead of both
Lincoln Chafee and Martin O`Malley.



balance to our criminal justice system. We should make sure every police
department in the country has body cameras to record interactions between
officers on patrol and suspects.

That will improve transparency and accountability. It will help
protect good people on both sides of the lens.


HAYES: That was Hillary Clinton calling for police body cameras back
in April in the aftermath of Freddie Grays death in Baltimore and the
ensuing unrest.

Now the justice department is out with a fascinating new study that
examines the impact of police officers wearing body cameras. And some of
those findings are quite surprising. Stay with us.

HAYES: Recent study funded by the justice department on the impact of
body cameras when the Phoenix police department yielded some encouraging

Body worn cameras appeared to significantly reduce complaints against
officers. According to the study, officers equipped with body cameras
experienced a 23% drop in complaints against officers, while officers in a
comparison group without cameras had a 10% increase in complaints against

However, the study also found, quote, "the camera wearing officers
increased their average daily arrest activity by 42.6%, which is nearly
triple the increase
among comparison group officers of 14.9%.

Joining me now is Marq Claxton, director of the black law enforcement
alliance, and the former officer of the NYPD, Phillip Atiba Goff; he`s co-
founder and president for the center of policing equity.

And Dr. Goff, let me start with you. So, basically you have complaints
of excessive force going down in the group wearing cameras, but arrests
going way up in comparison to the group not wearing the cameras. Is that a
surprising result to

perspective, it`s actually not that surprising.

So what we expect is when people know that they`re on camera, they`re
to act in ways that they`re better able to justify. That means, we`re
taking away
some kinds of discretion. Right? So it`s less likely that I`m going to use
excessive force because I know folks are watching.

But if I`ve pulled somebody over, I then might become nervous that if
I don`t
charge them with something, then maybe I didn`t pull them over for a good
enough reason.

So, we`re kind of baiting officers into making more arrests for every
time they`re stopping and contacting someone.

There`s discretion that officers have that are actually in the
interests of justice.

HAYES: So Mark, does that jibe with the way that -- having been on
the job, that you think that`s what`s driving this data we`re seeing?

consistent with what I would I`d expect from the immediate reaction from
law enforcement, from police officers. You know, there`s an adjustment
that`s necessary here, especially when you`re talking about police
nationwide who are really in the midst of this increase in kind of
aggressive enforcement-based policing.

So, to make this adjustment and to still apply the proper amount of
discretion will be challenging.

But I suspect that months forward, years forward, there will be the
adjustment back down to the proper use of discretion, as well as the proper
use of enforcement.

HAYES: So you think -- so, that`s interesting. So your prediction is
here is that there is going to be a spike in arrests at the beginning, as
everyone says, I`m being monitored. If I pulled someone over, I have to go
through with the arrest because that essentially retroactively will justify
this stop, as opposed to say letting them go and someone`s going to second-
guess me.

But you think that will come back down over time?

CLAXTON: I believe so. I think initially what will happen in many of
these pilot cases is that the police officers who are wearing the body
cameras want to make sure they justify their existence. So, they will
necessarily increase their enforcement.

HAYES: Interesting.

CLAXTON: And decrease some of the interaction, some of the discretion
that`s used. But I think long-term, because discretion is a valuable part
of any enforcement model, and I think in time, that it will come back to
the point where
they`ll be more of a balance and more of an understanding about the proper
use of discretion as opposed to enforcement.

HAYES: This discretion question, Dr. Goff, it reminded me of
something we saw happening with sentencing guidelines. There was a sense
that there was a -- there was, empirically, huge racial disparity in the
sentences for black and white defendants.

One of the solutions was take discretion away from the judges, and
enforce equity by essentially giving mandatory minimums and sentencing

That of course was part of what played into this massive explosion in
incarceration. The Supreme Court would end up sort of overturning those
sentence guidelines. There`s a movement against mandatory minimums.

And I do wonder if we end up in a place of unintended consequences
with body cameras?

GOFF: We`re going to end up in a place of unintended consequences
with body cameras if we`re not careful how we put them out.

And, think about it this way. When was the last time that a civil
rights struggle was calling very loudly for more state surveillance? It`s a
very odd, kind of unique thing in our history.

I also want to challenge one other thing in terms of the good news of
the study, and I think there is some good news and some troubling news

The decrease in complaints is not necessarily an unambiguously good
news. In departments that we work with, when the community feels more trust
in law enforcement, complaints often go up. Because they`re complaining to
the people who are investigating themselves.

HAYES: We should just make the point that complaints and infractions
not the same thing.

GOFF: That`s exactly right.

HAYES: So, complaint doesn`t actual serve as a perfect measure. In
fact, it may be a deeply imperfect measure of the actual infractions that
are being
committed by officers in a given department.

GOFF: And, in this case, it actually might be fear of surveillance
and what else might you charge me with. So there`s a kind of intimidation
that comes from knowing that you`re on camera, even if you`re fairly
certain that you haven`t done
anything wrong. Right?

So we don`t know anything about that. These are a year long study --
the one in Phoenix, there`s another study that just came out in, I think
it`s Tampa Bay, in Florida, that`s a relatively smaller study.

So, we still need more data to get a sense of it. But all of this is
to say, it`s pretty ambiguous. And we haven`t started talking about the
really terrible possible consequences for privacy when we start giving
these kinds of cases out, and we have to start releasing these incidents to
the media. And it`s in somebody`s home, or there`s somebody in the
background in a bad situation.

So there`s way more to be talking about here. It will be negative,
unintended consequences if we`re not careful.

HAYES: Marq, the sense I have is that police officers are pretty
about this in the beginning, and I feel like the police officers that I`ve
been talking to have kind of either resigned themselves or come around on
body cameras.

What`s your sense on where cops are on this.

CLAXTON: You can fully expect and there was and will continue to be,
some pushback from the law enforcement community. I mean, look, let`s be
honest about it. I don`t think anyone`s really happy with increased
surveillance as Dr. Goff has just indicated. And, especially when you`re
talking about law enforcement community, as far as surveillance is

They have no problem with surveilling you, if they suspected you, or
surveilling you or areas speed cameras. They have no problem with that.

But, when you say listen, we`re going to just monitor the search
there`s always going to be that pushback.

But I think long-term, this will be accepted because it`s really a
tidal wave of support for body cameras. And I think people are realistic
and understand that
this is not the panacea. This is not the answer but it`s a key component in
long-term answers.

HAYES: Marq Claxton and Phillip Goff, thank you both gentlemen.

And that is All In for this evening. The 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