Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Wednesday, October 28th, 2015

Read the transcript from the Wednesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Date: October 28, 2015
Guest: David Feige, Carla Shedd, Robert Reich, Mark Sanford, Richard


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

officer Ben Fields was terminated from the Richland County Sheriff`s

HAYES: The officer who flipped and dragged a student in South
Carolina is relieved of duty, as the victim-blaming grows. .

LOTT: We must not lose sight that this whole incident started by this

HAYES: And Hillary Clinton`s tough talk on Wall Street.

STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW": If you are president --


COLBERT: -- and the banks are failing. Do we let them fail this

CLINTON: Yes. Yes.

COLBERT: We let them fail this time?

CLINTON: Yes. Yes.

HAYES: I`ll ask Robert Reich if he believes what we`re hearing.

Plus, Paul Ryan begins his vision quest.

REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: Our party has lost its vision, and
we`re going to replace it with a vision.

HAYES: Sir Richard Branson on the fight to end America`s war on
drugs, and why today`s runaway government blimp was actually a runaway
zombie blimp.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. We`ll stay on top of this very
disturbing story.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


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

A Columbia, South Carolina police officer who used heavy force in his
arrest of a Spring Valley high school student has been fired. Less than
two days after videos of that arrest went public, Sheriff Leon Lott of
Richland County, South Carolina, terminated Deputy Ben Fields following a
recommendation by the sheriff department`s training division.


LOTT: Their recommendation to me was the Deputy Fields did not follow
proper training, did not follow proper procedure when he threw the student
across the room. From the very beginning, that`s what`s caused me to be
upset. When I first saw that video and continue to upset me when I see
that video, is the fact he picked the student up, and he threw the student
across the room. That is not a proper technique, and should not be used in
law enforcement.

Based on that, that is a violation of our policy, and approximately 20
minutes ago, school resource officer Ben Fields was terminated from the
Richland County Sheriff`s Department.

When you make an arrest for someone who does not have a weapon, that
you need to escape from, you never let go of that subject, you maintain
control of the person you`re trying to arrest. When he threw her across
the room, he lost control of her. That`s not acceptable. That`s what
violated the policy.


HAYES: The findings of the training division to which Sheriff Lott
referred outlines what it views as acceptable and unacceptable use of

The memo the training division findings reading in part, "when dealing
with a suspect who is refusing to get out of a seated position and is not a
threat to anyone, deputies are trained to use tactical communications to
try to talk them into compliance. If that fails, the training division
teaches pain compliance techniques, such as pressure point control or joint
locks, i.e. transport wrist lock. If those techniques fail, or if the
deputy has reason to believe they will not work, a straight bar or takedown
may be used. The training division does not train deputies to throw or
push away a suspect unless the goal is to disengage from the suspect
because the suspect is attempting to harm the deputy."

We`ve reached out to Deputy Fields through his attorneys to invite him
to appear in our show, the statement from Deputy Fields` attorney reads in
part, "We believe that Mr. Fields` actions were justified and lawful
throughout the circumstances of which he was confronted during this
incident. To that extent, we believe that Mr. Fields` actions were carried
out professionally, and that he was performing within his job duties within
the legal threshold."

Today, Sheriff Lott reiterated the student refused to leave the class
when a both a teacher and an administrator asked her to and refused again
when the school resource officer asked her to.

Sheriff Lott returned to the issue of what he saw as her
responsibility to the situation several times.


LOTT: She was very disruptive. She was very disrespectful, and she
started this whole incident with her actions. We must not lose sight that
this whole incident started by the student. She is responsible for
initiating this action.

Now, what she did doesn`t justify what our deputy did. I don`t want
anyone to think that. It doesn`t justify his actions. But she needs to be
held responsible for what she did.

Our students must be in an educational environment, and it`s the
responsibility of everyone to make sure it`s that way. It starts with the
parents, goes through the students, goes through all of us.

This needs to be a learning opportunity for all of us. We need to
talk to our kids that sometimes young people make bad decisions and they
should be held accountable for that. And that they should have discipline,
and they should have respect, they should have that everywhere, but it`s
particularly in our schools.

She wasn`t following the instructions of the teacher. There were
certain things the students were supposed to be doing, and I think they had
chrome books that they were supposed to be studying from and doing
something that`s education related. She was not doing that. She was using
her phone. He had asked her to put it out. She continued to do it. She
wasn`t doing what the other students were doing.


HAYES: Last night, Niya Kenny, another student at Spring Valley was
our guest. She was also arrested while trying to stand up for the student
being detained and she referenced allegations about Officer Fields`


NIYA KENNY, STUDENT: I`ve heard about him. So, I wasn`t really
surprised, because I`ve heard so much about him. So, before he came to
class, I was actually telling them take out your cameras. I feel like this
is going to go downhill, because I`ve heard so much about him.

He`s known as officer slam around our school. I`ve heard he`s in the
past slammed pregnant women, teenage girls. He`s known for slamming.


HAYES: Obviously, those are serious allegations and we`re in the
process of trying to authenticate them. We do not have independent

Today, NBC News spoke with another student who witnessed the incident
who did offer a different description of Officer Fields` reputation.


that he`s a good resource officer. And he`s not racist. He`s not racist
at all, because he coached a diverse football team, and he spoke to every
student, even when they didn`t (INAUDIBLE), he still kept it moving. He
didn`t have like -- he wasn`t a mean person. He never had attitude with


HAYES: Joining me now, MSNBC national correspondent Joy Reid.

Well, what did you make of that press conference today?

interesting that the sheriff focused so much on tactics. Obviously, I
think in situations where there is use of force by an officer, we have seen
repeatedly, there`s a great reluctance on the part of police forces, on the
part of whoever is involved, to come down on the officer and question their

And so, in this case, it seemed to be a very painful thing for this
sheriff to do. This officer did report to the sheriff`s office, and so he
focused on the specific tactics about how an officer is required to handle
a subject. All of it is very surreal, because I think it`s easy to forget
you are talking about the suspect being a kid that`s in class and the fact
that the violation of law that is codified in the South Carolina law, this
disrupting school law was passed in 1976, literally legislates around kids
being naughty in class. That`s just bizarre.

So, to talk about this in terms of the grappling and holding tactics
is odd.

HAYES: Yes. I mean, I -- it`s been fascinating to watch the reaction
of this because a lot of people are talking about it. People on the
Internet, people just in conversations about it, they are people I would
say more than I would have anticipated say, well, you know, you can`t
disrupt class, you know, and you need discipline.

And all I said, look, yes, sure, you should listen to your teacher. I
mean, sure, that`s a true thing, but also -- it also strikes me like this
happens, I don`t know, tens of thousands of times a day across high schools
in America all the time?

REID: Yes.

HAYES: Presumably there are ways they get resolved without someone
being thrown to the ground.

REID: Without being thrown to the ground. And I think back to even
just being in high school, and remember, there were also disruptive kids.
There was also a class clown, or someone who doesn`t listen. In this case,
the young lady had significant personal and emotional issues as well.

And so, when you throw a police officer into the mix, and keep in
mind, the SRO program that was started throughout the country in the `50s
and `60s was originally started as a way to improve relationships between
kids and cops, to bring them and mix them in the school environment. In
this case, this SRO didn`t just walk around being a cop, he actually
coached and was a strength trainer in the football team. So, these SROs
are coaching and teaching kids. The SROs in my kids` school used to teach
soccer and were coaching. And so, they`re trying to put them into the
school mix as almost a friendly face of law enforcement, an officer
friendly program.

HAYES: You hear that from the other student. I actually saw someone
else on Twitter, I think was in the class. People obviously had different
views of this officer --

REID: Yes.

HAYES: -- because of the way they interfaced with him, whether in a
friendly role or in a role like we saw there.

REID: So it`s an awkward position to put the police officers in, they
are sworn officers, the police officers. Then when they`re shifting from
coach mode and friendly officer mode into actual law enforcement, as if
this is a crime on the street mode, it`s a really awkward I think position
to put any police officer in, to begin with.

HAYES: Yes. But also, I`ve got to say, in the reaction to this, and
I try to be open minded, but in reaction, you know, if someone pointed this
out, you know, if this was a video of a parent doing to this kid --

REID: They would be in jail.

HAYES: I mean, you would not have your kid --

REID: And they`re actually --

HAYES: And I think that`s because we have a kind of social consensus
that you don`t lay hands on kids unless they`re immediate danger to
someone, right? I mean, that`s just how we have kind of come to where we
are, I thought.

REID: All teachers will tell you they cannot put their hands on a
child. If the teacher had thrown that child across the room, that teacher
would have been escorted out. I`ve seen that actually happened when I was
a kid in elementary school and there was a teacher who lost control and
threw a teacher across the room that hit a kid. He didn`t even throw at
the kid, but he was marched out of that school. Never came back.

These kinds of things are prohibited. Teachers can`t even touch

So, there is this question of, I don`t know why people seem to see
this as just a disciplinary thing that the young girl instigated, when
naughtiness in school, not behaving is not something uncommon, introducing
this law enforcement aspect which again is under South Carolina law, it
just introduces a bizarre element. I can`t see this as a workable way to
conduct school.

HAYES: We`ll talk about that right now, Joy Reid, thank you very
much. Appreciate it.

REID: Thank you.

HAYES: All right. Joining me, David Feige. He`s a former public
defender, and author of "Indefensible", and Carla Shedd, assistant
professor of sociology and African-American studies at Columbia University,
author of "Unequal City: Race, Schools, and the Perception of Injustice."

David, let me start with you, Joy has referenced this. I think in
some ways, aside from the shocking nature of the sort of physical assault,
or whatever you want to call what happened there, the fact that that girl
and the other girl are charged with the law, it`s called disturbing
schools, which I don`t -- it`s unclear to me why you need separate
statutory criminal authority to prosecute someone for disturbing schools
when if they`re doing something criminal in the school, you can just
persecute them for that.

DAVID FEIGE, FMR. PUBLIC DEFENDER: Exactly. I think the short answer
is, you don`t. The corollary is that`s exactly these kinds of laws that
are dangerous and most often get misused.

HAYES: What do you mean by that?

FEIGE: Well, look, there`s a particular danger to a law like don`t be
obnoxious in school, which is literally what this thing says. It uses the
word "obnoxious", OK? Now, I don`t know about you, but pretty much
somebody has obnoxious in every single classroom I`ve ever been in ever.

HAYES: David, you may possibly --

FEIGE: Oh, for sure.

HAYES: I mean, I like you quite a bit. But I imagine you at one
point might have been obnoxious?

FEIGE: I might have been big to throw with such alacrity. But
obnoxious? Guilty as charged.

That said, when you have laws this broad and this vague, everybody is
violating them all the time.

HAYES: That`s right.

FEIGE: And when everyone is always violating them, the question
becomes who do you enforce against? And we`ve seen it with loitering laws.
We`ve seen it with disorderly conduct laws. All of these vague laws become
proxies for unconscious race bias and systemic bias. And so, what winds up
happening is this broad, broad laws get enforced unequally.

HAYES: Carla, this is actually something that you write about, you`ve
written a book about, right? Does that jibe with what your research says
about how this goes down in schools?

CARLA SHEDD, AUTHOR, "UNEQUAL CITY": That is exactly in alignment
with what I saw in my years of Chicago public schools and thinking about
the disparate enforcement of laws in schools in particular populations.
It`s unequal. It is not random, but almost it`s very targeted in a way at
certain types of behaviors done by certain types of children.

HAYES: Elaborate.

SHEDD: So there might be a way in which we looks as girls and
criminalize them for talking loud or acting out. We`ve seen this in the
suspension rates being much higher for black girls. We see the way that we
might read a black boy running and think that he might be running from
committing a crime instead of racing a friend.

I think there are many ways that the criminal lens or criminal gaze
has been sort of used on our young people and then there are consequences
that are both legal and psychological.

HAYES: Right. And more than gaze, right? I think we have shifted or
policy over the last 20 or 30 years, right? We`ve shifted policy to school
discipline being increasingly enforced by the criminal justice system, cops
coming in, making arrests. You know, I did not go to particularly rough
schools, you know, but there were fighting.

SHEDD: Did you have metal detectors?

HAYES: No, but there were fights. I`ve watched fights. I`ve been in
fights. I mean, you know, a fight is an assault, I mean, that`s a criminal
infraction, but no one -- no one understood a fight. I mean, a fight is a
terrible things and being in an unsafe school is a terrible thing. We
should just make very clear, right? I mean, the threat of violence in the
schools are really horrible way to try to learn. It`s bad to the teachers,
for the administrators, for the students. All that is true.

It`s also true that the violence that happens between teenagers
sometimes with fight or something else or disruption is different from how
we think about criminal infraction.

SHEDD: Right. The school is the site for what should be education,
but instead you bring in what I call carceral apparatus into the space, you
have police officers, you have metal detectors, you have kids who are
patted down. Every school in Chicago has two police officers there, but
they operate differently, depending on the school context. So, if you have
police there, they will enforce the law.

HAYES: That, David, everything sort of hammer and nails aspect to

FEIGE: Exactly, exactly right. I want to broaden that point, Chris,
because the truth is it`s not just schools. We have got this reflexive
desire to use the criminal justice system in broader and broader ways, in
broader and broader places.

We haven`t just seen it in schools. We`ve seen it in the mental
health arena. We`ve seen this in homelessness. All the of the social ills
that we perceive are quick fixes, let`s bring in the cops. Let`s use the
criminal law.

It is the worst tool imaginable to solve subtle social ills.

HAYES: This is the thing that struck me today watching the sheriff.
When I watched the sheriff -- he`s out there, this is a guy who`s sheriff
of the county, all right? You know, he`s got -- there`s all sorts of
probably terrible violent things that are happening and crimes he wants to
solve, and he`s talking about, well, I think she was supposed to be using a
chrome book, on her phone. This is not -- the sheriff shouldn`t be having
-- involved in whether she was properly doing her assignment.

It just struck me that, you know -- this is what we ask law
enforcement to do.

FEIGE: Right.


SHEDD: It shows how these systems have been meshed. If you have a
sheriff talking about how a child should act in a classroom, what does that
mean for enforcement of classroom policy, classroom management? You`re
bringing in police officers to escalate a situation, which should have been
de-escalated by perhaps asking her, is something going on at home? Is
there something that you`re needing to know about where you have your phone

There are ways in which teachers can do that, but they`re no longer in
control of the kids` bodies, that`s been moved to police officers.

HAYES: And let`s also just say, like I said to Joy, thousands of
times a day in high schools and schools across the country, teachers,
administrators and do successfully do just that. But this is not how all
these end up, thankfully.

David Feige and Carla Shedd, thank you both.

SHEDD: Thank you.

FEIGE: My pleasure.

HAYES: All right. Coming up, no bank bailouts in the Clinton
administration, according to Hillary. She`ll let them fail if another
financial crisis hits. A look at how realistic that promise will be.

Plus, why today`s spectacle of a loose blimp renewed scrutiny of
defense spending. The zombie blimp explained ahead.

And later, what is Sir Richard Branson, the billionaire, doing taking
about drug policy and criminal justice reform. My interview with him



RACHEL MADDOW, TRMS: You don`t have the nomination, and there was
already a sitting Republican member of Congress from Alabama, Mo Brooks,
who says that he is ready to impeach you on the first day of your


CLINTON: Isn`t that pathetic? It`s just laughable!

MADDOW: It`s amazing.

CLINTON: It`s so totally ridiculous.

MADDOW: But that is where the Republican Party is.

CLINTON: That is where they are.

MADDOW: That`s probably good politics in Republican politics for him
to say that.

CLINTON: Well, it`s -- it perhaps is good politics with the -- you
know, the most intense, extreme part of their base. I guess that is, or
otherwise why would they be doing it?


HAYES: That was Hillary Clinton speaking with my colleague Rachel
Maddow last Friday. Today, it appears the most intense extreme part of the
GOP base that Clinton references, those voters would be attracted to talk
of her immediate impeachment is actually pretty big.

At least in North Carolina, according to a new poll, 66 percent of
North Carolina Republicans would support impeachment Clinton on the day she
takes office, just 24 percent fewer than 1 in 4 Republicans would oppose
impeaching Clinton on a day she is sworn into office.


HAYES: Last night in an appearance on "The Late Show with Stephen
Colbert", Hillary Clinton had tough words for Wall Street.


COLBERT: If you are president --


COLBERT: -- and the banks are failing. Do we let them fail this

CLINTON: Yes. Yes.

COLBERT: We let them fail this time?

CLINTON: Yes. Yes.


CLINTON: Yes. First of all, under Dodd/Frank, that is what will
happen, because we now have stress tests, and I`m going on impossible a
risk fee on the big bank if they engage in risky behavior. But they have
to know, their shareholders have to know that, yes, they will fail, and if
they`re too big to fail, then under my plan and others have been proposed,
they may have to be broken up.


HAYES: Who will be the toughest on the banks and who is too close to
them has become a key fight in Democratic race for president. The reason
is because seven years after the worst financial crisis since the Great
Depression, five years since Dodd/Frank, the biggest piece of financial
reform since the New Deal, it`s genuinely unclear if he fixed the problem.
I mean, cold it all blow up again?

Bernie Sanders and Martin O`Malley are both in favor of reviving
Glass-Steagall, that`s a law that separated vanilla commercial banks that
take deposits from the much riskier investment banks. And whose repeal
signed by former President Bill Clinton is seen by some observers as
helping cause it is financial crisis.

The candidates pressed their case in the first Democratic debate.


proud to support you eight years ago, but something happened in between.
That is, Anderson, a Wall Street crash that wiped out millions of jobs and
millions of savings for families, and we are still just as vulnerable.
Paul Volcker says today. We need to reinstate Glass-Steagall, and that`s a
huge difference on stage among us as candidates.

CLINTON: I`m with both Senator Sanders and Governor O`Malley putting
a lot of attention on the banks. The plan I put forward would allow
regulators to break up big banks if we thought they posed a risk.


HAYES: All right. That said, Hillary Clinton`s campaign made it
known back in July, she would not propose reinstating the Glass-Steagall
Act. Instead, looking to give regulators the authority they need to
reorganize, downsize or even break apart any financial institutions too
large or risky to be managed effectively.

Joining me now, Robert Reich, labor secretary under President Bill
Clinton and chancellor professor of public policy at the University of
California, Berkeley. His new book is called "Saving Capitalism For the
Many, Not the Few."

All right. I saw that response, and I you may be saying that now, and
Bernie Sanders may say that now, Martin O`Malley, anyone might say that
now. It`s a whole different thing when the chips are down as we learned
when the actual crisis happy? Do you believe that? Are we at a point
where we actually would let a big, something like Citi, fail?

ROBERT REICH, FORMER LABOR SECRETARY: Well, we`re not going to let
the banks fail, Chris, because they are so big. They`re much bigger now
than they were before the financial crisis, before they almost melted down
the entire economy.

The five biggest banks in the United States right now, before the
financial crisis in 2007-2008, they had about 25 percent of all banking
assets in America. Now, they`ve got 45 percent of all banks assets. So,
the five biggest banks are -- pose a systemic risk. That`s why no matter
who is in the White House, they will not allow those big banks to fail.
They can`t fail.

But that`s why they have to be broken up. And that is why -- now,
Bernie Sanders is saying we have to break up the big banks right away.
Hillary Clinton is fairly close. She says if they are risky enough --

HAYES: Right.

REICH: She would break them up. But that`s actually a difference
that is pretty significant.

HAYES: OK. But didn`t we take -- I mean, look, we had Dodd/Frank.
Dodd/Frank is a -- I remember covering Dodd/Frank quite closely when I was
in Washington, I was with "The Nation", and it`s a quite complicated piece
of legislation, but part of it was designed to say, look, you know, we just
saw what happened. This is going to help to make sure it never happens

It basically says the big banks you have to tell us we`re going to
liquidate you if you start to go under, right? We`re going to do to you
what the FDIC does all the time with commercial banks, write what`s called
a living will, basically, how your own demise would proceed?

I mean, wasn`t the idea that we can do this?

REICH: Well, they were all supposed to write living wills, and then
what happened was last summer they came up with living wills and the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Fed looked at those living
wills and said, nope, not good enough. It still poses too much of a risk.
You`re still too big to fail. They came back again. They have to
resubmitted their living wills.

It`s not clear they`re much better. In other words, there`s no teeth
in any federal regulator to say, well, if you don`t provide a living will
that`s gull enough you`re going to be what? You`re going to be liquidated?

HAYES: Here`s the elemental problem, it seems to me, from how I
understand this. It gets back to Hillary Clinton, I think honest answer,
Colbert -- I mean, that is her policy and that`s what she would like to do
as president. It`s a question of power more than a question of policy,
right? We saw what happened, how much power the banks had in a real raw
and elemental sense when they almost went under. How much everyone was
panicked, that`s the kind of core issue.

REICH: Yes, it`s economic power, but it`s also political power. It`s
economy power in the sense if you got five big banks with 45 percent of all
banks assets in the United States and they`re intertwined with every other
bank and every other financial institution and every other big corporation,
well, if one of those really looked like it was in danger, and they`re that
big, you just can`t let them go understand. We might want to let them go
under, but economically (INAUDIBLE).

But also politically, Chris, when you get that big, you have a lot of
political power in Washington. Where do you think a lot of the
contributions are coming from? They`re coming from Wall Street,
particularly from the biggest banks.

HAYES: All right. Robert Reich, always a pleasure. Thank you.

REICH: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Coming up, Paul Ryan gets the nomination for speaker, but will
the Freedom Caucus finally back him? Well, Representative Mark Sanford, a
member of that caucus, will join me live to talk about it.


HAYES: The GOP led house is refusing to let go of the supposed
IRS scandal, despite the Justice Department concluding a two-year
investigation last week without bringing any charges.

Yesterday, house oversight committee chairman Jason Chaffetz, who you
will remember from his recent grilling of Planned Parenthood Cecile
Richards, introduced an impeachment resolution against this guy, IRS
commissioner John Koskinen, who Chaffetz claimed failed to comply with the
subpoena, allowed documents to be destroyed and misled the public --

Now, Koskinen has been a regular target of GOP lawmakers since the
supposed scandal first broke.



JOHN KOSKINEN, IRS COMMISSIONER: That`s fine. We can have a
I`m willing to stand on our record.

RYAN: Being forthcoming is to say, you know what, investigators,
congress who`s investigating --

KOSKINEN: Will you let him answer the question?

RYAN: I didn`t ask him a question.


HAYES: Okay, a few notes here.

First off, we have known that there wasn`t any their to the IRS
scandal since all the way back in June 2013, when it was revealed that the
IRS had scrutinized
a broad array of groups, seeking tax-exempt status, not just Tea Party

Indeed, it has screened some groups because they had the word
"progressive" in their names.

Then there`s the fact the Justice Department last week, while there
was mismanagement at the IRS, there was no evidence the GOP punching bag
and former IRS official, Lois Lerner, or anyone else at the IRS had
targeted a political group because of its views.

Quote, "we found no evidence that any IRS officials acted on
political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that
would support a criminal prosecution.

But, none of that has stopped impeachment hungry house Republicans. As
ranking member of the house oversight and government reform committee,
Cummings, who has to be getting pretty tired of this kind of thing by now,
said today, "this ridiculous resolution will demonstrate nothing but the
Republican obsession with diving into investigative rabbit holes that waste
tens of millions of tax payer dollars, while having absolutely no positive
impact on a single American.

Even Fox News conservative commentator, Charles Krauthammer, is not


CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS: Look, this is not going to end well.
Republicans have demonstrated -- if the have demonstrated anything,
Republicans in the congress have shown that they have no ability to conduct
successful investigations of this administration. Everything they have
touched has failed or backfired.


HAYES: Well, nobody said there wasn`t going to be a silver lining.


HAYES: House Republicans today nominated Paul Ryan to be the new
speaker of the house, replacing John Boehner, who is expected to formally
step down this week after a tumultuous month following his announcement
that he plans to resign from congress.

Ryan, who long maintained he didn`t want the job, got 200 votes in a
closed-door meeting in the GOP caucus, short of the 218 he needs to be
elected by the full house tomorrow, though, Republicans are confident Ryan
will pick up backers now that he`s a nominee, and be elected with room to

Ryan`s closest competitor in today`s vote was Representative Daniel
Webster of Florida, the one-time favorite of the far right freedom caucus,
that has been at the heart of GOP`s house unrest. Webster got 43 votes, and
no one else got more than one.

After today`s speaker vote, Ryan appeared before the cameras to say a
new era had dawned.


RYAN: Tomorrow we are turning the page. We are not going to have a
house that looked like it looked the last two years. We are going to move
We are going to unify.


HAYES: Also today, the house voted to pass a sweeping two-year budget
deal that was cut between the leaders in congress and the White House.

The deal calls for an increase of $80 billion in federal spending
over two years, it also cuts Medicare payments to doctors and tightened
eligibility requirements to the Social Security disability program, which
already rejects a large number of its applicants.

Crucially, the deal would also raise the federal borrowing limit until
March 2017, avoiding a potential debt default and significantly reducing
the risk of government shutdown.

Now, the bill passed with the support of all 187 Democrats, as well as
Republicans, but 167 Republicans, the majority of the caucus, voted against
the bill, which now heads to the Senate, where it is expected to pass.

Paul Ryan, who helped negotiate the last budget agreement in 2013, was
among the Republicans who voted yes today, despite opposition from much of
his caucus.
Ryan cast his yes vote despite expressing frustration yesterday over how
the deal was ironed out.


RYAN: If you want to ask me what I think about this process, I think
this process stinks. Under new management we are not going to run the house
this way.

We should have been discussing this months ago as members, so that we
a more coherent strategy.


HAYES: Joining me now, Republican Representative, Mark Sanford of
South Carolina, a member of the freedom caucus who voted no today on the
budget deal.

Congressman, say what you will about the freedom caucus, and people
say things, you are not dumb, you are a smart group of people, you are
quite savvy, in fact. You obviously understand this whole thing was kabuki,
right? I mean, clearly Boehner was going to roll you guys. He`s clearly
going to bring it to the floor, pass it to the Democrats, take it off the
table, make sure no debt default, make sure the budget gets passed.

Ryan, of course, signed off on it, and then he pretends he`s upset
about it.

Didn`t you get rolled today?

think the taxpayers in general got rolled today, whether you`re Republican,
Democratic or Independent in political focus. What I think we`d all agree
on would be on, this is not the way that the (inaudible) process ought to
work in Washington, D.C.

Ryan just alluded to that in the clip that you just played, saying,
wait a minute, this process stinks. I think were his words.

Two, anytime you look at a trillion and a half of basically new sign-
off on
debt, there ought to be more contemplation, more look, more review than a
48-hour window, which is all that members of congress got.

So, I think we all got rolled ultimately, and that`s why I voted no
and others voted no.

HAYES: Here`s what I think, here`s one way in which it did look like
how I would anticipate this body working. Which is, there`s 435 members,
and a majority
supported it, and it came to a vote and that majority passed it.

Now, what we have seen over the last two years is a variety of
legislation that people say has a majority vote, the immigration
legislation, which doesn`t get to the floor, which means that it can`t get
past, even though a majority of the
duly elected House of Representatives of this great nation want to see it
get a
vote, want to see it voted on. Shouldn`t that change, too?

SANFORD: I don`t know. That`s a big debate we`re going to have over
the weeks ahead. It ultimately has much to do about Ryan being elected
Speaker of the House, because really what`s at play here is whether power
is centralized within the house, or whether it`s more diffused.

The system that you looked in place, the `70s and into the `80s,
really changed in the early `90s, was power being diffused to the
committees themselves, and if a committee chairman was really against
something he could bottle it up. That really changed with the Newt Gingrich
and the quote, "Republican revolution" in `94, when more power got swept up
and was centralized at the leadership level, the speakership level. And
what you see now is decent against that.

So, what I would agree with on is that ideas ought to make their way
through the committee process. What I suspect we might disagree on is
whether or not power
should be centralized at the leadership and speaker level. Because if not,
if that`s the case, many of us as representatives, all of whom represent
about 750,000 people in some swath of the United States, become nothing
more than minions in sort of doing the work of leadership.

I don`t think that`s what representative government is about. I think
there probably makes sense, to the idea of -- in fact, some ideas get
bottled up at the committee level, because that means that power more
diffused as opposed to centralized.

HAYES: So, here`s the question. The question is rather that`s a
reform agenda in terms of where the power is located that Paul Ryan is
going to pursue.
Which would be essentially devolving power away from himself, which I guess
is a first of everything.

Are you going to vote for him tomorrow and is he going to get the

SANFORD: Yes, he will, and yes, I will vote for him tomorrow.

HAYES: So, what was this whole -- what was the voting for Daniel
Webster today? Is this a sort of symbol? Is this a high inside fastball to
leadership, basically saying, we`re watching you? What was that about?

SANFORD: I think that probably too many people read too much into the
tea leaves there. I don`t think there were a lot of tea leaves there.

I think it was a handful of folks, in this case almost 50, that had a
dissent vote, perhaps they needed to protect themselves in their home
district and they wanted to say, you know, my first choice was Webster, but
since he didn`t make it in the caucus I`ll now support the speaker on the
floor vote.

I suspect his vote count will rise tomorrow, and I think he`ll be
speaker come tomorrow.

HAYES: Well, it`s got to rise or he won`t be speaker.

Congressman finally, I have you here, you represent South Carolina,
and obviously there`s been a lot of attention paid to the videotape of the
resource officer and the girl in that Spring Valley High School. I`m just
curious what your reaction was when you saw that video?

SANFORD: I think the reaction is the same as anybody else, which is
shock and horror. It seems like a gross overplay of law enforcement
strength relative to a student there in the classroom.

And one frankly of frustration, in the sense of real tragedy. It`s a
tragedy that the teacher can`t be more in charge of the classroom, such
that when they ask
somebody to get off the cell phone they don`t do it. It`s a tragedy for the
kids that are trying to learn. And they say, well, somebody wants to talk
on their cell phone throughout classroom period --

So, I think it`s probably an indictment on some of what`s going on in
the education system, it`s an indictment on the loss of control there at
the teacher level, which is so important to learning, and it`s certainly an
overplay by this officer`s hands, which is why I think he was removed,
appropriately so, by Sheriff
Leon Lott, the sheriff there in county.

HAYES: All right. Congressman Mark Sanford, thanks for your time

SANFORD: Yes, sir.

HAYES: Up next, as Marco Rubio tries to convince the nation he should
be the next president, a major newspaper in his home state doesn`t think
he`s doing a good enough job as their senator. That story is ahead.



presidential politics, people, when they`ve been running for politics, in
the Senate, they
miss votes. And, I`m not missing votes because I`m on vacation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But this many votes?

RUBIO: Actually, this is lower than what other people have missed.

I`m running for president so that the votes they take in the Senate
actually meaningful again.


HAYES: Senator Marco Rubio has missed 74 votes since he announced he
was running for president, and his home state is starting to notice.

The Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board, which endorsed Rubio when he
ran for Senate five years ago, is now accusing him -- is now calling on him
to quit if he doesn`t want to do his job.

In an op-ed titled, Marco Rubio should resign, not rip us off, the
newspaper tears into the junior senator, telling him, quote, "Floridians
sent you to Washington to do a job". Adding, "by choosing to stay in the
Senate and get the publicity, perks and pay that go with the position -
without doing the work - you are taking advantage of us." And concluding,
"your job is to represent Floridians in the Senate. Either do your job,
Senator Rubio, or resign it."



unmanned, unpropelled radar hub, and it is an enormous balloon. Helium
fills it in different
chambers, they are usually tethered.


HAYES: Residents in parts of Pennsylvania were greeted by a strange
sight in the sky this afternoon. A military surveillance blimp, longer than
two football fields that came loose from its mooring and managed to float
all the way from
Aberdeen Proving Ground, a military installation outside Baltimore, to
somewhere near Muncie, Pennsylvania, over 100 miles away. A path that may
have included
parts of Amish country, if this photo is any indication.

Two F-16 fighter jets were scrambled from an air national guard base
in New Jersey to monitor the blimp, which was trailing around 670 feet of
cable, snapping
power lines and causing about 30,000 outages, according to local utility.

To most onlookers, the sight of a giant blimp overhead may have come
as a shock, but to longtime observers of the Pentagon budgeting process,
that specific aircraft is a legendary icon of wasted bureaucracy.

Last month the LA Times published an in-depth report on the joint land
attack cruise missile defense elevated netted sensor system, JLENS for
short. The Pentagon`s 2.7 billion blimp program, which has consistently
failed to detect intruders in American airspace, including a Florida postal
worker who managed to fly his gyrocopter over Washington, landing on the
lawn of the U.S. capitol, to protest big money in election.

According to the report, army leaders tried to kill the program in
2010, but it was saved allegedly after lobbying by a member of the joint
chiefs of staff, a general who went on to sit on the board of the programs
main contractor.

The result, according to the LA Times, is, quote, "17 years after its
birth, JLENS is a stark example of what defense specialists call a zombie
program, costly,
ineffectual and seemingly impossible to kill."

While the program lives on, however, the escaped blimp was not so
lucky. After starting to deflate, the blimp eventually came down on its


HAYES: Sir Richard Branson is a billionaire. He`s made a fortune
through Virgin Airlines, Virgin Records, dozens of other companies. He`s
also a philanthropist speaking out on everything from climate change to
education to the war on drugs.

He was in New York this week talking about the need to reform drug
policy in criminal justice, and I got a chance to ask him why.


HAYES: What`s the motivation for someone who is, you know, not an
American, not someone who is enmeshed in the world of people that are
chewed up by the criminal justice system. Where does your passion on this
issue come from?

SIR RICHARD BRANSON, PHILANTHROPIST: I think any of us who are lucky
enough to get ourselves into a position in life where we can make a
difference, it will
be a waste of our life if we didn`t.

So, you know, I have financial resources. I`ve managed -- I have a
persona, so you`ve got involved in a lot of issues in the world where I can
hopefully make a difference.

As far as the criminal justice system globally, I think there`s a lot
of things that are wrong with it, and a lot of that stems from the war on
drugs that was started in America nearly 60 years ago, has been an abject
failure, and I`m
part -- on the global drug commission. I think with one voice we believe
that particular law needs to be changed.

HAYES: In the American context I think we think about it in terms of
the impact it has on American citizens, particularly in areas of people
that are struggling, poverty, but obviously we`ve also -- in launching the
war on drugs we`ve exported the problem in many ways. We created
criminality around the world as well.

BRANSON: Yes, there are enormous numbers of deaths in South America
or in other parts of the world as a result for the demand for drugs here in
America. And as a result of Americans` draconian drug policies that they
have imposed on the rest of the world.

You know, at the very time when America is actually, to an extent
beginning to decriminalize some drugs, they still are not having that kind
of approach on countries overseas, and people in countries overseas are
still suffering enormously.

HAYES: In fact, the U.S. will leverage it`s diplomatic power with
other countries to make sure they don`t do things like decriminalize, even
while our own states are sort of running these experiments.

BRANSON: Yes, it`s very strange. I actually know of prime ministers
overseas who are frightened about doing what they believe to be the right
thing, and that is treating their citizens who have drug problems with
dignity and giving them health advice, and they`re worried about doing that
because they`re worried that their other citizens will be penalized when
they come through customs coming into America, and that there would be an
inordinate amount of pressure put on them by the American government.

From the global drug commissions point of view, we`re just hopeful
that as America effectively does decriminalize, and obviously with
marijuana, legalize in a
number of states, that the initial feedback from those experiments is
positive. We don`t see a large increase in numbers of people taking drugs.

And that, in time, we`ll get America to start treating countries
overseas with a big of dignity and humanity.

HAYES: It`s fascinating to hear you say that you`ve had conversations
literally with world leaders who are worried about the American response to
them moving in that direction.

I mean, how important is American leadership both in terms of
launching the drug war and reforming or scaling it back or getting rid of

BRANSON: President Nixon launched the drug war, and obviously Ronald
Reagan very much continued that war and, you know they have used the U.N.
and they`ve used their power on a global basis to enact it, despite the
fact that it`s been going for 60 years, it`s been failing for 60 years.
And, as a businessman, if I had had a business failing for one year I would
have closed it down 59 years ago.

So, I think pretty much every politician I`ve talked to on a one to
one basis acknowledge it`s a failure. Pretty well every politician I`ve
talked to on a one to one basis, I say to them, would you want your
brothers and sisters, or would you want your children criminalized if they
had a drug problem, or would you want them
helped? Every one of them will say, I would want them helped.

But when it comes to actually doing the right thing for their
citizens, they generally don`t seem to act upon it, or they don`t have the
courage to act upon it.

HAYES: It`s funny you personalize it that way, because one of the
things the president has spoken about with regards to this, his own drug
use, and also in periods of his life where things kind of could have gone
either way, right, but for the grace of god, I had the right support system
at this moment. And I always wonder if people like yourself, who are as
successful as yourself, when you run back the loop of your life, you think
about these moments where if things has broken a different way, if you had
not had this person or this institution supporting you at that moment, you
could have ended up in a very different place.

BRANSON: Absolutely. I had an issue when I was a teenager with a tax
man, and if my mother couldn`t have afforded to put up her house up to stop
me from going and spending a few weeks in prison waiting for the case,
Virgin may never have been born.

So, I`m a great believer in giving people a second chance, and you
know, we as a company, we make the point of trying to employ ex-convicts.
We have not had one reoffend, and we try to encourage other companies to do
the same.


HAYES: 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