Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Wednesday, November 11th, 2015

Read the transcript from the Wednesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Date: November 11, 2015
Guest: Chris Murphy, Julian Castro, Sherrod Brown, Sabrina Siddiqui, Sam


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

was an elegant evening.

HAYES: It was a night of elegance and benevolence.

JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, Donald, for allowing
me to speak at the debate. That`s really nice of you. I really appreciate

HAYES: A day after the fourth Republican debate, how Donald Trump is
defending his latest immigration bombshell.

TRUMP: We`re going to have a deportation force. And you`re going to
do it humanely.

HAYES: Then, Senator Chris Murphy on what we learned about Republican
foreign policy.

DR. BEN CARSON (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So we have to be saying,
how do we make them look like losers?

HAYES: Senator Sherrod Brown on the GOP trouble with the Obama

And why some of the night`s biggest applause lines just don`t add up.

money than philosophers.

HAYES: All that and shocking new video showing a man handcuffs,
tased, and dying in police custody.

When ALL IN starts right now.


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

Last night, the Republican candidates got the debate they said they
wanted, but the moderators largely declining to press the candidates on
often dubious claims, and the candidates regularly ignoring the moderator`s
questions in favor of a truncated version of their stump speech.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the candidates all said they loved it.


CARSON: I thought it was excellent. It was not about the moderators.
It was about the candidates.

stuck to the issues. I think each had time to make our point.

BUSH: I thought the moderators asked really good questions. They
weren`t set up to have a big food fight.

RUBIO: We had a great night last night. We really enjoyed being a
part of that debate.


HAYES: Donald Trump always gave the debate a good review. He
deployed what clearly believed to be the perfect word to describe it.


D. TRUMP: I thought the three moderators did a fantastic job. Not
only a really good job, it was elegant. It was an elegant debate.

Somebody just asked me how was it, it was really elegant. They did a
really elegant job.

I thought the moderators were terrific. I think they were very
elegant. I thought it was a very elegant evening.

I thought the moderators were elegant. I thought the questions were
really, really on point, and I thought it was a great night. I really
thought it was -- actually, the word is elegant. It was an elegant

I thought the anchors, they really were -- the moderators were really
elegant in the way -- all three -- in the way they presented themselves, in
the way they presented the questions. I thought it was a very elegant

MELANIA TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP`S WIFE: It was very fair and elegant.

D. TRUMP: I just thought this was a very elegant debate.


HAYES: This was the fourth GOP presidential debate so far and it drew
13.5 million viewers, a record for Fox Business Network, though a lower
viewership than any of the previous debates, including with its CNBC rival.

Jeb Bush, who has been trying to change donor class perceptions around
his floundering candidacy gave a solid, but not breakout performance last
night. Today, he was asked how he might improve.


BUSH: I`ll do better.

I thought it was fine. I did well. We talked about issues that are
important to people.

We need to start thinking about how -- who`s the person who can beat
Hillary Clinton, rather than trying to get into small differences between
each campaign.


HAYES: Though the candidates didn`t fight with moderators, they did
at times fight with each other, and quite a few exchanges that include very
real substance. As seen in Bush`s response that Trump asserted wrongly
that Vladimir Putin is primarily targeting ISIS in Syria.


TRUMP: If Putin wants to go and knocked the hell out of ISIS, I am
all for it, 100 percent, and I can`t understand how anybody would be
against it --

BUSH: They`re not doing that --

TRUMP: They blew up -- hold it.


TRUMP: They blew up -- wait a minute.

They blew up a Russian airplane. He cannot be in love with these
people. He`s going in, and we can go in, and everybody should go in.

BUSH: Donald is wrong on this. He is absolutely wrong on this.

The idea that it`s a good idea for Putin to be in Syria, let ISIS take
out Assad, and then Putin will take out ISIS? I mean, that`s like a board
game, that`s like playing Monopoly or something. That`s not how the real
world works.


HAYES: We should note, the bomb that Trump referenced has not been
definitively linked to ISIS at all. In fact, a bomb has not been
definitively established as of yet, though investigators suspect one may
have been involved.

Now, Jeb Bush`s line: that`s not how the real world looks. A
refreshingly sober recognition of the complexities of that region and a
comment that could also apply to Ben Carson`s, quote, "fairly easy"
strategy to defeat ISIS.


CARSON: We`re talking about global jihadists. And their desire is to
destroy us and to destroy our way of life. So, we have to be saying, how
do we make them look like losers? Because that`s the way that they`re able
to gather a lot of influence.

And I think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy
their caliphate. And you look for the easiest place to do that? It would
be in Iraq. And if -- outside of Anbar in Iraq, there`s a big energy
field. Take that from them. Take all of that land from them.

We could do that, I believe, fairly easily. I`ve learned from talking
to several generals, and then you move on from there.


HAYES: Joining me now, Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut.

Senator, you`re tweeting along with the debate last night. It was
getting you a little riled up. What was your general reaction to the
foreign policy sections of that debate?

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: Yes, I had the misfortune for
tuning in for about a half hour of the debate as they were discussing their
views on foreign policy. And it`s just really disturbing, how there is a
total lack of understanding about the subtleties and complexities of
foreign policy in general and the Middle East, specifically.

You heard Ben Carson suggest that we could just roll through ISIS in
Iraq in a matter of days or weeks. Trump says that we`re on the verge of
some grand partnership and alliance with the Russians against ISIL. And
then Marco Rubio doesn`t lend any thing -- any better when he suggests that
it`s just really a couple billion dollars more of military buildup, and
you`ll scare away Islamic extremism.

There`s just no understanding about the combination of military
strength and political progress and reconciliation in the region that you
have to have, to take on ISIS.

Now, I get that you campaign in poetry and you govern in prose, but
there`s just absolutely no sense that this field has learned anything from
the last 15 years and the disaster of thinking in black and white terms
about the Middle East.

HAYES: You know, it`s not just -- it`s not just a sort of ideological
disposition. What strikes me on a lot of issues, particularly the passages
on foreign policy was just a feeling that these are not people who had
devoted a tremendous amount of sustained attention to reading their
briefing books, talking to people, even talking to their own policy people.

And I`m curious what you think. You`re somebody who spends a lot of
time thinking on this. You`re on a committee that deals with these issues.

Did it seem thin to you?

MURPHY: Well, I think it`s extraordinary, that these are the sort of
top-tier candidates for the presidency of the United States. And there are
some really simple mistakes that they continue to make.

For instance, Trump`s mistake last night, that Putin is bombing ISIL.
And in fact, 90 percent of Russia`s air strikes are attacking the very
people that the United States are trying to support, the Syrian opposition,
inside that country. And so, it does strike me as incredibly
irresponsible, how little time this field is spending, trying to understand
a really complicated part of the world.

And you know, the problem is, is that it appears that they`re just
going to outsource foreign policy to the folks in the Republican Party, who
have been running that book of business for the last 20 years. And guess
who that is? That`s people like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, the folks
that got us into this mess in Iraq in the first place.

And that`s maybe the most dangerous suggestion coming out of these
debates, is that these guys just aren`t going to be very involved in
foreign policy. They`re going to let the interventionalist
neoconservatives take back over the White House, which is an invitation to

HAYES: You know, there`s a moment, a lot of people calling for no-fly
zone in Syria. I want to play a moment in which Rand Paul rose in dissent,
which I thought was interesting. Take a listen.


fly zone in an area in which Russia already flies. Russia flies in that
zone at the invitation of Iraq.

Realize that means you are saying we are going to shoot down Russian
planes. If you`re ready for that, be ready to send your sons and daughters
to another war in Iraq.


HAYES: What did you think of that moment? I thought it was a rare
moment of clarity.

MURPHY: So Rand Paul`s right about this. This is, you know, the kind
of the new sexy issue in Syria policy, is a no-fly zone.

But it is much more complicated in that you have complicated Russian-
built air defense systems that can potentially shoot down American planes.
You are going to be putting yourself in conflict, perhaps, with the
Russians themselves. And ultimately, it doesn`t do you a lot of good,
because you need ground stability as well. You actually need to have some
protection on the ground to stop those forces from moving in under the

So, you know, I think Senator Paul is right that this isn`t as simple
as it ultimately sounds.

Now, I think that Paul comes across as defeatist. He really has no
answers for how you defeat extremism in the region. And a lot of us would
argue that there needs to be much more engagement on the political side on
the ground to try to convince the Shia regimes to be inclusive of Sunni
populations that are being pushed towards extremism today. But he`s
certainly right that there`s no easy military answers in that region right

HAYES: All right. Senator Chris Murphy, thanks for your time.

MURPHY: Thanks.

HAYES: One of the big battle lines drawn last night, perhaps the
biggest, was on immigration, where you have Donald Trump on the one hand
calling for deporting 11 million people and Jeb Bush and John Kasich on the


million people -- come on, folks. We all know you can`t pick them up and
ship them across, back across the border. It`s a silly argument.

BUSH: Even having this conversation sends a powerful signal, they`re
doing high-fives in the Clinton campaign right now when they hear this.


HAYES: It was immediately after those Bush remarks, Clinton press
secretary Brian Fallon tweeted, quote, "We actually are doing high fives
right now." Hillary Clinton herself today tweeted, "The idea of tracking
down and deporting 11 million of people is absurd, inhumane and un-
American. No, Trump."

During the debate, Trump defended his plan by pointing to what he
casts as a similar program undertaken by a previous Republican president.


TRUMP: Dwight Eisenhower, good president, great president, people
liked him. "I like Ike," right? The expression. "I like Ike."

Moved a 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country, moved them
just beyond the border. They came back.

Moved them again beyond the border, they came back. Didn`t like it.

Moved them way south. They never came back.


HAYES: So Donald Trump officially endorsing Eisenhower`s 1954
deportation program. But not by name, perhaps because the program was
called Operation Wetback, named after a disparaging term for Mexicans who
arrived by the Rio Grande.

Operation Wetback was, as Raul Reyes wrote today, a national disgrace.
In the 1950s, "The Washington Post" reported hundreds of thousands Mexicans
were packed on buses, trucks, and boats and dumped into obscure areas of
Mexico, with little in the way of possessions, no way to get home, and in
many occasions, without resources to survive.

After one roundup, "The Post" reported, 88 people died from
heatstroke. Boats packed with migrants were compared to 18th century slave

Trump was pressed for specifics this morning in two different
interviews. He said he would put together a, quote, "deportation force",
but he insisted it would be a humane deportation force.


MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC ANCHOR: Tell me the how. Are you going to
have a massive deportation force?

TRUMP: You`re going to have a deportation force, and you`re going to
do it humanely.

BRZEZINSKI: How are they going to pay for this? Will they be ripped
from their homes? How?

TRUMP: They`re going back from where they came. If they came from a
certain country, they`re going to be brought back to their country. That`s
the way it`s supposed to be.

Very humanely done. Very important.


TRUMP: Well, it`s a whole management thing. It`s called good
management. It`s good management practices.

REPORTER: It`s 11 million undocumented immigrants.

TRUMP: But, Katy, it will be very, very humanely done.


HAYES: Joining me now, Julian Castro. He`s the U.S. secretary of
Housing and Urban Development.

And, Secretary Castro, is that plausible? A humanely done mass
deportation of 11 million people?

SECRETARY: Oh, of course it`s not. And, you know, just speaking for
myself. I was quite surprised to hear those words out of Donald Trump`s
mouth. I guess I shouldn`t have been. Maybe we shouldn`t have been at
all, any of us, because he`s been talking for the last few months deporting
between 11 million and 12 million people.

But to hear him talk about a deportation force, and refer to
essentially "Operation Wetback" from the Eisenhower administration should
remind folks who care about being reasonable on the issue of immigration
just how impractical, how inhumane and really how dangerous his ideas are.

HAYES: You know, it`s been striking when you trace the center of
debate among Republicans about immigration, the debate used to be a path
towards citizenship and comprehensive immigration reform, and there were a
variety of senators who voted for a bill like that, including Marco Rubio,
one of the co-sponsors who`s now abandoned, and the others who have said,
no, just increase border enforcement.

That debate, path to citizenship or not, has now moved to mass
deportation or don`t mass deport. It`s really quite a move.

CASTRO: It is. And it`s going to be unfortunate in the general
election for the Republican Party, because, as you know, they lost the 2012
election in part because Mitt Romney went out there and said he supported
self-deportation. The Republican Party did an autopsy of the 2012 election
and the number one thing they said was that we need to get right by folks
who care about that immigration issue. And we need to get away from
espousing policies like self-deportation.

Now comes Donald Trump and other folks like Marco Rubio, who are just
standing there, hearing this, and not standing up for something different,
and they`re basically going beyond what Mitt Romney said. So they`re going
in the wrong direction.

And I`m very proud of what the president has done on immigration, his
executive action. I`m also proud that Secretary Clinton has said that she
will keep that in place. That she`ll try to work with the Congress for
comprehensive immigration reform. But that she`s willing to keep the
executive action in place.

That is reasonable. And I think that`s a better way to approach it
and I`m confident that folks are listening out there. And it`s going to
make a difference in the general election next year.

HAYES: I should -- I should note, the latest executive action has
been halted by federal judges in Texas. That will probably work its way up
to the Supreme Court at some point. So, that is on hold as of now.

I wanted to ask you about Senator Ted Cruz last night. He did
Governor Perry one better. Governor Perry famously said he`d get rid of
three agencies, could name two of three. Ted Cruz said he would get rid of
five, could name four of five, repeated one. One of those agencies is the
agency you head up, HUD.

Today is obviously Veterans Day. My understanding is HUD has been
doing some very targeted work among veterans and veterans homelessness.
What would taking away HUD tomorrow do to some of the programs you`re
working on for veterans?

CASTRO: You know, five years ago, the president came out with
something called opening doors, which is the first blueprint to not just
reduce homelessness, but actually end it. So today, because of the work of
HUD, the V.A. and the state of Virginia, I got to stand with Governor
McAuliffe in Richmond and announce that Virginia has become the first state
to effectively end veteran homelessness.

We`ve also seen cities like Houston, Las Vegas, New Orleans, that have
reached their goal to end to veteran homelessness. And in the last five
years, in part because of the strong work that HUD has been doing, we`ve
seen a 36 percent reduction in veteran homelessness.

So, whether you`re talking about cities or small towns or tribal
communities, HUD is the department that is doing important and impactful
work, and especially for folks like our veterans who have served honorably
and who deserve to have a home in the country that they defended.

But, you know, I don`t know whether to take Ted Cruz seriously,
because he did mention the Commerce Department twice. And I think at that
point, when he realized that he just looked like he was fishing for some
department, so I think I`m going to have to double check with him to see if
he really meant HUD.

HAYES: You should. I mean, on the bright side, you weren`t mentioned
twice. So --


HAYES: Maybe you`re not quite a priority.

CASTRO: That`s true.

HAYES: Secretary Julian Castro, thank you very much.

CASTRO: Thank you.

HAYES: Still to come, Republican candidates had a chance to show off
their economic policy chops last night. How did they do? Senator Sherrod
Brown is here to weigh in.

And later, we`ll play the most memorable moments from last night`s
debate, including what is probably my favorite answer.

Plus, shocking footage obtained first by MSNBC, a man dies in police
custody after reportedly being tased multiple times.

Those stories and more, ahead.



less than 1 percent of Americans serving in uniform, the other 99 percent
of folks don`t always appreciate the incredible skills and assets that our
veterans can offer. On this Veterans Day, here`s what I want every
American to know -- our veterans are some of the most talented, driven,
capable people on earth.


HAYES: That was President Obama marking Veterans Day and encouraging
employers to hire veterans. The president gave those remarks at Arlington
National Cemetery, where he laid the ceremonial wreath at the Tomb of the
Unknowns, a tradition also done on Memorial Day.

But in addition to acknowledging those who serve, this is a
celebratory day, it dates back to 1918, where on November 11th, at 11:00
a.m., the fighting ended in the brutal bloody war of World War I, due to an
armistice agreement. A holiday was originally changed to Armistice Day,
but changed in 1954 to honor American service members in all wars.

It is still observed on November 11th, although but back then, when
actual armistice came, almost every single American had some kind of
immediate experience of what years of war really meant.

Today, it is very easy for millions to simply see this, our longest
period of war, as something someone else is doing.


HAYES: Last night`s Republican debate hosted by Fox Business Channel
and "The Wall Street Journal" was billed as a chance for Republican
candidates to speak with substance and specifics about business and the

But what we may have gotten instead is a signal that Republican
candidates really haven`t really come up with a compelling set of answers
to some basic questions about the trajectory of the economy under Barack
Obama. Take for instance this question from moderator Gerard Baker to
Carly Fiorina.


MODERATOR: In seven years under President Obama, the U.S. has added
an average of 107,000 jobs a month. Under President Clinton, the economy
added about 240,000 jobs a month. Under George W. Bush, it was only 13,000
a month.

If you win the nomination, you`ll probably be facing a Democrat named
Clinton. How are you going to respond to the claim that Democratic
presidents are better at creating jobs than Republicans?

FIORINA: Yes, problems have gotten much worse under Democrats. But
the truth is, this government has been growing bigger and bigger, more
corrupt, less effective, crushing the engine of economic growth for a very
long time. This isn`t about just replacing a Democrat with a Republican
now. It`s about actually challenging the status quo of big government.


HAYES: You catch that there? In her answer, Fiorina did not address
why job growth has been stronger under Democratic presidents. Instead,
completely dodging, yes, things have gotten much worse under Democrats,
which is completely the opposite of the premise of the question.

When Senator Marco Rubio was asked how he would assure American
workers their jobs would not be replaced by machines, he also pivoted to
talking points, claiming that America is in an economic downturn.


MODERATOR: How do you reassure American workers that their jobs are
not being steadily replaced by machines?

RUBIO: Well, you know, that`s an excellent question, because what we
are going through in this country is not simply an economic downturn. We
are living through a massive economic transformation. I mean, this economy
is nothing like what it was like five years ago, not to mention 15 or 20
years ago.


HAYES: What we`re going through is an economic downturn. The problem
is we`re not going through an economic downturn, as Michael Grunwald points
out in "Politico", we`ve had 68 consecutive months of private sector
employment growth. Seven years after we were driven into a really, really
tough recession, under a Republican president, which the economy was losing
800,000 jobs per month, a Democratic president is responsible for bringing
us back from the precipice of full-out Great Depression disaster.

Joining me now, Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat from Ohio.

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: I think that really wasn`t the answer,
the question for Carly Fiorina. I think you guys substituted that.



BROWN: I was watching it last night, and I just thought, I really
appreciate FOX asking the question. Basically they said, 22 million
private sector jobs, Clinton years, essentially zero private sector jobs
Bush years. And now, 60 plus months since the auto rescue, since the
recovery act of economic growth and job growth in the Obama years.

And I was hoping the FOX reporter, a good question would follow up and
say, Ms. Fiorina, you didn`t answer the question, how do you explain this?

HAYES: Well, you know, it strikes me, look, the most basic argument
in any presidential election tends to be about the economy and there`s a
whole bunch of data we know from political scientists about how the economy
is doing determines the outcome. And the argument, someone is going to
have to get up in the Republican Party and say, here is the argument for
why this economic stewardship has been bad. And it can`t just be talking
points about regulation taxation.

BROWN: Yes, it was -- I mean, you looked at what happened during the
Clinton years. There was -- they had that kind of economic growth, because
we grew the economy from the middle out.

The Bush years, where there was no economic growth, where there was
little economic growth, and no real job growth, it was two major tax cuts,
trickle-down economics. The wealthy got big tax cuts. Nobody else got
very much. No real economic growth.

The Obama years, again, investing in the middle, growing the economy
from the middle out. The auto rescue, which mattered hugely to my state,
but mattered for the whole country, and the Recovery Act, and we have seen
since then, every single month, economic growth and job growth.

So, I mean, really, this is about as good a model, as good a
laboratory as you can see, where you built the economy from the middle up,
you had job growth, both eight year and six-year periods. When you had
trickle down economics, you had no job growth.

HAYES: Now, on the other side of that, a similar question was asked
in the undercard debate. And I thought Rick Santorum had the best answer.
He said, just go to listen to the Democratic primary debate for what`s
wrong with the Obama economy.

And it is true much of that primary debate between Martin O`Malley and
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders does focus on huge gaps in the economy.

BROWN: Certainly, certainly. And part of that is because we haven`t
invested in an infrastructure. We know that grows jobs. We`ve seen this
austerity practice by Republicans should keep cutting spending on
everything from NIH to infrastructure. You don`t really invest in the
economy the way you should.

And the other thing is the minimum wage has been -- is -- hasn`t been
raised for seven years. The minimum wage today is one third less buying
power than it had 30 years ago.

We know that a higher minimum wage, by and large, creates, generates
economic growth and wage growth and, ultimately, the people that get a $2
or $3 an hour job aren`t investing in a Swiss bank account. They`re buying
things in Mansfield, Ohio, and Toledo, Ohio, and growing the economy that

Harry Truman essentially doubled the minimum wage in the late `40s or
late `50s. Eisenhower then increased it another significant amount. And
we saw the unemployment rate at about 3 plus percent in those days. So,
job growth came with these minimum wage increases. We know it will happen

HAYES: There was a long exchange last night about the banks, and
about Dodd/Frank. And a lot of folks trying to basically make an argument,
two things. One saying, I would not -- Ted Cruz said, "I will not bail out
the banks." Hillary Clinton said a similar thing.

Should voters believe a politician who looks them in the eyes during a
campaign says, yes, the too big to fail bank along the premise, I would not
bail them out?

BROWN: First of all, they should ask these candidates what they
really mean when they say -- none of them really seem to realize that every
policyholder, I mean, every saver in the bank, if you have $100,000 in the
bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation guarantees that money.
They forgot in that question.

I was pretty amazed that Governor Bush who was supposed to have a
policy nerd and have great sophistication really couldn`t answer that
question nor could the others, that people are guaranteed their accounts up
to $250,000.

HAYES: That is what the FDIC does.

BROWN: And it used to be $100,000 until Dodd/Frank, another good
thing that Dodd/Frank did that will help lower income people and middle
upper income people in that situation.

I was stunned by the lack of sophistication on all of those questions
on banking. I mean, these are Republican candidates, they`re senators,
they`re governors, they`re CEOs, they`re brain surgeons, and I would think
they would know a little bit more about banking, what we did to save this
economy and what we might have to do in the future.

And capital standards is part of the answer, but that`s sort of like
Governor Bush just had, somebody said, say capital standards, and he said
it like five times, but I`m not sure he even knew what he meant. But he
had nothing else to talk about how you deal with too big to fail, too big
to regulate, too big to manage. All the issues we`ve mostly fixed, but not
entirely fixed in our financial services.

HAYES: Yes, there were a lot of moments last night where I felt like
I was catching the student in class who had not even read the cliff notes,
maybe read a few pages.

BROWN: And contrast that with -- this may sound a bit partisan. But
contrast it with the Democratic debate. The Democrats, first of all, they
have respect for the voter and for each other in the Democratic debates,
where they talked substantive policy issues with much more depth than this
sort of prattle it too often is the hallmark of these Republican debates.

It was almost a little embarrassing for some of them, actually.

HAYES: Senator Sherrod Brown, thank you. Great to have you here in
New York City.

BROWN: Thanks.

HAYES: Coming up, shocking footage that came first by MSNBC, a man
dies in police custody after being tased multiple times and then driven
away from the hospital. Ari Melber is here to talk about that case, ahead.


HAYES: Protests at the University of Missouri successfully ousted top
administrators including the president of the university system following
dissatisfaction about how racial incidents were being handled by the

And in the aftermath of intense national media attention, the campus
has begun, or had begun, to appear to quiet down. But yesterday, anonymous
threats were posted on a social media called Yik Yak.

One of them read, we`re waiting for you in the parking lot. We will
kill you.

Understandably, many students, particularly students of color, did not
feel safe. Some staying away from campus.

Jonathan Butler, the student whose hunger strike was one of the
touchstones of the protest, tweeted, "death threats are being made to black
students and no
administrators are responding effectively."

The administration applied, there are no credible threats to campus.
MUPD and campus officials are on the scene.

Today, an arrest was made. 19-year-old Hunter Park was charged with
making a
terroristic threat. Park is a student at the Missouri University of
and Technology, about 94 miles away from the campus in Columbia.

His arraignment is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon.

A student at Northwest Missouri State University, Connor Stottlemeyer,
was also arrested on suspicion of making a, quote, terroristic threat in
relation to a different threatening post.

Tonight, protesters at the main Missouri campus were gathering to
discuss their next steps.


HAYES: MSNBC has obtained disturbing video of a 2013 incident in
which an unarmed man in police custody was repeatedly tased, ultimately
dying in police custody. On May 4th, 2013, approximately 4:28 a.m., three
police officers in South Boston, Virginia arrived at a Super8 motel,
responding to a disturbance call.

46-year-old Linwood Ray Lambert was, they say, hallucinating and his
hotel room trashed. Police thought Lambert needed medical care and told
him to come on a short ride to the hospital.

He was handcuffed, but he was not under arrest, which police explained
to him on the way.

Upon arriving at the hospital, Lambert kicked out the window of the
police car. Lambert ran towards the hospital entrance still in handcuffs,
as you see there. And the officers tased him.

After Lambert fell on the ground, police continued to taze him.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Every time you get up, I`m going to pop you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I didn`t do nothing.


I`m going to light you up again. Roll over. Roll over.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m trying to roll over now, ma`am.



HAYES: Police then shackled Lambert`s leg and Lambert told police
officers he had done cocaine.

But at this point, instead of taking Lambert into the emergency room
of the hospital, the threshold of the door that they were at, they placed
him under arrest and instead took him back to the car.

Officers tased him again after telling him to sit up.

Bear in mind, Lambert`s hands and feet are bound.


UNIDENITIFIED MALE: Do it now. Do it now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Get your ass up and act like you got some sense.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sit up or I`m going to tase you again.


HAYES: Arriving back at the jail, Lambert appeared to be unconscious
in the back of the police car.

Later, an ambulance took Lambert back to that same hospital where he`d
been approximately one hour before.

Lambert was pronounced dead on arrival, approximately 6:06 a.m.

These police and hospital videos were obtained exclusively by MSNBC
were not seen by Lambert`s family until a few weeks ago when police turned
them over under court order.

South Boston police declined to comment to MSNBC, but in court papers,
they claim the use of force was justified.

Virginia State Police say they conducted an investigation, have turned
their findings over to prosecutors.

Keep in mind, this was two years ago. The criminal investigation of
the case remains open. The incident is the subject of a civil lawsuit.

MSNBC`s chief legal correspondent Ari Melber reported this out for the
network. He joins me now.

There`s a civil lawsuit at issue here. Let`s start with this. What
determination was made between the cause of death of this individual?

ARI MELBER, MSNBC: Great question.

The coroner basically said that acute cocaine intoxication was lifted
as the cause of death. They noted that taser wounds existed on the body,
but according to our investigation, they didn`t know the extent of the
repeat tasering.

HAYES: Do we know what the police told officials about what had
transpired during that time line that we now have video evidence of?

MELBER: That`s one of the most interesting, and according to the
family, disturbing parts of this, because ambulance staff wrote down, the
police told them that night, beyond everything that you just showed, at the
end, where you showed the video of Lambert essentially expired or dead in
the back of the car, the ambulance staff said that police told them that he
was fighting them there and he had an altercation and had to pin him down.
That`s the kind of claim that would support more force, if it were true.

From the video, we know it`s not true.

I have to tell you, as well, in terms of our reporting, that later-
written police incident reports did accurately say that he was,
essentially, unconscious in the back of the car at the arrival of the jail.

So either the ambulance staff deeply misunderstood what the police
said or their story changed. Either way, misinformation of that nature in
the hospital
records and in what ambulance staff thought happened, as they tried to
resuscitate or help this man is important.

HAYES: My understanding is, across all the videos that have been
obtained, there`s an account of about 20 distinct incidents in which the
taser is fired. What kind of guidelines are there for the use of tasering,
that is compliant with
essentially non-excessive uses?

MELBER: Well, that`s a question, of course, that local rules and the
Department of Justice have spoken to.

And essentially, let`s take a step back. One tasing, done correctly,
50,000 volts through the human body. And by using basically two darts, it
turns the human body into an electricity conductor.

You are not supposed to do more than one or two tasings. Indeed, the
Justice Department in their guidelines notes that over three tasings can be
associated with serious injury or death.

20 tasings is way off the charts of what is allowed. Now, we don`t
know whether all 20 hit this suspect, because you can have one where you
attempt and it doesn`t go. But we know that one officer, Officer Bratton
there, did 15 tasings that night, 10 within the span of a few minutes.

the family, my understanding, or at least part of the family, is
behind the civil suit that is working its way through the courts. How do
they feel about this video now being out?

MELBER: I`ve got to tell you, so when I went down to Virginia and
with the family initially when researching this story, it was just weeks
after they`d seen the video for the first time.

So for over two years, as you emphasized, Chris, there wasn`t a lot
known. The case opened criminally and they then finally did this civil
case, which is the only reason they got the tapes under court order.

So, they told me it was heartbreaking, worse than even the initial
situation when they saw what they saw in that video. The father told me
today on MSNBC that he considers this torture, his word, because he
believes they were trying to inflict pain on his son.

So the family has been through a real difficult period.

I will mention to you, as I`ve mentioned elsewhere in reporting this,
that the police say that this was justified use of force, because they say
posed a danger.

HAYES: All right, Ari Melber, thank you very much. Thank you for
reporting, appreciate it.

still to come, the moment from last night`s debate THAT I cannot stop
watching. Seriously, it just doesn`t get old. I will play it for you,


HAYES: One of the stranger back and forth last nights came as the
candidates discussed Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Donald Trump, who`s always said he`d have a great relationship with
Putin, surprised us last night when he seemed to say the two had actually


Syria, I like if Putin wants to go in, and I got to know him very well,
because we were both on "60 Minutes." We were stable mates and we did very
well that night.

But, you know, that.


HAYES: That`s certainly surprising, considering "60 Minutes" is not a
live show, where the interview subjects sit in a green room together
waiting for their turn.

In fact, Putin was interviewed Charlie Rose in Moscow while Donald
Trump was
interviewed by Scott Pelley in his New York City penthouse.

No one the stage seemed to notice or care about the impossibility of
meeting, though Carly Fiorina did hit Trump with a witty rejoinder.


reasons I`ve said that I would not be talking to Vladimir Putin right now,
although I have
met him as well, not in a green room for a show, but in a private meeting.


HAYES: Laughs, chuckles, appreciative applause.

That line apparently scored her some debate points, but it might have
been better burn if, a, Trump had ever met Putin in a green room, and B, if
Fiorina hadn`t publicly stated in the past that she did, in fact, meet
Putin in a green room.


JIMMY FALLON, HOST, THE TONIGHT SHOW: Where did you meet him?

FIORINA: I met him in Beijing. We were in sort of a green room
setting, actually. The two of us were giving a speech. Each of us were
giving a speech
at a major economic conference, called AIPAC.


HAYES: In a green room.

We`ll talk about this and some of the other nonsensical moments from
last night`s debate with Sabrina Siddiqui and Sam Seder, currently in our
green room getting to know each other, stable mates if you will. When we
come back. Don`t go away.


HAYES: Relatively speaking, there were a lot of substantive exchanges
in last night`s debate, so the candidates showing pretty clearly where they
differ on
issues like immigration, defense spending.

There were also a lot of moments that might have made you scratch your
head or perhaps chuck your Coors Light at the TV.

For my money, the most bewildering, jaw-dropping of all those moments
is when Ben Carson was asked how he would approach the situation in Syria.

We present it to you now in full.


special ops people in there is better than not having them there, because
they -- that`s why they`re called special ops. They`re actually able to
guide some of the other things that we`re doing there.

And what we have to recognize is that Putin is trying to really spread
his influence throughout the Middle east. This is going to be his base.
And we have to oppose him there in an effective way.

We also must recognize that it`s a very complex place. You know, the
Chinese are there, as well as the Russians, and you have all kinds of
factions there.

What we`ve been doing so far is very ineffective. But we can`t give
up ground right there.

But we have to look at this on a much more global scale. We`re
talking about global jihadists and their desire is to destroy us and to
destroy our way of life. So we have to be saying, how do we make them look
like losers, because that`s the way that they`re able to gather a lot of

And I think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy
their caliphate. And you look for the easiest place to do that, it would
be in Iraq.

And if outside of Anbar in Iraq, there`s a big energy field. Take
that from them. Take all of that land from them. We could do that, I
believe, fairly easily, I`ve learned, from talking to several generals, and
then you move on from there.

But you have to continue to face them, because our goal is not to
contain them, but to destroy them before they destroy us.


HAYES: You got all that? When we come back, we will try to make some
sense of whatever that was and tackle a few of the other low lights from
last night`s debate.


HAYES: Joining me now to talk about the low lights of last night`s
debate, Sabrina Siddiqui, political reporter for The Guardian, my friend,
Sam Seder, MSNBC contributor, host of the Majority Report.

All right, before we get to the now-infamous welders versus
philosophers debate, which was brought up by Marco Rubio -- I mean that
Carson answer to me just typified so much about the Ben Carson phenomenon
where it`s like -- look, whatever your belief system is, and whatever --
clearly you were an amazing doctor, but that is nonsense. That`s just --
that was nonsense. And no one on stage called it nonsense. Everyone just
seems to sort of be like, okay, now moving on.

SABRINA SIDDIQUI, THE GUARDIAN: which is interesting, because when
Donald Trump has had similar moments, you`ve seen Marco Rubio and other
candidates challenge him and say, we need to have a commander-in-chief who
is ready on day one to face these threats. I think they recognize that Ben
Carson, he has this mystifying popularity. No matter what he says, for
example, that the Chinese are in Syria, which is categorically untrue,
there was no nuance to that statement, or no one could even comprehend what
he meant, it doesn`t seem to cost him, at least at this point.

SAM SEDER, HOST, MAJORITY REPORT: Well, because his support is faith-
based, which is also why they don`t go after him, because they know on that
level, it doesn`t matter. I mean, we have to...

HAYES: They also think -- I mean, let`s also be clear, they think
he`s going away.

SEDER: They think he`s going away.

And we also have to remember that someone with a similar sense of
foreign policy was actually chosen as a vice presidential candidate eight
years ago now, right?

HAYES: Right.

SEDER: No, Sarah Palin.

HAYES: Oh, Sarah Palin.

SEDER: And we forget, but that was eight years ago. And if you a
follow natural progression, the idea that you could have a leading
candidate who`s just as...

HAYES: Right.

SEDER: uninformed is not really that shocking.

HAYES: All right. So now the Rubio moment, which is a moment he`s
been doing on his stump speech for months -- welders versus philosophers.
Take a listen.


SEN. MARCO RUBIO, (R) FLORIDA: Make higher education faster and
easier to access, especially vocational training. For the life of me, I
don`t know why we have stigmatized vocational education. Welders make more
money than philosophers. We need more welders and less philosophers.


HAYES: OK. So there`s a fact check here, which almost seems like a
fact check, because it seems like he`s sort of making a joke. But the fact
check for those keeping track, said philosophers make more money than
welders. Here`s the numbers. Mid-career median salary, $81,000 versus

What is this line about when he does it on the stump speech?

SIDDIQUI: So, he says he wants to be known as the vocational
education president. He has a big push to invest in, you know, creating
more mechanics, more technicians, more people who work with their hands.
And that`s something actually
the president`s job council, which no longer exists, had also supported,
and he kind of makes this joke.

And I think he`s really good at kind of injecting in these debates,
sound bites from his stump speech, that work really well, that play really
well, even
if they might not be the most accurate in this case.

But while on the stump he actually plays it differently, he says that
the job
market has really shrunk over the years for philosophers, so he`s talking
more about, where would you most likely get a job when you graduate from
school? He thinks that there are too many people who are pursuing
disagrees where they`re unlikely in this job market to be competitive.

SEDER: I think this works two ways for him. One is, it harkens back
to a time when manufacturing was booming in this country. And so it sort
of sends people back, conservatives back to those good old days.

And then I think it also is sort of like a nod to sort of the -- I
don`t know if it`s the reformacons, but the libertarians who feel like
maybe the problem is, too many people are going to college.


SEDER; And of course you also hit the anti-intellectual sort of...

HAYES: The only thing I`ll say here is like, thinking we should have
more vocational training isn`t some like -- that`s a bipartisan consensus
thing you hear at Davos. Like, it`s not some brave stance...

SEDER: I don`t know who stigmatized welders...

HAYES: Yeah, exactly. It`s not some brave stand that Marco Rubio
like the president believes -- anyway.

This was the weirdest line of the night to me. And I`m excited to
share it with you, because I think no one else noticed. It hasn`t been --
this is John Kasich doing a tour of his Middle East policy. Listen


no-fly zone in the north on the Turkish border, a no-fly zone on the south
on the Jordanian border. Anybody flies in the fist time, maybe they can
fly out. They fly in a second time, they will not fly out.

Saudi Arabia, cut off the funding for the radical clerics, the one
that preach against us, but they are fundamentally our friends.

Jordan, we want the king to reign for a thousand years.

Egypt, they`ve been our ally and a moderating force in the Middle East
throughout their history.


HAYES: OK , so it`s just -- there`s a bunch of stuff sandwiching it,
but Jordan, we want the king to reign for a thousand years.

SEDER: Well, this is Kasich...

HAYES: What?

SEDER: I think this is part of like Kasich, I think is just -- it`s a
difficult time for him, because he`s looking around, he`s going, how is
this possibly happening?

And I think that, you know, what he`s trying to show there is that
he`s so knowledgeable about this stuff...

HAYES: I know. I can take you through whole region.

SEDER: It`s like, I walk into a diner and I don`t ask for two eggs
over easy, I ask for whiskey and two butterups.

SIDDIQUI: And no one...

SEDER: He`s trying to show, he`s so glib and comfortable with this.
And he`s dealing with people who have absolutely no idea what they`re
talking about.

But sadly for him, that`s the wrong thing to present at a Republican
Party debate.

HAYES: Well, yes, he affected at this debate this kind of -- the
Jon Lovitz playing Dukakis, running against George H.W. Bush in which he
would roll his eyes and say I can`t believe I`m losing to this guy. Like,
that`s now John Kasich`s shtick at the debate.

SIDDIQUI: And coming out of this debate, you know, I think most
people who are watching from the other side are thinking, how are they not
nominating this guy, he`s up there making this forceful case on immigration
reform, trying to
paint a contrast on the executive actions, and what the implications will
be of
deporting all these people. In the previous debate, he defended his
Medicaid expansion, but like Steve said, this is the wrong crowd.

HAYES: Yeah, let me tell you something, message, if any of you are
watching, you don`t want to be liberal`s favorite Republican debate

SIDDIQUI: Jon Huntsman.

SEDER: Based on their reactions, it was like they needed a trigger
warning for Kasich.

HAYES: Sabrina Siddiqui, Sam Seder, thank you both.

Before we go, programming note, be sure and tune into Comedy Central
later tonight. I will be a guest on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah. It
was a lot of fun.

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