IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Friday, May 21st 2010

Read the transcript to the Friday show

Guests: Daniel Bryant; Jim Carney; Mike Konczal, Raul Grijalva, Shayana

CHRIS HAYES, HOST:  Good evening, Keith.  Thank you so much.  I am

indeed not Rachel Maddow.  She is under the weather and getting better as

fast as she can in anticipation of Geek Week (ph).

But we do have a jammed RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for you, including Rand

Paul‘s understanding of the Deepwater Horizon underwater oil volcano, which

completely contradicts the reality of government‘s relationship with

business.  We have the clear, simple and critical postmortem on financial

regulation.  Stand by for details. 

There‘s also the latest proposal brewing to roll back constitutional

rights for certain residents of Arizona.  This time it‘s the 14th Amendment

that conservatives are going to fix good. 

And must-see Friday night viewing, the forensics of dog droppings. 

The dung jury—come on, it‘s Friday night.  Settle in, grab a cocktail,

here we go. 

We begin tonight with the loneliest man in American politics at this

very moment. 



period start?  I had a big victory.  I thought I got a honeymoon period

from you guys in the media. 


HAYES:  That was, of course, Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul of

Kentucky.  After a series of, shall we say, rocky interviews         following

his big primary victory Tuesday night, including one you may have seen on

this show, Rand Paul carved out an unexpected niche for himself today as

the one man in America who thinks that oil giant BP has really gotten a raw

deal these last few weeks. 


PAUL:  What I don‘t like from the president‘s administration is this

sort of, you know, “I‘ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.”  I think

that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. 

I‘ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill.  And I

think it‘s part of this sort of blame game society, in the sense that it‘s

always got to be someone‘s fault, and instead of the fact that maybe

sometimes accidents happen. 


HAYES:  Sometimes accidents happen.  That was Rand Paul rising to the

courageous defense of a company that has probably managed to displace

Goldman Sachs and Massey Energy as corporate enemy No. 1 among the American

public right now. 

The company that‘s responsible for this image: a live streaming feed

of thousands of barrels of oil being dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. 

Now the political consequences here are sort of obvious, right?  I

mean, even BP has been smart enough not to roll out the “accidents happen”

excuse.  What‘s more interesting here, though, is who exactly is doing the


Ron Paul—Rand Paul is a libertarian‘s libertarian.  And the stories

that libertarians tell about the free market are that it‘s a great place

where anybody with a good idea can compete, where merit is rewarded, where

the best ideas ultimately win out, and where the government just stays the

heck out of it.  That is the utopian free market of libertarians. 

But BP, whose honor Rand Paul is now defending, does not exactly

represent that utopia.  In fact, from a libertarian perspective, the oil

and gas industry is one of the most corrupt examples of crony capitalism we

have in this country. 

Some environmental advocacy groups estimate the oil and gas industry,

including companies like BP, Shell Oil and Exxon, receive tens of billions

of dollars in federal subsidies every year.  These are essentially

incentives from taxpayers like you and me to just go ahead and keep

drilling.  And these subsidies mostly come in the force of tax credits,

like the expensing of exploration and development cost credit, or the

percentage depletion allowance, or the tax credits for enhanced oil

recovery costs.  It‘s all these really obscure subsidies provided to these

oil companies from the U.S. government. 

It‘s actually sort of the exact opposite of the government putting its

boot on the throat of the oil companies.  It is the government giving them

a handout. 

And it‘s not like we need to prop up the oil and gas industry in order

for it to exist.  The U.S. Treasury Department estimates that removing all

of these subsidies for the oil industry would decrease domestic production

by less than one half of 1 percent, even in the long run. 

The very idea of government subsidies runs counter to the libertarian

governing philosophy.  And yet when they‘re in power, conservatives are in

power, reflectively pro-business conservatives have no problem with them. 

They chuck their supposedly principled free market ideal right under the

wagon the first time BP comes calling. 

In 2005 the Republican-controlled Congress voted to increase tax

breaks for oil companies.  In 2008 President Bush threatened to veto a

Democratic effort to roll back these tax breaks.  Republicans right now as

I speak to you are blocking the effort to lift the cap on what oil

companies are liable for when a spill happens. 

Currently, the money that pays for the clean up comes from an oil

spill fund set up by Congress, another subsidy to the oil industry. 

This is an industry that lives off of government generosity.  And yet

now we have Mr. Free Market, Rand Paul, the purest form of this stringent

ideological movement.  And what does he do when he gets on the national

stage?  He defends an industry that is a massive recipient of government


I understand the libertarian urge to defend the honor of the free

market and of private enterprise.  But is the oil and gas industry, this

enormous recipient of taxpayer largess, really the hill you want to plant

your flag in?

Joining us now is Danielle Bryant.  She‘s executive director of the

Project on Government Oversight.  Danielle, so great to have you here.  How

are you doing?


Great to see you, Chris. 

HAYES:  So my understanding is that BP is making a killing this

quarter.  They‘re doubling their for profits, I think to $6 billion.  DI

guess the obvious question is do they need this money?

BRYANT:  Keep in mind, this is at a time when every other industry has

been suffering and certainly the rest of us have been suffering, too, in

this economy.  For them to be doubling their profits you have to put that

into that context.  And then on top of it you have essentially $3 billion a

year in tax breaks?  I mean, it‘s absurd. 

HAYES:  Now, is that—what is the total cost?  I mean, we‘re talking

about the federal budget.  You‘re looking at the subsidies.  What kind of

numbers are we talking in terms of the level of subsidy that they‘re


Bryant:  Really, we are—really, you get into the tens of billions

of dollars. 

And one of the things that‘s really important—and I know I‘m really

a wonk when it comes to the royalties that are paid by the oil and gas

industry—this is—here we go.  This is going to do it right.  I mean,

really important. 

This is one of the—the single biggest source of revenues to the

federal government after taxes, after the taxes that we pay, are those

royalties paid by the oil and gas industry for the ability to drill

offshore as we‘re seeing here and on public lands.  And so this is an

incredibly important resource for us, the public, that the industry is now

well, has been for years, really, scamming on. 

HAYES:  Right.  I mean, the idea that the oil industry is essentially

owned by the nation, and by the U.S. government. 

BRYANT:  It‘s a public resource. 

HAYES:  It‘s a public resource.  They pay to extract it.  I saw

something interesting today about, you know, they pay for all the oil they

take out of the ground, whether they capture it or not.  Are they going to

be asked to pay for all this oil they are spilling?  Because... 

BRYANT:  I love that.  I love that issue.  I mean, the question is,

this money is being—I mean, this oil is being spilled into the gulf. 

That doesn‘t mean they shouldn‘t be paying royalties on it.  We‘re hearing,

there is some talk inside the administration about actually requiring that,

and I think that‘s a reasonable expectation. 

HAYES:  One of the things I think that‘s become clear at the hearing

when Ken Salazar was on the Hill earlier this week and throughout this

whole thing is that the relationship between big oil and the government is

quite a cozy one generally. 

And you know, it‘s very hard to roll back these subsidies.  It does

seem like big oil has kind of captured the government.  How—what is the

mechanism—how does that happen?  I mean, how is this kind of symbiotic

relationship developed?

BRYANT:  There‘s so many tentacles where you see this in play.  I

mean, everyone knows about campaign contributions to members of Congress

and the lobbyists that are all over Capitol Hill, but there‘s so many other

ways, too. 

I mean, we‘ve been in hand-to-hand combat with the lobbyists not just

on the Hill but who are dealing with the regulatory process where the

agencies, generally the Department of Interior, will be, you know,

promoting a new regulation.  And then it‘s just covered with people from

industry, just pounding back to make sure that it‘s as generous for the

industry as possible. 

And then the other element you have is the former very senior members

of policymakers, members of Congress or administrations, who are on the

advisory boards of, well let‘s take BP for an example.  I mean, you have

Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader.  You have the former head

of the EPA, Christine Todd Whitman.  You have the current CIA director,

Leon Panetta. 

The Center for Responsive Politics has sort of been amassing all these

people who are incredibly huge power hitters in Washington who are all... 

HAYES:  Sitting on the boards. 

BRYANT:  Yes, of BP.  Just BP. 

HAYES:  Danielle Bryant, executive director of the Project on

Government Oversight, real fun to have you here.

BRYANT:  Thank you.

HAYES:  Thanks a lot.  Have a great weekend. 

BRYANT:  You, too. 

HAYES:  Rand Paul‘s defense of the oil industry today, his defense of

BP, is the latest in a string of policy positions he‘s expressed this week

that have put his libertarian views in the national spotlight. 

It started with the objections he raised about Civil Rights Act of

1964, and it continued as his views began to surface about the Americans

with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 

The net result of all this attention on Rand Paul has been an

increased focus on the idea of libertarianism as a governing philosophy. 

And joining us now is Jim Carney, who‘s a columnist for the

“Washington Examiner.”  I read him often.  I follow his tweets and a self-

described libertarian.  We‘ve had two now in one week.  How are you doing,



HAYES:  You wrote a really interesting column today in the paper that

you write for, the “Washington Examiner,” where you basically said real,

true libertarians should not be defending big oil.  What was the argument?

CARNEY:  Well, I want to get more precise, because I also—I don‘t

normally defend Republican politicians.  But Rand Paul didn‘t stand up for

the oil subsidies.  He criticized the president‘s rhetoric. 

But in this case, BP is getting—could be getting away with not

paying as much economic damages as they‘re causing.  It was the shrimper—

shrimp fishermen‘s business they‘re ruining could be picked up by this fund

that you‘re talking about and then eventually picked up by the general


And the libertarians should—should embrace the idea that all the

damage that is caused by BP‘s spills should be covered by BP and their

business partners. 

HAYES:  Right, and you make this great point that there‘s essentially

this bailout fund for (UNINTELLIGIBLE), that essentially caps the

liability.  And that, you know, if you want to drill for oil we should let

the market price what the risk is. 

CARNEY:  And if they were paying for the insurance to cover the whole

price, the price of oil would go up. 

Now, one problem some Republicans fall into is sometimes looking at

something that the market likes, like home ownership or oil.  They say the

market likes it, it‘s good, so let‘s have more of it and let‘s subsidize

it, which of course is an abandonment of free market principle. 

HAYES:  So speaking of abandonment of free market principles, this is

a theme in some of your writing.  And I think it‘s what—kind of some of

the bedrock we‘re getting here with the whole Rand Paulpalooza that‘s



HAYES:  What you hear a lot is when Republicans are out of power, a

lot of rhetoric about free markets and limited government and, you know,

getting rid of these kind of—and then when they‘re in power, it‘s like

you vote for the Rand Paul rhetoric and what you get is Newt Gingrich and

Tom DeLay and a lot of crony capitalism.  And it seems like it‘s such a


It‘s like why should—it‘s sort of like we won‘t get fooled again. 

Like, why is it going to be different if the Republicans take over this


CARNEY:  And that‘s a legitimate point.  And it‘s a parallel of the

point I make about when Ralph Nader or you folks, you rage against, well,

this government agency got captured or this government agency got captured. 

As if they get captured after some nice great law gets passed.  These

government agencies that get created, they get captured, like in utero. 

They‘re not kidnapped; they are born. 

And you look at the—what the Congress is doing with the health-care

bill, with the global warming stuff, all this stuff is getting porked up on

Capitol Hill, taken over by the corporations. 

So I understand your objection about we keep getting fooled by this

libertarian rhetoric that turns into Republican crony capitalism, but we

also keep getting fooled by the progressive rhetoric that turns into

Democratic cronyism.

HAYES:  And I think there—I think there obviously—there is a

case for that.  I mean, there have been some abuses.  But I wonder how much

what‘s happening right now in terms of Rand Paul‘s views.  When you watch

what‘s happened in the last—and I‘ve seen you defend Rand Paul, and I

know you‘re a real die-hard libertarian. 

What do you make of this rollout that‘s happened here in terms of—

is he just saying what—I mean, I‘ve covered libertarians and the right. 

I mean, it seems like things like the Civil Rights Act, I‘ve read stuff

about people not being—not liking those provisions of the Civil Rights

Act.  Is he just saying what people have been saying all along?  It‘s just

he‘s now getting the national attention?

CARNEY:  There‘s a couple things here.  First, it‘s—libertarianism

is more principle-based than, say, progressivism, which looks at what are

the problems we need to solve, what are the consequences and sort of drive

straight at it.  Libertarianism comes from more principles. 

That will be a difficult philosophy to lay out, especially when you‘re

asked specific questions in the flash-bang heat of—no offense—but

cable news can‘t draw this stuff out as thoroughly as it needs to. 

But also, you‘re right that politicians who get elected really don‘t

adhere to libertarian views, so there aren‘t too many people who have to go

out and defend these difficult questions of libertarianism. 

HAYES:  But isn‘t that—I mean, isn‘t that—that‘s the rap on

this.  But isn‘t that the issue that, you know, they don‘t get elected on

those libertarian principles because, under the harsh light of, you know,

media scrutiny, they‘re not that popular. 

I mean, people like things like the Food and Drug Administration. 

They like the Department of Education, you know.  They like the Civil

Rights Act, we presume, right?  And when those things—I mean, if you‘re

going to be really sort of spirited about your ideological commitment to

these things, you know, you‘ve got to say things like, “Yes, let‘s get rid

of the FDA or maybe Title II of the Civil Rights Act.” 

CARNEY:  The Republicans used to talk about getting rid of the

Department of Education.  They gave it up, because it wasn‘t politically


But you know that things become politically popular in part because

you have people articulately laying it out and championing it.  And

libertarianism hasn‘t had that champion.  And right now Rand Paul,

unfortunately, on the articulate level is not—is not winning the day. 

HAYES:  Well, maybe Senator Tim Carney will.  Thanks, Jim.  Appreciate


CARNEY:  Thanks. 

HAYES:  Tim Carney from the “Washington Examiner.”

Here‘s the thing about gambling.  Either you run the game or you bet

on the game.  But you can‘t do both.  Somewhere along the way, the U.S.

Senate forgot that axiom before they passed financial reform yesterday. 

More understandable metaphors and their consequences are straight ahead. 

And later, let‘s do the time warp again.  In an effort to undo 150

years of progressive legislation, conservatives are trying to party like

it‘s 1799.  Explanation forthcoming. 


HAYES:  Conservatives want to party like it‘s 1867 or 1912 or 1963 or

any other year before major social progress was made in this country.  More

on that coming up later. 


HAYES:  It‘s been hailed as landmark legislation, the biggest

financial reform since the 1930s, a sweeping overhaul of Wall Street. 

But for all the hyperbole, there is one very important thing missing

from the bill the Senate passed last night.  Something that would change

the culture of casino capitalism that led, in part, to the financial


Imagine for a moment you‘re playing poker at a casino where the house

takes a cut of the pot.  As the game progresses, you begin to realize that

all the other players at the table also work for the casino and they‘re

taking you to the cleaners.  You‘d get the heck out of there and never come

back, because either the casino runs the game or it participates in the

game, but it can‘t do both.  Especially, as is the case with the major

banks, if the casino gets bailed out by taxpayers when its bets don‘t pay


And that is exactly what the so-called Volcker rule was crafted to

prevent.  To stop banks who play the role of the casino in our markets from

also betting on extremely risky investments. 

Yet in an amendment ensuring enforcement of such a measure died

without even being brought up for a vote.  This is critical.  And how it

happened and the bill that resulted from it happening are the whole ball of

wax in trying to judge the government‘s response to the great financial

meltdown of 2008 and 2009.  So how did it happen?

For that, we turn to Mike Konczal, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute

and a blogger at Rortybomb. 

Thanks for your time tonight, Mike. 



HAYES:  First off, Mike, can you explain exactly—I gave it a shot

at the top, but you‘re much better than this at me.  What exactly is the

Volcker rule and why is it so important?

KONCZAL:  It was a good example with the casino.  What the Volcker

rule does is it‘s a simple, straightforward rule that says if you want to

run a commercial bank or if you want to run a hedge fund, you can do

either, but you can‘t do both at the same time. 

Commercial banks are the things that, you know, create investment

investments.  They fuel the real economy.  They handle our paychecks.  They

don‘t need a hedge fund, which is something where the firm is betting with

its own money for its own personal gain to be intermixed with it. 

And there‘s two really specific reasons why the Volcker rule is

important.  The first is that, as you mentioned, we provide social

insurance for our commercial banks.  You have FDIC insurance, so you don‘t

have to go running to your bank when there‘s a panic. 

We also have the federal discount window which, you know, provides

liquidity to make sure your paycheck is always cashed out by the banks. 

Hedge funds don‘t need access to those things to do their job and we

don‘t need to sully our social insurance with that and don‘t need to back

stop hedge funds. 

HAYES:  Right.  So we want to segregate out, essentially, the social

insurance function that protects the banks that we need that we don‘t want

to collapse in panic from the gamblers.  So if that makes sense, and it

seems like it makes sense, why did this never get a vote on the floor?

KONCZAL:  Well, it‘s already in the bill, but it‘s very weak language

that may be done after a study is conducted, and the government regulators

who could have sort of done this anyway over the 2000s, you know, could

have decided that they could overrule it. 

So what Senator Merkley and Levin want to do is put a hard rule in the

law that would make sure that this is there for the next 50 years, the same

way Glass-Steagall was there for the next 60 years until Republicans and

Democrats, you know, pulled it apart in the late ‘90s. 

So it never got that actual amendment language never got a vote.  The

Republicans blocked it from being voted as an amendment.  The Democrats did

not push very hard for it to get put in through the manager‘s amendment or

through other language. 

HAYES:  Well, that‘s what I want to focus on, because obviously this

is the sort of thing—I mean, banks like Goldman Sachs, they‘re making a

lot of money by being able to play these two roles, right?

And this bill looked like it was going to get the votes, and it really

does seem like, at the end of the day, the Democratic leadership in the

Senate and possibly the White House did not fight to get this in the bill. 

KONCZAL:  If they fought there‘s no evidence of it.  I mean, there

certainly aren‘t any fingerprints of a huge fight on—from Democrats for


Merkley and Levin tried to sneak it in by attachment to an amendment

to exempt auto lenders from consumer financial protection, because we

exempt automakers from everything, evidently. 

But when it came time, that actually passed In House and everyone

expected it to pass in the Senate.  Obviously, a Republican amendment.  But

the time to vote, it was actually withdrawn as an amendment which shows you

who really calls the shots.  You know, auto lenders over Goldman sacks. 

HAYES:  And Goldman Sachs emerges victorious over the auto lenders.


HAYES:  Mike Konczal, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and a

blogger at Rortybomb.

Thanks so much.  Have a great weekend. 

KONCZAL:  Thank you, Chris. 

If you‘re not a progressive, are you necessarily a regressive? 

Between the arguing of parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the latest

extra-harsh anti-immigrant proposal out there in Arizona, there is but one

movie soundtrack that tells the story of today‘s conservative movement. 

What the Grand Canyon, the 14 Amendment, and the “Rocky Horror Picture

Show” have in common, next.


HAYES:  Yesterday at around 2 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, I made this

vow.  I said to myself, “Self, I am leaving the Internet until we are no

longer debating the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”  And, of course, I failed. 

There is no transdermal patch or information-steeped chewing gum that

replaces what the World Wide Webs [SIC] do for you. 

Having broken my vow to myself about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it

occurred to me that conservative politics in the year 2010 are most

succinctly described by that great font of cultural and political



HAYES:  That‘s right, “The Rocky Horror Picture Show.”

In politics today, the winner of the Republican Senate primary in

Kentucky, Rand Paul, takes issue with aspects of a 45-year-old law

outlawing racial discrimination in private businesses offering services to

the public. 


HAYES:  Ron Paul‘s Dad, Congressman—Rand Paul‘s dad, Congressman

Ron Paul, is in many senses the Tea Party movement‘s founding father.  And

Congressman Paul introduced a bill that would abolish the Federal Reserve

and repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, sending us back to the era of

the gold standard and seasonal financial crises. 


HAYES:  In response to pressure from congressional conservatives after

terrorism arrests, the Obama administration and Congress are reportedly in

talks to change the rules on Miranda warnings, rules that have been in

place for longer than I have been alive.

Under consideration: giving law enforcement a couple of days to

question a suspect before informing him or her of her constitutionally-

guaranteed rights. 


HAYES:  And then it came to light today, more data confirming my

suspicion that conservative America wants to return to a simpler time.  In

some cases, a time before things like the Industrial Revolution, Edison‘s

light bulb or the 14th Amendment. 

Does the name Russell Pearce ring a bell?  Mr. Pearce is a state

senator in Arizona, and he‘s widely credited as the author of Arizona‘s

“papers, please” immigration law. 

He has also been photographed with a neo-Nazi. 

Today it was reported that Mr. Pearce has been writing to his

constituents, e-mailing them about his latest, great, new, 21st Century

idea.  Russell “Papers, Please” Pearce apparently intends to propose a bill

that would empower Arizona to not grant citizenship to all children born in

the U.S., regardless of the legal status of their parents. 

As a reference point, here is the first sentence of the first article

of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.  “All persons born

or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” 

There‘s more, but you get the point.

According to his correspondents, Russell Pearce would shred the 14th

Amendment, which has existed since 1868.  In one e-mail, he writes, quote,

“I also intend to push for an Arizona bill that would refuse to accept or

issue a birth certificate that recognizes citizenship to those born to

illegal aliens.” 

Go on.  Cue the music. 


HAYES:  You know, trying to roll back a few decades worth of what most

people would call progress is starting to seem—I don‘t know, almost

routine at this point.  I mean, any conservative can wage war on the

policies and laws from the 19th and 20th centuries.

The real challenge is going to be turning back all that stuff

from the ‘80s.  Like the 1780s.  Say, the Third Amendment.  I mean, if

conservatives won‘t call for the mandatory quartering of soldiers during

peace time, who will?

Joining us is Congressman Raul Grijalva, a Democrat from Arizona. 

Congressman, thanks for being here tonight.

REP. RAUL GRIJALVA (D), ARIZONA:  Thank you very much.

HAYES:  Let me begin by getting your reaction to State Senator Russell

Pearce‘s promise to introduce a bill that would essentially repeal the 14th

Amendment in Arizona.  Pearce responded today that he‘s disappointed when

people think he is mean-spirited because of this stance on immigration. 

How do you respond to that?

GRIJALVA:  Well, it goes beyond mean-spirited.  Russell Pearce,

architect of almost every major anti-civil rights, anti-immigrant

legislation in the state and now being successful at passing those has had

that agenda forever.  It‘s an agenda of hatred.  It‘s an agenda of making

evil out of a group of people in this state.

And the consequence of it is that he was successful at 1070,

papers please.  He was successful of ethnic studies, and he feels that he

has momentum going for him.  And not enough people are standing up to what

I think is—not—not just turning back the clock, but almost a


And if people don‘t want to believe the fact that what he‘s doing

is—is racially motivated and racially based, they‘re missing the whole

point.  The whole idea behind his agenda and the whole idea behind the

comments that Rand Paul made are that we have to turn back the clock

because these people, American citizens, be they voters, be they—have

gotten too much.

And the consequence of that is to undercut everything that we‘ve

ever done in this country in terms of values, standards, and due process. 

And it is—it‘s frightening, but nevertheless, that‘s a political reality

that many of us are having to deal with right now.

HAYES:  I want to—you just mentioned that he feels like he has

momentum at this point and it certainly seems that way.  I‘m wondering,

what is the kind of political sensibility in the State of Arizona right

now?  It seems from an outsider and obviously I have not been in Arizona

but the way the national media is kind of reporting it, that this kind of

backlash, I mean, people were talking last election that if McCain was—

wasn‘t on the ballot Arizona would have the chance of going blue but it

really seems like it‘s the common kind of bastion of this sort of backlash

reactionary politics.  And I wonder what you think has—has triggered


GRIJALVA:  Well, I think it‘s been—the demographic shift in the

state.  The fact that the state is rapidly becoming a state that is evenly-

matched in terms of color, or a state that demographically is becoming more

Latino, becoming more of color, becoming the prominence of Native Americans

in our state has increased.

And people are feeding on the fear that somehow this is a threat

to a lifestyle, which I think is erroneous.  It‘s going to hurt the

economy.  It‘s hurting it now to take an attitude that we must be punitive

with them in order for us to survive.

That “us versus them” is being played out in the state, and

unfortunately, unfortunately, leadership has not stood up to it, and not

called it for what it is.

This is a retribution issue against a certain group of people,

and we need to stand up against it.  And I think that plays out nationally

and it plays out here in the State of Arizona where we‘ve acquiesced.  Ok,

maybe this is a hare-brained idea, but let‘s not say anything because we

need to protect whatever interests we have.

And I think that‘s been the huge mistake that we have allowed

this movement to develop without challenging it.

HAYES:  In terms of challenging it, you were one of the first people

to call for a boycott of Arizona, your home state.  And since then more

than a dozen governments and organizations have vowed not to travel or do

business with the state.  I‘m wondering if the economic pressure has had

any direct political effect, or you‘re seeing it operating is it—is it

having the intended effect on the state?

GRIJALVA:  It‘s having an effect, you know?  Governor Brewer signed

the bill, it‘s giving a quarter million dollars to put a happy face and put

some lipstick on the pig.  The state‘s ok, this bill is ok; it‘s not going

to work.

The reaction of people of conscience and organizations of

conscience has been I‘m not going to do business with this state.  That

would have happened regardless of my call or anybody else‘s call for

economic sanctions.  It is just—I really think that the new backlash is

we don‘t need to tolerate this anymore.  And that backlash against this

kind of assault on civil liberties and turning back the clock on Civil

Rights is—is something that Democrats, including the White House, should

be in the lead position as opposed to waiting to see what happens.

HAYES:  You were—you were called for the administration, I just

want to—since I have you here, to talk about the Gulf for a moment. 

There‘s another oil platform that‘s operating not far from the Deep Water

Horizon.  There‘s been a lawsuit now operating—

GRIJALVA:  The Atlantis.

HAYES:  -- yes exactly.  And they‘re not, there have been a lawsuit

that they are not operating with the proper engineering documents.  You‘ve

communicated to the administration and called for them to stop drilling on

that platform.  And while I have you here on the air, I want to ask if you

have heard anything from the administration back on that.

GRIJALVA:  Not at that point, but we‘re going to have an opportunity

at a hearing on the 26th of May with Secretary Salazar to ask that

question.  We had a canary in the cage letting us know, a whistleblower,

that there are big problems in Atlantis.  Horizon happens and we still have

Atlantis, that if anything were to happen there, it would—what happened

at Horizon would be minimal compared to the damage that would do.

And so we‘re asking, suspend operations until you fully

investigate and fully know the impact and the consequences and do the due

diligence that this administration, as an oversight agency should do on

offshore drilling.

Drill, baby, drill was the mantra.  Everybody rushed to it and

now we‘re seeing the consequences of that rush.  And we‘re saying take a

deep breath and let us know what is really going on and do the due

diligence that should have been done years ago but was never done and we

acquiesced and let this thing happen without any real oversight.

HAYES:  Congressman Raul Grijalva, a Democrat from Arizona, thank you

so much for taking your time to talk to us tonight; a pleasure to have you.

GRIJALVA:  Thank you.

HAYES:  In January of 2011, will people be saying of the military‘s

“don‘t ask don‘t tell” policy, that‘s so 2010.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

thinks so.  Stick around.


HAYES:  Welcome back.  In a few holy mackerel stories in this week‘s

news and one standard bit of disclosure, the disclosure is that my wife

works in the White House counsel‘s office.  And since it‘s hard to do an

hour of TV without talking about the White House, we thought you should


Now to the mackerels: starting with Virginia‘s own religious

right conservative masquerading as a nationally electable moderate,

Governor Bob McDonnell.  Last month “The Washington Post” got wind of a new

McDonnell policy on the restoration of voting right no nonviolent felons

who had served their time.

The governor‘s policy would require them to write an essay about

what they had done since their release to deserve their voting rights back. 

The pledging policy smelled a lot like a Jim Crow our literacy test.  And

as soon as people cried out against it Governor McDonnell tried to pretend

it wasn‘t actually a policy yet just an idea he was kicking around.

Then of course, “The Washington Post” discovered that a couple of

hundred letters had already been sent out to the ex-felons telling them

about the quote, “new requirement”.  So of course, the governor tried to

blame the letter on a well-meaning staffer who jumped the gun.  An

extremely well-meaning staffer in the governor‘s office it appears.

Yesterday the governor unveiled his final proposal.  Prisoners

will now only need to wait two years instead of three before they can apply

to have their voting rights restored and there is no essay required. 

Instead, if non-violent felons want to get their voting rights back they

just have to fill out an application; an application that asks for a,

quote, “brief description of civic or community involvement”.

Wait, but doesn‘t that sound a little like an essay?  No, no, no,

big difference.  It is not on a—I said not, on a separate piece of


Plus, McDonnell told “The Washington Post” that if an applicant

leaves the question blank, it won‘t mean an automatic rejection.  McDonnell

said to the “Post”, quote, “We‘ll just assume they don‘t have anything to

say”.  That doesn‘t sound ominous at all.

Then there is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who told “The

Hill” newspaper that by the time the big ball of lights drop in Times

Square later this year, the military‘s discriminatory policy towards gays

will be no more.  Quote, “I don‘t have any doubt that ‘don‘t ask don‘t

tell‘ will be a memory by the end of this year.”

That puts Speaker—the Speaker on the same repeal timeline as

the President who promised in the State of the Union Address that he would

work with Congress this year to end “don‘t ask, don‘t tell”.  To date,

thousands of otherwise qualified people have been kicked out, fired from

the military as a result of the Clinton era policy.

And according to a new report by Service Members United, there

are hundreds more such men and women that were never counted in the

official numbers.  The organization found, quote, “630 additional

discharges that have never before been counted in the Department of

Defense‘s official ‘don‘t ask, don‘t tell‘ discharge numbers”.

The 630 were in the National Guard or the reserves and thus not

counted, which means the 17-year total number of discharges under “don‘t

ask, don‘t tell” is at least 14,055.

And finally, when I watched Rachel‘s interview with Rand Paul

this week, I thought the reason she kept going with it for so long was

because he wouldn‘t answer the question.  Is the government right to ban

private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race?

And then this morning “The New York Times” reported that Paul had

answered, really, really clearly.  Quote, “Asked by Ms. Maddow if a private

business had the right to refuse to serve black people, Mr. Paul replied


Huh?  He did?  Were the “Times” reporters watching the same

interview I was or maybe just reading the transcript where it does say,

“Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don‘t

serve black people?  Paul: Yes, I‘m not in favor of any discrimination of

any form”.

You don‘t remember it that either?  Yes that‘s because it didn‘t

happen that way except in the most mechanical sense.


RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST:  Do you think that the private

business has the right to say we don‘t serve black people—

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I‘m not in, I‘m not in—yes, I‘m not in favor of

any discrimination of any form.


HAYES:  Yes, that is not Rand Paul saying yes, as in yes, private

businesses have the right to say they don‘t serve black people, that‘s Rand

Paul saying, “Yes, despite the fact that we‘re talking over each other and

there‘s a delay in the transmission, I can hear you”.

The transcript‘s technically right and totally misleading if you

haven‘t done your homework and watched the segment before sun rising.  This

stuff‘s important.  It‘s worth another step to make sure we‘re all having

the right discussion of the original discussion.


HAYES:  Still ahead, a story for anyone fascinated by mysteries

and poop, and science and poop, and justice and poop.  It‘s got it all. 





also imagine the terror I‘d feel if one of my family members were rounded

up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo Bay without even

getting one chance to ask why we‘re being held and being able to prove my



HAYES:  That was then-Senator Barack Obama in 2006 speaking

against the Military Commission Act which denied habeas corpus to detainees

at Guantanamo.  The Supreme Court eventually ruled in 2008 that Guantanamo

detainees did have a right to habeas; they could challenge their

imprisonment in federal court.

After that ruling the Bush administration decided that instead of

bringing detainees to Guantanamo, they‘d take them somewhere, another

location outside the jurisdiction of a court; Bagram Airfield in

Afghanistan.  Detainees found themselves in the same legal black hole but a

different location.

Today there are between 600 to 800 quote, “unlawful enemy

combatants held indefinitely at Bagram” and President Obama is in favor of

it.  President Obama is on the exact opposite side of the argument that

Senator Obama was in 2006.

The Obama administration has continued the Bush policy, when

three detainees currently imprisoned in Bagram challenged their status, the

administration argued against them.  The White House lost that argument in

front of a conservative judge who ruled the detainees did in fact have a

right to habeas.

So the Obama administration appealed that decision and today

President Obama scored a victory to keep those detainees locked up

indefinitely without even getting one chance to prove their innocence in

court.  Why the disparity?

In the unanimous 26-page ruling, the court ruled that Guantanamo

Bay is a quote, “Territory that while technically not part of the United

States is under the complete and total control of our government, in Bagram

the surrounding circumstances are hardly the same, there is no indication

of any intent to occupy Bagram with permanence”.

The ruling went on to distinguish that Bagram is currently in a

theater of war and Guantanamo doesn‘t have the same threats to security. 

So when the prison in question is Guantanamo, detainees have a right to a

court hearing.  But those held, in Bagram, no chance.

Is this the American way?  And why does President Obama oppose

the legal black hole in Guantanamo but is in favor of it in Bagram.

Joining me now is Shayana Kadidal, senior managing attorney at

the Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative at the Center for Constitutional

Rights.  Shayana, thanks so much for being here.


having me, Chris.

HAYES:  Well, what do you think the court gets wrong when it

distinguishes between detainees in Guantanamo and those being held in


KADIDAL:  Right, well, you know the lower court here is the trial

court level and the ruling by one of the most conservative judges in the

district appointed by George W. Bush said, look, there‘s almost nothing to

distinguish Bagram from Guantanamo.  The U.S. has complete control over the

facility.  The Afghans don‘t have anything to say about its operation.

And then there are no real practical concerns about sending

lawyers in there.  You know and the government came back and said, well,

it‘s in Afghanistan and the entire country is an active theater of war. 

And what the court said in response to that was well, for these three

petitioners, you know all three of them were non-Afghan, Yemenis and


And they were all picked up outside of Afghanistan and brought by

the United States into Bagram, into Afghanistan to be held there.  And the

court said, well, if I allow you—to kick anyone‘s case out of court

who‘s held in an active theater of war that will allow you to hide people

from the court by bring them into an active theater of war.

And you know, you remember, that Guantanamo is really designed in

the same way, to be a place to hide detainees from the rule of law.  But

the Court of Appeals today said that it wasn‘t concerned about that.  And

the way it distinguished it was really as sort of nonsensical.  What it

said was these guys have been held for so long, seven to eight years, and

if you go back to the time they were brought to Bagram.  You know, nobody

knew that anybody outside the 50 states who wasn‘t a U.S. citizen had any

right to get into the U.S. courts.

So they are saying there‘s no risk of manipulation to send people

to Bagram back then because we could have just as easily have sent them to

some offshore hell hole and nobody back then knew that any of them had any

sort of rights to get into federal court.

HAYES:  So that—so that actually makes me think it maybe is a

narrower ruling than it appears.  Which is to say, if you grab people now

and send them, would that same logic the court used apply or that would be

a different story?

KADIDAL:  Right, you know, the court was a little bit careful.  The

Court of Appeals today was a little bit careful to say, well, if Obama is

thinking about making this into his own Guantanamo by bringing people there

in the future, well, you know, now we are concerned about the manipulation

factor.  Because, you know, going forward this looks different from


But as for anybody who has been there for seven or eight years,

no dice.  They are out of luck.  So in that way, it‘s a little bit like

Bush and Gore where the Supreme Court said, it took this very aggressive

sort of position on equal rights to overturn the recount in Florida but

then said you could never apply this sort of principle anywhere else.  It‘s

a one off.

HAYES:  I‘m wondering if you‘re surprised by how vociferously the

administration has argued on behalf of this power.  I mean I think there‘s

a fear that this is going to become essentially, I mean, we haven‘t quote,

the original Guantanamo but this will become Obama‘s Guantanamo.  Is that

something you‘re worried about?

KADIDAL:  Well, that‘s certainly a fear.  But the real Guantanamo is

nowhere near closing either.  And the President has pretty much done

nothing other than improving the conditions there and finding new homes for

some asylum seekers there, has done nothing to distinguish himself from the

Bush administration.

You know and the reason is pretty clear why—why

administrations from different parties are willing to keep these places

open.  It‘s because nobody wants to admit that most of the people there are

there by mistake.  So Major General Stone last August issued a report that

said over—he didn‘t issue it but he wrote it and parts of that leaked

saying, 400 out of 600 Bagram detainees should have never been picked up

should be released.

And we see the same thing in Guantanamo where people were brought

in because of bounty payments, or because, you know, they were the wrong

nationality in Afghanistan.

HAYES:  Shayana Kadidal, senior managing attorney of the Guantanamo

Global Justice Initiative at the Center of Constitutional Rights, thanks so

much for being here tonight.  And have a good weekend.

KADIDAL:  Thanks for having me.

HAYES:  Up next, something very, very important about dogs in

apartment buildings and things dogs are not supposed to do in apartment

buildings.  We‘ll be right back.


HAYES:  We turn now to our forensic waste correspondent, Kent Jones. 

Hey there Kent.


testing has solves all sorts of mysteries, but probably never this kind. 

Check it out.


JONES (voice-over):  At Scarlett Place, a posh downtown condo

building in Baltimore a silent enemy stalks the halls and elevators unseen,

relentless and it‘s pooping—pooping inside; again and again, pooping

without any regard for human decency.  It‘s CSI: Poop.

DBAL reporter Rob Rublin (ph), spoke to Scarlet Place residents

and dog owner Steve France (ph) and found out that the road to justice may

lie in DNA testing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  You just swab inside the cheek just like I guess

CSI does it.  If poop is found in the building, they have another kind of

kit that‘s used to collect the poop send it off and that poop gets analyzed

to match with whoever might have done it.

JONES:  Just to recap, he‘s talking about swabbing inside the cheeks

of dogs who live there and matching that DNA to samples of wayward poop

found in the halls and elevators.  So is Scarlet Place ready for a high-

tech poop witch-hunt?  Apparently not.

The condo board voted to table the whole idea then come up with

another idea that is more realistic and acceptable.  Nonetheless, Scarlett

Place pooper, you‘re on notice.  Thanks to DNA testing, you can hide but

you can‘t run.


HAYES:  Thank you very much, Kent.

JONES:  Any time.

HAYES:  That does it for us tonight.  I‘m Chris Hayes, Washington

editor of the “Nation” magazine.  Rachel will be back on Monday in time for

Geek Week.  Until then, you could see of more of my work at

Have a good weekend, goodnight.




Copyright 2010 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 Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,

copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>