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

All In With Chris Hayes, Wednesday, June 5th, 2013

Read the transcript from the Wednesday show

June 5, 2013

Guests: Jared Polis, Charles Pierce, Richard Justice, Michael Eric Dyson, Jamaane Williams

CHRIS HAYES, HOST: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes and
thank you for joining us.

Coming up tonight, when President Obama goes to the Rose Garden
lately, he sure does make news. Today, the in-your-face appointment of
Susan Rice to be his national security adviser. We`ll talk about how
that`s going over.

And later, Obama`s nomination of the district court judges yesterday,
one comes with an amazing back story, and a mission to fight against stop
and frisk.

But I want to begin with United States Senator Marco Rubio whom I
believe is attempting to pull off a massive heist in broad daylight. I see
you, Marco Rubio. I see what you`re doing. In case you thought no one was
watching, I see what you are trying to pull.

You see, there`s a reason Senator Rubio`s star is rising in the GOP.
He`s a possible presidential candidate in 2016, perhaps even a favorite.
And it`s because in many ways, Marco Rubio is just the perfect candidate
for what ails the Republican Party. He`s young, he`s telegenic, inspiring
backstory, very gifted politician, Latino heritage, all attributes that
greatly assist a party that is out of touch with the rising national

Let`s not forget, the Republican candidate for president in 2012 lost
young people by 24 points and that was nothing compared to what happened
with Latinos. More troubling to GOP, the party lost Latinos by a crushing
44 points.

Now, to survive beyond the current generation, Republican Party is
going to have to brush back its vocal minority. The Tea Party base, the
constituency that starts and ends the conversation on immigration with how
big should we build the fence and how electrified can it be? So, if
there`s anyone that can stop the bleeding, Marco Rubio would seem to be the
guy to do it.

And if that means acting as a power broker for Republicans in getting
a compromise on President Obama`s most important second term legislative
goal, so be it.

And so far, let`s give some credit here, what once seemed completely
inconceivable, has remained very much a reality. With Rubio as a lead
negotiator of the Senate`s bipartisan immigration bill, a bill that made it
out of committee and dramatic vote just last month.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Chairman, the votes are 13 ayes.





HAYES: But now, Marco Rubio has pulled a fast one. He`s already
getting credit for marshalling the bill forward. Now, he wants to get
credit for killing it, too.

And so, yesterday on conservative talk radio, which you probably
weren`t listening to, Marco Rubio said the bill that he helped negotiate,
the one that helped get through the committee, the one that he has put his
name and face associated to, he said that bill, the one he signed off on,
the one he`s been pushing all over the place, well, it needed to strengthen
border security.


HUGH HEWITT: If those amendments don`t pass, will you yourself
support the bill that emerged from Judiciary, Senator Rubio?

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: Well, I think if those amendments
don`t pass, then I think we`ve got a bill that isn`t going to become law.
And I think we`re wasting our time. So, the answer is no.


HAYES: Did you catch that? He`ll vote. He will vote no on his own
bill. Why? Well, it turns out, Rubio has been working with Senator John
Cornyn of Texas on a border amendment to the immigration reform bill,
working for weeks, according to a Rubio aide, and now, Rubio says, if this
amendment doesn`t make it into the bill, well, the bill that he sponsored,
it`s toast.


RUBIO: -- currently structured isn`t going to pass in the House and I
think it`s going to struggle to pass in the Senate.


HAYES: Suddenly, Marco Rubio, the savior to immigration reform, is on
the same page with the Republican leadership in the horror show that is the
House of Representatives, where there`s absolutely no chance of an
immigration bill passing unless the border is essentially covered in molten


REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R), VIRGINIA: I think it`s very clear that the
House will not take the Senate bill. There is an effort on the part of
those senators to improve the Senate bill, as it moves through the floor,
but it has a long way to go from the house perspective.


HAYES: So, as I sit here speaking to you tonight, we very well at
this point, right now, could be witnessing the end of immigration reform in
Congress. It`s this close. The man who is going to wear the badge of
reform on the Republican Party is responsible for what could be a fatal

And it`s because I think Marco Rubio realized that actually the best
possible outcome for his own career is to be the guy who gets credit for
trying to fix the party`s willful outlook with Latinos and gets to go
around to all of the Republican donors who desperately want this bill while
also at the same time being the guy who stuck the sheave in the deal to
please the Tea Party. That is the heist.

And what`s being stolen is the future of 12 million people who have
flesh and blood stakes in the outcome of this immigration bill, whose
future depends on a path forward, out of the margins and darkness into the
daylight of full American citizenship. And while we all pay attention to
the IRS "Star Trek" videos, Marco Rubio is getting away with its heist, and
that`s not right. It`s not right that Marco Rubio wants to look Latino
voters in the eyes and said he did everything he could to change a
fundamentally unfair policy while he openly dashes their hopes the minute
they look away.

So here`s my proposal. Let`s make sure he can`t have it both ways,
because we see what you`re doing, Marco Rubio, and it stinks.

Joining me now is Congressman Jared Polis from Colorado. He`s co-
chair of the new Democrat Coalition Immigration Task Force.

Real simple question, Congressman. Are we seeing the demise of
comprehensive immigration reform today?

REP. JARED POLIS (D), COLORADO: Well, Chris, you framed it exactly
right. You can`t have it both ways. I`m still optimistic. I mean, the
next hours, the next days are absolutely critical. Senator Rubio either
needs to put up or shut up. At some point, the excuses are getting in the
way of actual progress.

So, let`s see if they can make real changes that we can live with and
they can live with, or whether this is just a simple ploy to stop
immigration reform.

HAYES: On the simple ploy to stop immigration reform, one of the
members -- there`s a House version of folks who come together, bipartisan
group, you`ve been involved in a broader conversation on this

The small group negotiating, Raul Labrador, who is a congressman from
Utah and a former immigration attorney. He himself is a Puerto Rican.
He`s been a very outspoken voice. He announced today, we have learned and
confirmed from a congressional source, I think you people have now put out
and announcement. He is leaving that group. He is walking away from the

What does that mean to you about how precarious this is right now?

POLIS: Well, our small band of eight is now a band of seven. But we
still have a bipartisan effort to establish a bill in the House. Raul
Labrador and there`s been breakdowns on health care, because, frankly, if
you`re going to have some kind of requirement that immigrants cover
themselves, how are you going to do that if you`re not making them eligible
for the subsidies. So, we`re trying to find out, what people in this
temporary status, until they become full citizens -- which in the Senate
bill is 13 years -- how do we deal with them in the context of health care?

And when you have House Republicans who voted 37 times to repeal
Obamacare, it`s hard to have a practical discussion about what you`re going
to do on the ground.

HAYES: So, this is the fundamental question I have for you. You just
mentioned that it sounds like the negotiations happening on your side of
Capitol Hill, which is the House, are breaking down over this insistence by
Republicans that folks who are on their way to citizenship, not be
qualified to get the subsidies under Obamacare. For some reason, they can
still drive on public roads paid for by taxpayers, they`re still going to
pay taxes, they`re still going to be able to get Social Security -- just
this Obama care thing.

Do you understand that, as a rational obsession with Obamacare, or
just a bad faith effort to destroy the bill?

POLIS: Look, I think people should just look at it economically.
When people are paying in, paying taxes, they should get the same benefits.
You can`t have somebody required to have coverage if they can`t afford it.
The whole thing breaks apart because people won`t register and come
forward, which is the whole purpose of the bill.

So, again, look, in the coming days, Republicans need to put up or
shut up. Is this an excuse not to do immigration reform or do they have
ideas on how to make it better and more workable? We`re going to find out
in the coming hours and days.

HAYES: Jared Polis, Democrat from Colorado, thank you so much for
joining me.

POLIS: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: And joining me now Victoria DeFrancesco Soto, contributor at
MSNBC and NBC Latino, senior analyst of the research firm Latino Decisions;
and Charles Pierce, contributing writer to "Esquire" and a staff writer at

Victoria, I want to start with you. I`m going to jump over and take
the Marco Rubio side, and basically, I`ll give the Marco Rubio argument,
which is, look, ma`am, we are trying over here in the Senate but these
dudes in the House are for real. They hate this stuff. And unless we can
make this bill more conservative, they are going to kill it anyway.

So what do you want from me, poor Marco Rubio, I`m sweating here?

Rubio is, if I want to get to the White House, I essentially need to appeal
to both the Republican constituency and general constituency. So, what
we`re seeing here is that he`s saying let me tamp down the bill to go to my
Republican base and get their support and then that way, when I go to the
general electorate, I can also show that I`ve made the effort and maybe
it`s not the ideal bill. Maybe it`s not the bill that, you know, is the
best thing for the 12 million Latinos, but he`s going to come out and say,
look, something is better than nothing.

And that is the argument that we have seen in the subterranean level
with Republicans. That we`re putting our best foot forward. We want to
recruit Latinos into the party, so we`re going to do something, it may not
be the best but it`s something.

HAYES: OK. So, this is my question. Something is better than
nothing presumes that he wants a something and, Charlie, what is your read
on the politics of this, about whether the incentives are aligned for Marco
Rubio to actually want to deal or for anyone really in Republicans in
Congress to want to deal.

I think they wanted a deal the day after Election Day. I`m not so
sure now.

deal the day after Election Day and then everybody once again in the senate
stood up and took a look down the hallway and realized what they were
dealing with. I mean, this is a party where, if there was one rake in the
entire state of Kansas, this party would step on it basically.

HAYES: OK. But here`s my question. If that`s the case, if it`s the
house that`s going to be required for killing this, this is my fear, is
that a small group of house Republicans who are not going to be accountable
to a national constituency, they are going to be the ones to kill it and
everyone else in the upper echelons, including Marco Rubio, are going to
walk away like they tried their best. My question to you is, will it stick
to Marco Rubio if it fails?

HAYES: Well, here`s my question, if that`s the case. If it`s really
the House that`s going to be responsible for killing this, this is my fear,
is that a small group of House Republicans were not going to be accountable
to a national constituency, who are going to be accountable to very
gerrymandered district, are going to be the ones to kill, and everyone
else, the upper echelons of Republican Party, including Marco Rubio is
going to try to walk away like they`ve tried their best.

And my question to you is, will it stick to Marco Rubio if this fails?

PIERCE: Well, I don`t know that it will stick. You know, as far out
as the next presidential election, but I wish him, if he wants to try to
play this both ways, I wish him as much luck as Mitt Romney had with health
care in the primaries.

Mitt Romney got beat up pretty badly for the wonderful things he did
here in Massachusetts.

HAYES: And that is, of course, precisely the fear that Marco Rubio
has. Here is Mitt Romney getting to the right of a lot of his opponents in
the primary on this issue in immigration on the primary. Listen to how
Mitt Romney sounded on this in the primary.


were elected and Congress were to pass a DREAM Act, would I veto it? And
the answer is yes.

We hired a lawn company to mow our lawn and they had illegal
immigrants working there. And we went to the company and we said, look, we
can`t have any illegal immigrants working in our property. I`m running for
office for Pete`s sake, I can`t have illegals. Almost half of the jobs
created in Texas were created for illegal aliens, illegal immigrants.

REP. RICK PERRY (R), TEXAS: That is an absolute falsehood on its
face, Mitt.

ROMNEY: If you go to the University of Texas, if you`re an illegal
alien, you get an in-state tuition discount. Four years of a college,
almost $100,000 discount if you`re an illegal alien.


HAYES: Vicky, this is the same Republican base that the House
Republican Caucus is responsible to and that the presidential candidates
are going to have to win a primary from.

SOTO: It is. And, Chris, I want to point something out, though, that
we`ve been assuming that the Senate is looking to the House and trying to
act accordingly. But also, let`s think about the possibility that the
House could act in response to the Senate if the Senate, especially the
gang of eight really stood up, stood firm and said, look, we are going to
take charge of this issue and it is going to be one where we fold in
Latinos, so the House would move.

So, the difficulty -- the Senate keeps blaming the house. They need
to stop that. They need to take their own responsibility. And Marco Rubio
has flip-flopped since the beginning. I am not surprised that he is
pulling this. In 2010, he ran away from immigration.

Remember, he came up with the Tea Party and then just a couple weeks
ago he said, oh, things are moving too fast, it`s getting too hasty. I
don`t think that we should forward this fast. And now, he has cold feet.

HAYES: I agree on you the responsibility. And here`s my feeling
about this: Marco Rubio, if this happens and a deal happens, I will come on
air here and tip my cap to Marco Rubio, and he will deserve the credit he
deserves. If it doesn`t get done, then he owns the failure of it right
now. He cannot pawn it off on some one else.

And what you just said, Vicky, is key. If the Senate passes and puts
some pressure on the House, there`s a chance. If it doesn`t, he doesn`t
get to blame it on the House. That`s my feeling about it.

Vicky DeFrancesco Soto, MSNBC contributor, and Charles Pierce,
contributing writer at "Esquire" -- thank you both.

If you thought John McCain and the Benghazi truthers had claimed the
political scalp of Susan Rice, you would be as wrong as they were when the
president named her his national security adviser. We`ll delve into that,


HAYES: Republicans tried to preemptively knock Susan Rice out as
secretary of state but President Obama appointed her as his next national
security adviser.

And there`s a huge brewing scandal, complete with documents and big
games and intrigue and it`s not in Washington. It`s in Yankee Stadium.
Those stories are coming up.



Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after
me. And I`m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go
after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was
simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received
and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.


HAYES: That was the president defending his ambassador to the United
Nation, Susan Rice, back in November, from an absolute turn of vicious,
constant, brutal political attacks led by Republicans John McCain and
Lindsey Graham. All for her appearance on some Sunday talk shows in the
wake of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, during which
she outlined a set of talking points from intelligence officials on their
best assessment at the time of what had just happened in Benghazi.

Those talking points, we would later learned, were not prepared by
Ambassador Rice or even edited by her in any shape, way, or form. But
nonetheless, the attacks against her were so intense that Susan Rice, who
was then widely reported to be a top contender to replace Hillary Clinton
as secretary of state had to give up that chance before it was even
officially offered to her.


BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS: Out of the running, Susan Rice tells NBC
News she is withdrawing her name for consideration as the next secretary of

SUSAN RICE, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: I withdrew my name because I
think it`s the right thing for the country and I think it`s the right thing
for the president.

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS: This is so dramatic. Susan Rice`s many
defenders, Brian, are trying to figure out how Republicans has managed to
deny the president, his top choice for secretary of state, without benefit
of a nomination or a hearing.


HAYES: However, they managed, Republicans did do that. They did
preemptively knock Susan Rice out of secretary of state.

But today, President Obama got the last laugh. Because today the
president announced none other than Susan Rice as his new national security
adviser, a high level, high profile position that crucially does not
require confirmation from the Senate.

And John McCain was left with no other recourse and just sputtered
around and announced a tweet. "Obviously, I disagree with POTUS
appointment of Susan Rice as national security adviser. But I`ll make
every effort to work with her on important issues.

Yes, he will, because unfortunately, for Senator McCain, he has no
other choice.

Joining me now is Joan Walsh, MSNBC political analyst, editor at large
for "Salon" and author of the book, "What`s the Matter with White People?:
Finding Our Way in the Next America."

OK. I just have to say, just to hammer this home -- Susan Rice was so
screwed on this whole Benghazi thing. Just to make as -- I mean, she had
nothing to do with it. Why was she the target? I still don`t get it. Why
did Lindsey Graham and John McCain like what do they have against Susan

JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: I still don`t get it either. John McCain,
that was awesome, with his passive aggressive -- calling it passive
aggressive. Rand Paul was aggressive, aggressive, accused her again, lied
about her again and said she was responsible for misleading the American
people against Benghazi. When we got those talking points memos and saw
even in the weird ABC version and the White House official version, the one
thing those versions agreed on was that Susan Rice had nothing to do with

HAYES: Nothing.

WALSH: Her staff was not --

HAYES: No one.

WALSH: People said that she deserved an apology and Lindsey Graham
shot back, she deserves a subpoena.

So, they keep it up. I can`t help but think it has something to do
with her closeness to the president, her being a woman, all of the garbage
about her not being very smart, according to Senator McCain, and
incompetent, according to Lindsey Graham, has creepy gender and race --

HAYES: OK. Can I just say? I just want to say this also and I want
to talk about her new position, because it`s quite a powerful one.

WALSH: Yes, it is.

HAYES: But also it`s not the craziest thing to me that they were
trying to look out for their bro, John Kerry, who they have known for a
long time, who was in the Senate with them, who served on committees with
them. Like that to me at the end of the day, when John Kerry get this --
I`m not saying this to take anything away from John Kerry himself, but that
also looked like what was going on.

WALSH: That`s what a secretary of state is supposed to look like and
that`s what they are used to, and then, you know, I mean, I thought about
it again today, too, because you have that incredible visual of the
president standing there with Susan Rice and Samantha Power, two relatively
young women, two people you couldn`t imagine John McCain and Lindsey Graham
single out, or Mitt Romney putting, you know, in his administration.

So, there`s a powerful symbolism and there`s a break with that old
boys network. I should say, of course, we`ve had women secretaries of

HAYES: Yes, of course.

WALSH: John Kerry got a little affirmative action there to get that
position back.


WALSH: So I want to make that clear.

HAYES: No, in this position, what I think is also fascinating about
the twists and turns of Susan Rice and sort of ups and downs of her career
in this, is that, I mean, she`s been very promising and very ambitious
individual, real Washington star for quite some time. She took a real risk
by endorsing Barack Obama very early on and now, she ends up in this
position which is in some ways more powerful. I think there`s a good
argument to be made, in this White House than John Kerry himself.

WALSH: Well, yes, I mean, she`s close to the president already.
She`s there. She is -- he`s traveling the globe and sure she`ll do some of
that but basically her job is to be at the president`s side.

HAYES: She briefs him every day.

WALSH: She briefs him every day. So, you could say that she wound up
with the most -- they helped give her the more powerful position, and I don
what John Kerry thinks about that. I`m sure John Kerry is happy with the
job he has, but she`s definitely kept her power, maybe consolidated her
power and is the person that the president wants in that role and it`s a
good day. It`s a good day when we saw him appoint three --

HAYES: Judges yesterday.

WALSH: Nominate three judges yesterday and it`s a good day that he
stuck to his guns and appointed Susan Rice in the face of all this --

HAYES: And Samantha Power will be -- is being nominated as her
replacement. John McCain has said some positive things about her. It`s
look she`s going to have a relatively uncontroversial confirmation. She
will replace Susan Rice as U.N. ambassador and she`s an amazing story of
someone who`s a journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner and authored an
encyclopedic history of American genocide -- of genocide and America`s role
in genocide prevention and the president read it and now, look where she

WALSH: Right. She`s an amazing. She has been a little too pro-
intervention over the years but she`s backtracked and she`s brilliant and
she`ll do a great job.

HAYES: Yes, there`s a lot. It`s very interesting to see how this is
going to shape the Syria conversation as we go forward.

WALSH: And that`s we never get to. We don`t get to discuss Libya --

HAYES: No, I don`t know -- Lord knows what Susan Rice`s politics are
right now, because, actually, she was never allowed to go through the
actual confirmation process where it might be hurt in the process.

WALSH: Right.

HAYES: Joan Walsh, MSNBC analyst -- thank you.

WALSH: Thanks.

HAYES: All right. We`re getting very used to our institutions
failing us. But one of our most beloved, cherished institutions is not
only failing, it`s becoming a punch line for American excess.

I`ll tell you what it is, next.


HAYES: There`s a new "Wall Street Journal"/NBC News poll out today
that shows declining faith in this country`s institutions. Of the 10
institution lists on the poll, including the news media, the federal
government and the IRS, only the military and auto industry got marks over
25 percent when it came to having a great deal or quite a bit of confidence
in these institutions.

Not having a whole lot of confidence in this country`s institutions
has pretty much been a dominant theme of American life for the past decade.
And while Major League Baseball did not show up in the poll, perhaps no
institution better represents the breach of trust that people felt about
institutions than Major League Baseball. Many of us thought that
professional baseball was done with what`s been called the steroid era,
that it was over, a time when the game was ripe of performance-enhancing
drug abuse.

That is until the ESPN broke the news last night that a man named Tony
Bosch was at the center of performance-enhancing drug ring, has agreed to
fully cooperate with Major League Baseball, a crucial development that
could lead to player suspensions. And if the suspensions are upheld, ESPN
was reporting the performance-enhancing drug scandal would be the largest
in American sports history.

Bosch operated the now defunct anti-again clinic outside Miami called
Biogenesis. He`s expected to meet with MLB officials on Friday to provide
information on drugs he purportedly to more than dozen major league
ballplayers, including New York Yankee star Alex Rodriguez.

Major League Baseball is widely perceived as having the most rigorous
drug testing program in professional sports. Does this mean it`s been a
sham all along?

Joining me now is Richard Justice, a columnist for

Richard, I want to start with the impact of this report on the game.
This seems like such a lose-lose in so far as you get this leaked report,
you get all of these names that are out there, now this cloud of suspicion
is back hanging over everyone`s head and yet it`s unclear whether they are
ever going to be able to prove any of the allegations.

Like what is going on?

RICHARD JUSTICE, COLUMNIST, MLB.COM: Well, I think the message for
Major League Baseball in this, Chris, is that they are going to be
relentless in ferreting out cheaters. And it`s not just the commissioner`s

It`s not just the owners. The players are angry. You`d be surprised
at how angry the players are because this one guy is telling me when
there`s one positive test, it reflect badly on 500 of us.

And they`re disgusted with us. They don`t want the peer pressure to
do it. They don`t want the message to be sent that we cheat. It`s a
terrible message.

And so, this is -- for every player that`s going to cheat, every
player that thinks he`s getting cut a corner and when you have competitive
people involved in a sport. I mean, you`re going to have some people look
to cut corners. The message for Major League Baseball is we`re going to go
after you. We`re going to go after you hard and if some reputations and
some big names are brought down, tough luck.

HAYES: Well, OK, but let me take the other side of this for a second.
You`ve got a guy who the Major League Baseball suits, OK, for running this
-- operating this clinic on a very novel legal theory basically saying you
are inducing people to break their employment contract with us. He has no

He then decides to turn over documentation and names to Major League
Baseball as a result of this lawsuit. Why are we supposed to trust this
guy? Like what standing does this guy have and at the end of the day you
can`t prove any of these allegations, isn`t this sullying for everyone?
Baseball comes away looking like they are vindictive, that they are leaking
this to the press and players look like they are all cheaters?

JUSTICE: Well, yes, at the end of the day, here`s what`s going to
happen. If you take this to its logical conclusion, we`re going to have a
room with an arbitrator, Ryan Braun on one side of the table and Tony Bosch
on the other side of the table and the arbitrator will decide who is right
in this.

I think the whole thing comes back to the fact that baseball wants a
message that we`re not going to tolerate this stuff, we`re going to be
aggressive, we`re going to punish the people, we`re going to test -- last
January baseball became the first sport to have in-season blood testing for
human growth hormone.

Are you going to catch everybody? Are you going to flush out
everybody? You`re never going to do it, but all you can do is have a world
class program, which the sport has and do the best you can.

HAYES: OK, so the joint testing agreement, I agree. It`s really
quite impressive. What does this say about the effectiveness of that joint
testing program if in fact there was cheating going on while it was
happening and does the leaking of these names to a reporter, almost
certainly coming from Major League Baseball undermine the trust that has
been build up to make this testing agreement work?

JUSTICE: You know, my impression, Chris, is that the Player`s
Association, which for years has fought testing, is now walking in concert
with the owners that they want this stuff out and as Michael Weiner, the
head of the Player`s Association, toured camps this season, he heard time
and again from players, look, a 50-game suspension has not been a deterrent
enough, make it 100, make it a year-long suspension.

And the players I know best, like Lance Berkman and Matt Holiday and
Chris Carper, people like that, they are furious that guys are still trying
to cut corners. Again, in a competitive sport when you have competitive
people, you`re always going to have this issue. It`s going to be a cat and
mouse game between the tester and testee and all you can do is keep going
at it.

HAYES: I want to play this bit of sound that hammers that home from
Mike Schmidt about the nature of being in such a competitive environment.
Take a look a listen.


MIKE SCHMIDT, BASEBALL HALL OF FAMER: What an exciting time for
baseball. Guys are -- home runs and ridiculous numbers and fans in the
ballpark and revenue coming back and the game is back and, man, look how
big he got over the winter and, you know, wow. That`s kind of like
everybody`s attitude. It`s really something. This is the future of the
game, I guess.

UNIDENTIIFIED FEMALE: Do you think you would have gotten caught up in
something like that?

SCHMIDT: Most likely. Why not?


HAYES: He`s talking about the huge 1998 home run race and the amazing
explosion that happened in what we now call the steroids era. My question
to you is, has the game recovered from that bubble and the bursting of that
bubble because I thought it sort of had and the report last night made me
think, man, we are not out of the woods of this yet.

JUSTICE: Well, if you mean from a financial standpoint, attendance,
revenues going through the roof, there`s parity in the game that was never
there before. If you`re talking about players still cheating, I think and
I always thought during the height of the steroid era, there were a few
guys at the top, but I don`t think the reports of 50 or 60 percent using
it. And now I think the percentages are very small because what do u risk
when you use? You risk the damage of your reputation.

HAYES: Right.

JUSTICE: You risk the loss of millions of dollars, all that stuff.

HAYES: Yes, there`s a lot of money on the table, a lot of money.
Richard Justice, columnist, thanks so much. We`ll be right back
with Click Three.


HAYES: One of the more amazing where are they now stories is the man
at the center of the infamous driving while black racial profiling case,
incredible story. That is coming up.

But first, I want to share the three most awesomest things on the
internet today beginning with some online jargon that may have reached its
saturation point. The term is derp, urban dictionary define it is a simple
an ignorant or common or action is made, derp.

And thanks to the internet derp means gift galore, they are found
themselves in a derp war when a blogger basically is derpy. "New York
Times" columnist, Paul Krugman weighed in, writing an entire column to the
right wing derpetude prompting the "Atlantic" to declare derp is a waste of

Gawker lamenting the problem column said that derp -- this was derp
jump the shark moment. Time will tell if derp is officially over. You
will know if your mom starts using it in her Facebook posts next week.

The second awesomest thing on the internet today, speaking of
derpetude, time now to check in with Toronto`s embattled Mayor Rob Ford.
Last week, Ford said he was interviewing new staff after several aides
quit. Looks like he made good on that promise, the "Toronto Star" tweeting
this pic of the new hires getting to know mayor boss. Today, Ford tweeted
a picture of himself and a staffer who clearly drew the short straw.

As for the crack-smoking part of the story, Gawker now says the Rob
Ford crack video might be gone. We`ll continue to monitor this developing
story. In the meantime, while use this on the update as a shameless excuse
to show you all of this Rob ford footage once again.

And the third awesomest thing on the internet today, lawmakers,
friends, and family gathered earlier to honor the late Senator Frank
Lautenberg of New Jersey. It was only fitting that a man known for his
sense of humor would have a joke told at his funeral. That`s where Joe
Biden comes in.

Now chances are you`re at work and couldn`t watch Biden`s eulogy,
fortunately, a whole slew of reporters and bloggers were not only watching
this tribute, they were live tweeting t. Biden in his element, surrounding
by Jewish people, complaining about Amtrak, Mr. Biden, Senator Lautenberg`s
funeral representing the pope, Biden jokes at Lautenberg funeral, I gave
the eulogy at Berman`s funeral this one is a lot easier.

Joe Biden, if there`s a definition of redundant I`m it. Biden, never
make a good eulogy or you`ll be ask again and again and again. Biden just
name dropped the violence against women act and Amtrak while using the word
literally twice in a 30-second window.

Biden`s remarks were well received. You can book him for your next --
or wedding using the beanbiden hash tag. I mean that literally. You can
find all the links for tonight`s Click Three on our website, We`ll be right back.



HAYES: On May 8th, 1992, a Washington, D.C., public defender named
Robert Wilkins and his family were pulled over after attending a funeral.
They were driving down Interstate 60 at a highway and according to local
authorities is the main artery for crack cocaine trafficking.

In fact, in that same year, the Maryland State Police had a issued a
warning to its officer that predominantly black males and black females
were responsible for the trafficking. So the car driven by Wilkins cousin
on its way back from a funeral was pulled over by a state trooper who said
they were speeding and asked to search the car.

Wilkins said no. He then identified himself as a public defender and
cited Supreme Court precedent that they could not be held for a dog search
without reasonable suspicion they were carrying drugs. The trooper was not
moved and asked them if they had, quote, "nothing to hide then what was the

And Wilkins and his family were forced to stand on the side of the
road in the rain while trooper searched the car and found nothing. Robert
Wilkins would go on to sue the Maryland State Police Department for racial
discrimination and win because as he said then, "I was determined to do
something about this because I don`t consider myself a victim. I consider
myself a warrior. I wanted to make that this stop happening to other

Wilkins 1993 lawsuit was the driving while black case, the case that
led to an outpouring of similar stories from people all over the country.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): The crime is called DWB, driving
while black, a crime committed when an officer racially profiles drivers.
Pastor Curtis Mitchell says it happens to members of his congregation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I had one of our associate pastors was pulled over
with his wife and he had three of his grandchildren in there and the
officer pulled him over and when he pulled him over he said, well, I didn`t
see your seat belt and then he came up and had all of their seat belts on
just because he was black.


HAYES: Yesterday, that man, now Judge Robert Wilkins, was nominated
by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Robert Wilkins has spent his life fighting discrimination through the
courts and winning and he has just been nominated to the federal bench, but
the policies he was fighting then, those policies are still very much with
us now.

They have been established at cities across the country. Here in New
York, under a policy known as stop and frisk. In New York in 2011, get
this, over 168,000 men from the ages of 14 to 24, were stopped on the
street and frisked by the NYPD. There are 158,000 men living 14 to 24
living in New York City, 106 percent of black men, from ages 14 to 24 have
been stopped and frisked, 106 percent.

The NYPD with the unconditional support of Mayor Michael Bloomberg
have stopped and frisked more black men than there are black men in New
York City. Institutionalized racial discrimination in the United States is
alive and well.

Joining me now is Jumaane Williams, Democratic New York City
councilmember from Brooklyn. He himself was stopped in 2011 and handcuffed
by police. Peter Moskoe is a former Baltimore police officer, current
associate professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and author of
the book, "Cop in the Hood," which is a great read, and Michael Eric Dyson,
MSNBC political analyst at professor at Georgetown University.

It`s great to have you all. Michael, what is your -- I think the
Wilkins story is so incredible and that quote and I`m a lawyer and then to
see him, what does that say to you that the president has made that

Harvard trained and hood tested. Here`s a guy who understands what it
feels like for the average American, but especially in this case African-
American male who`s been subjected to the arbitrary exercise of power of
the state against a vulnerable citizen. And now he occupies the second
highest court should he be successful, the highest second court in the
land. This suggests to me that President Obama understands that jurors
should have practical experience and understand what people are up against
every day of their lives.

HAYES: So here`s the big, I remember when driving while black was a
big story. I mean, there were nightly news packages on there, right?

DYSON: Right.

HAYES: How much progress have we made? That`s my question is that
was -- racial profiling, driving while black, those were big issues.
Councilman, how much progress do you think we`ve made?

black is still a situation in the country. Any time you can look at the
color of the skin and decide what kind of education opportunities they are
going to have, whether or not they have employment opportunities, it`s a

And if you know that you`re going to be stopped 106 times in New York
City, then we know it`s a problem. The fact that we call this thing into
New York City stop, question, and frisk, it`s a problem. Most people just
call it police work if it`s done properly so it`s a huge problem in New
York City so the rest of the country met with the Department of Justice and
went down to D.C. they also expressed much concern that this is going on
throughout the country.

And as you mentioned, at least at its worst, someone being shot and
killed I believe because of the color of their skin when they are unarmed
or at the least, being arrested and detained for an hour.

HAYES: And you were just stopped on the street for no reason?

WILLIAMS: I was going to an event that he was invited to with someone
else who works then for the public advocate, we were going inside. We
showed our credentials to the one of two officers and the officer just
stopped. I got on the phone with the chief of police trying to explain to
them what was going on.

I had my city council pin. I had a big ribbon and I had my badge and
none of that mattered. The problem is, they keep saying the gun, the gun
violence and this black on black crime. You get tired of hearing that. I
know where the crime is. I go to the funerals. I go talk to the mothers.
The problem is it`s not working. So we keep trying to do things that are
not working.

HAYES: So this is a question about police work and you worked as a
police worked as a police officer, written about policing, teach about
criminal justice. I want to play for you a sound from Ray Kelly responding
to the idea that the New York City Police are engaged in racial profiling
through stop and frisk. Take a listen.


RAY KELLY, NYC POLICE COMMISSIONER: People who stop, it`s 53 percent
African-American. So really, African-Americans are being understopped in
relation to the percentage of people being described as being the
perpetrators of violent crime. The stark reality is crime happens in
communities of color.


HAYES: That`s the argument, what`s your response to that, Peter?

PETER MOSKOS, FORMER POLICE OFFICER: There are two sides that are
talking past each other. I mean, there is a problem of black-on-black
violence in New York City and many other places that needs to be addressed.
In many ways, that`s separate from the problems of stop, question, and
frisk. I mean, in a sense, Kelly is right, but he`s ignoring the issues
involved here of how police are going about what should be doing their job,
and instead are doing it often without the proper training and to meet

HAYES: Will you explain that for a second?

MOSKOS: Well, part of the irony is that stop, question and frisk were
counted because people were worried about them and because they are counted
then police start using them to judge police officers` work. So ironically
the forum they use has probably increased the number of stop and frisk.

HAYES: There`s a quota problem, which we`ve all seen about hitting
the numbers. My question is does this come from policy or interactions on
the ground? Like where do we put the pin on this to make it stop and I
want to get to that question right after we take this break.


HAYES: A few quick corrections for the record, earlier in the show I
was previewing the story we were talking about and said the president
nominated district court judges, they were actually circuit court judges,
important distinction. I also incorrectly said Congressman Raul Labrador
is from Utah, he`s from Idaho, and I said basketball instead of base-
ketball when I was doing that derp story in Click Three. It`s been a
pretty derpy night for me. We`ll be right back.


HAYES: We`re back with Jumaane Williams, a New York City council
member, Peter Moskos, a former Baltimore police officer, and Michael Eric
Dyson, MSNBC political analyst and professor of Georgetown. Michael, you
were just telling a story, which is a story I think almost every black man
has, everyone that I`ve ever talked to.

DYSON: Look, I`m 54 years old, Detroit, Michigan, police in an
unmarked car, stopped me and my brother and a friend, said we have stolen
our car. I was going to pull out my registration. The policeman called me
the "n" word, promised he would put a bullet through my skull, knocked me
on the ground, hit my friend on the ground, ran the registration, saw it
was my car, got in their car, and drove off, no apology. See this was the
problem --

HAYES: What year was that?

DYSON: This was 1978. Progress has been made, but Malcolm x said you
don`t put a knife in my back nine inches, pull it out six inches, and call
it progress. Black people want the cops to come, but want them to make
suitable distinctions between criminals and those not the criminals. We
don`t make those decisions.

HAYES: When you say progress --

WILLIAMS: The word progress -- I like the way Chris Rock said it, and
he said, people just stop acting as crazy. When you say progress,
sometimes you`re acknowledging the crazy behavior that happened.

HAYES: Here`s my question, if there is progress made institutionally,
if this is a question of how do we get policing not to do profiling, that`s
the question. There are a whole lot of big questions about race and the
criminal justice system, but if we have made some progress on that, what
has made that progress happen and how do we keep it going?

MOSKOS: Progress was what Judge Wilkins did, until the mid `90s,
profiling was openly and officially practiced. That has changed.

HAYES: Wait, explain that change.

MOSKOS: Particularly in Maryland and new jersey is where the lawsuits
came out, but the cops had a bad profile based on DEA agents who asked cops
who they found drugs on and the cops said we found drugs on young black

DYSON: Let me say this, you have Kelly saying this, he`s saying we`re
under profiling, if you looked at more white people, you`d find more white

MOSKOS: That`s my point.

DYSON: They are not looking at white people. You said on your show
last night the drugs were being done by white people.

WILLIAMS: Gun violence and I want to make sure -- that`s a very big
thing in my community, it is gun violence. The problem is, what do we do
to get to that, and to this date, and throughout our history overreliance
on enforcement and locking up as many black and Latino men has been what we
tried to do. It`s weakened.

NYPD, which is the law enforcement, came out and responded. That
should be one community partner. Where are the other agencies, where is
the Department of Mental Health, youth development, employment agencies,
where are all the other agencies? We have to have change in the discussion
about what public safety is.

DYSON: We want all of that, plus at the same time people are being
stopped. If there were white kids being stopped, we wouldn`t have it. We
know already it`s not about logic or reason. It`s about investment and

MOSKOS: We also know --

WILLIAMS: White stops than the black stops.

MOSKOS: We don`t know that whites and blacks use drugs at the same

WILLIAMS: Self reporting of white people is they do a lot more drugs.
More income, you got more drugs.

MOSKOS: The point is, when you only search one group, that`s where
you find it.

DYSON: This is an important point. This is a really important point
about the root of this, right, if you search one group, that`s the group
that we should profile, then, of course --

MOSKOS: Once it comes out of Washington, suddenly cops feel
justified. Look, it came out of the DEA.

WILLIAMS: In New York City, they kept changing the goal of increasing
the stops, right? First to get more guns off the streets, less guns, then
up until last year, shootings have stayed relatively the same. Then they
said it was to get murders down, which has decreased, and we`re happy about
that, but if the same people are getting shot --

DYSON: Then the argument becomes, this is working. I`ve heard this
argument from Mayor Bloomberg.

WILLIAMS: Look at the precincts, there`s no correlation.

DYSON: Not only that, you`re monetizing the pathology. What you`re
doing is saying we`re going to give more money by stopping this stuff then
you monetize pathological behavior as opposed to fixing it structurally.

HAYES: New York City council member, Jumaane Williams, Peter Moskos,
former Baltimore police officer, and Michael Eric Dyson, MSNBC political
analyst. That was great gentlemen. Thank you very much. That is ALL IN
for this evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts now. Good evening,


Copyright 2013 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.>