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

All In With Chris Hayes, Tuesday, June 11, 2013

June 11, 2013
Guests: Julian Bond, Maya Wiley, Bill Burton, Mary Mitchell, Joe
Weisenthal, John Nichols

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

Tonight on ALL IN:

NSA surveillance is the big story, but I`ve still got my eyes on you,
Marco Rubio. You don`t get to pretend to be the hero of immigration reform
while working behind the scenes to kill it.

I`ll tell you about his latest back door shenanigans, coming up.

Plus, surprising good news from the violence-plagued city of Chicago.
But is the news too good to be true?

And I know the Tonys were this week, but the truly star-studded
affair, the one with Hugh Jackman and Tom Cruise live on stage together,
that was at a Walmart shareholder meeting in Arkansas. And, yes, it`s just
about the weirdest thing ever. Seriously. You have to see this tape.

But we begin tonight with this man, former Alabama Governor George
Wallace, who 50 years ago today made his infamous stand in the schoolhouse
door -- a principled stand on behalf of evil.

In defiance of the United States Justice Department, Governor George
Wallace stood outside the University of Alabama personally blocking two
black students from enrolling there.


FORMER GOV. GEORGE WALLACE (R), ALABAMA: I stand here today as
governor of this sovereign state and refuse to willingly submit to the
illegal use of power by the central government.


HAYES: Today, 50 years later when we look back on that moment on June
11th, 1963, we can tell very clearly the heroes and the villains.

George Wallace was obviously the villain in this story, and Vivian
Malone and James Hood, the two students blocked by George Wallace from
registering that day, were heroes.

Along with the rest of the civil rights movement, folks like Martin
Luther King Jr., the people who are fighting for integration, they`re the
heroes. They`re the good guys.

But the United States government at the time, it was not at all clear.
In 1963, President Kennedy, himself, said this of Dr. King.


JOHN F. KENNEDY, FORMER PRESIDENT: The trouble with King is everybody
thinks he`s our boy. King is so hot these days it`s like Marx coming to
the White House.


HAYES: Like Marx coming to the White House.

JFK`s brother and Attorney General Robert Kennedy admitted later he
asked the FBI to make an intensive investigation of Martin Luther King.
And that on October 10th, 1963, he personally authorized the FBI to begin
wiretapping King`s phones.

The Kennedys were most certainly not alone in these attitudes towards
Dr. King.

In the 1960s, much of the security apparatus of the Cold War, American
state was obsessed with the idea that the civil rights movement was
infiltrated by communists, infiltrated by subversives and working to tear
down U.S. society from the inside. And no single person captured the fear
and paranoia of the security apparatus more than Dr. Martin Luther King.

So faced with what they perceived as a threat, the security state did
what all security states do when faced with the perceived threat. They
surveilled Dr. King around the clock. They stalked his every move. They
broke into and bugged his office. They bugged his hotel rooms and they
were trapped into his phones.

The FBI and J. Edgar Hoover in particular were obsessed with
maniacally obsessed ruining Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that in `64, just
after Hoover called King the most notorious liar in the country in a press
conference, a package was sent to King in the mail, a package the House
Select Committee ultimately traced back to the FBI.

Inside this package, one of the most remarkable artifacts in American
history was an anonymous letter addressed to Martin Luther King. And a
copy of an electronic surveillance tape apparently to lend credence to
threats of exposure of derogatory personal information made in the letter.
We don`t know to this day for sure what was on that tape. The heavy
speculation throughout the years it was of personal and sexual nature
recorded by a device planted in Dr. King`s hotel room.

The letter that came with the tape read in part, quote, "You know you
are complete fraud and a great liability to all of us Negroes. The
American public will know you for what you are, an evil abnormal beast.

King, there is only one thing for you to do. You know what it is.
You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before
your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation."

The House Select Committee considered it highly likely, likely, that
Director Hoover had before the facts knowledge of the action.

So that`s a letter encouraging Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to kill
himself, sent to King from the FBI. This happened in American history.
It`s just one example out of many of how the full weight of the
surveillance state constructed to fight the Cold War was used against the
people working for racial equality. It may have been constructed to defeat
the Russians and the genuine threat of global communism, but it was
deployed on people like Stokely Carmichael and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

This is all particularly relevant today. Not just because it`s
generally good to take heed of the lessons from history, but because of the
spy novel-esque mystery that is unfolding in the news right now which
involves the uncovering of a massive and sophisticated surveillance
apparatus being operated by the United States government.

The whereabouts of the 29-year-old at the center of the intrigue,
intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, had been unknown since he checked
out of a Hong Kong hotel after filming a jaw-dropping interview in which he
took credit for leaking classified documents exposing government phone and
Internet spying tactics and programs.

Since his video confession, he has officially been fired. The
consulting firm Booz Allen announcing the firing today, saying he worked
there for less than three months and earned a salary of $122,000 a year, as
assistant administrator on contract to the NSA. Notably is quite a bit
less than the 200 grand he claimed to have been making.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department is reportedly already working on
pursuing criminal charges against Snowden which is said to be the first
step necessary to force him to return to the U.S.

And the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration today,
charging that the newly released phone record collection being done by the
government is illegal. The ACLU is asking the judge to bar the mass
collection of domestic phone logs and to order existing records to be
purged, arguing the program, quote, "gives the government a comprehensive
record of our associations and public movements, revealing a wealth of
detail about our familial, political, professional, religious and intimate

But all of that said, when you look at public opinion, Americans
appear at the moment, at least, you may be watching this feel this way, to
be fairly tolerant of this kind of surveillance. When you ask as pollsters
from the "Washington Post" and Pew did this week, if it`s more important
for the government to investigate terror threats or preserve Americans`
privacy. An overwhelming majority, 62 percent say investigate threats even
if it violates our privacy.

Those numbers are, well, I think totally understandable, because
everybody wants the government to catch terrorists, and the lack of privacy
seems fairly abstract. Most Americans probably feel pretty far removed
from the days of J. Edgar Hoover spying on Dr. Martin Luther King and with
some good reason.

I mean, if you ask me, in the abstract, do you think it`s OK for the
government to be able to access millions of Americans` phone records and
Internet activity as long as those tools are just for catching terrorists
and they`re never, ever abused, I would be tempted to say, yes, that`s
totally OK.

But there`s a pretty major sticking point, and that is the as long as
it`s not abused part, because history tells us that is not actually a
thing. A non-abused massive government surveillance apparatus, that is not
what Dr. Martin Luther King tells us.

Frankly, you don`t even have to look at history. Just look at the
news from the fall of 2008 when a pair of NSA whistleblowers came forward
to talk about what was being done with the agency`s surveillance tools way
back then.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would say that after 9/11, particularly with
the fact we were listening to satellite phone communications, rather than
targeting military entities in the Middle East, we were actually listening
to a lot of everyday ordinary people who really in many ways had absolutely
nothing to do with terrorism.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The times when I was told, hey, check this out,
there`s something really some good phone sex or there`s some pillow talk,
pull up this call, it`s really funny. Go check it out and it would be some
colonel making pillow talk.

REPORTER: And you would listen?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was there, stored the way you look at songs on
your iPod.


HAYES: That was our post-9/11 anti-terrorist surveillance state at
work just a few years ago.

But examples of big sweeping surveillance programs misfiring are all
over the place. Just last month, NBC`s Michael Isikoff flagged reports
that a special Homeland Security Boston intelligence unit was closely
monitoring anti-Wall Street demonstrations, including tracking the Facebook
pages and Web sites of the protesters and writing reports on the potential
impact on commercial and financial sector assets in downtown areas, right
around the time the U.S. government received the second of two warnings
from the Russian government about the radical Islamic ties of alleged
Boston marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

When you construct a massive surveillance apparatus, history tells us
that it will be brought to bear not just on, quote, "the enemy", but on the
people who threaten society`s power structure. On whoever exists at the
political margins, whether it`s Martin Luther King Jr. or some Occupy
Boston protesters.

It`s not some Orwellian abstraction. It`s America`s history and
America`s recent history, and left unchecked I fear America`s future.

Joining me now is civil rights activist, Julian Bond. He`s former
chairman of the NAACP, a founding member of SNCC, the Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee.

Mr. Bond, it`s a great honor to have you.

And I just want to start with getting your reaction. As someone who
lived through this period, who lived with the knowledge that the government
was tracking you and tracking colleagues and associates of yours. How you
are understanding the last few days of revelations and news?

JULIAN BOND, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: You know, it`s all over again.
Andy Young, Dr. King`s lieutenant, used to say, we all live in a recording
studio and the engineer is J. Edgar Hoover.

I`ve got a copy of my FBI files. And I wonder why does this agency
spend all this time writing down my car tag numbers, saying I`ve been to
this place, I`ve been to that place, I`ve been to this place? None of them
illegal, none of them was criminal, any kind of criminal intent, when they
could have been catching real criminals. Why did they do that?

Why did the state sovereignty commission in Mississippi spend 20 years
following and surveiling white and black figures in the freedom movement in
Mississippi only because they were opposed to white supremacy?

Governments do these kinds of things and once they do them, they can`t
control them. They want to listen to the salacious telephone call. They
want to take the picture they shouldn`t take of people doing whatever
they`re doing. They just have to do it.

Sadly, government cannot control itself with this tool at hand.

HAYES: And it`s very interesting to hear you say that because what we
-- the argument we`ve been hearing over the last few days is, look, J.
Edgar Hoover was, you know, he was an anomalous figure in American history
and he was rogue agent of state power. What we have right now is all three
branches of government, we have Congress that`s been briefed on these
programs, we have FISA courts that have signed off on this and we have the
executive and oversight.

And so, this is something very different. This is apples and oranges
when I sit here and make these comparisons to the 1960s.

What`s your reaction to that?

BOND: Well, it`s all well and good to say that, and to believe that.
We hope that`s the truth. That good people are in charge.

Now, those were bad people way back then. But do you know about the
fusion centers? The 72 fusion centers around the United States controlled
by police agencies, what are they doing? Who are they listening to? What
do we know about them?

This is frightful to me to know that in 70 locations around the United
States, agents of government are listening to my telephone or doing this or
doing that or doing that, following me in some way or the other. Not me
particularly, but people like me. It`s scary for me.

HAYES: When people -- there`s been some polling that suggests that
Democrats have had quite a change of heart on this issue. And I think part
of that is just the natural way that trust works in a political system.
People are inclined to trust Barack Obama if they`re Democrats. For all
sorts of reasons, they feel their world views align.

What is your -- what do you have to say to folks that find themselves
conflicted we the news this week but have a tendency to trust someone like
Barack Obama who they feel is a good person with a good vision and they
voted for and they support.

BOND: I`m conflicted, too. I have a lot of trust. I want to trust.
But I`ve seen this happen before. I`ve seen us go down this road before
and I`m afraid we may well go down this road right now.

I don`t see anybody stopping it or telling me that we`re not doing it.
Just telling me to trust people is not enough for me.

HAYES: Civil rights activist, legend, in fact, Julian Bond. It`s a
great honor to have you. Thank you so much.

BOND: My pleasure. Thank you.

HAYES: Joining me now is Maya Wiley, founder and president of the
Center for Social Inclusion, a social justice non-profit. And Bill Burton,
former deputy White House press secretary who`s now the executive vice
president of Global Strategy Group, a public affairs firm in Washington,

And, Bill, I want to start with you and get your reaction to what
Julian Bond had to say, because I think I have been involved in heated,
kind of intra-family disputes about the revelations that we`ve gotten from
Snowden over the last few days and published in "The Guardian" about the
nature of the government`s operations to look at information of its

And there`s a real kind of contested argument being had. And I`m
curious, as someone who worked in government and is now outside of it, what
your feeling is about it?

quick things, Chris.


BURTON: Number one, I took the same oath that Snowden took when he
took that job, when he had access to classified information. And it`s a
oath that he broke and he broke a law by giving that information out and
making it public. And he did actually make our country less safe by
revealing sources and methods by which we try to go and get bad guys who
wish us harm.

HAYES: Let me stop you right there. How do you know that? That`s a
claim people have made. It seems to me possible.

But it also seems to me a claim that you cannot just definitively
declaim on national television without some supporting evidence.

BURTON: I`m not sure which claim you`re talking about.

HAYES: That he made the country less safe.

BURTON: It is illegal to give up classified information particularly
when you`re in a foreign country.

Number two, he did make us less safe because if you`ve got this
enormous program designed to get information about the people who are
trying to do us harm, trying to kill Americans, trying to do damage to our
country -- then, yes, you`re definitively making our country less safe.

And so, this debate about whether or not Snowden is a hero or a
traitor I think is completely obscures the issue that he actually single-
handedly did damage to an important national security program. You don`t
have to take my word for it. The head of intelligence said it, himself.

HAYES: Let me -- Maya, I want to hear your response to that.

complicated issue. I actually work for the United States government as an
assistant United States attorney and I would take the oath very seriously.
I think the issue of seriousness here, I agree with you, Chris, on one
level, which is that we don`t know.

Except that any time you certainly have the strategy of the United
States government and surveillance made public, there is some concern that
people are trying to do harm might have some sense of how the government`s
trying to catch them. On the other hand, we have a situation which we have
the government essentially creating a meta database on American citizens
with huge sweeps of who we`re calling, what numbers are being dialed to us.
And that is a database that`s being held, and we should be concerned about

So, I think there are two issues here and I think it`s important to
also consider the issue of government surveillance as well and whether it`s
gone too far.

BURTON: It`s quite misleading in a sense that this program is
designed specifically --

HAYES: Which one are we talking about? There`s a number.


BURTON: We`re talking about PRISM. It`s designed specifically to
target foreign individuals who would do our country harm.

HAYES: Let me --

BURTON: Hold on. Let me just finish. Let me just finish. Hold on.
Hold on.

Whenever information is citizens, there are very specific rules by
which that information is treated.

HAYES: But let me --

BURTON: But this program has specific oversights by judges and by


WILEY: Judges and by congressmen who`ve actually stated that they`re
not sure that they can completely -- Keith Ellison came out today and said
the complicating factor here is that based on the jargon that it`s not
always clear to some of the elected officials what they`re even being told.

So, I mean, I think it`s one thing to say that we have to take
seriously the national security of the country. That`s a really important
principle. And I think we certainly can talk about whether Snowden and
whether we should have contractors, who are actually private contractors,
with the kinds of state secrets that they have.

Certainly, I would have taken the oath very seriously. But I just
want to say that I think it`s wrong to suggest that the government
oversight, in this case with a secret court, it`s one of the reasons why
the ACLU filed a lawsuit today because I think there`s some form of
slippery slope we should be concerned about here.

And I think your point, Chris, about the trust factor is actually one
we should take seriously. Conservative Republicans are concerned --

HAYES: Here`s the distinction I want to make. Bill, you made the
point, used this word design. That to me is where this comes down to.

The question is, there`s a difference, there`s a gap that opens up
often between design and implementation. And that`s what I worried about

Maya Wiley from the Center for Social Inclusion, Bill Burton, former
deputy White House press secretary -- thank you.

BURTON: Thank you.

HAYES: We`ll be right back.

WILEY: Thank you.


HAYES: Last year, Chicago was making national headlines for the
murder rate. Now it`s gone down to 1960 era levels. But it is just smoke
and mirrors?

And later, a mini academy awards that was not broadcast and you were
not invited to unless you happened to be a shareholder. It`s coming up.


HAYES: There`s big news out of Chicago today, the city that has had a
brutal time of it lately and has become an absolute national emblem for the
scourge of gun violence.

The city`s troubles painfully crystallized when a 15-year-old Chicago
girl who performed in the president`s inauguration, Hadiya Pendleton, was
murdered one week later about a mile away from President Obama`s Chicago

She was the unintended target of gun violence, like so many others.
First lady Michelle Obama attended Pendleton`s funeral.

President Obama addressed Chicago`s gun violence when he was there in


save every child from gun violence, but if we save a few, that starts
changing the atmosphere in our communities. Neighborhood by neighborhood,
one block by one block, one family at a time.


HAYES: Today, Chicago was treated to a different kind of headline: a
substantial drop in homicides and shootings in the first part of this year.
Homicides down 34 percent compared to the same period in 2012. Shootings
of children 16 and younger down 46 percent compared to last year.

Of course, it`s obscene we even have to keep a record of shootings of
children 16 and younger which is exactly why gun violence in Chicago and
other cities is so destructive and so terrorizing.

As reported by "The Times", as many as 400 police officers a day
working overtime have been dispatched to the 3 percent of Chicago`s
geography that accounts for 20 percent of its worst crimes. But that is
being done at a cost of nearly $32 million of the $38 million total in
budget overtime. That`s 84 percent of budget overtime pay already spent
and it`s only June.

Nevertheless, Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants the city to continue staffing
police in these hotspot, working regular hours, not overtime. "It`s
sustainable because it`s actually bringing the results I want to see." As
for the recent crime statistics, Emanuel says, "It`s good but not good

Joining me now is Mary Mitchell, columnist and editorial board member
at "The Chicago Sun-Times."

Mary, it`s been a horrible stretch for Chicago, and as some who lived
and worked in Chicago and loves the city with all of my heart and soul,
painful and wrenching to watch it. This news got me excited and I want to
know if I should be feeling good about a corner having been turned in the

MARY MITCHELL, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: Well, I don`t know if we should
go so far to say that a corner has been turned. It has been a -- you know,
in Chicago the weather`s been terrible. It`s now just beginning to get
warm consistently. It seems like every time the weather breaks, you have a
news of more shootings.

And we talk about a 34 percent reduction. That sounds good because
it`s a statistic, but the headlines say that since Friday, 28 people in
Chicago have been shot and three of them have been killed by gunfire.

If you live in a neighborhood where you`re hearing shots fired, that
statistic doesn`t mean anything to you.

I think we have a long way to go. I don`t think it`s time to
celebrate yet. I think in August, we need to come back and look at this
and see if we can sustain the reduction in the shootings.

HAYES: What is -- what is the relationship right now between folks
living in those neighborhoods, that make up the 3 percent of the geography,
where 20 percent of the worst crimes happen, and where Mayor Emanuel has
been targeting police force, between those communities and the mayor?
Because those have been very fraught over a number of issues including
crime, including school closings, where does that relationship stand right

MITCHELL: Well, I think it`s very tense and I think it`s tense for a
lot of reasons, not just school closings. I think it`s tense because as
you know nationally 21 percent of African-American teenagers are
unemployed. They can`t find a job so they`re standing on corners. It`s
war outside. It`s too hot to be in the house. They`re hanging out. And
many of them are hanging out doing things that they should not be doing and
becoming victims of the gun violence.

So, I think that there`s a lot of strain between the Chicago police
department. Still, I think the city is still trying to build trust in that
area. And we have a long way to go before we get to a point that we can
breathe a sigh of relief that Chicago lives up to the city that it can and
should be.

HAYES: What is it about Chicago in which you have -- I remember when
I lived there, you have -- it really is a tale of two cities kind of place
because the violence is so concentrated in certain areas and then largely
absent in other areas. And that goes back to history of racial
segregation, particularly, but other forms of segregation that made it
possible for mayors to get away with levels of violence that would be
unsustainable if they were encroaching on the kinds of people that held the
most amount of power in the city.

MITCHELL: This is -- this is a complex problem and it really at the
heart of it is a lack of resources. It`s a lack of recreational
facilities, a lack of jobs, a lack of stores. Just a lack of the kind of
resources that you would find on another side of the city, the north side,
for instance.

People are employed. People are not hanging out on corners. People
have a place to go and something to do. In communities where there`s
nothing to do, where there is a lack of resources and you have a lot of
young people those communities, you`re going to have a problem.

Not to mention the teardown of public housing that spread poverty
across certain sections of the city. That became a problem and is still a

HAYES: Mary Mitchell from "Chicago Sun-Times", the great city of
Chicago -- thank you so much.

MITCHELL: Thank you.

HAYES: Walmart just had its big annual shareholders meeting and would
very much like it if you paid attention to all of the big-name celebrities
they had on stage instead of their terrible labor practices. Thank you
very much. More on that, coming up.


HAYES: When President Obama takes the podium on the day of the
significant vote for one of his key legislative goals you can bet he`s
going to do a little arm twisting. Here is President Obama on thick the
importance of passing comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate just
hours before a vote allow a debate on the bipartisan bill.


not serious about it, if you think that a broken system is the best America
can do, then I guess it might make sense to try to block it, but if you`re
actually serious and sincere about fixing a broken system, this is the
vehicle to do it and now`s the time to get it done. There`s no good reason
to play procedural games or engage in obstruction just to block the best
chance we`ve had in years to address this problem in a way that`s fair to
middle class families, to business owners, to legal immigrants.


HAYES: Now, just last week, we were hearing murmurs that the Senate
bill was doomed and some worried the motion to proceed would not even pass
and if it did Republicans told us to expect a squeaker of a vote. At about
2:00 p.m. today the bill sailed through its first cloture vote with only 15
Republicans voting no.

Whenever you get 82 votes for cloture that is to end a filibuster in
the United States Senate for the president`s signature domestic policy
priority, that is a pretty big deal. Even instigators like Tea Party
Republican Ted Cruz admitted the full bill was likely to pass the Senate.
And in a moment of triumph and confidence, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of
Virginia delivered his full statement in Spanish.

Translation, let`s show this country and the world it`s not a
Republican bill, it is not a Democratic bill, but it is a strongly
bipartisan bill, an American bill. So all in all, a pretty good day for
the possibility of comprehensive immigration reform, except for the back
door shenanigans of one man, yes, Marco Rubio, I still see what you`re

Last week I told you how Rubio is trying to have it both ways on this
bill. He wants to look like a hero of the Republican donor and consultant
class by bridging the gap with disgruntled Latino voters, but at the same
time he`s adding amendments to his own bill like one about tighter border
security in order to win kudos from the hardcore anti-immigration people in
his party.

And today Rubio was showing both faces in the span of a couple of
hours. Here he is on the Senate floor explaining why the bill should pass.


SENATOR MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: Who else is being helped by the
status quo? Who else likes what we have right now? The answer is nobody
and leaving this in place is not an alternative. It is not an option.
This is the problem that`s hurting our country and the only way I know how
to solve the problem is get involved if trying to solve it. That`s why I
came here.


HAYES: OK. That sounds great, but behind the scenes he`s still
trying to kneecap a bill that he negotiated. He`s apparently using fellow
Republican Kelly Ayotte as the bargaining chip to get his border amendment
added to the bill. The "Huffington Post" reporting that Rubio had
privately urged Ayotte to remain quiet about her support for immigration
reform in hopes that Senate negotiators would amend the bill`s border
security measures to win her vote.

If you think that`s the most counterproductive amendment he`s trying
to add, here`s one out of the transcripts of the Rush Limbaugh show. Rubio
announced today he wants an English-only requirement added to the bill.
Remember this is a bill he helped create and wants to add a requirement for
the understanding of an English language, including an ability to read,
write and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language as if the
bill was written Pat Buchanan.

I thought it was pretty shameless for Rubio to pull this bait and
switch once? But three times? I`m sorry, Marco Rubio, but you cannot be
in two places at once. You do not get to have it both ways. Just look
around your side of the aisle and you`ll see what I mean.

Take Senator Lindsey Graham, for instance. Yes, I know Lindsey Graham
is a demagogue and grandstander. He`s Mr. Benghazi and a war hawk of the
highest order, but he has been a stall worth leader from the Republican
side on immigration reform.


pass the House because it secures our borders. It controls who gets a job.
As to the 11 million, they`ll have a pathway to citizenship, but it will be
earned. It will be long and it will be hard. And I think it is fair.


HAYES: That`s been Lindsey Graham`s position on this from the get-go.
He`s been very consistent. He`s not playing footsie with the far right
immigration opponents. He`s not trying to blow up the bill on the sly.
Lindsey Graham knows how important an immigration reform bill is to a
Republican Party that has almost completely alienated Latino voters.

So I guess that`s what you have to live up to, Marco Rubio. I can`t
believe I`m saying this, but you need to be more like Lindsey Graham. If
you want to be a Republican leader and guy with a political future in the
national GOP, this is my advice to you, Marco Rubio, just be the best
Lindsey Graham you can be. Believe me, I`m setting the bar very, very low.

Be right back with Click 3.


HAYES: Yes, that is big-time movie star Hugh Jackman chatting up Wal-
Mart associates at Friday`s Wal-Mart shareholders meeting. Coming up,
we`ll explain how the Wolverine, himself, was upstaged in Arkansas by an
even bigger celebrity and then a Bangladeshi labor activist.

But first I want to share the three awesomest things on the internet
today beginning with a very special birthday request. Former President
George H.W. Bush turns 89 tomorrow. To mark the occasion, free birthday
cake and blue bell ice cream will be on hand at his presidential library in

If you can`t attend the festivities don`t worry, you can still
celebrate. The library encourages you to wear exuberant socks and post
photos of your socks online as a tribute to the former President Bush 41.
The man has taken to wearing colorful socks in recent years. Socks are
front and center at official events like these he wore to the dedication of
his son`s library.

They also come in handy during a parent AARP dream sequences like this
one. The socks prove to all that our 41st president is still 93 percent
wasp but 7 percent Vegas. Happy birthday, sir.

The second awesomest thing on the internet today, a conspiracy
theorist and professional whackadoo gets put in his place sort of. I`m
talking, of course, about Alex "False Flag" Jones. Jones is invited to a
(inaudible) nonsense on a British political Sunday talk show. "The
Guardian" newspaper offered this reserved critique after watching the
program. "It was the TV equivalent of shaking diet Coke and Mentos." Here
is the fresh maker in action.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Listen, I`m here to warn people. You keep telling
me to shut up. This isn`t a game. OK? Our government in the U.S. is
building FEMA camps. We have an NDAA where they disappear people now. You
have this arrest for public safety, life in prison.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are the worst person I`ve ever interviewed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no, it`s basically off with their heads.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: David, thank you for being with us. It`s half
past 11:00. You`re watching the Sunday positives. We have an idiot on the
program today. Coming up in just 20 minutes --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You will not stop the republic. Humanity is
awakening, No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The week ahead with our political panel. Until
then, the Sunday politics across the U.K.


HAYES: Huge props to presenter Andrew Neil for remaining remarkably
calm and good humored while Jones took over. It`s good to know the symbol
for that guy is crazy pants is, indeed, universal.

This is the third awesomest thing on the internet today, from crow
magnum to humans of the future. One Pittsburgh-based artist came up with
several designs imaging what human beings will look like at various points
in the future based on nothing basically. Well, based on hypothesis put
forth by one expert on computational genomics.

Here`s what we humans look like today. Here`s what we`ll look like
20,000 years from now. Apparently we`ll be rocking a five head. Here`s
what we`ll look like 60 years from now. This completes the spray tan phase
of human development. Here`s what we`ll look like 100,000 years from now,
like a giant Bratz doll mated with my little pony.

Good news is we`ll all be dead. Before you lament the fate of future
generations, it`s important to note one geneticist calls this quite simply,
horse blank. Also off note, these drawings first appeared on a web site
called myvouchercodes. In the meantime, we look forward to the studies of
the next millennium ecosystem conducted by your local penny saver.

You can find all the links for tonight`s Click 3 on our website, We`ll be right back.


HAYES: What if I told you about a remarkable entertainment
extravaganza that might be bigger than the Tony Awards and the same league
as the Oscars, where you can see Hugh Jackman, Kelly Clarkson, Elton John,
Taylor Swift, Justin Timberlake, Will Smith, Ben Stiller, Aerosmith, the
Black Eyed Peas, Alicia Keys, Mariah Carey, and Enrique Iglesias?

Where can I enjoy this feast of the senses? Fayetteville, Arkansas,
of course, every year, Wal-Mart, the heavyweight champion of capitalism and
the largest private employer in the U.S. and Mexico, holds its annual
shareholders` meeting. This year`s meeting which was held on Friday
featured Hugh Jackman, not as the main event, but as the emcee warm up act
to introduce the surprise guest.


HUGH JACKMAN, ACTOR: There is no way in the world you do not know
this guy and he`s here this morning. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome,
Tom Cruise.

TOM CRUISE, ACTOR: What this company does is it`s using its size and
scale to improve women`s lives across the world. You know, I`ve wanted to
come here for this thing for quite some time, actually, because the culture
that you have going here is really like no other, you know.


HAYES: And Tom Cruise international movie star began speaking like
the head of diversity and human resources.


CRUISE: What this company does is it`s using its size and scale to
improve women`s lives across the world. It`s very clear that women make a
difference to this company.


HAYES: Hash tag, shameless. What Tom Cruise left out of his
testimonial is the widespread nature of Wal-Mart`s alleged discrimination
against its female employees.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wal-Mart, a company of 1.4 million people
employed in the U.S., heads to the Supreme Court tomorrow, brought there by
six women who say they were subjected to years of sex discrimination.

UNIDENTIFIE FEMALE: Duke says Wal-Mart`s supervisors cheated her on
raises and repeatedly passed her over for promotions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Class action lawsuit claims that Wal-Mart denied
female employees equal opportunities for promotion to certain management
and management track positions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Major legal troubles for mega-retailer Wal-Mart.
A massive gender discrimination case it`s been fighting for years is one
step closer to going to trial.


HAYES: Even though a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart by more
than a million women was dismissed in 2011 by the U.S. Supreme Court, not
on the merits, I would add. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is
in the process of helping close to 2,000 women individually pursue lawsuit
against Wal-Mart.

As the shareholders` meeting drew on, it became clear that what was on
display was a tale of two Wal-Marts, one that centered on the spectacle of
celebrity for a company that sold more than $400 billion worth of stuff
last year. And a company that we think about when we think about terrible
working conditions in the 21st Century.

During a brief moment where shareholders could present proposals and
criticisms, an activist, not a celebrity, raised the issue of Wal-Mart`s
refusal to sign on to a factory safety plan already agreed upon by more
than 40 companies in the wake of two disasters, which occurred at
Bangladeshi factories that made Wal-Mart products, a fire that killed
people last winter and the infamous Rana Plaza factory collapse that killed
over 1,100 people in April.


KALPONA AKTER, UNION ACTIVIST: For years, every time there`s an
accident, Wal-Mart officials have made promise to improve the terrible
conditions in my country`s garment factories, but the tragedies continues.
With all due respect, the time for empty promises is over.


HAYES: What she`s asking in that auditorium, in that stadium with all
the Wal-Mart shareholders is how many people have to die making Wal-Mart`s
clothes before something is actually done. Not to protect Wal-Mart`s
corporate brand from blame, but to hold it responsible for workplace
deaths. My colleague, John Nichols will join me along with my favorite
Wal-Mart apologist and friend, business insider, Joe Wisenthal, right after
the break.


HAYES: Joining me now is John Nichols, Washington correspondent for
my magazine, "The Nation" and author of the book, "Dollarocracy: How The
Money And Media Election Complex Is Destroying America," and Joe
Weisenthal, Executive Director of "Business Insider."

OK, so here`s -- I got to play you this clip because this to me gets
to what Wal-Mart`s power is. OK, Hugh Jackson telling the people in this
room that he missed his daughter`s first play to attend the shareholders`
meeting. Take a look.


JACKSON: My daughter, Eva, is in her very first school play, which --
we got any parents here? All right, trust me I`m thrilled to be here, but
my daughter is not so thrilled that I`m here. She`s like, Dad, can -- you
know, how to learn lines, a bit nervous, can you help me learn the lines
and you`re going to be there, right, Dad? No, not really. So literally
just minutes ago, off stage, I just got an e-mail from my wife, of my
daughter. Watch this.


HAYES: I played that because you`re watching that going, why are you
here? You`re a multimillionaire. You`re a celebrity. Go to your
daughter`s play. The reason he`s there is because Wal-Mart is so powerful,
it has relationships with all the studios. They`re not paid for this.
They give them a wish list.

That, to me, the power to get Hugh Jackman and Tom Cruise is the power
of this enterprise that if it wanted to could do a lot of other things like
make sure Bangladeshi factory building codes work. My question to you,
Joe, as someone who covers business and covers Wal-Mart, is why can`t that
power be brought to bear on the production line, on the supply chain?

could. You`re totally right. I think, I mean, one thing about Wal-Mart in
the political sense, it`s just an incredibly conservative culture, how
little the company changes the headquarters in Bentonville, just, like, and
they`re kind of like famous for not even having art on the walls or
spending any money on anything like that.

They`re really tight with expenses. That`s a pretty remarkable show
of power they can get him to skip his daughter`s -- they obviously have a
lot of power over employees in the U.S. and probably a good way to counter
that would be to have a better safety net in the U.S. so that employees
don`t have to feel like they`re at the mercy of this one employer. That
kind of argument becomes a little hard to make when even a millionaire
actor feels that he`s --

HAYES: Exactly.

WEISENTHAL: That was going to be my argument. Now I`m skeptical
about that.

HAYES: Here`s what I say to you, John. We`ve seen -- we`ve seen
labor and lefties trying to get at Wal-Mart for a long time and offering
very similar critiques. We know what the business practices are, we know
about the -- there`s been this Wal-Mart that started recently, there`s a
shareholder activism. It always seems to me a little like we`re in waiting
in this. Is anything puncturing that power? Like, is the reputation
actually getting tarnished in a way that`s making tangible gains?

JOHN NICHOLS, "THE NATION": Well, it just did for me. I have to tell
you, I went to my daughter`s play three times. I just want to tell you,
even if you asked me to come on this fine show, I got to go with the kid.


NICHOLS: And so I think things like that are unsettling. I think
we`re paying a lot of attention to Wal-Mart. That has an impact. But I
will suggest to you something that I think is important here, and that is
that Wal-Mart is so convinced of its imperviousness. So certain that it
cannot be touched that the bigger thing is not getting Hugh Jackman there,
it is after the year they`ve been through, after a year where they had to
pay millions of dollars for wage theft, after a year in which they had
these incredible lawsuits, some of which you just talked about.

HAYES: Workers go out on strike.

NICHOLS: Actual workers going on strike and what happened in

HAYES: Right.

NICHOLS: Wouldn`t you think that a company that had even the most
minimal sense of responsibility will say, maybe we`ll dial it down a little
bit and maybe we won`t be so over the top. I do believe the reason they`re
so over the top is not because of them. I think it is because structurally
they are absolutely certain that they`ve got this system under control.

WEISENTHAL: I also do think there`s an element where they view
leanness and squeezing every penny out of cost as, like, as an innovation,
as a --

HAYES: As their ethos.

WEISENTHAL: Asking them to dial it down would be asking Apple to dial
it down on why it makes such an expensive iPhone or whatever. It`s just
like they view that as --

HAYES: Complete company identity is around this. Here`s my question.
It`s like, is there a reputational threat to the company on the one hand?
And is there a business threat? Because I also look at this and I say,
look, wages are rising in China. The entire model of Wal-Mart is
predicated on low wages in china which are going up. Like, can the Wal-
Mart model, which is cutting and cutting and cutting and cutting continue
in perpetuity?

WEISENTHAL: Yes, I think there is certainly a real risk to them. You
can`t keep chasing the lower wages. That`s not really a sustainable --
that`s not a sustainable thing. Then but I also think it is worth pointing
out that there are considerable benefits to Wal-Mart for the poor --

NICHOLS: The bottom line is this we need to address this
structurally. Wal-Mart takes advantage of its ability to control our
politics, to control so much of our discourse. That`s where to go at it.
Don`t worry about the company. Worry about a free trade and all sorts of
other things that make this possible.

HAYES: John Nichols from "The Nation" magazine and "Business
Insider`s" one and only Joe Weisenthal. Thank you. That is ALL IN for
this evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right 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.>