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

All In With Chris Hayes, Thursday, June 13th, 2013

Read the transcript from the Thursday show

June 13, 2013

Guests: Jerrold Nadler, Michael Moynihan, Eliot Engel

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

Tonight on ALL IN:

The White House says the so-called red line has been crossed by the
Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad. Chemical weapons were used against rebel
forces, and the drum beat for U.S. intervention grows louder. That`s
coming up.

Also tonight, the Supreme Court`s fascinating ruling and surprising
ruling today on whether multibillion dollar biotech companies can patent
the very genetic information that makes up the human body. We`ll talk
about the ramifications for the future of science and the future of your

Plus, more than 40 people are arrested in dramatic early morning
police raids. It`s the latest exciting chapter in the chronicles of
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford. Do not miss that.

But we begin tonight with one of those moments where you find yourself
asking, how the heck did I end up agreeing with this guy? That guy.

Today, new battle lines were being drawn in Washington where an
increasingly passionate but deeply strange and confusing national debate is
exploding over the issues of privacy, secrecy and security.

When confronted with a conflict like this weighing privacy against
national security, with much of the actual information about what`s
actually going on hidden from view, we often look to the people we trust as
we form our own opinions, and this is a perfectly natural way to sort
through the news to look at where the people you trust are lining up and
where the people you don`t trust are lining up and say I think I`ll go with
the people I trust.

Which brings me to one person I do not trust -- Congressman Louie
Gohmert from Texas.

Louie Gohmert is the perfect example of someone I do not want to be on
the same side with. In fact, take a look at Louie Gohmert`s warning this
morning. Here he is interrogating FBI Director Robert Mueller on the
Boston marathon bombing at a hearing.


REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R), TEXAS: The FBI never canvassed Boston, Mass,
until four days after the April 15th attacks. If the Russians tell you
that someone has been radicalized and you go check and see the mosque that
they went to, then you get the articles of incorporation.

ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: Your facts are not all together --

GOHMERT: I point out specifically --

MUELLER: May I finish my --

GOHMERT: Point out specifically, sir. If you`re going to call me a
liar, you need to point out specifically where any facts are wrong.

MUELLER: We went to the mosque prior to Boston.

GOHMERT: Prior to Boston?

MUELLER: Prior to Boston happening, we were in that mosque talking to
imam several months beforehand, as part of our outreach efforts.


HAYES: Louie Gohmert yelling at Robert Mueller essentially for not
doing more to target and spy on Boston Muslims is a great example of why I
do not trust Louie Gohmert. In fact, I have a general rule of life and
politics that goes like this. If Louie Gohmert is for it, I`m against it.

I think it`s a pretty good rule, because you would be in really good
shape on whole host of issues if you conducted yourself by saying -- if
Louie Gohmert`s for it, I`m against it.

It works for progressive tax policy.


GOHMERT: Jesus never said, go ye therefore, use and abuse your taxing
authority, take somebody else`s money to help.


HAYES: The Louie Gohmert rule worked for paid holidays.


GOHMERT: There are those who don`t want people to mention the word
Christmas. Just agree to give back the money because the money earned on a
holiday shouldn`t be taken for those who don`t think it should be a


HAYES: And it worked for gay rights.


GOHMERT: When militaries throughout history of the greatest nations
in the world have adopted the policy that fine for homosexuality to be
overt, they`re toward their end of their existence as a great nation.


HAYES: In fact, the Louie Gohmert rule is especially good policy when
it comes to foiling terrorist plots.


GOHMERT: They would have young women who became pregnant would get
them into the United States to have a baby. They could be raised and
coddled as future terrorists and then 20, 30 years down the road, they
could be sent in to help destroy our way of life.


HAYES: All in all, it is not a ridiculous way to reason, to say if
Louie Gohmert support something, I do not support it.

But here`s the catch: Louie Gohmert, berating FBI Director Mueller,
that was just Louie Gohmert`s warning. A few hours later, he was speaking
in a different venue.


GOHMERT: I`m Louie Gohmert. You may have thought that was someone
else standing beside the ACLUI representative.



HAYES: That was Louie Gohmert speaking at a press conference this
afternoon convened by Senator Paul Rand to throw his support behind the
legal challenge to the NSA program allowing bulk collection of data on
Americans. Standing next to him was indeed the ACLU`s very own Laura

Also in attendance, four other House Republicans, including Justin
Amash of Michigan, who took the opportunity to announce he`s about to
introduce the Liberty Act, a bill he says is designed to protect Americans
against NSA surveillance programs, a bill he co-wrote with Democrat John
Conyers who I`m guessing is like myself not accustomed to being on the same
side as Louie Gohmert.

But this is what this particular fight looks like right now. All the
normal teams are scrambled. I mean, just look at the battle lines. One
side, in defense of mass data collection and telephone records
surveillance, you have famed liberal Democrat Al Franken, who said the spy
programs, are used to protect us, along with Republican Lindsey Graham, who
said, sure, we should be doing the spying, and President Obama, who says
the programs help us prevent terrorist attack, and also Peter King, who not
only lines up with Barack Obama and Al Franken, but laments that too many
Republicans and conservatives and I`m quoting, have become Michael Moores.

And on the other side of the fight, you have, of course, well, Michael
Moore, who called leaker Edward Snowden the hero of the year, along with
Glenn Beck -- Glenn Beck -- who said the leaks are a chance for America to
regain her moral compass. And Rand Paul who called the spy programs an
astounding assault on the Constitution. Plus, Al Gore who called the
program obscenely outrageous.

This is not politics as we understand it. This is bizarro world


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together,
mass hysteria.


HAYES: This is what it feels like today, as I find myself on the same
side of an issue as Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks, who is part
of that Rand Paul organized press conference who I thought pretty, pretty


MATT KIBBE, PRESIDENT, FREEDOMWORKS: This is not a partisan issue.
This isn`t about Republicans versus Democrats. It`s not about liberals
versus conservatives. It`s about insiders who just say trust us. It`s
about insiders who want that unlimited discretionary power to do what`s
best for us, versus the American people.


HAYES: You know that when I`m playing video of the president of the
FreedomWorks, things have really gone off the rails. In fact, how people
about NSA surveillance is so confusing at this point, that some people have
just simply figured out where they`re supposed to be on the issue and then
they renounced all their previous views -- a move the folks at Media
Matters were moved to illustrate and put to music.


SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: Our techniques are working. We`ve got the
NSA program here, we`ve got the Patriot Act program here. You know, in
light of this, how close this was, it`s staggering to me that we`re even
debating the use of these techniques.

Big brother is monitoring your every move, whether it be online, or on
the telephone.

Let`s talk about why this story, why is this important to you?

These actions by the Obama administration are clear, very clear
violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Constitution, it is our rule of
law. If we do not respect and honor the Constitution, then anarchy and
tyranny will then follow.


HAYES: Yes, you cannot make that up.

Now, Sean Hannity`s highly entertaining partisan hypocrisy aside,
figuring out of how you feel about government surveillance in the light of
the NSA leaks is generally hard. And if you`re anything like me, the idea
of finding yourself on the same side of an issue as Louie Gohmert is
probably kind of unsettling.

And that`s fine. It`s OK to feel weird about it, because the very
nature of debating secret programs is that we as citizens are forced to
trust the people who have been briefed who know the inner details. And
when even they can`t agree on what`s legal or effective, you find yourself
talked into some very strange company.

Joining me now is Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Democrat from New York.
Last year, Congressman Nadler offered a proposal to have the government
publicly outlined their surveillance programs. That proposal was defeated
by the judiciary committee.

And, Congressman, you are quite pointed of your critique of FBI
Director Mueller today. And I want to read you something that your
colleague, James Clyburn, told "BuzzFeed" this week about the leaks. He
said, "There is an attempt by several people to do political harm to this
president. I just think this is part of that. I`ve gotten to where I am
in politics, I haven`t gotten of where I am in politics, about relying on
my gut. My gut tells me there`s an effort to embarrass the president."

What to you make of Congressman Clyburn`s interpretation of this?

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: Well, I give him the benefit of
the doubt. Any number of attempts to embarrass the president, any number
of things by people who weren`t too sincere and may be some people
criticizing this who aren`t totally sincere, who are motivated by politics.
But there is a lot to criticize here. And I`d rather talk about the
substance than people`s motives. If people for political reasons want to
do the right thing, that`s better.

HAYES: So that, I think, to me is a big question, if you have real
substantive concerns with some of the things that have been revealed, with
some of the secrecy behind it.

And now, the next plot point in this story is, is there going to be an
actual coalition formed on Capitol Hill to have some congressional action?
And that does depend on good faith, right? Because it depends if you can
form coalitions with Republicans who really do care about this and aren`t
just grandstanding.

NADLER: Well, that remains to be seen, there`s a wing of the
Republican Party which has been a fairly small wing, the so-called
libertarians, although I think there`s somewhat more in the current
Congress than in the last few Congresses who do care about these issues.
They`ve been less than consistent. They cared less when George Bush was in
office than they do now. But I`m glad to have their help and their

The fact is we oppose section 215 of the Patriot Act which gives the
authority for this dragnet grabbing of all so-called metadata, all the
electronic communications. We opposed it in 2002. We opposed it when it
was renewed and we opposed it again last year when it was renewed a second
time. We were right to oppose it. If we`re going to be joined by more
people now, that`s good for the country.

HAYES: What will it take for there to be a real breakthrough on
Capitol Hill? Because right now it seems to me that insider/or outside of
paradigm is pretty decent. Those members of Congress closest to
intelligence over both in the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate
Intelligence Committee, seem to be the ones defending most strenuously
these programs.

And so my question is, how, what has to happen for things to actually
change and move forward to actually rein in stuff statutorily?

NADLER: Well, I think people have to begin to understand just how
intrusive this has gotten. I mean, when Jim Sensenbrenner who was the
chief author of much of the Patriot Act including Section 215 now says that
they have misused and they`ve gone beyond what he anticipated, albeit, we
warned that would happen 10 years ago. Fine. He says we have to rein in
now, that`s progress.

HAYES: OK. That`s a perfect example. Here`s what Sensenbrenner
said. He said as the author of the Patriot Act, I`m extremely disturbed by
what appears to be an overbroad interpretation of the act. Those are his
words from a letter last week to Attorney General Eric Holder.

In 2006, he said, "Zero, that`s the number of substantiated USA
Patriot Act civil liberties violation. Extensive congressional oversight
found no violations despite many challenges. No federal court has declared
unconstitutional any of the Patriot provisions Congress is renewing."

It deserves to be renewed. And I understand you not wanting to
speculate on the motives of you colleagues. But my question is, is the --
can you work with James Sensenbrenner?


HAYES: Yes --

NADLER: We can certainly work with him as long as -- we can certainly
work with him. How far we can remains to be seen. You have to assume at
this point good faith. I hope it will be shown.

And the fact is when he said seven years ago that no courts declared
anything unconstitutional, because of something else, namely the state
secrets doctrine, you couldn`t get into court. You couldn`t get this
challenged in court. And because you lacked standing because you couldn`t
show you were being surveilled.

With the revelation that we have now, the ACLU, which filed the
lawsuit and which found to have no standing to bring the suit years ago,
because they couldn`t prove they had been victims. Now, we know they, like
everybody else, has been a victim. All of their metadata about all their
phone calls and everything has been seized. They have standing. They can
go and sue and they did do, and they did file a lawsuit today.

HAYES: Congressman Jerrold Nadler, thank you so much for joining us

NADLER: Pleasure.

HAYES: Joining me now is Howard Fineman, MSNBC news political analyst
and editorial director of "The Huffington Post" Media Group, and Michael
Moynihan, cultural news editor for "Newsweek" and "The Daily Beast."

Howard, from your perch in Washington, how do you understand these
divisions? That Matt Kibbe, insider/outsider, works a little bit. There`s
a kind of neocon Rand Paul access on the Republican side. How do you
generally understand how the battle lines on this are shaping up?

HOWARD FINEMAN, HUFFINGTON POST: Well, first, I`m here to provide you
with counseling, Chris. I know you`re confused here and justifiably. I
would tell you to enjoy it, to embrace it, because it`s unusual here for
the labels to mean nothing. And I think it shows the depth of the issue
that we`re talking about.

Yes, there`s the political gravitational pull of support or opposition
to President Obama. Some of this is just, you know, I`m going to defend
the president no matter what. Some of it is I`m going to oppose the
president no matter what. But there`s something much deeper here. There`s
certain ongoing arguments in American life that have been with us from the
very beginning that go deeper than any party label.

HAYES: Right.

FINEMAN: Or ideological label. I wrote a whole book about this. I
deliberately didn`t use the words liberal and conservative for just that
reason. And I tried not to use party labels wherever I could. And this is
one of them, if not the most fundamental one which is about the
relationship of the individual to the state with a capital "S" in America.

HAYES: Particularly in the context of secrecy and surveillance.

FINEMAN: Yes, exactly so.

HAYES: Michael, is that how you understand it?

exactly right. And I do have to disagree with Congressman Nadler who said
the so-called libertarians. There were some actual very real libertarians.
And you saw some of them, including Matt Kibbe, that are using this as an
opportunity, thankfully they are, to kind of push their power in the
Republican Party. The sort of neocon strand of conservatism is
essentially, you know, a long time ago we do have a --


MOYNIHAN: I know, this is a Democratic administration, pushing this.
So I think that that`s essentially how it`s shaking out.

The Sensenbrenner thing is, I hope that they can work together on
this. But that is boldly partisan --

HAYES: The question for you is, is the level of actual good faith
gravity there is to that, that there`s because you actually have to believe
in it to make this work, right? If it`s your cheap point scoring, the
easiest thing for you to do is issue press releasing or grandstand, and
actually do the work of actually trying to rein in this program. So, my
question for you as someone who observes this from a more sympathetic angle
than I do, whether that stuff is real that`s there.

MOYNIHAN: Yes. Look, I wrote a piece about this urging caution in
the first couple of days because of the partisan instinct. There`s a
partisan instinct to say this guy is a hero and that`s beyond the sort of
Democrat/Republican divide. It`s from the sort of civil liberties people
which I`m very sympathetic to.

But, you know, let`s see how this information plays out. We don`t
know exactly what he, Snowden, has given to whomever. We don`t know this.
We`re waiting to see how this shakes out. Waiting to see what PRISM is.

What we know right now is deeply troubling.


MOYNIHAN: Deeply troubling.

And people who have been briefed on this on the Hill are also deeply

HAYES: We`ve got some lawmakers today saying this is the tip of the

Howard Fineman, my favorite fight right now in the Republican Party is
the actual genuine toxic venom and I think genuine, personal ill will that
Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and Mike Lee feel towards John McCain and Lindsey
Graham, and vice versa. At this press conference today, here`s Matt Kibbe
introducing a Lindsey Graham trolling project called sign the petition and
demand Senator Lindsey graham reveal his e-mail passwords if Lindsey Graham
is so eager to surrender our privacies as citizens he should go first.

Where is this going, this silver war between those two wings in the

FINEMAN: Well, you put your finger on one part of the dynamic here.
That is the very real war within the Republican Party. Lindsey graham`s up
for re-election in South Carolina. He`s seen by many of the Tea Party
types -- aka, libertarians, if you want, to call them that -- as an
embodiment of everything that`s wrong with the Republican Party, being too
cooperative with Obama, being too cooperative with the Democrat, being
insiders and so forth.

So that`s really a big part of this.

FINEMAN: That`s also, we`re seeing that on national security issues
and Syria which we`re going to talk about next.

Howard Fineman, NBC News political analyst, and Michael Moynihan from
"The Newsweek" and "Daily News" -- thank you both.

Big news out of the White House today, about increased U.S.
involvement in the Syrian civil war. This could be the beginning of
something big and pretty scary. We`ll get to that next.


HAYES: Big, big news from the Obama administration on Syria tonight.
This is very important, when we come back.


HAYES: The drum beat for United States intervention in Syria has
never been louder than it is tonight. Just a couple of hours ago, the
White House announced it had reached the conclusion with, quote, "high
confidence that the government of Bashar al Assad used chemical weapons in
Syria against opposition forces.

According to Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for
strategic communications, quote, "The intelligence community estimates that
100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons, attacks in
Syria to date. However, casualty data is likely incomplete."

Rhodes went on to say the U.S. will provide military support to the
Syrian opposition but did not go into any more detail. So we don`t know
whether this could pave the way for U.S. to provide arms directly to the
rebel army or something more even.

Much of the recent pressure for America intervention into Syria has
come from Arizona Republican Senator John McCain who today on the Senate
floor said the decision to provide arms to the Syrian opposition is not


SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: The president of the United States had
better understand that just supplying weapons is not going to change the
equation on the ground of the balance of power. Just to provide additional
weapons to the Syrian national army is not enough.


HAYES: Also today, "Politico" reported Bill Clinton in a closed-door
meeting yesterday with McCain appeared to the senator`s side. Some people
say, OK, see what a big mess it is? Stay out.

I think it`s a big mistake. I agree with you about this. Sometimes
it`s just best to get caught trying as long as you don`t over-commit, like
as long as you don`t make an improvident commitment.

President Obama has said repeatedly the use of chemical weapons could
cross a red line and spell a game changer for U.S. policy on Syria. Today,
the message out of the White House is that the red line has indeed been

Joining me is Congressman Eliot Engel from New York. He`s the ranking
member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He`s been a very outspoken
critic of the Assad regime.

Congressman Engel, my first question to you, why do you understand
this is happening now?

REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D), NEW YORK: Well, I think there`s a terrible
humanitarian crisis right now. We`ve got 100,000 people murdered by the
Assad regime, 7 million displaced people, and 2 million refugees. And it`s
only going to get worse and worse.

And if for no other reason but humanitarian reasons, we have to stop
Assad from murdering his own people. The president --

HAYES: Congressman, let me just interrupt right there. You said
100,000 murdered by the Assad regime. My understanding is the death toll
is around 93,000, includes all parties on all sides of the war.

ENGEL: Well, it`s about 100,000. It`s probably going to go higher.
The fact of the matter is that this is a civil war in which the Assad
regime has been murdering its own people. And now we see that weapons were
used, chemical weapons your used. The president said that would be a game
changer and I think he`s confirming that these weapons were used.

So --

HAYES: Here`s my question for you, Congressman. The worry that I
have, and I think a lot of Americans share, is if the goal of this is to
get rid of Assad, which I understand is what the outcome that Senator John
McCain would like to see, I think everyone in the world if they could wave
a magic wand, or everyone in U.S. politics if they could wave a magic wand
would like to see Assad go. If that`s the goal, and this escalation of,
say, arming the rebels doesn`t work, have we not just put our foot in
quicksand in which we must then continue to escalate?

ENGEL: No, I don`t think so. First of all, they are all bad choices.
I don`t mean to imply these choices are easy or these choices are good.

I think, frankly, we should have armed the rebels many months ago and
I have a bill in Congress that would authorize the president to do just
that. I think that we know who the well-vetted rebels are, the Free Syrian
Army under Mr. Idris.

And we can get weapons to them and help to train them, to use them.
This was done in Libya with NATO. And it can be done here as well.

It`s obviously a lot more difficult in Syria for many reasons, but it
can be done and it should be done.

There`s another reason here. You know, we have made it a policy, and
the president has said it many times, he will not allow Iran to have a
nuclear weapon on his watch. There`s no doubt that Assad is Iran`s person
in Syria and collaborating with Hezbollah which is a terrorist group, that
they are murdering people and moving on.

HAYES: But, Congressman, when you mention the proxy war aspect of
this, which I understand obviously Hezbollah and Iran have been supporting
Assad and that has actually turned the tide in much of the fighting. It
looks like the momentum of the battle might be going in the other

To me, I hear that and the justification to get involved in a proxy
war seems even more dubious because it then seems like we have bound
ourselves up into an even more complicated and inextricable conflict.

ENGEL: Well, what would you suggest that we sit by and do nothing and
let Assad and Hezbollah and Iran have access, murder more people and take
over the country?

I think from a humanitarian point, no other point, even, that there is
a pressing need for NATO and for the West to intervene, at least give the
rebels the weapons that they can use to defend themselves. Right now, it`s
a mismatch because they`re getting all kinds of weapons from Hezbollah,
from Iran. Russia is about to send over things.

We can just sit idly by and watch more innocents die, but I don`t
really think that`s what we stand for. There are should be no boots on the
ground. I`m not for any kind of involvement.

HAYES: That`s my fear, Congressman, precisely that. I think there`s
very little political will for it. Recent polling shows only 15 percent
support military action. I just hope when you and I have this conversation
six months from now, that we`re not hearing people that we need boots on
the ground because previous interventions don`t work.

Congressman Engel from New York, thank you so much. I really
appreciate it. You were my congressman growing up. Thanks a lot.

ENGEL: Thank you. You shouldn`t have moved away.

HAYES: The latest installment in the zany adventures of Toronto Mayor
Rob Ford, coming up next.


HAYES: What you are seeing behind me is footage of a massive police raid
conducted in the dark of night. A swarm of more than 800 police officers,
800 descended on dozens of addresses in a Toronto neighborhood. Doors were
kicked in. Stun grenades were used. More than 40 were arrested.

Now, why am I telling you about this night raid? I`m telling you
about it because it`s the latest thrilling chapter in an unbelievable
political scandal that we cannot resist.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s breaking news regarding Toronto`s embattled
mayor, Rob Ford. Watch out for that camera.


HAYES: It`s awesome. Yes, this story unsurprisingly involves Toronto`s
larger than life right wing Mayor Rob Ford. The man who is allegedly seen
smoking crack on a video recording and who gave one of the world`s greatest
non-denials about said crack smoking video.


ROB FORD, MAYOR OF TORONTO: There`s been a serious accusation from the
"Toronto Star" that I use crack cocaine. I do not use crack cocaine nor am
I an addict of crack cocaine.


HAYES: The story of the alleged crack video had gone cold lately. The
video had not surfaced and one reporter was told it may be gone forever.
But then this raid happened early this morning and the details painted a
picture that dragged Rob Ford right back into the thick of things. Forty
three suspects were taken into custody, 39 warrants executed, 40 firearms
were seized as well as millions of dollars worth of narcotics.

One of the addresses involved in this sting was the apartment that
allegedly housed the videotape purportedly featuring the mayor. So
obviously the first question on everyone`s mind is whether the raid somehow
involved Mayor Rob Ford.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mayor Ford, what do you know about the raids that are
happening today?

FORD: No idea what you`re talking about.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mayor, have you spoken to the police about the raids?

FORD: No, I haven`t.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you have anything to say to the citizens of
Toronto about that, a press conference?


HAYES: It looked like Mayor Ford was going to stay mum on the whole thing
until this news broke later in the morning.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the wake of this morning`s massive predawn raids,
CTV News has learned that Toronto police were investigating the existence
of alleged video involving Mayor Rob Ford several weeks before the story
first appeared in the "Toronto Star."


HAYES: What? In a development that resembles the wire by way of second
city, many of the locations raided had been wiretapped as part of a nearly
year-long investigation. According to CTV, on those wiretaps, persons of
interest discussed that video in detail and referred to the mayor`s alleged
presence in the video. And although Toronto`s police chief would not
comment on whether the evidence found in the raid included the infamous
video, he ended with comments that probably caught Mayor Ford`s attention.


BILL BLAIR, TORONTO POLICE CHIEF: I want to assure people of Toronto that
all the evidence collected throughout the course of this investigation has
been secure and it will be presented by the prosecuting crime attorney at
trial. All of the evidence will come out in court where it belongs.


HAYES: In court. I don`t want to over interpret what the police chief was
saying, but it was fair to say this doesn`t sound too great for the mayor.
Although it was difficult to get a direct comment from the mayor today, it
was fairly easy to see how this news is weighing on him.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mayor Ford? Mayor Ford, CTV news learned the Toronto
police were investigating the existence of a video allegedly --

FORD: I`ve answered so many questions. You can`t get it through your
thick skulls, seriously? I`ve already answered all these questions.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you have to say about these new developments?

FORD: Doing their work. That`s it. Let`s go.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you have to say about it though?


HAYES: In what could be the official exclamation point on Rob Ford`s very,
very bad day, a photo was tweeted by Don Pete of the "Toronto Sun" showing
Mayor Ford sitting in solitude on the phone on a city hall staircase.

OK, if you`re like me at this point, you might be starting to feel
bad for the guy. I mean, life does not seem too good for Mayor Ford right
now and it feels almost sadistic watching him squirm in front of the
cameras. But then you find out what Rob Ford was actually doing today in
his capacity as mayor.

Those feelings quickly melt away. You see, Rob Ford actually had
some legislative business to attend to today. There was a vote on grants
to fund cultural organizations. Groups like Pride, the city`s gay and
lesbian alliance, the Toronto international film festival, the art gallery
of Ontario and other major cultural organizations.

The annual grants totaling about $7 million were approved 32-3. Of
the three no votes, two were confided by Counselor Doug Ford, the mayor`s
brother and Mayor Rob Ford himself. Stay classy, Rob Ford, you`re giving
us plenty of reasons to keep watching what happens next. We`ll be right
back with Click 3.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This has been a breaking news report featuring Toronto
Mayor Rob Ford and a moose. They got you.



HAYES: What does Angelina Jolie have to do with a Supreme Court decision
that was issued today? I will tell you coming up.

But first, I want to share the three awesomest things on the
internet today beginning with a childhood staple now thought of as a source
of anxiety. Attention, people of earth, your Legos are getting angrier.
Happy face Legos apparently once ruled the world, but that reign is slowly
coming to an end. One researcher in New Zealand found that the number of
happy face Legos has been decreasing since the 1990s.

Meanwhile, the number of angry faces has increased. I bet it has
something to do with grunge music. Some are worried this development could
have a troubling effect on kids. We here at Click 3 are more worried this
is contributing to the shocking rise of Lego on Lego crime on YouTube these

The second awesomest thing on the internet today comes to us from
Turkey. Protests continue on the streets of Istanbul and across country.
One truly remarkable thing about these anti-government demonstrations is
how the protesters are finding new and creative ways of making their voices

From sneaking in protest words into a Turkish game show to enlisting
man`s best friend in the fight, which brings me to this video uploaded on
YouTube accompanied by this title, you may not recognize the words written
in Turkish, but the song you`re about to hear might sound quite familiar.
They actually sang "Les Mis" on the barricades. My own personal fantasy is
that Hugh Jackman stop spending his time at a Wal-Mart shareholder meetings
and travel to Turkey to lead them in an encore.

The third awesomest thing on the internet today, a contest that
until recently was shrouded in secrecy, the golden era of beauty pageants
in the 1950s and 1960s, brought many fresh young faces to television sets
across the country. A previously unknown beauty competition has been
unearthed and it could rival Miss America.

There she is Miss National Security Agency. The NSA`s own once
secret archives revealed this photo by an interactive timeline celebrating
the agency`s cryptologic heritage. It held a Miss NSA contest in the `50s
and `60s. Instead of being identified by states or hometowns, competitors
were identified by numbers. She breaks hearts and possibly codes.

Watch out, America, this little lady does surveillance with a smile.
Everyone loves this gal for her killer personality. Well, actually that`s
classified. Little else is known about the contest like how it was judged
or who could compete. As the "Atlantic" points out, the NSA would tell
you, but would have to spray can you or maybe just kill you. I kid, I kid
NSA. I know you`re listening.

You could find all the links for tonight`s Click 3 in our web site We`ll be right back.


HAYES: Thanks to a "New York Times" op-ed, we`ve been hearing a lot
recently about Angelina Jolie. She has a mutation of certain genes that
increases her risk of breast cancer. She has a preventative double
mastectomy. We all have these genes. They are called BRCA-1 and BRCA-2,
and today, today the Supreme Court decided whether you get a patent on
those human genes or any human genes, or a patent on the mutations of human

Today the Supreme Court decided whether you could get a patent on
finding something that already exists in nature, an incredible unanimous
decision, the Supreme Court said, no. No, you can`t. This is good news
because this decision could have far ranging positive effects on both
scientific research and the cost of new medical tests.

Today`s decision was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas in a
unanimous 9-0 decision with Justice Scalia concurring, held, a naturally
concurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible
merely because it has been isolated. The court held synthetic DNA are
still patentable, which we`ll talk about in a moment.

This ruling is actually really important because as the court laid
out genes are the basis of our hereditary traits. Each gene is encoded as
DNA, which takes the shape of the familiar double helix. Back in the
1990s, a company Myriad Genetics did something groundbreaking and powerful
and kind of terrifying all at once.

It found the exact location and sequence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes,
and finding the exact location is important because it was then able to
determine the gene`s typical makeup or composition and that made it
possible to find mutations such as the ones that increase the risk of
breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

Finally, Myriad developed tests to detect those mutations. Now no
one was challenging Myriad`s exclusive rights to the tests it developed,
but since the 1990s Myriad has had a patent on the actual genes themselves
and on the mutations of those genes. When other companies develop their
own tests to compete with Myriad`s very expensive one, they were slapped
with patent infringement suits.

And those other companies stopped developing the competing tests.
For decades the U.S. Patent Office has been granting similar patents.
Today the Supreme Court set that aside and said no more. Joining me now is
Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Democrat from Florida, chair of the

Congresswoman Schultz knows firsthand how important this decision is
after her own experience with genetic testing following a breast cancer
diagnosis. Congresswoman, you`ve been on this case. What`s your reaction
to the court`s decision today?

the news about the 9-0 decision, I was in an appropriations mark up and it
was pretty hard for me to hold it together, Chris, you know, I am someone
who had to go and make a life altering decision. I went through a year of
seven surgeries based on the results of one test that when I asked how
reliable it was assured it was 100 percent.

When I asked if I could get a second opinion before I had a double
mastectomy and my ovaries removed and reconstructive surgery, I was told
that I couldn`t have a second opinion because there was a company that had
a patent on the gene and the test and they were the only ones that could do

And that is so -- was so disturbing and that someone, that a company
could patent my genes and prevent me from being able to make a full
decision based on as much information as I could get.

HAYES: So what you`re saying, there was no second opinion because no one
else, because there was a monopoly on testing for this mutation because
they had successfully patented the gene, itself, the gene mutation.

SCHULTZ: That`s right. No other company was able to create a test to
determine whether or not you had that gene mutation. Only Myriad could.
And now after that Supreme Court decision, today, other companies can, and
a company today announced that they were going to be licensing a test and
already it`s $1,300 less than Myriad`s test. They priced it apparently at
$2,200. So it`s already de testing for that BRCA genetic mutation more

HAYES: So in the course -- the Supreme Court decision some time --

SCHULTZ: In 12 hours.

HAYES: That`s amazing. Today, after the court decided, another company
said we`re in that market and we`re going to come in with a lower price now
that there`s no longer a monopoly on this.

SCHULTZ: Already. Today if I was diagnosed with breast cancer and asked
for that second opinion, the answer would be yes, I could get one and
maybe, maybe my decision would have been different with more information.

HAYES: Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, thank you so much for
joining us tonight.

SCHULTZ: Thank you.

HAYES: Congrats on the victory.

SCHULTZ: Thank you.

HAYES: I`ll be right back with the attorney who represented the plaintiffs
in the Supreme Court case and medical ethicist Dr. Emanuel.


HAYES: Joining me now is Sandra Parks, the staff attorney with the ACLU
Women`s Rights Project. She represented the plaintiffs in Supreme Court
case, and Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, medical ethicist, oncologist and chair of
the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of
Pennsylvania. He is also author of the book "Brothers Emanuel: A Memoir Of
An American Family." You`ve been working on this case for six years, I

SANDRA PARK, STAFF ATTORNEY, ACLU: Yes. We filed a case four years ago,
but before that for a few years we were studying the issue. This is the
first patent lawsuit the ACLU has ever brought. So we wanted to make sure
we were doing the right thing.

HAYES: OK, so here`s my question. If you`re a layperson watching this,
it`s shocking that this would even have to be decided by the Supreme Court
because it just seems just ridiculous anyone could patent a gene. How did
we get here to begin with?

PARK: Right. Well, the Supreme Court agreed with common sense.

HAYES: Which is surprising that`s why we`re talking about it.

PARK: For 30 years the Patent Office has been issuing patents on human
gene, on many, many thousands of genes of the genome and that has been a
barrier for all sorts of laboratory scientists who want to do research on
specific genes and provide testing on those genes. The justification, once
you remove the gene from the body, they say it`s a new invention and our
argument was, no, simply removing iron from the rock or removing a kidney
from the body would not make that --

HAYES: You can`t patent a kidney just because you can take it out of
someone. The first person who operated on someone and took a kidney out
couldn`t walk that kidney over to the patent office, plunk it on the table
and say, I got a patent on that.

PARK: Right. Myriad`s attorney said that he thought lithium, an element
of the periodic table, would be patentable for the first person who found
it. That was the extent of their argument. They were going that far
saying you could patent anything you find in nature.

HAYES: Dr. Emanuel, one of the things left open now in the decision by the
Supreme Court is synthetic DNA can be patented. I have to say that I do
not understand what that means. Explain to me what kind of brave new world
future has been left open in this unanimous decision.

DR. EZEKIEL EMANUEL, MEDICAL ETHICIST: So on the DNA that`s in all of our
cells, a gene doesn`t come out as a discreet unit. It`s broken into up
parts. There might be six, seven, eight different parts with in between
what`s called nonsense DNA and then what scientists can do is they can get
rid of the nonsense DNA between those pieces and then get the gene in one

That process, creating the gene in one clump, taking out the
nonsense DNA that`s between those parts, that nonsense DNA is called
introns. That can be patented because they`re actually manipulating the
DNA. That`s a -- I think it`s going to turn out to be a minor victory for

But nothing like getting or losing the right to patent a gene of the
human being because other people will be able to make different kind of
complementary DNAs and that will not, I think, be a barrier to creating
other genetic tests on the same gene.

And I don`t want to correct -- you know, far be it for me to correct
the congresswoman, but actually another company, a third company has come
out and said they`re going to offer the test for under $1,000.


EMANUEL: Soon. So we`re already seeing competition. Myriad`s response
was, they have scale, they have -- they can do it more efficiently. They
might be able to do it more efficiently, but when they own the gene, they
were able to charge monopoly prices keeping the total cost of the test up
about $3,300, $3,400. This is really good news for consumers.

HAYES: And that gets to the legal question here is whether something is
discovered or invented basically, right? I`m oversimplifying. That`s sort
of the line, right? A thing you discover, you can`t patent. A thing you
invent, you can. We want to give people patents. It`s found in the
constitution give them incentive to come up with new stuff. One of the
things Dr. Emanuel pointed to right now is how much power and money you
grant to a corporation when you give them a patent on anything.

PARK: That`s true. But I think the patents on the genes were so troubling
because the gene is the fundamental thing that scientists want to work
with. It`s a part of our body. It tells us about our own risk, our
parents` risk for various diseases. And so being able to lock up that
element of human biology created this barrier for all of the follow-up
innovation we want to see happen.

HAYES: Doctor, do you think we`re going to see more innovation in this
area now that this has been returned to the commons where it should be?

EMANUEL: You`re certainly going to see more tests for this particular
genetic defect. So that is presumably going to actually stimulate more
competition and more research. I think the big claim by people like Myriad
Genetics and others is, well no one will try to find the gene, but that`s

As long as you can find the gene and then go on and make a copy DNA
and get a patent on that, and then get your test out first, I think there`s
still good financial incentive. It should be said a patent is not
unlimited amount of time. Most of the Myriad patents were going to expire
in a couple of years anyhow.

So the net loss to them in terms of money is probably low just
because it`s taken so long to come to the funny thing is, it does seem to
obvious and yet, you know, over time it`s now really taken --

HAYES: Thirty years.

EMANUEL: Thirty years.

HAYES: What I`m hearing at the table here, I think what I`m learning from
you and from hearing this is actually the bigger deal here, not just for
consumers on the specific test, which actually means a huge amount to tons
of women out there, vital and expensive and important, but also unlocking a
whole vast library of knowledge that has been difficult to navigate because
of the patent system.

Sandra Park with the ACLU and the medical ethicist, Dr. Ezekiel
Emanuel, great to have you both. Thank you so much. 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.>