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

All In With Chris Hayes, Friday, July 25th, 2014

Read the transcript from the Friday show

July 25, 2014

Guest: Saeb Erakat, Avik Roy, Thomas "Mack" McClarty; Alexandra Pelosi,
Mary Meg McCarthy, Jose Diaz-Balart


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight, we are ALL IN.

A Palestinian uprising. Day two of massive protests in the West Bank
as cease-fire talks continue. Tonight, my exclusive interview with the
chief Palestinian negotiator.

SAEB ERAKAT, PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATOR: I don`t know where things are
going because things are really slipping outside our fingers like sand.

HAYES: Then, more Obamacare chaos. Is this the smoking gun video
that proves the Affordable Care Act is doomed?

don`t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don`t get their tax

HAYES: Plus, Jose Diaz-Balart on the crisis at the border. And the
White House announces it`s bracing for impeachment.

out there talking about impeachment. I would not discount that

HAYES: ALL IN starts --


HAYES: -- right now.


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

In the second day in a row, protests boiled over in the West Bank, in
what the Palestinian Authority and other factions are calling a day of
rage, spreading from Ramallah and the Qalandia checkpoint, separating the
West Bank from east Jerusalem, throughout the territory, through Nablus and
Hebron. The protests were intended to be nonviolent but led to violent
clashes with Israeli security forces so far leaving five Palestinians dead.

The marches are explicitly meant to send a message of solidarity to
the people of Gaza who at this hour remain trapped in a war zone. As
Israel continues its mission to wipe out Hamas tunnels and rocket stores,
the Israeli defense minister today alerting their military operations may
soon be widened significantly.

As of today, at least 867 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, most
of them civilians, and many of them women and children, 35 Israeli soldiers
have been killed since the beginning of the ground operation.

Israel and Hamas have both agreed on a 12-hour humanitarian pause
tomorrow. Israeli military announcing it will begin at 8:00 a.m. local
time, but there`s no ultimate end in sight, as Secretary of State John
Kerry traveled to Paris tonight to continue negotiating for a longer term
cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. Kerry had proposed a seven-day
cessation of hostilities to begin this Sunday, followed by negotiations.
But so far, neither Israel nor Hamas has agreed to a cease-fire.


JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: We still have some terminology in the
context of the framework to work through. But we are confident we have a
fundamental framework that can and will ultimately work.


HAYES: Joining me now, my colleague Andrea Mitchell, chief foreign
affairs correspondent for NBC News, host of "ANDREA MITCHELL REPORTS" on

Andrea, I don`t think anyone envies John Kerry`s job here which seems
extremely difficult. Today was not a great day for him.

day. He`s en route to Paris now to meet with Qatar and Turkey and foreign
ministers from other countries that have, frankly, relationships with
Hamas, with whom he was talking all day today -- one reason why his
meetings were delayed today.

But he certainly expressed a considerable amount of, I would say,
impatience if not annoyance with the Israelis today, describing some of the
mischief making in the Israeli cabinet for not accepting that cease-fire.
Now, as we know, Israel had initially accepted the cease-fire and Hamas had
not. Now the roles are reversed.

Hamas seems to be gaining political leverage here through tragedy,
through the horrendous casualties, civilian casualties and Israel losing a
lot of its leverage, moral high ground, if you will, even though on the
face of it, U.S. officials keep saying that they understand Israel`s need
to defend itself and Hamas could stop the carnage by stopping the rocketing
of Israel as well.

But these two sides seem embraced in this terrible hold on each other,
and the leaders are doing this while the people are suffering and the
bloodshed this week has truly been horrendous.

HAYES: You noted before some of the frustration John Kerry seemed to
have toward Israel. It was pretty amazing. There was this back and forth
at one point in which it appeared that the cabinet had voted against
accepting the cease-fire. John Kerry then said, no, no, that`s not truth,
there`s going to be a statement forthcoming.

So, it seemed the wires were getting pretty crossed between Netanyahu
and John Kerry who have known each other for decades and two countries that
are about as close as two countries can be.

MITCHELL: Well, Netanyahu doesn`t have complete control over this and
their system of government. He`s got his own foreign minister and others
who are far more aggressive about this operation. The military operation
than he is. So even though most Americans view Netanyahu as a hardliner,
he`s really representing a consensus view and there are some people pushing
him to be much more aggressive.

Look, Israel has got to do something about these tunnels. There`s to
question about that. And what some are saying is they could accept a
cease-fire if during that period they could still work on the tunnels, in
other words, stop the air war.

But I don`t think Hamas is going to agree to anything like that.
There`s supposed to be this 12-hour pause tomorrow while they try to get
the seven-day cease-fire in place and then try to build some confidence
measures. It seems to me that unless they get a peacekeeping force, and we
have precedent for that, there`s been the, you know, U.N. force on the
Golan Heights now for years, decades. There ought to be some sort of
circuit breaker here and somebody to help separate Gaza and Israel.

HAYES: I saw someone darkly equipped today on Twitter, we`ve gone
from a peace process to a cease-fire process, which is not very promising.

MITCHELL: Which is -- exactly.

HAYES: NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell,
thank you so much.

MITCHELL: You bet. Good to be with you, Chris.

HAYES: You can catch Andrea`s show every weekday at noon eastern on

All right. Last night I talked to Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, a
Palestinian activist and politician who just marched with thousands of
Palestinians from Ramallah to the Qalandia checkpoint.


HAYES: Are we seeing the beginning of a third intifada tonight?



HAYES: Translated literally from the Arabic, intifada means shaking
off. Modern Palestinian history it`s only to mean uprising and there have
been two over the last 30 years. The first started in 1987, exactly two
decades after the 1967 war which brought Gaza and the West Bank under
Palestinian control, as tensions between Palestinians and Israeli
government boiled over into several years of violence.


REPORTER: Troops swamped the occupied territories, on the West Bank,
scattered clashes, what`s become the bread and butter of the uprising.
After two years with no end in sight, Israelis are split on what to do
next, and how to bring peace.


HAYES: Lasting image from the first intifada is one we`re all too
familiar with. Young Palestinians, even kids throwing rocks, Molotov
cocktails at well-equipped Israeli soldiers and those soldiers firing back.

The second intifada starting in the year 2000 altered the course of
Israeli politics and many ways created the Israel we know today. Violence
exploded after then-opposition leader Ariel Sharon visited the Temple
Mount, a site for both Jews and Muslims, flanked by 1,000 Israeli security
officers, claiming the sacred site for the state of Israel.


REPORTER: Rioting escalated into an uprising that has brutalized both
societies. Suicide bombings by Palestinians, targeted assassinations by
Israelis. More than 3,000 dead.


HAYES: Israel responded to the protest with tanks and live
ammunition, while Hamas and Islamic jihad sent suicide bombers to shopping
malls and public buses.

The second intifada led to the construction of the security wall
between Israel and the West Bank, to Israel`s pullout from the Gaza Strip
and to the distinct rightward shift in Israeli politics. And since it`s
ended, there`s been an unstable equilibrium between Israel and the occupied
territories and the Palestinians, punctuated now and then by the occasional
brief but very gruesome war.

Palestinian Authority controls the West Bank. It recognizes the state
of Israel cooperates on West Bank security but is not a state and it has no
roadmap for becoming one. The Gaza Strip, the other hand, is controlled by
Hamas which both Israel and the United States consider to be a terrorist
organization. It does not recognize Israel`s right to exist.

And with no real civil society or infrastructure to speak of, Gaza,
basically blockaded by Israel, not much let in or let out, is basically a
25-mile-long refugee camp.

Meanwhile, Israeli sentiments in the West Bank continue growing.
Under Obama, Israeli settlement building is up 130 percent according to
some reports. So, for years, people have been asking how long this shaky
equilibrium can last and now we may be witnessing the whole thing fall


REPORTER: And for the first time since this crisis began,
Palestinians in the West Bank, where many don`t support Hamas, came out in
solidarity, protesting yesterday`s attack on a U.N.-run school in Gaza.


HAYES: Joining me now, Dr. Saeb Erakat, Palestinian chief negotiator.

Dr. Erakat, I`m hearing a lot of people talk about what has happened
in the West Bank over the last 24, 36 hours. Massive protests, as the
beginning of a third intifada. Is that what you believe we`re seeing?

ERAKAT: I honestly, Chris, believe things are slipping outside our
fingers like sand. I cannot tell you which direction we are going. It`s a
pressure cooker situation, indeed. The number of Palestinians killed in
Gaza have reached 860 tonight, 860. More than 85 percent of them are women
and children.

And the situation in the West Bank is really coming to be a pressure
cooker situation. I cannot say where things are going. It`s really
heating up. Things are getting out of hand. And I believe at the end of
the day, you know what Mr. Kerry, what Secretary Kerry did today is
something that people should look at very carefully and acknowledge very

What we need is a cease-fire immediately, an immediate mutual cease-
fire in order to begin the process of the de-escalation, de-confliction, to
lift the siege from Gaza, and then once and for all, to go again to try to
see how we end this Israeli occupation, once and for all, how we end the
conflict, how we establish a Palestinian state to live side by side with
the state of Israel in the 1967 lines.

HAYES: What does the word intifada mine to you mean to you when you
hear the word?

ERAKAT: The word intifada means to me people will stand up. People
are saying and people will be saying that Saeb Erakat, chief negotiator
didn`t bring us anything in the 20 years of negotiations. All the
negotiations were failed. The continuation of Israeli dictations and
settlement activities and failed to complete policies.

And the only way we can achieve our freedom and dependence is going to
be through us taking our hand, resisting the occupation, and that`s what it
means. That what it means because failure, failure at the negotiating
table, Israel continues insistence to true settlements and dictation rather
than peace and negotiations have led to this situation.

I`m not here trying to score points or finger point. All I`m saying
is that at the end of the day we have a political problem. This political
problem cannot be solved by the F-15s and the missiles and the incursions
and the settlements. It needs a political solution.

The political solution here, you don`t need to reinvent the wheel.
You don`t need to adapt from the start. We all know it`s going to be two
states, a state of Palestine living side by side. The state of Israel on
the 1967 lines, and that`s the truth.

In the last nine months, Mr. Kerry, President Obama have done their
best to bring us that direction. Unfortunately, the Israeli government
that we`re dealing with -- Mr. Netanyahu, in particular, the prime minister
-- have not given us a chance for one day. He added 14,000 housing
settlement units, killed more than 60 Palestinians, went to the incursion
policies as if the only thing in town was how to undermine Kerry`s effort,
how to undermine Obama`s effort, how to undermine the Palestinian
moderates, thus leading to the situation we have now in the streets taking
place, outside our hands.

HAYES: Dr. Erakat, I think you are proudly in the camp of those who
favor two-state solution. You`ve worked for it for decades. I am someone
who vehemently believes in the two-state solution.

But there`s a lot of reasonable to believe polling and otherwise that
there actually have no, very little dwindling constituency for a two-state
solution, frankly, on either side, in Israel or among the Palestinians.
Are you representing anyone anymore when you say you want a two-state

ERAKAT: You`re wrong, Chris. You`re wrong. You`re wrong.

If you take a public opinion poll now, and I ask you, I ask you to
review all public opinion polls conducted in Israel and Palestine over the
last five years. You will find that 70-plus percent of Israelis and 70-
plus percent of Palestinians are with the two-state solution.

They are angry with us not because they are against the two-state
solution, because we could not deliver, because of our continued failures,
because of that failure to achieve the two-state solution. That`s why
Israelis and Palestinians alike are so angry.

But if you take it, if you look at the public opinion polls conducted
in Israel and conducted in Palestine, Chris, you`ll find that 70-plus
percent of Palestinians and Israelis would love to see nothing more than a
two-state solution and that is the truth.

Now, if we cannot deliver peacefully the two-state solution, you know
that Jews will not convert to Christianity and Islam and become
Palestinians. Christians and Muslims will not convert to Judaism and
become Israelis.

So, people say, where do we go from here? OK, let`s take things into
our hands, let`s start throwing stones, let`s take to the streets, let`s
have an intifada, and then the Israelis, let`s shoot at them, let`s kill
them, let`s brand them as this and that and that. And then at the end of
the day, just we are, again, Israelis and Palestinians taking our children
to the cemeteries and that must stop.

The only way I know that should stop is to give the two-state solution
the chance it deserves. I tell you now, Chris, I`m negotiating on behalf
of the PLO and Palestinians, we recognize the state of Israel`s right to
exist. I`m yet to hear one Israeli official to stand tall tonight and to
address the Palestinian people and tell them we recognize the state of
Palestine`s right to exist and right to live in peace and security in 1967
lines. I need them to utter this sentence.

But, no, all the Palestinians are saying is missiles, F-15s, 860
Palestinians killed, 5,000 wounded, destruction of the infrastructure. And
now, in the West Bank, we don`t have missiles, we`re not shooting. People
are taking to the streets to demonstrate peacefully and today, we have six
Palestinians killed, more than 400 wounded with real bullets. That is the

That`s why I`m telling you. I don`t know where things are going
because things are slipping outside our fingers like sand. You know how it
will begin. But does anyone tell me how it will end, how many will die,
how many wounded, how many will be maimed, how many families will be
destroyed, how many lives will be interrupted.

This is the cycle, vicious cycle that will not lead us anywhere. We
need a political solution and the political solution is ending this
occupation, acquiring independence, freedom, dignity, through peaceful
means, through establishing a Palestinian state to live side by side with
the state of Israel on the 1967 lines.

HAYES: Dr. Saeb Erakat, Palestinian chief negotiator from Jericho,
thank you so much. I really appreciate it, Doctor.

ERAKAT: Thank you, sir.

HAYES: All right. How could the most discussed and debated piece of
legislation in a generation have a meaning embedded within it that could
lead to its unraveling? I`ll tell you, next.


HAYES: What`s happening to the thousands of migrants who fled their
home countries to the U.S. where they hoped to stay until they found out
they could not, ahead.

Plus, who is floating the President Obama impeachment talk? The
answer may surprise you.


HAYES: Conservatives are celebrating today. They found the smoking
gun that will take down Obamacare. If you haven`t heard of Gruber-gate
yet, you`re going to be hearing a lot about it soon.

The context: two cases working their way through the courts brought by
conservative activist saying that under a strict reading of the Affordable
Care Act, subsidies are available to individuals only if they buy insurance
through state-run exchanges like Kentucky`s Connect, or California`s
Covered California. But not if they purchase insurance through state
exchanges administered by the federal government, one commonly referred to
as the federal exchange which serves 36 states and through which more than
7 million people will receive federal subsidies by 2016 according to recent

Two Republican appointed judges on the three-judge panel the D.C.
Circuit court of appeals, found in favor of that argument. Three
democratically appointed judges on the fourth circuit of court of appeals
came to the opposite conclusion, saying the ACA provides subsidies to
qualifying individuals in every state regardless of who administers the
exchange. This conflicting reading from those appeals courts may
ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court. Until then, it`s a nonissue
because in May of 2012, the IRS issued a rule, clarifying that subsidies
would also be available to the states that joined the federal exchange.

But now, elated conservatives are pointing to a tape of one of the
ACA`s consultants, arguably, one of its architects, Jonathan Gruber, on
January 18, 2012, speaking about the law to a nonprofit organization in
Falls Church, Virginia, and Gruber said this.


JONATHAN GRUBER, FORMER ACA CONSULTANT: What`s important to remember
politically about this is if you`re a state and you don`t set up an
exchange, that means your citizens don`t get their tax credits, but your
citizens pay the taxes that support this bill. So, you`re essentially
saying to your citizens you`re going to pay all the tax to help other
states in the country.

I hope that`s a blatant enough of a reality that states will get their
act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake in setting
up the exchanges and that they`ll do it.


HAYES: That`s not the only time. About a week earlier, in January
10, 2012, speaking to the Jewish community center in San Francisco, he said


GRUBER: When the voters in states see that by not setting up an
exchange, the politicians of the state are costing state residents hundreds
of millions and billions of dollars that they`ll eventually throw the guys
out, but I don`t know that for sure, and that is really the ultimate
threat, is will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn`t set
up an exchange, your losing tax credits to be delivered to your citizens.


HAYES: The voters didn`t seem to understand that, because no one
understood it that way. I mean almost literally no one.

Gruber has since said he misspoke, but the real point is these pieces
of tape are so newsworthy for this reason. In what was the most discussed
debated legislation in over a generation, essentially no one at the time
the bill was being discussed interpreted the law in the way Jonathan Gruber
did in the two small bits of speaking.

I covered this bill. Conservatives covered it, too. While the bill
was being debated and voted on, almost no one, almost no one was suggesting
the subsidies would apply only to state-run exchanges. The contention from
conservatives is that the vast overwhelming majority of people who wrote
the law, the people who voted for the law, implemented the law, commented
on the law, debated and discussed the law, right, left, center, Republican
and Democrat, House and Senate, broadcast and print, all of these people
didn`t understand what they were talking about.

Joining me now, Avik Roy, "Forbes" opinion editor and author of "How
Medicaid Fails the Poor."

Avik, you first wrote about this --


HAYES: How are you doing?

You wrote about this in 2011 when it was discovered in certain ways by
a commenter I believe on a blog. But when you -- before 2011 when you were
covering this and you were as chest deep in the wonkiness of the ACA as
anyone, did you write at all about this, what is now being accepted as fact
on the right that they can accept subsidies in state exchanges?

ROY: So, I`ve only been writing about health policy effectively since
March 2010 so I wasn`t around, I wasn`t blogging during the procedure in
Congress where all this passed.

Let me tell you something, Chris. Jonathan Gruber was exactly right
in the clips you played. The fact is if the federal exchange goes down,
then what you`re going to see is nearly every state is going to set up
their own exchange.

HAYES: Right.

ROY: The reason states didn`t set up their own exchange is because
they had no incentive to. They will have an incentive to if the federal
exchange goes down. So, it`s not -- Obamacare is never going to get
unraveled even if this case goes to the Supreme Court.

HAYES: There`s a bunch of stuff here. There`s three things I would

One is a sort of I find astoundingly bad faith everyone is pretending
retroactively that, of course, this was the interpretation of the law when
I was there and they were there and we were writing about it and no one was
saying that. But put that aside for a second.

You make a good point about what would the politics be if this were
true? If I didn`t care so much about people`s health insurance, I would
say, OK, sure, you know, go ahead, take it away from those 36 states and
immediately create this incredible political issue and all those 36 states
in which Democrats can say with a one-sentence law, we can get your
subsidies back to what they were last year.

ROY: Well, I would hope that if the Supreme Court does overturn or
overrule the IRS on this particular point. They would factor in some sort
of transition so states would have the opportunity to set up exchanges
without disrupting coverage for people.

But I guarantee you, I`ll bet you dinner at the nicest restaurant in
Brooklyn, or your favorite restaurant in Brooklyn, that all the Republican
states will set up exchanges, because it`s all federal money. No state
governor is going to say, since I`m not putting any of the money up, that
I`m going to turn away hundreds of millions of dollars, as Jonathan Gruber
pointed out in those clips.

HAYES: But, Avik, everyone was saying that when the Supreme Court
ruled, very surprisingly I would add, back during the ACA case, they ruled
the mechanism to force states to take the Medicaid expansion was
unconstitutional for, in my mind, dubious reasons.

And everyone said no one is going to walk away from hundreds of
millions of dollars for people and lots of states are walking from hundreds
of millions of dollars for people.

ROY: Oh, there`s two things I would say. A number of Republican
states haven`t walked away. They`ve taken the money. But more
importantly, there`s a big difference between Medicaid and the exchanges
because the Medicaid, the states are on the hook for substantial amount of
the money. Yes, it`s only 10 percent of the total expansion dollars.


HAYES: Not this year. It`s zero percent this year.

ROY: Well, eventually, in perpetuity after a certain transition, it`s
10 percent. And that`s a lot of money for a lot of states and states are
worried their obligation is going to increase there. The federal exchange
or the exchanges, I should say, the health insurance exchanges are entirely
funded by the federal government.

The operation the states have to pay a little bit there, but they can
recover that money from the insurance companies. So, there it really is an
overwhelming fiscal case. The hospitals lobbies will be all over this, the
insurance lobbies will be all over this. Obviously, the uninsured,
progressive activists, a lot of people are going to be all over this.
There`s going to be enormous pressure, I guarantee it.

So, the whole idea that the law is going to unravel, I mean, to me,
that`s crazy. It`s not going to happen that way.

HAYES: I agree the law won`t unravel. But I think the politics of
resistance to Obamacare have been far more dogged than I think many
anticipated at many different junctures. I think there`s a lot of
different points in which people thought you`re going to get basically buy-
in for this law. And I agree. I think we`ve gotten to the point where
enough people are benefiting from the law that we got this sort of
incumbency effect. But we will see.

Avik Roy from "Forbes" -- always a pleasure. Thanks, man.

ROY: Thank you.

HAYES: OK. If you`ve ever misidentified someone, I guarantee you it
was not as bad at what happened to the guy in the next bit of tape we`re
going to play you. He happens to be a member of Congress. And it is such
an amazing piece of tape. Stick around.


HAYES: Peak awkwardness was reached today on Capitol Hill -- I am
sorry, on Thursday, at a house foreign affairs subcommittee hearing. And,
two senior United States government officials, Nisha Biswal and Arun Kumar,
you see them there, they work at the state and commerce departments
respectively and they happen to be testifying before the subcommittee at
the hearing.

And, Florida Tea Party Congressman Curt Clawsen sworn in last month,
calls himself an outsider, seemed to think that the people sitting before
him represented the Indian government and he addressed them as such. Here
thanks to "Foreign Policy" Magazine is part of what ensued.


country. I love your country. And, I understand the complications of so
many languages and so many cultures and so many histories all rolled up in
one. So, just as your capital is welcome here to produce good-paying jobs
in the U.S., I would like our capital to be welcome there and there to be
free of capital. So, that both sides are on the same territory. And, I
ask cooperation and commitment and priority from your government in so
doing. Can I have that?

AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS: I think your question is to the Indian
government and we certainly share your sentiments and we certainly will
advocate that on behalf of the U.S. --

REP. CLAWSON: Of course. OK. Let`s see some progress.


HAYES: OK. Let`s just be clear here. OK? Those are U.S. Citizens
he is addressing who work in Senior U.S. Government positions, all right?
Now, we are going to play this again and there are two great things. I
have watched this a dozen times today. Two great things to watch for.

One is when they cut to the two witnesses, Arun Kumar`s facial
expression, he knows exactly what is happening and it is cracking him the
heck up. OK. Watch his reaction when asked to speak to the Indian
government. And, two, even after Nisha Biswal very politely says Clawson`s
comments should be directed to the Indian government for which they do not
work, the congressman clearly does not get it at all. Let`s see some
progress. Check it out.


REP. CLAWSON: I asked cooperation and commitment and priority from
your government in so doing. Can I have that?

BISWAL: I think your question is to the Indian government and we
certainly share your sentiments and we certainly will advocate that on
behalf of the U.S. --

REP. CLAWSON: Of course. OK. Let`s see some progress.


HAYES: Let`s see some progress. I really encourage you to use the
pause and rewind feature as much as you want on that one. Enjoy.



for the president to be impeached. So, I asked the Fox News polling
people, a scientific poll, to form a question about impeachment.


HAYES: Tell more about the scientific polling that Bill O`Reilly
commissioned in a moment. But, today, it is a typical times of divided
government for one side to float the idea of impeachment and the other side
to knock it down. That is exactly what is happening in Washington today,
except that who is floating the idea and who is knocking it down might not
be the people you would expect. Now, here is the impeachment floating.


Boehner, by going down the path of this lawsuit, has opened the door to
republicans possibly considering impeachment at some point in the future.
And, I think that the president acting on immigration reform will certainly
up the likelihood that they would contemplate impeachment at some point.


HAYES: All right, it was Senior White House Adviser, Dan Pfeiffer,
throwing around the "I" word this morning. It seems a little weird at
first blush but, of course, the White House shortly knows that impeachment
would be a political train wreck for the GOP, just as it was last time

And, perhaps, they even think talking impeachment could be a motivator
for democratic voters in the midterms. It was not long, though, before the
impeachment speculation was shot down by none other than Republican Speaker
of the House John Boehner.

Boehner`s spokesman releasing a statement reading impart, quote, "It
is telling, and sad that a Senior White House Officials focused on
political games rather than helping these kids and securing the border."
That is the republican speaker referring to impeachment talk as a political
gain. Joining me now is a guy whose former boss learned a thing or two
about impeachment, Mack McLarty, former chief of staff to President Bill

Mr. McLarty, I want to go through the polling today, because I thought
there was assessing -- CNN and FOX both did polls on impeachment and they
took a slightly different approach. CNN asked "Based on what you have read
or heard, do you believe that President Obama should be impeached or
removed from office or do not you feel that way?"

And, 33 say he should, 65 say no. Here is the FOX News wording, "Do
you favor or oppose impeaching President Obama for exceeding his authority
under the constitution by failing to enforce some laws and changing other
laws on his own or for any other reason?" And, they basically get the same
result. Pretty fixed views on impeachment it would seem.

seem, and that was a pretty long question on the FOX poll.


HAYES: Now, you were there before impeachment. You were an adviser
and close confidant to the president during impeachment. And, if there was
one last thing from the last time around --

MCLARITY: That is it.

HAYES: That it was a huge political disaster for republicans and they
know that, right?

MCLARITY: Bingo! You got it, Chris. I think they have gotten a
little smarter but apparently have not learned the full lesson. It was a
disaster the first time and I think it obviously is a political
miscalculation, unforced error if you want to call it that way this time.

But, still, with some of the proceedings about the constitutionality
and all that, that is a derivative of impeachment, certainly not as severe.
But, we got a lot of issues to deal with. We should not be talking about
this. Remember, President Obama has been elected and re-elected with a
clear mandate.

HAYES: You know, one of the most fascinating parts of this, if you
look back, if you look at Bill Clinton -- impeachment polling, Bill
Clinton, 1998 about the 29 percent support impeachment --


HAYES: -- George W. Bush, August-September, 2006, 30 percent. Barack
Obama, 33 percent. Basically, around the same.


HAYES: It sort of says to me there is about a third of the population
at any given moment thinks the president should be impeached.

MCLARITY: You could read it that way. And, it also suggests 2/3 of
the country do not think any president, republican or democrat, should be
impeached. That is the right way to read it.

HAYES: Well -- and, I think there is some concern, right? Because
the Bill Clinton impeachment seemed like such a sort of violation of the
expectation for the norms of the severity that you would have to cross --


MCLARITY: Eloquently -- eloquently put, Chris.

HAYES: Thank you very much. I talk for a living. And, that there is
a, I think, feeling that it is very dangerous if we do that again as a sort
of constitutional system if we were to do that again, again in such a short
period of time. And, that is why Nancy Pelosi, remember? --


HAYES: -- took it off the table very unambiguously as soon as the
democrats swept into power after 2006.

MCLARITY: That is a great point. It is a strong point. You have got
to remember, President Bush 43 had a very close election, actually did not
win the popular vote in 2000. But to my best recollection, the democrats
never brought up impeachment. And you are right, I mean, I think
politically this is a loser for the Republican Party. I think that is why
Speaker Boehner, former speaker Gingrich and others have dismissed it and
moved on with other matters.

HAYES: And, you think that is why Pfeiffer is floating it? Do you
think we are going to hear more from the White House talking about this?


MCLARITY: Well, I kind of hope not, frankly. It may be a short-term
political winner, and I understand that. You got to respond. I mean the
republicans put it on the table. But really, with the challenge, problems
we have got, both domestically at home and internationally, and the fact
that we are on some of the right track from an economic standpoint, I would
hope we would get on to the more serious issues of the day and find ways to
work together.

HAYES: Mack McLarty, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

MCLARITY: Chris, thank you very much.

HAYES: All right. What it is like to have to go through a
deportation hearing after risking your life crossing the border to get to a
country where you desperately want to stay. We will tell you, ahead.


HAYES: What is happening to the migrants who came to this country
hoping to escape their own country? They are being scheduled for
deportation hearings.


going to show up for the court date?

because if I do not I will be labeled as a fugitive and I do not want that.


HAYES: Alexandra Pelosi who interviewed that woman has been attending
a lot of those hearings. She will be here, next.


your name?

LORENA ALOR: Lorena Alor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: And, where are you coming from?

ALOR: From Honduras.


ALOR: Well, I left -- I decided to leave my country -- from the crime
that is happening there. Because, it is awful for my kids, more than
anything, because the young are at risk of being involved into gangs of
organized crime, to get them involved in killings. And, that is not good
and I worry, as a mother of their situation. So, I tried here to this


HAYES: As congress debates how to deal with the humanitarian crisis
at the border and as the Presidents meet with leaders of Central American
countries today, urging them to slow the wave of migrant families coming
across the border. Quietly, these mothers and children are being brought
into courts quickly adjudicated and deported, placed on airplanes and sent

Immigrations and customs enforcement carries out deportations on 135-
seat charter jets informally known as ICE Air; with a protocol for each
unaccompanied child to be flown home during day light hours and escorted by
at least two ICE agents. And, the expedited process by which this is
happening is raising alarms among immigration lawyers.

One attorney working with Central American Assailant Seekers told the
"Texas Observer," "U.S. Government is doing whatever it can to deport
families as quickly as possible" and, only going through the motions when
it comes to assailant seekers. She said an ICE Official told her that,
quote, "Our job is to get them deported. There is maybe one in a thousand
entitled to stay in the U.S., the rest are going to go."

Joining me now, MSNBC Contributor, documentary filmmaker, Alexandra
Pelosi, and Mary Meg McCarthy, Executive Director of the National Immigrant
Justice Center. Alexandra, let me start you. You have been sitting in a
lot of these deportation hearings. Now, these are deportation hearings, as
I understand it, they are happening for adults, mostly women, mothers, who
brought their kids. What are these hearings like? What is the process?

is so dysfunctional because you have some people that have been in the
country for years that are going through rounds of appeals and then you
have people that have been here for two weeks.

So, there is a real dysfunction in terms of the line of who -- they
are just forcing because of all the bad publicity surrounding this. They
are putting a lot of young people into court now, prematurely. So, they
have not had time to get lawyers. I have seen 10m to 14-year-olds showing
up at courthouses without lawyers that do not speak a word of English.

And, because these are civil proceedings, you do not have to have an
attorney. The government is not -- you are not entitled, they are not
entitled to get an actual representation. So, you have 10 to 14-year-olds
showing up and saying, "If you send me home, I am going to be murdered. I
am going to be killed and I do not have a lawyer and do not speak English,
but I am sure if I tell the judge that, he will let me stay." And, then Of
course, they are getting deported.

So, you have a whole range of issues of due process. I have just been
sitting through a lot of deportation hearings and I am sure it is for
generations we will be studying the repercussions of this in terms of human
rights and civil rights being violated there right now.

HAYES: Well, Mary, since you are an immigration lawyer. How -- is
this common? Is it common that children unaccompanied minors even before
the crisis did not have access to counsel? Are we seeing an accelerated
process that is robbing them of possible ability to make a valid claim?

JUSTICE CENTER: Chris, we are truly facing a refugee emergency and a due
process crisis. At the National Immigrant Justice Center, we have been in
some of these detention centers and we have seen the rapid processing of
women and children and it is extremely concerning.

Our U.S. Laws provide for due process protections for individuals
seeking safety on our shores. And, yet what we are doing is expediting
these processes and denying individuals access to counsel in a meaningful
day in court.

HAYES: OK. So, people are going to be -- there is a lot of people
saying, look, we cannot take these people. We got to show them. It is the
most humane thing to do is to show them they should not be taking on this
onerous, dangerous journey to come all the way up here and the best thing,
the tough-love response is to process and deport them as quickly as
possible. What is wrong with that?

MCCARTHY: We cannot compromise due process protections in this
country to deter individuals. That is not the solution. Just imagine a 6-
year-old child does not speak English, has just made a horrendous journey
through the most dangerous migration corridor in the world, coming to the
United States seeking protection and not being able to exercise her legal
rights under our laws. We are denying these children the basic fundamental
rights of access to an attorney and their due process.

HAYES: Alexandra, one of the things I read in notes that you sent
along about your observations is that, you know, the people that are first
being apprehended at the border, they get a note saying, "Here is your
court date." And, it was fascinating to me that -- the vast majority of
people actually show up for that court date, right? That is what you have
been seeing.

PELOSI: And, the sad thing is, a majority of the people -- now let`s
not confuse my anecdotes with data.

HAYES: Right. Right.

PELOSI: But, I have to tell you. I have been going through these
hearings for a while. And, the last couple weeks, I have been doing
nothing but sitting in deportation hearings. And, I have to say that a lot
of the people I was following, do not show up for the court dates. They
disappear into America.

The ones that show up are the ones that want to be responsible. They
want to do the right thing.

HAYES: Right.

PELOSI: And, they are the ones being removed.

HAYES: And, the fact that --

PELOSI: -- I do not know many adults that speak English that were
qualified to show up in a court of law and defend themselves.

HAYES: Right.

PELOSI: Imagine having these people that do not speak a word of
English, they come from another country and they just believe in the system
so much that they are willing to show up. That is the heartbreaking part.
They are trying to do the right thing and they are the ones that are paying
the price.

HAYES: And, Mary, that leads to another point, right? Which is that,
if it becomes the case that people start to hear that as soon as you show
up in the court you are getting deported, then people are just going to
stop showing up for the hearings because if they are truly as desperate as
they would need to be to make the journey they have just made, why go back
to a court to face certain deportation back to the place you have just

MCCARTHY: Chris, I think your question really leads us to the
importance of having access to counsel in these cases.

HAYES: Counsel, right.

MCCARTHY: We have seen University of Syracuse has documented recently
that 90 percent of these children appear in court if they have an attorney.
And, without an attorney, the children are five times more likely to be


MCCARTHY: And, these are individuals who are seeking protection.
They are desperate and they need safety. And, our country has laws and
protections for these children that they need to be able to exercise. So,
access to counsel is critical.

HAYES: There is work in congress, Hakeem Jeffries is among other
members of congress advocating legislation to make sure they are ensured
right to counsel. MSNBC Contributor and Documentary Filmmaker Alexandra
Pelosi and Mary Meg McCarthy, the Executive Director of the National
Immigrant Justice Center, thank you both.

MCCARTHY: Thank you.

HAYES: Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez spoke with MSNBC
host Jose Diaz-Balart today. We will have part of that interview and Jose
will be here next.



United States is the largest consumer of drugs, and what happens with that
is you managed to resolve the problem by separating the violence from the
consumption of drugs, and for many public officials here, the problem is a
matter of health. What is it for us in Central America? It is a problem
of life and death.


HAYES: Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez spoke with MSNBC
host Jose Diaz-Balart this morning ahead of his meeting with President
Obama, said the U.S. needs to bear some of the responsibility for the surge
of migrants coming from Central America.

Joining me now is Jose Diaz-Balart. Jose, what was the purpose of the
meeting, and my understanding it was the President of El Salvador,
President of Honduras, President of Guatemala, which are the three nations
that make up about 80 percent of these kids who are showing up. What was
the purpose of the meeting today?

JOSE DIAZ-BALART, MSNBC HOST: I actually, Chris, met with the
President of Honduras twice today and just got out of a meeting with the
President of Guatemala. And, the meeting today in the White House was
really the President wanted to show the three Presidents of Central America
involved in this crisis that the United States wants and gets the idea that
it needs to help, but not just once the kids are crossing the border and
entering in the United States.

By then, it is pretty much too late to deal with the underlying
reasons of why they are leaving, and I think that the President really
wanted to sit with them and say, "Listen, I understand it. I get it.
Let`s work together to see how we can mitigate this problem and deal with
the root causes." The problem is that something is going to take some
time. Whatever you do, it is going to take some time. These deals --
these issues are long in coming.

HAYES: Yes. I mean what is the position of these three men? I know
you spoke to two of them directly.


HAYES: What are their takes on why this is happening?

DIAZ-BALART: Well, the President of Honduras where the majority of
these kids are coming from was very clear. He says that the United States`
responsibility in this is because American drug consumers have such an
appetite for illicit drugs that they have created an infrastructure to
serve them out of Mexico and out of Central and South America that caters
to their needs.

So, every cocaine line that people are putting up their noses in the
United States starts probably in the fields of South America, is processed
in South America, is transported through Central America and through Mexico
into the United States. And that is not run by sisters of charity. That
is run by ruthless thugs that see the economic opportunity of bringing
people affected by that war and by that drug consumption in the United
States and to bring them into the United States and make extra coin on the

HAYES: And, so I guess my question here is, I am not necessarily
disposed to take at face value what the official of any nation is going to
say, right? So, it just seems to me that the President of Honduras, the
President of Guatemala, the President of El Salvador could be right about
what is going on, but they also could be masking the fact that their own
governance might be partly to blame for what seems like a pretty bad
situation in all three countries.

DIAZ-BALART: Partially to blame, Chris?


HAYES: Yes, right.

DIAZ-BALART: How about this? These three countries are democracies,
and it is interesting because you have El Salvador, which is run by a
leftist president.


DIAZ-BALART: In second term, by the way. He was re-elected. And,
then now, you know, the same party takes over.


DIAZ-BALART: And, in Honduras, and in Guatemala, right-wing
presidents. And, so it is not a matter of ideology. It is a matter of
what are these countries doing to deal with the poverty that exists in
their country? And, you know what they are doing, Chris? If you look at
El Salvador, for example, the last elections, it was brought up that
President -- former President Flores of that country is alleged to have
received $12 million from Asia to help the poor and that money disappeared
to his coffers. That is not new. We have to deal with that.

HAYES: Jose Diaz-Balart, who did two great interviews. And, I think
the second one airs this weekend, am I right?

DIAZ-BALART: "Enfoque" 12:11 Central on Sunday in Telemundo. I will
have more on the morning show right here on MSNBC on Monday.

HAYES: Awesome and you can catch his MSNBC show weekdays at 10 A.M.
Thank you so much. All right, that is "All In" for this evening. "The
Rachel Maddow Show" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thanks man. Have a
great weekend.

HAYES: You too.


Copyright 2014 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.>