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

All In With Chris Hayes, Wednesday, September 24th, 2014

Read the transcript from the Wednesday show

September 24, 2014

Guest: Jen Psaki, John Kirby, Barbara Lee, Lawrence Wilkerson, Alicia
Reece, Hugh Evans, Peter Galvin


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN:

understood by killers like this is the language of force.

HAYES: The president rallies the world at the U.N.

OBAMA: The United States of America will work with a broad coalition
to dismantle this network of death.

HAYES: Tonight, will the president`s plan work?

And as the British parliament is called back to vote on war, what
about our Congress?

Then, no indictment for the police who shot and killed a young black
man in a Walmart. The state has released the surveillance video. We`ll
get the latest from Ohio.

Plus, big news on the star-studded concert to end extreme poverty.

And the protester polar bear arrested on Monday joins me live tonight.

ALL IN starts right now.


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

President Obama laid out his case for military action to world leaders
gathered at the U.N. General Assembly today. While for the third day in a
row the U.S. and its Arab partners carried out air strikes inside Syria,
this time targeting modular oil refineries that bring in a large share of
ISIS` vast wealth.

In a major speech this morning, the president urged the international
community to come together in the fight against ISIS and its violent


OBAMA: Today, I ask the world to join in this effort. Those who have
joined ISIL should leave the battlefield while they can. Those who
continue to fight for a hateful cause will find they`re increasingly alone
-- for we will not succumb to threats and we will demonstrate that the
future belongs to those who build, not those who destroy.


HAYES: Arguing for America`s role as a leader in the world, the
president didn`t hesitate to call out U.N. member states sitting right
there in the room, starting with strong words for Russia over its
incursions into Ukraine.


OBAMA: This is a vision of the world in which might makes right. A
world in which one nation`s borders can be redrawn by another and civilized
people are not allowed to recover the remains of their loved ones because
the truth might be revealed. We will impose a cost on Russia for
aggression, and we will counter falsehoods with the truth.


HAYES: The focus of President Obama`s speech was the global effort to
combat terrorism beginning with wiping out ISIS in Iraq and Syria.


OBAMA: There can be no reasoning, no negotiation with this brand of
evil. The only language understood by killers like this is the language of
force. So, the United States of America will work with a broad coalition
to dismantle this network of death.


HAYES: At the same time, the president emphasized the U.S. can`t win
the fight against extremism if it`s acting alone.


OBAMA: It is time for the world, especially Muslim communities, to
explicitly, forcefully and consistently reject the ideology of
organizations like al Qaeda and ISIL.


HAYES: That was broadly the theme of a special session of U.N.
Security Council chaired by the president himself this afternoon, where
members voted unanimously for a binding resolution for members to take
measures to stop their citizens from traveling abroad to join terrorist
groups. The latest U.S. estimates put the total of foreign fighters who`ve
gone to Syria at 15,000, from as many as 80 countries. In a grotesque
reminder of how easy it is for an ideology of murder to be exported, the
French president confirmed today that a French citizen was killed by a
group of ISIS copycats in Algeria.


and gentlemen, France is going through a tragedy following the
assassination of one of our compatriots, but France will never give in to
blackmail, to pressure, to barbaric acts.


HAYES: President Obama later pledging solidarity with the French.


OBAMA: President Hollande, we stand with you and the French people,
not only as you grieve this terrible loss but as you show resolve against
terror and in defense of liberty.


HAYES: Joining me now, Jen Psaki, State Department spokesperson.


HAYES: Great to have you actually on set.

So, the president today talked about international law, binding
international resolution, U.N. Security Council, talked about violations of
those laws in Ukraine and Russia. Why is what the U.S. is doing in Syria
legal under international law?

PSAKI: Well, Chris, I don`t think anyone would question the ongoing
threat that the ISIL safe havens in Syria is posing to Iraq, Iraq has
invited the United States in, they`ve sent a letter, we`ve sent a letter to
the U.N. as well on this issue. And what Article 51 says is that if a
country is unable or unwilling to defend or get rid of the threat that`s
coming from their country, you have the right to assist. And that`s what
the United States is doing.

HAYES: So, Article 51 is the right of self-defense. It`s in the U.N.

PSAKI: That`s right.

HAYES: Iraq sent a letter in June saying -- essentially invoking
that, right?


HAYES: The U.S., when it sent its letter. So you think that applies
to Syria as well?

PSAKI: We do. We think, Chris, that this is a place where Syria is
unable or unwilling to rid their country of the safe haven that ISIL is
living under there. And --

HAYES: Well, they`re certainly not unwilling. I think the Assad
government`s not unwilling.

PSAKI: I think that`s arguable. I think there`s no question, Chris,
that the part of the country where ISIL safe havens are really operating in
is not under control of the Assad regime anymore. So, they may be willing.
They haven`t done a lot if they`re so willing over the last two years.

HAYES: Has it been a good week for Bashar al Assad? You now have one
of the most powerful air forces in the world bombing people that have been
trying to take you out. Not just bombing one of them but also according to
reports, Jabhat al Nusra, there are some that said we hit Ahrar al-Sham,
another Islamist group that`s been trying to fight you. If you`re Bashar
al-Assad, you`ve had a pretty good week.

PSAKI: Well, first, let me say, we took the step along with five Arab
countries, because this threat from ISIL was posing a threat to Western
interests, possibly to United States if left unchecked. And, you know, the
president of the United States, the secretary of state have a commitment to
protect American citizens but I think Bashar al Assad is probably not
having a good week in the sense that our United States Congress just passed
a train and equip program that`s going to boost up the Syrian opposition
and take on the fight against them.

HAYES: If you were to lay out the best case scenario, OK, first step
is U.S. and Arab partner, Sunni nations bombing ISIL or ISIS in Syria,
right? Next step is train the Free Syrian Army. OK. What`s -- can you
talk me through points three, four, five and six and then the outcome?

PSAKI: Sure.

HAYES: Best case scenario?

PSAKI: One, this is not just a military coalition. That`s really
important for people to understand. And we won`t be successful if it`s
only military. So, part of our effort that`s going to be expanding over
the coming weeks, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk are going to be
heading to the region, is to focus on issues like counter financing,
cracking down on foreign fighters. We need countries in the region to take
steps on that as well.

It`s not just an air strike campaign. It`s far more than that. So, I
don`t know if that`s steps three, four and five, but that`s certainly a
component of what we`re focused on.

HAYES: Then what? And then the Free Syrian Army defeats ISIS, Jabhat
al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and the Assad forces and declares rule in Syria of

PSAKI: Well, first, Chris, the Free Syrian Army they`ve been fighting
ISIL already.

HAYES: Sure.

PSAKI: They`ve been fighting them the last two years. It`s been
challenging. They`ve been fighting on multiple fronts.

If we can weaken ISIL, we`re going to strengthen the opposition.
There`s more of a will to boost the opposition, help them with training
that`s not just the United States but other countries in the region. And
we think that`s important but they`re going to be the ones taking on the
fight as well.

HAYES: Jen Psaki of the State Department, good to have you in person,
thank you very much.

PSAKI: Good to be here.

HAYES: All right. This afternoon, just as we were learning that the
third round of U.S. air strikes in Syria was starting, I was speaking with
the press secretary for the Pentagon, Rear Admiral John Kirby, and here`s
what he told me.


give you too much detail because it`s an ongoing operation although we do
believe it`s wrapping up right now. What I can tell you is that with
coalition partners, we`re conducting additional air strikes inside Syria
this afternoon. These targets are in the eastern part of the country and
were really aimed at trying to get to the ISIL`s capabilities at developing
revenue. So, it`s really about going after some of the means by which they
finance themselves.

HAYES: Does that mean oil fields? Oil refinery equipment?

KIRBY: I`d really rather stay away from the specific targets at this
time right now just because again the operation is ongoing as you and I are
talking. But it is trying -- we`re trying to get at their streams of

HAYES: There are some reports, including from some of the jihadi
groups associate that U.S. airstrikes in the previous round had killed
perhaps two of the top leaders of what`s being called the Khorasan group,
what is -- what appears to be an elite cadre of al Qaeda fighters in Syria.
Can the Pentagon confirm that?

KIRBY: No, we cannot. We`ve been obviously monitoring this very
closely but as we speak today, we cannot confirm the death of any
particular leaders of the Khorasan group.

HAYES: I want to read a portion of a "New York Times" article to you.
"After six weeks of American airstrikes, the Iraqi government`s forces have
scarcely budged the Sunni extremists of the Islamic state from their hold
on more than a quarter of the country in part because many critical Sunni
tribes remain on the sidelines."

Is the air strike campaign in Iraq before you even get to Syria, is it

KIRBY: Well, we do believe we`re putting additional pressure on ISIL.
So, yes, we believe it`s working. But what`s most important here is air
power alone is not going to do it. You`ve got to have willing capable
partners on the ground.

We know the Iraqi security forces are not a homogenous army in that
regard, some are better quality than others. We saw some divisions up
north, not do quite as well. The ones in and around Baghdad, the ones down
south are actually bolstering their defenses. So, it`s a mix.

And that`s one of the reasons why and this is getting lost a lot
lately with all the attention on airstrikes, that we`re moving from an
assessment phase to an advise-and-assist phase. And we`ll put teams in a
higher level, not on the field in combat, but at a higher level to help
improve their confidence, their competence and their capability.

HAYES: If willing and capable partners -- let me just ask you this,
if willing and capable partners on the ground is so key, everyone has been
saying that airstrikes are kind of a limited tool under these conditions.
Then what`s the analog inside Syria? Where are the willing and capable
partners there to provide the kind of foreign intelligence to even identify
targets call on air strikes after you`ve hit in the first round the hard,
quote-unquote, "easy targets"?

KIRBY: Well, they`re not easy targets. I think I`d push back a
little bit of that.

So, two thoughts here, one, there is a moderate Syrian opposition in
Syria. They need some help, too, which is why we`re grateful for the vote
out of Congress last week to begin to get the authorities to begin to train
and equip moderate opposition. That`s going to take some time.
Absolutely. It`s not going to be done overnight.

And number two, the targets we`re going after inside Syria are the
targets that are designed to go after this organization`s ability to
sustain itself, to train, to resupply, to finance itself. They are really
strategic level targets. They`re not the kind of tactical targets at least
not right now that we`re hitting inside Iraq, which are vehicles, artillery
positions, firing positions, that kind of thing, convoys.

So, the range of targets are a little bit different inside Syria, to
really go after their ability to strategically operate.

HAYES: The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights had reported yesterday
that there were several civilian casualties in the first round of strikes.
I believe they said eight with three children. The Pentagon said they
couldn`t confirm that.

But the broader question is without eyes on the ground in Syria, how
confident can you be when you`re -- when you`re targeting structures that
you`re going to be sparing innocent life?

KIRBY: Well, we`re as confident as we can be understanding the
constraints. You make a good point. We know that we hit what we were
aiming at. We`ve done the battle assessment. It tells us that we`re
extraordinarily effective and precise in the strikes that were conducted
the night before last.

That said nobody takes the problem or the challenge of civilian
casualties and collateral damage more seriously than we do. We`re aware of
some of these allegations and claims. We`re going to look into them.

Obviously, if they`re true, you know, we`ll account for that. We`ll
certainly do what we need to do. But we take it very, very seriously. We
don`t have any firm indications that we caused undue collateral damage at
this point but we`re looking at it, we`re going to take it seriously.

HAYES: Rear Admiral John Kirby, thank you very much.

KIRBY: My pleasure. Thank you.


HAYES: British Prime Minister David Cameron announced today he`s
recalling parliament so they can take a vote on whether to join military
operations against ISIS in Iraq. Last year you may recall, parliament
voted against intervening in Syria against Bashar al Assad who is now
fighting ISIS in Syria. And that helped stymie President Obama`s effort to
get congressional approval for bombing Assad`s regime, that was a year ago.

The parliament`s move to reconvene this week stands in stark contrast
to other legislative bodies like the U.S. Congress which adjourned for the
midterm elections and has no intention to come back to vote for military
force for the campaign against ISIS that`s already under way.

Joining me now, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Democrat from California,
who served as congressional representative of the U.N., and was the only
sitting member of Congress to vote against the original authorization, the
use of military force a few days after September 11th.

Congresswoman, what do you think Congress should do?

REP. BARBARA LEE (D), CALIFORNIA: Chris, many of us saw this coming
during the summer. Actually, I believe it was August 28th -- Congressman
McGovern, Jones and myself, we wrote to the speaker. Now, this was in
August, mind you -- and asked to speaker to allow for a vote, anticipating
the increase in the military strikes and really the increase in our
involvement in this sectarian war.

Of course, the speaker, unfortunately, denied the House that
opportunity. And I have to say, Chris, that we are members of Congress.
We have our constitutional duty and responsibilities to engage in a full
and robust debate and vote up or down on an authorization when we are
engaged in war and I`m sorry that did not happen.

HAYES: The White House says that they have the authority under the --
they`ve decided three different theories under the Article II under the
Constitution, under the authorization to use military force in 2001 which
you voted against, and the authorization to use military force in 2002 for
Iraq, which you also voted against.

But do you think they`re wrong? Do you think they don`t have the
authority to do what they`re doing right now?

LEE: Chris, that cuts both ways. There really continues a debate on
whether or not those authorizations did constitute -- does constitute the
legal authority, but I have to tell you they were very broad, first of all.
The authorization that I voted against in 2001 really was a blank check to
use force and to create a state of perpetual war.

So, some believe that that authorization was the administration was
using would hold because this is a state of perpetual war. Unfortunately,
the 2002 resolution also.

I asked the Congressional Research Service to let me know and to
communicate very clearly in an unclassified manner what the 2001
authorization had been used for and how many times. Chris, it`s been over
30-some times that that authorization has been used. So, it`s almost
making it up as we go along. And I think that Congress should demand
whether or not, you know, the legal authority exists or not.

This is a new front on the -- on a war. And we`re in a war. And I
think that as members of Congress, regardless of the president, regardless
of who`s in the House of Representatives, we need to insist that Congress
do its duty, exercise our responsibility and vote for or against the use of
force. And that, you know, is a legal question which there`s some
confusion and debate about, but I think it`s our constitutional
responsibility to do our job.

HAYES: Congresswoman Barbara Lee, thank you so much.

LEE: Thank you.

HAYES: Before I leave this topic, I want to show a document on screen
here that I thought was fascinating. I read it today. It`s a letter to
Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, who is, of course, the self-proclaimed caliph of the
Islamic state. And it`s an open letter condemning ISIS attacks signed by
almost 200 imams.

And if you -- we`ll put it up on our Web site. It makes for
fascinating reading. These are religious figures along a wide spectrum of
parts of Islam saying what I think is becoming clearer and clearer, that
what al Baghdadi is doing and what ISIS is doing may be in the name of
their own sectarian vision but is not in the name of the broader Islam.

All right. What`s the single biggest difference between what the U.S.
is doing in Syria now and what we`ve seen before in the Obama
administration? I will tell you ahead.


HAYES: A man shot and killed by police in Ohio. And there will be no
indictment for the police that shot him in an Ohio Walmart last month.
Now, the FBI is stepping in to review the case. The details of all that,



OBAMA: We will neither tolerate terrorist safe havens, nor act as an
occupying power. We will take action against threats to our security and
our allies, while building an architecture of counterterrorism cooperation.


HAYES: Earlier today, the president put terrorism front and center of
his speech at the United Nations against the backdrop of American
airstrikes in Syria against ISIS and a small cadre of al Qaeda affiliates,
but even relaying the dangers of ISIS over the past weeks and days, the
president has argued the U.S.-led campaign in Syria isn`t anything radical
but rather a continuation of his overall counterterrorism approach which
has been for the duration of his presidency quite aggressive.


OBAMA: This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady,
relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist using our air power.
And our support for partners forces on the ground. This strategy of taking
out terrorists who threaten us while supporting partners on the front lines
is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.


HAYES: While it`s true the U.S. has been engaged in a whole lot of
targeted killing, through raids, cruise missiles and drone strikes in
countries like Yemen and Somalia, those operations do not hold a candle to
what has happened in Syria over the past few days.

For example, so far this year, there had 17 air strikes total in
Yemen, according to "Long War Journal". In Syria, U.S. partners have
carried out at least 30 air strikes in the last 48 hours alone.

Likewise, the strikes that had been conducted in Yemen and Somalia
are, by and large, covert, often not announced at all or only by statement
after the fact. There are no grand pronouncements of what partner nations
are onboard, and there are certainly no Pentagon press conferences
detailing targets and releasing videos.

So whether or not one thinks this military escalation inside Syria is
a good or bad thing, what is quite clear is that this is something
different than what we have been doing. That as a nation, we`ve done
something big and new.

Joining me now retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former
chief of staff for Colin Powell, when Powell was secretary of state.

And, Colonel, do you agree with that basically, that we`re seeing
something that is more of a difference in kind than a difference in degree
when you look at the use of, you know, JSOC and drones and targeted killing
by this president for the first six years of his tenure on the global war
on terror and you compare it to what we`re doing in Syria and Iraq right

POWELL: Chris, I think it`s a difference in degree and kind. I think it`s
a difference as you`ve insinuated, but also think it`s a difference in
empire. That is to say when you spend this kind of money on this kind of
target, for example, a million dollar cruise missile on top of a $200 AK-
47, you are doing something that is markedly different from what you said
covert operations in Yemen, a strike here, a Predator, a Reaper there.

This is a much wider, much deeper operation, and it will cost a
fortune. Let`s make that very clear.

HAYES: Yes, there was an estimate today that I saw that was $1.5
billion a month. It was from Defense One I think reported that. Of
course, it`s hard to say.

Where would the money from this come from? Is this from this sort of
contingency fund that gets passed every year for this sort of broad
category for these operations?

WILKERSON: Go back to Barbara Lee`s comments. I was reminded of
James Madison.

James Madison saying in effect when you entrust the war power to the
executive, you invite a state of perpetual war. That`s the phrase Barbara
used. That`s essentially what we`ve had since 2001.

And this is a very expensive state. In fact, if you look through
history, empires have foundered on the expenditures necessary to fight wars
like this on their peripheries. This is a very dangerous thing for the
United States to be doing and to continue to be doing especially when its
economic situation is anything but sound.

HAYES: So, Colonel, let me ask you this. I`ve read a bunch of
people. There hasn`t been a lot of folks -- sort of political figures in
the Democratic Party saying we shouldn`t be doing this explicitly, Barbara
Lee as well as others. Matthew Hoh who we`ve had on the show who served in
Iraq and served in the State Department in Afghanistan, and Andrew Bacevich
which is sort of military historian and thinker, making the case against

The thing people say to me if I voice any skepticism or ask skeptical
question is, is what would you have us do? What is the alternative to what
we`re doing?

What`s your answer to that question?

WILKERSON: That`s an excellent question.

The first thing I think we have to do is quit the scare mongering.
The first thing we have to do is not make these people ten feet tall.

Let`s say there`s 31,000 of them, let`s say there`s 50,000 of them.
That`s hardly three American divisions. They`re not that formidable.

And the idea that they`re going to cross the border and start killing
us, I remind you of Humphrey Bogart`s comments in "Casablanca" to Major
Straser, the Nazi major, when he insinuated that the Nazis might come in
the `40s to New York. And Bogart said, you might have some problems.

There are six guns for every American in this country. I dare them to
come into this country. I think they`re smarter than that.

That`s the first thing. Don`t hype this threat.

The second thing is -- and President Obama said it today, but he said
it in a way couched in terms that make me worried. He said lofty rhetoric
and good intentions won`t solve these problems.

Well, Mr. President, lofty rhetoric and good intentions seem to be
about the only thing United States has in its arsenal lately plus bombs.

So, the things that need to be done, the cultural, political,
informational, intelligence, diplomatic, political things that need to be
done to address these problems are complex and long-term. They`re not
dropping bombs, no one even mentioned, Jen Psaki didn`t even mention one of
the major things we should be doing and that is taking care of the millions
of refugees that are destabilizing Jordan, Lebanon and southern Turkey.

There are so many things we should be doing besides dropping bombs.
I`m not saying that taking on ISIL in this way isn`t an effective way to
do. But I`m saying as you said, what`s step two, what`s step three, what`s
step four?

HAYES: Yes, that point about refugees is important. Turkey takes
several hundred thousand, Jordan hundreds of thousands and we have taken I
think the number I last saw and we will check this in the break, I think
it`s less than 100.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, thank you very much for your time.

WILKERSON: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: I`m going to be hanging out with Jay-Z this weekend and you
can, too, but there`s a catch. I`ll tell you what it is, next.


HAYES: A concert on Central Park`s Great Lawn is one of the most
incredible ways to experience live music. In 1980, Elton John donned a
Donald Duck costume -- that is the first time I have seen this bit of tape
-- and took to the stage drawing what was estimated at the time to be a
crowd of 300,000 people; following Paul Simon`s iconic performance 11 years

News report said he drew 6,000 concert goers. And, now, while music
is performed all throughout the park every summer, the iconic Great Lawn
pretty much hosts only one concert a year, which is the Global Citizen

And, this time around, this Saturday, we will be broadcasting it live,
right here on MSNBC, all day long beginning at 3:00 P.M. Eastern, with
performances by No Doubt, Alicia Keys, Carrie Underwood, and Jay-Z.

Now, you may be saying yourself, "Well, I want to go to that concert.
That sounds fun." Well, it is free, but there is a catch. Hugh Evans, the
mastermind behind this enormous undertaking will be here to explain how you
can try to go to the concert and what you have to do to get there, later in
the show.


HAYES: Big news out of Ohio today, in a controversial case that has
the victim`s family members and activists outraged. A grand jury decided
not to indict two police officers in the shooting death of John Crawford.
A 22-year-old black man killed last month after carrying around a BB gun,
he picked up from a shelf inside a local Wal-Mart.


MARK PIEPMEIER, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR: I cannot say what the vote count
was but at the end of all that testimony, the grand jury deliberated and
they returned no indictment. They decided that the police officers and the
police officer in particular that fired the shots was justified in doing
what he did.


HAYES: Shooting death of John Crawford gained national attention as
people began following the shooting death of mike brown, which happened a
few day after Crawford was shot. On Monday protesters marched from the
Wal-Mart where Crawford was shot to the courthouse where the grand jury was
convening, all 11 miles.

And, today as part of the news conference to announce that there would
be no indictment. Surveillance video of the shooting from inside that Wal-
Mart at that faithful moment was finally released. It is something that
Crawford family has been calling for, for weeks.

And, what the video does not show is as powerful and significant as
what it does show. On August 5th, a customer in that Wal-Mart called 911
and said that Crawford had a gun and was, quote, "Pointing it at people and
that he was loading the gun." The video released today shows that Crawford
was not doing anything like that. Listen to the special prosecutor walk
reporters through what we are seeing.


PIEPMEIER: You see Mr. Crawford walk down this aisle and really
without stopping reach out, pick up this rifle and continue walking. Mr.
Crawford is still on the phone, carrying that rifle in his left arm. And,
a number of people in the store noticed him. This is the guard center
door. Mr. Crawford -- Again, that is him walking by. At this point he has
got the gun on his shoulder.


HAYES: That 911 caller, who said he was allowed to see the
surveillance video before it was released when no one else could see it, he
changed his story about two weeks ago to say that at no point did Crawford
point the BB gun at anybody. And, since he was not pointing the gun at
anybody and since Ohio is an open carry state, Crawford could have been
legally carrying a real gun and not a pellet gun inside that Wal-Mart.

Special prosecutor notes that a Wal-Mart clerk did call a store
manager to report there was a guy walking around with a gun and not knowing
if it was real or not. Wal-Mart employees were in the process of telling
Crawford to put the gun away when the police showed up.

Police contend that they, quote, "Gave verbal commands to subject to
drop the weapon. The subject was shot after failing to comply with the
officers` commands," because there is no audio on the surveillance video.
We do not know for sure whether the officers did issue those verbal
commands. But, what it does appear to show is a man who did not
particularly seem like a threatening figure when he was shot.

At one point, Crawford appears to have dropped the BB gun and run.
Following the announcement there will not be indictment. The U.S. Justice
Department announced that they will conduct a, quote, "Thorough and
independent review of the evidence relating to the death of John Crawford,

Joining me now is Ohio Democratic State Representative Lisa Reece.
She is President of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus. And, Rep. Reece,
what is your reaction to the announcement today from the special

outraged. They cannot understand, you know, how do you come back with no
indictment? For weeks, we have been calling for the release of the tapes.
And, people are concerned. Black, white, young and old are saying, "Wait a
minute. You know, where is the transparency? Why were not the tapes shown

And, so, people were outraged. They are frustrated. And, we are
pleased that the justice department is going to come in and we are asking
for a full transparent and timely investigation. I think one of the other
disturbing things today was that the prosecutor, the special prosecutor,
said that this was a perfect storm. And, I can tell you that this is not a
perfect storm. This is a nightmare for the Crawford family and for the
citizens of Ohio, who have been asking for answers.

HAYES: Representative, we are not showing -- for reasons of standards
and taste, we are not showing the moment in which Mr. Crawford is killed.
If you do watch that video, though, it is sort of a split screen.

You can see the moment the police come in to the store and Crawford`s
death. And, what struck me about it was how quickly it happened. I mean
it is like that. They come in and he is dead, almost before there is time
to do anything.

And, you can understand a police officer being told there is someone
threatening and coming in and feeling threatened; but it really is just
hard to watch that and not think there could have been another way to end
that situation, particularly considering the fact that he is walking around
the store with his cell phone half the time.

REP. REECE: Yes. I think your analysis is what the citizens have
been saying. When you see this tape and you hear the 911 tape. And, I
think it is important to be clear that the 911 tape was released. So,
people heard that, and they formulated an opinion.

And, that is why it was so important to release all of the tapes. Not
an edited version. Not an interpreted version but all the tapes, so that
people can get a clear understanding of what the truth is. But when you
look at the tape, it just does not add up.

And, so, people are concerned because, you know, the grand jury that
is a secret process is not out in the open and people are very concerned.
And, that is why we are pleased that the justice department has decided to
come in quickly and look at this in its entirety because people want the

The bottom line is the prosecutor has said that John Crawford has done
nothing wrong. We look at the tapes. We do not see John Crawford doing
anything wrong. The problem is we have an unarmed African-American human
being who is murdered, who is gone now, and the community wants answers.

HAYES: And, there is no answer to give. I mean what is so
frustrating about this case and I think has so many people angry is,
basically, what you said the special prosecutor said. This was just
something that happened. And, it was a terrible tragedy and now we need to
move on. And, folks are not trying to have that right now as far as I can
tell from social media and other places.

REP. REECE: No, absolutely. It is hard to say, you know, with
Trayvon Martin, you said, "Well, if he just did not wear a hoodie." With
Jordan Davis, you said, "If his music was not too loud." With Michael
Brown, you said, "Well, if he did not have his hands up." Now, it is --
you cannot even walk into a grocery store. So, this has to stop and the
community wants answers.

HAYES: State Representative Lisa Reece, thank you very much.

REP. REECE: Thanks for having me.

HAYES: A preview on amazing event for good that is going to be taking
place here in New York on Saturday. Plus, I will interview a polar bear
that will happen in television. That is all ahead.


HAYES: When the U.N. General Assembly meets in New York every fall,
it brings all kinds of people together; foreign dignitaries and dictators,
protesters, security personnel and polar bears. This image went viral
during the Flood Wall Street protest.

And, then this happened. There he is, paw-cuffed. But, there is good
news to report tonight. Frostpaw is out on bail and he will be here for a
world-wide exclusive interview, ahead.




GWEN STEFANI, NO DOUBT VOCALIST: I think it is going to be really
different, too, because it is not just our fans and Jay-Z`s fans. It is
these people that care, that had to fight to get these tickets by taking
actions. So, the energy that is going to be out there in that park is
going to be, I think, unlike anything that we have ever experienced.


HAYES: Our own Ronan Farrow interviewed the reunited No Doubt ahead
of a pretty big even on Saturday. You can catch the interview tomorrow on
"Ronan Farrow Daily" at 1:00 P.M. Now, for me, if it is a Saturday, I am
going to be hanging out with Jay-Z. That is just what we do.

This Saturday, however, is a special one. The two of us will be in
Central Park in New York City at the third annual Global Citizen Festival,
which Jay-Z will be headlining, and I will be hosting along with Alex
Wagner. No word yet on whether who is going to ask me to do a guest verse
on "99 Problems." I am practicing just in case.

The crew is laughing just at the thought of that they are laughing.
The festival will air on MSNBC on Saturday, starting at 3:00 P.M. Eastern.
In the line, it is amazing, along with Jay-Z, No Doubt, Alicia Keys, Carrie
Underwood, Fun, The Roots, and Tiesto will all perform.

The festival is the brainchild of Hugh Evans of the Global Poverty
Project, which is seeking to end extreme poverty by the year 2030. Evans
has somehow managed to bring together some of the biggest artist of music
with celebrities Hugh Jackman and Jessica Alba and dignitaries like U.N.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and the Prime Minister of the world`s largest
democracy, India`s Narendra Modi.

They will all appear Saturday before an audience. They got free
tickets to the concert by taking actions to combat poverty. And, joining
me now is the man who pulled this all together. Hugh Evans Co-Founder, CEO
of Global Poverty Project. Great to have you here, Hugh.


HAYES: OK. So, free concerts in Central Park`s Great Lawn are
amazing and they do not happen, hardly, at all any more. And, basically,
this is the only one.

EVANS: That is right.

HAYES: So, how do people go see this? You have this fascinating
process whereby you can acquire your ticket.

EVANS: So, the way it works is people go to our website, which is, and they start taking action in support of the world`s
poor on specific policy issues that can impact the world`s poor the most.
So will take an action on issue like vaccines for children to ensure child
survival or they will focus on water and sanitation across the Indian
subcontinent or they will focus on --

HAYES: But, what does that even mean? So, I am sitting in my house
in Brooklyn --

EVANS: Well, let me give you an example. So, you log on. You create
your own user profile on

HAYES: Right.

EVANS: It is kind of like a Facebook user profile and you can
actually use Facebook connect to do it. And, then once you get your
profile, it might say -- the first action you can take, which is simple is
watch the video and learn about the issue of water and sanitation. So, you
watch this video to the end and you will score a point.

And, then it will say, "Well, do you actually want to encourage a sign
a petition urging a world leader, who will be in town for the U.N. General
Assembly to also take action." You will score another point.

And, we call this the user journey. And, you go on this journey. You
take action and once you have earned eight points you can go into the draw
to win tickets for the Global Citizen Festival. And, the more actions you
take and the better quality actions you take --

HAYES: The better the odds.

EVANS: Exactly.

HAYES: So, a concert in Central Park to end global poverty almost
sounds like a setup for a joke like, "Oh, there is going to be a concert
that ends poverty." But, it is not. I mean you, guys, have put a lot of
thought into this. How do you see all of this working together? What does
it mean to try to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030?

EVANS: So, our goal of ending extreme poverty by 2030 is
multifaceted. We are looking at global health issues. We are looking at
global education issues, particularly for girls. We are looking at water
and sanitation issues. We are looking at food security.

We are looking across the spectrum, and then we are also looking at
how do always see the countries contribute a proportion of their budgets to
foreign aid. What does this mean for global trade? What does this mean
for debt relief? What does this mean for good governance?

HAYES: And by always see the countries, you mean the countries -- the
richest countries the most --

EVANS: The richest countries in the whole world. Yes. The G-20 or
the G-8.

HAYES: Right.

EVANS: And, so, what we are talking about is what role can citizens
on mass play in influencing public policy relating to these issues?

HAYES: I see.

EVANS: So, let me take one example.


EVANS: Global Citizens invited the Prime Minister of India, Narendra
Modi. You said in the introduction to come in the festival. He responded
to the call of Global Citizen and he is going to come. Now, we are hoping
that he will make a significant announcement around any open defecation
across the India by 2019, which would mark the 150th anniversary of Mahatma
Gandhi`s birthday. This would be hugely significant.

And, reiterate what he said at the red fort, announcement around -- on
Independence Day in India. The second thing one good example is Global
Citizens also encourage the Prime Minister Solberg of Norway to come along
and make a significant announcement around vaccines and immunizations to
keep children alive beyond the age of 5. And, she has accepted the
invitation. We are not sure what is going to happen, but we are hoping
something --

HAYES: So, they come there and say -- And, basically, the idea here
is, particularly for citizens inside the U.S., right? -- In OECD developed
world countries that have a lot of money, that are rich countries,
particularly compared to India or Nigeria or Laos or a whole bunch of other
places, right? -- Is for them to act as citizens in such a way that they
push their governments to do concrete things and take concrete steps in the
developing world that can have these massive benefits for the people living

EVANS: Exactly. And, the truth is that we know that if you try to
reduce global poverty to purely monetary terms, we are talking about a $260
billion a year challenge. No amount of charity alone is going to be
sufficient to tackle that.

So, there is no point in us running a concert in Central Park just to
raise money. We said it is far better if we use the power of the movement
to influence public policy at the highest level and create structural
change that can be held accountable for years ahead.

HAYES: And, that is a thing at key point, right? So, in these three
areas, when we are talking about things like education, vaccination and
sanitation, right? These are things that private individuals cannot
acquire or purchase for themselves, right? So, you cannot give someone a
thousand dollars --

EVANS: Well, I mean theoretically, yes, you could provide a toilet.


EVANS: You could provide a vaccine. But, we know --

HAYES: But, the structures have to be there?

EVANS: Exactly. You are talking about 600 million people across
India, who lack access to latrine facilities or choose not to use train

HAYES: Right.

EVANS: And, so they defecate in the open. This is a structural

HAYES: Right.

EVANS: It is not simply a matter for more charity.

HAYES: Right.

EVANS: And, that is why Global Citizen, we call it a movement,
because we are actually trying to create a lasting movement for change and
we have now grown to have hundreds of thousands of members around the world
taking action in unity to achieve this goal.

HAYES: I got to say. There are so many things that happened during
this week in New York. There is the Clinton Global Initiative. There is
the U.N. General Assembly. Your ability to kind of coordinate all this,
get this people on the same place is really remarkable. Hugh Evans, I will
see you on Saturday.

EVANS: Thank you so much, Chris.

HAYES: All right. We have a follow up on an important story to bring
you, the fate of Frostpaw, the polar bear who was arrested in Flood Wall
Street protest. He is out on bail. He is here and we will unveil the man
behind the suit, next.


HAYES: The aforementioned polar bear that was booked by the NYPD
Monday night and who goes by the name Frostpaw was not alone. He was one
of the estimated 400,000 marchers in Sunday`s people climate march ahead of
the United Nations Climate Summit this week.

And, after the big climate march, Frostpaw then took part in a second
protest march billed as Flood Wall Street, designed to shave line in
corporate America`s role in climate change, which organizers say it drew
thousands of people at its peak.

Despite the bear`s obviously good relations with local law
enforcement, Frostpaw who hails from the center of biological diversity was
in fact arrested that night along with about 100 others. Not just another
pretty face but a polar bear. So, committed to nonviolent protest, who was
willing to go to jail.

And, with me now, Frostpaw, the man behind the polar bear suit, Peter
Galvin. You can reveal yourself, Peter. One of the founding members for
biological diversity. I love the fact that they arrested you in your
costume. Do they book you in your costume and take a mug shot in your

time, I got to the police van, they had taken the head off.

HAYES: So, you were just in this kind of like wookie looking

GALVIN: That is right.

HAYES: Did they paw print you or did they fingerprint you?

GALVIN: Actually, they did not do either.

HAYES: They just let you go.

GALVIN: They did not let us go. They kept us in jail for about eight

HAYES: Did you get a summons?

GALVIN: I got a summons. I have a court date on October 27th.

HAYES: OK. In all seriousness, you are here because this is the big
climate summit that is going to lead in the Paris. And, here is my
question for you. You are someone who has spent years following this
issue. You have this polar bear suit to go to these events.

What should I look for when one of these events happens, Copenhagen,
the same; in Rio, it was the same; in Mexico City -- I am just like so
confused, right? There are 150 countries and everyone seems to be saying
we should do something. And, then the agreement comes out, and I kind of
like, "Well, did this do anything or not?" And, I never know how to score
it? And, then, I look to people that I trust. What should I look for as
this summit happens?

GALVIN: Well, we should be looking for specific binding emissions cut
from different countries and we do not have that yet.

HAYES: That is the Holy Grail, right?

GALVIN: That is the Holy Grail.

HAYES: Binding emissions cut.

GALVIN: Specific binding emissions cut --

HAYES: I am writing it down. Specific binding emissions cuts.

GALVIN: And, right now, we do not have that. We have vague, vague
words. And, one of the problems is, you know, the U.S. never signed the
Kyoto treaty. And, so the European countries --

HAYES: We signed it and unsigned it.

GALVIN: Well, we did not ratify it.

HAYES: Right.

GALVIN: OK. So, the European countries are a bit skeptical of
committing to additional carbon reductions until the U.S. does.

HAYES: Right.

GALVIN: In certain economic interests in those countries and
including in China look at cutting emissions without another country
cutting emissions almost like unilateral disarmament. And, so it is really
critical that the U.S. actually lead on this issue.

HAYES: But, then the people in the U.S. will tell you this, "We are
going to get left holding the bag." And, this is the most sophisticated
arguments that republicans opposed to this make is that they do not deny
global warming. They just say, "Well, sure. OK. We are going to cut our
coal and we are going to take the cost of that." And, then China is just
going to fire up their coal power plants and waltz all over us.

GALVIN: Well, the reality is, you know, the U.S. is now the world`s
number two emitter of carbon pollution. China has over taken us. But, if
you look at the total amount of carbon pollution in the atmosphere, the
United States is still overwhelmingly the number one source of that

HAYES: We use the biggest part of the budget.

GALVIN: That is right. And, so the situation is that, you know, the
U.S. has been a great leader throughout -- since World War II, the Marshall
Plan. Some great forward initiatives have happened, but on this the U.S.
has just not led. And, the President gave a great speech, but the reality
is his policies, his own policies, his own administration`s policy do not
in any way match up to that rhetoric.

HAYES: That is why us taking the step to say these are -- we are
cutting emissions by this amount by this time and that is binding, that is
the gold standard. That is what we have to look for. Peter Galvin, A.K.A.
Frostpaw, a great pleasure. Thank you very much.

GALVIN: Thank you.

HAYES: All right. That is "All In" for this evening. The "Rachel
Maddow" Show starts right now. And, I am willing to bet, it will not
feature a single bear.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Listen. You can lord that over me all you
want, but I am going to have a lot of --


HAYES: Go watch your hour television bear-free, everybody.


Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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.