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

All In With Chris Hayes, Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014

Read the transcript from the Tuesday show

December 2, 2014

Guest: Russell Brandon, Heather McGhee, Hakeem Jeffries, Raymond Lesniak



From the streets of Knoxville, Tennessee, to the people`s House.

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D), NEW YORK: Hands up, don`t shoot.

HAYES: The Ferguson protests continue and so does the backlash.

BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: And quite frankly, I don`t think they`re
smart enough to know what they`re doing.


HAYES: Tonight Congressman Hakeem Jeffries on his House floor protest.
And Lisa Bloom, on the ongoing misunderstanding the grand jury decision.

Then the president wins again. As Republicans decide to punt on

Why is Chris Christie getting slapped on the back by "I was governor" for
vetoing a New Jersey bill.

GOV. TERRY BRANDSTAD (R), IOWA: Good decision. Good decision.

HAYES: And the growing suspicion that the North Korean government was
behind the hacking of Sony Pictures.

SETH ROGEN, ACTOR, "THE INTERVIEW": You want us to kill the leader of
North Korean?



HAYES: ALL IN starts right now.


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

Today, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon announced the Missouri National Guard is
scaling back operations in St. Louis County. A decision that comes eight
days after St. Louis County prosecuting attorney Bob McCulloch announced
that a grand jury would not indict former Ferguson Police Officer Darren
Wilson for the killing of unarmed teenager Michael Brown.

Following yesterday`s coordinated protest over that decision in cities
across the country, streets were quieter today, though not completely.
Students of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, locking a major
intersection this afternoon. And while St. Louis County Police confirmed
today that they are investigating Louis Head, Michael Brown`s stepfather as
part of a larger investigation into the activities surrounding rioting,
looting and arson in Ferguson because of Mr. Head`s emotional outbursts
moments after he learned of the grand jury`s decision not to indict Wilson
in Brown`s death.

The scene was also emotional in Atlanta last night where Attorney General
Eric Holder kicked off a series of meetings on the relationship between law
enforcement and communities, and announced plans to unveil new Justice
Department guidelines aimed at ending racial profiling, quote, "once and
for all."

Holder was interrupted by protesters during his remarks which took place at
Ebenezer Baptist Church where Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once
preached. Holder earned a standing ovation for his response.


ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: What we saw there was a genuine expression
of concern and involvement. And --



HAYES: Back in St. Louis, a war of words broke out between the Rams
football team and local police over the team`s response to the decision by
a group of players to raise their arms in a "stand up, don`t shoot" pose as
they stepped on to the field on Sunday. After Jeff Roorda of the St. Louis
Police Officers Association, a state representative and former chief of
police himself, released a blistering statement deeming the protest
tasteless, offensive and inflammatory, and called on the NFL and the Rams
to apologize, Rams executive vice president Kevin Demoff reached out to law
enforcement officials to try to clear the air.

Then, things got weird. A St. Louis County police chief, Jon Belmar, sent
an e-mail to his department saying Demoff, the Rams vice president, had
apologized for the players` action, quote, "Mr. Demoff clearly regretted
that any members of the Rams organization would act in a way that minimize
the outstanding work police officers and departments carry out each and
every day."

But Demoff said he never apologized for the hands up gesture. He told the
"St. Louis Post-Dispatch," quote, "In none of these conversations did I
apologize for our players` action. I did say in each conversation that I
regretted any offense their officers may have taken."

In other words, sorry if you were offended, but we aren`t sorry they did

And how did St. Louis County PD respond? With a tweet quoting the
dictionary definition of the world "apology." Seriously what they did.
And that prompted one Twitter user to reflect if the STLPD can do that to
the Rams statement, imagine what they can do to yours?

Meanwhile, last night on FOX News Bill O`Reilly offered his own take on the
protest by the Rams players.


WILLIAMS: Do you think that those football players identify and say all
cops are bad? That is not true.

O`REILLY: No, I don`t think -- quite frankly, I don`t think they`re smart
enough to know what they`re doing.

WILLIAMS: My gosh.

O`REILLY: I don`t. I absolutely don`t think they`re smart to know what
they`re doing.

WILLIAMS: How can I protect you from your --


HAYES: Now there is a narrative that we see in certain corners that the
gesture itself of putting your hands up is to perpetuate a lie about the
last moments of Michael Brown`s life. As if the grand jury testimony and
the forensic evidence definitively show that Mike Brown was not shot with
his hands in the air. While that is how the evidenced has been framed by
Bob McCulloch and many others, that is not what is actually in the
thousands of pages of grand jury documents.

And joining me now, Lisa Bloom, legal analyst for NBC News and

Lisa, I just -- there are so many issues here that Mike Brown and Ferguson
represent that are broader than what happened on Canfield Drive. But I
refuse to allow people to not be factual about what we did and did not
learn from the grand jury testimony. And so I`m just not going to let it
go. If you`ll indulge me.


HAYES: OK. First of all, in the grand jury testimony, I read a lot of it,
you`ve read a lot of it. There are numerous witnesses who say he was, in
fact, shot with his hands up.

BLOOM: That is correct.

HAYES: And, in fact, there are -- I can quote something to you. Witness
22, he put his hands up. Witness 44, he did turn around and put his hands
up. Witness 45, he stopped with his arms up. Now other people, witness 10
says that he was charging at Wilson. Darren Wilson said he was charging.
But this final moment of Mike Brown`s life is deeply in dispute in the
testimony itself.

BLOOM: You`re right. And in fact Darren Wilson, at one point, says that
Mike Brown`s hands were up. At the skirmish at the car, he says Mike
Brown`s hands were up and then there`s this ambiguous follow up about
whether Mike Brown`s hands were then in a clenched fist or not. And
because he was never cross examined or asked any tough questions, we can`t
know for sure.

We do know that of the witnesses who came forward publicly people like
Piaget Crenshaw, Tiffany Mitchell, Dorian Johnson, overwhelmingly they said
that Mike Brown`s hands were up. We know that there were two white
construction workers to the extent that that`s significant who have a video
right after the incident who said oh my god, this man`s hands were up at
the time that he was shot. So it is clearly not incorrect to say that.

HAYES: Right. And I wonder if -- the idea that this is a lie, for
instance, that he was shot with his hands were up, it may not be the case
that he was in fact shot with his hands up. It may the case that Darren
Wilson`s account is actually the most accurate and he was in fact charging.
I do not know. But the point is that people -- there`s a lot of people who
sat that happened and they have very conflicting accounts of what happened
and what has happened is the grand jury testimony has been taken this kind
of -- as if it definitely has proven that Darren Wilson`s account is the
correct one.

BLOOM: Well, here`s the problem. I think many people incorrectly conclude
from the no indictment that that is a judicial finding of innocence. And
that is completely incorrect from a legal point of view. There has been no
trial. Double jeopardy doesn`t attach, by which I mean Darren Wilson could
be charged again by a special prosecutor. He could be charged by the
federal government. He can face civil charges.

A new prosecutor could come in and bring charges all over again, if they
wanted to. Politically, that`s probably not going to happen. But what all
of that means is there is not a legal finding of innocence. There is not a
legal finding that there was a lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as
there would be at the end of a criminal trial.

All we have is that there were not nine jurors out of that 12 who could say
there`s probable cause to indict him of any particular offense. There
might have been nine for -- or eight for one offense, eight for another
offense. There could have been a conflict. We don`t know what the final
vote was. So this is a very ambiguous.


BLOOM: And, frankly, legally not all that significant outcome.

HAYES: I also want to talk about this statement that came from Jeff
Roorda. The evidence is in Officer Wilson`s account has been verified by
physical and ballistic evidence as well as eyewitness testimony which led
the grand jury to conclude no probable cause existed Wilson engaged in any
wrongdoing. It`s unthinkable that hometown athletes would so publicly
perpetuate a narrative that has been disproven over and over again."

I want to zoom in on "physical and ballistic evidence." Part of Darren
Wilson`s testimony is corroborated by physical evidence. But I just want
to be clear. Is there anything in the physical evidence that disproves or
proves one way or other how Mike Brown was standing in the final moment of
his life?

BLOOM: Absolutely not. And the fact that Mike Brown had a bullet hole
through his palm and in his forearm would be consistent with him being shot
with his hands up.

You know, the root problem, here, Chris, is that because this grand jury
was so biased, because it was so clearly designed to get at a no
indictment, because Darren Wilson was not asked any difficult questions,
and eyewitnesses who were contrary to him were, because we didn`t get
fingerprinting on the gun, for example, to find out if his story that Mike
Brown grabbed the gun is true, we have this very ambiguous outcome.

But it`s completely improper to say that we have a conclusion that anyone
can really hang their head on at this point.

HAYES: Right.

BLOOM: What we have is frankly even more ambiguity now than probably we
had three months ago.

HAYES: Lisa Bloom, thank you very much for that. I really appreciate it.

BLOOM: Thank you.

HAYES: Demonstrators on the streets and the Rams players are not the only
ones who`ve embraced the hands up gesture protest last night. Members of
the Congressional Black Caucus took the floor of the House, raised their
hands in a show of solidarity and called on Congress not to run away from
the problems exposed by the killing of Mike Brown.

Joining me now is one of the people you just saw there. Congressman Hakeem
Jeffries is a Democrat from New York.

And, Congressman, Bill O`Reilly was saying last night that the people who
are using that gesture and what that gesture means is they think that white
cops are murdering black men everywhere indiscriminately on a warpath. And
I want to ask if that`s what you mean by that gesture.

JEFFRIES: Well, Chris, good evening. And it`s not surprising that the
conservative entertainment complex would completely misunderstand the
point. Hands up, don`t shoot is a rallying cry that is being embraced by
people all over the country who are fed up with police brutality, fed up
with young unarmed African-Americans being killed by police officers all
across the United States of America.

Fed with the lack of accountability from the judicial system that often
fails to properly prosecute and/or convict police officers who appear to
have engaged in the use of excessive force. And just fed up with racial
profiling in the context of the manner in which too many law enforcement
officers interact with communities of color.

That is why myself and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus felt
that it was appropriate to show their solidarity, to make it clear to young
people all across the country that we hear their voices, we hear their
concerns, we appreciate their passion, and we`re going to work hard to
bring about the change that they want.

HAYES: You`ve mentioned this sort of lack of accountability. And there`s
something brewing right in the backyard here in New York City. Eric
Garner, of course, who was a Staten Island man, who died after being
subdued for arrest it appears from the video we have during a chokehold.
We`re learning that the grand jury, it seems, is going to be reaching some
decision, possibly, Wednesday.

What is your feeling about that?

JEFFRIES: Well, the video clearly shows that Eric Garner died as a result
of what is an illegal chokehold being employed by an officer. And despite
Eric Garner`s consistent cries that he could not breathe, the officer
continued the chokehold, resulting in the death of Eric Gardner.

Now that`s not just my conclusion. The medical examiner said that Eric
Garner`s death was as a result of a homicide perpetuated by the chokehold
employed by that officer. So I can`t really imagine a circumstance, Chris,
where we at least don`t get a manslaughter indictment coming out of this
grand jury. And certainly for the sake of justice, for the sake of the
Garner family, I hope that`s going to be the case.

HAYES: And what if they don`t?

JEFFRIES: Well, six members of Congress, myself included, in August,
called for a Justice Department investigation. And we`re hopeful that the
Department of Justice similar to what they`ve done in the Ferguson,
Missouri, case will step into the breach and pursue justice, commence an
investigation of the violation of Eric Garner`s civil rights, which I
believe the video clearly showed, and move forward potentially with a grand
jury investigation and indictment and hopefully a trial.

HAYES: One of the issues that has come of Ferguson and it`s sort of
ancillary a bit to what happened to Mike Brown but was present is the kind
of militarization of police. There`s been a lot of cries of demilitarized
police. Much of that has happened due to a program in which essentially
surplus military equipment is passed through to local police departments.
That`s been true in the case in St. Louis County.

There was a vote in June on an amendment that would have stopped that
practice and you did not vote for that amendment. You voted that amendment

Do you regret that vote now?

JEFFRIES: Well, I believe that the amendment actually was designed to
repeal the program. And I believe that I supported that amendment. But,
Chris, either way, certainly I`m of the view, regardless of what votes have
previously been cast, that what we saw in Ferguson, Missouri, was a clear
indication what a militarization of local police departments were behaving
as if there`s a military operation taking place on a foreign soil.

Notwithstanding what`s taking place in terms of peaceful demonstrations in
American cities that we`ve all got to reevaluate this program that has been
in place providing this military equipment to local police departments in
the absence of training. And so I think what President Obama has done is
an adequate first step. But I think that we here in the Congress have got
to take a real close look at this program and whether it should be modified
substantially or potentially discontinued.

HAYES: Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, always a pleasure. Thank you, sir.

JEFFRIES: Thank you.

HAYES: Governor Chris Christie has done something he`s hoping you will not
notice. And it could be bad news for the pigs of New Jersey. I will
explain ahead.


HAYES: The Pope, a cowboy out -- and JFK, it may sound like the start of a
bad joke but they all make an appearance in a controversial case that pits
Texas Governor Rick Perry against 21 fellow conservative leaders. That
story is ahead.


HAYES: Governor Chris Christie is facing a wave of backlash in his home
state of New Jersey and kudos from the governor of Iowa. All for something
he did on one of the slowest news days of the year.

On the Friday after Thanksgiving, Chris Christie quietly vetoed a bill that
passed both Houses of legislature with massive bipartisan majorities. The
New Jersey Assembly voted for the measure with a 53-13 vote while the
Senate passed it 32-1. In a recent Humane Society poll found that more
than 90 percent of New Jersey voters support it.

That`s just about as close unanimous as it gets in American politics these
days. But Christie said the bill was in response to, quote, "Misguided
partisan and special interest groups."

The measure would have outlawed the use of so-called pig gestation crates,
which are essentially, as you see there, tiny cages that keep pregnant pigs
immobilized. According to the Humane Society of the U.S. they`re so small,
pigs can`t even turn around in them. And they`re used primarily as a cost-
cutting measure so that farms can pack more pigs into a smaller space.

Laws banning them have already passed in nine states. But here`s where it
gets interesting. Gestation crates are seldom, if ever, used in New
Jersey, meaning the bill in question would mostly be a symbolic affirmation
that this practice is not OK.

So why then would Governor Christie veto it?

Well, that`s where Iowa Governor Terry Branstad comes in. You see
Branstad, who hails from the country`s largest producer of pork, which also
just so happens to be home to the nation`s first presidential caucus, has
been very public about his attempts to sway Christie on the matter.
Pushing him to veto the bill. Just as he urged him to veto an earlier
version of the measure that passed in 2012.

When he vetoed the latest version of the bill on Friday, Christie earned
what he appeared to be looking for -- praise from Iowa. With Governor
Branstad applauding the veto, calling it a good decision and taking a
little victory lap of his own.


BRANSTAD: I did share with Governor Christie my personal experience and my
interest in this. And that of the Iowa Farm Bureau and the National Pork
Producers. And I give him credit for listening to and understanding that
this is something that we`re very concerned about.


HAYES: A spokesperson for the pork industry which had lobbied Christie
hard on this as well, also had high praise for Friday`s veto, telling the
"Wall Street Journal", quote, "Governor Christie recognized that it`s the
hog farmers, not national animal rights groups, who know best how to ensure
the well being of pregnant sows."

Think about that quote for a second. Just for a second.

Of course Christie`s decision making on this issue really is all about
political calculations, about gearing up for the 2016 presidential primary
season, well, Jon Stewart for one takes a dim view of his chances.


either listening to the nearly unanimous voice of the people that elected
you or saying (EXPLETIVE DELETED) them and kowtowing to a state a thousand
miles away in exchange for -- really, let`s be honest -- the slimmest
chance for political gain in a caucus you`re not going to win.

Sir? Sir? You`re not winning. You can ride into Sioux City on a tractor
made of corn while (EXPLETIVE DELETED) a "Field of Dreams" DVD. You`re not
going to win.


HAYES: Joining me now is Democratic New Jersey State Senator Ray Lesniak,
he sponsored the pig crate bill.

Are you surprised by the governor`s veto on that Friday after Thanksgiving?

STATE SEN. RAYMOND LESNIAK (D), NEW JERSEY: I was a little surprised. I
actually thought he would do the right thing. We had over 100,000
signatures, 90 percent approval rating, overwhelming support from the
Republicans in the legislature, and thought maybe that would be convincing.
But I was wrong. I challenged him to prove me wrong.

HAYES: Did he communicate to you beforehand that he was going to do this?

LESNIAK: He didn`t communicate to anyone. He --

HAYES: Do you guys talk ever?

LESNIAK: No, we don`t.

HAYES: I mean, you literally don`t talk?

LESNIAK: We don`t talk. I just put bills on his desk and he vetoes them.
Good bills.

HAYES: Sounds like a horrible marriage.


LESNIAK: I would like it to be better. He --

HAYES: You`ve reached the passive-aggressive phase in which you`re passing
notes to each other.

LESNIAK: He actually signed a very good bill banning ivory sales and
transactions to protect elephants.

HAYES: Right. Well, there`s no caucus in, you know.

LESNIAK: There`s no elephants in Iowa.

HAYES: Yes. Right. Right.

OK. Let me -- let me give you the most cynical interpretation of what you,
Mr. Lesniak, are doing.


HAYES: Which is a business gimmickry. Basically, you, quite brilliantly,
foresaw that this would put him in a difficult position. There`s not
really massive pig -- pork industry in New Jersey. In fact it doesn`t
appear like those crates are actually being used in your state. And so
this is essentially gimmickry and you won one here, but this is mostly

LESNIAK: I`ve been supporting animal rights my entire legislative career.
As I said, we protected elephants. Where are the elephants in New Jersey?

HAYES: Right.

LESNIAK: But it`s more than symbolic. It`s making a statement following
nine states banning cruelty to animals wherever it exists. That`s what I`m
all about. That`s what the governor -- that`s what the people of the state
of New Jersey wants. Why not? What`s wrong with that guy?

HAYES: So is he -- do you think he`s going to talk about this publicly?


HAYES: Like what`s the argument he has? Like his idea that it`s a special
interest thing, right?

LESNIAK: Well, he`s saying it`s political, that I`m being political. I`m
being political but I had the support of all the Republicans and 90 percent
of the people in the state of New Jersey. That sounds to me like I`m being

HAYES: Do you think there`s going to be more -- I mean, is this basically
what you can expect for the rest of the Christie gubernatorial term as his
focus increasingly goes national that the prerogatives of what he does as
governor of New Jersey are increasingly going to be determined by
essentially what Republican primary voters in early states will think of

LESNIAK: We`re seeing more and more of that. He turned away from
antipollution, pulled us out of the RGGI compact. We`re seeing more and
more not only him kowtowing to the interest of other states, we`re not
focusing on the needs of the state of New Jersey. So we actually have an
absentee governor right now and that`s harming the state.

HAYES: How absentee is he? I mean, you know, people run for office all
the time.

LESNIAK: He traveled across the state raising -- across the country,
raising billions of billions of dollars for -- and very successfully.
Meanwhile, the legislation isn`t being passed. Our roads aren`t being
repaired. I`m sorry.

HAYES: Let me ask you.


HAYES: Were you surprised by the amount of pushback that this bill in New
Jersey -- I mean, part of what`s fascinating about this story to me is, why
do the pork producers care? Like they`re not -- they`re not -- that bill
is never going to pass in Iowa. So why do they care if it passes in New
Jersey? Like, what`s it to them?

LESNIAK: Yes, and thank you very much, McDonald`s already has been the
practice. Costco, I mean, it`s not a big, big money maker, it doesn`t cost
a lot of money to do away with cruelty. But they just don`t want
government to say you can`t be cruel. Well, guess what, you know what? We
should be saying you can`t be cruel.

HAYES: Is Christie`s calculation here in your estimation as a man who
works with him, sort of, but doesn`t talk to him, as we have just learned,
is the calculation here that he needs to do things that don`t reaffirm
whatever primary voters might think of him as a kind of remote East Coast
Republican? Like what is this about? Why take the political heat? He`s
getting killed for this vote. It`s so -- it looks -- it appears to be so
craven. Why take the heat for it?

LESNIAK: The real question is, is he going to get killed in Iowa? But our
polls show that gestation crates aren`t -- don`t have high approval in
Iowa, either. So I think it`s going to backfire on him.

HAYES: Yes. I think --

LESNIAK: It already has in many ways.

HAYES: This is more -- see, this strikes me as a kind of -- it`s more
about the interest groups than the voters. I mean, I don`t think anyone in
Iowa is voting one way or the other on gestation crates.

LESNIAK: But they vote on -- they may vote on what he stands for and his
leadership, and whether he just -- couches his opinions based on whether
he`s going to get the votes or not.

HAYES: This is the tough talking guy afraid of no one.

LESNIAK: Exactly.

HAYES: Senator Ray Lesniak, thank you very much.

Did North Korea hack into the internal Web site of Sony Pictures
Entertainment and possibly leak films that haven`t been released in the
U.S. online?

The story gets even better from there. I`ll tell you, ahead.


HAYES: Tomorrow, the state of Texas plans to execute Scott Pinetti, a man
convicted of killing his estranged wife`s parents over a decade ago in
front of her and their 3-year-old daughter. Despite this horrific crime,
Pinetti has a surprising coalition of people advocating for his life to be

Along with his legal team and leading anti-death penalty advocates, 21
conservative leaders, including Ken Cuccinelli, former law and order
attorney general of Virginia, have asked Governor Perry not to move forward
with the execution. Even Pinetti`s ex-wife said in 1999 that he, quote,
"should not be put to death."

And the reason that so many people are calling for a stay of execution is a
very compelling evidence that Pinetti is mentally ill. Pinetti has
suffered from schizophrenia for over three decades and has been, quote,
"hospitalized for mental illness on 15 separate occasions." At one point,
he quote, "tried to exorcise his home by burning furniture in the backyard
because he claimed the devil was in it."

After he killed his estranged wife`s parents, Pinetti was deemed competent
to stand trial and was allowed to represent himself.

In court, he, quote, "wore a cowboy outfit and tried to subpoena John F.
Kennedy and the pope."

Today, the state maintains he is faking his symptoms and is intent on
putting him to death tomorrow. It would be the 11th execution Texas has
carried out this year alone, putting it on pace to kill more inmates than
any other state for the 13th year running.

In fact, when you think about the death penalty in the U.S., it`s a little
misleading to think about it that way, because it`s actually more accurate
to think of the Lone Star State as its own entity and then the death
penalty everywhere else.

And that`s why I went to Texas to talk to two people who spent much of
their careers watching the state`s machinery of death at work.


MICHELLE LYONS, EXECUTION WITNESS: There`s one other execution that I see
very vividly, and, honestly, I do not remember the man`s name. I can
picture his face very clearly, I don`t remember what year it was. But what
bothered me about it and why it`s really stuck with me is that there were
no witnesses -- there were no witnesses for the victim`s family, there were
no witnesses for the inmate`s family. He was there completely alone. And
he just kept staring at the ceiling and when the warden came in and said do
you have a last statement, he never looked to the side, just kept looking
at the ceiling and shook his head no.

And as chemicals began to take effect, you just saw this one tear run down
his cheek and it just really stuck with me because it was just such a sad,
lonely scene.


HAYES: All In America returns tomorrow. And stay tuned for the Rachel
Maddow show. They`ll have much more on Scott Panetti at the top of the


HAYES: Sony Pictures Entertainment is reeling from what may be the biggest
and most devastating computer hacking in Hollywood`s history. Last week,
employees logging into their computers were greeted with the following
image on their screens: Hacked by #GOP over a picture of a sinister looking
red skeleton.

It was not the Republican Party that carried out the attack, we should
note, GOP reportedly stands for Guardians of Peace, a previously unknown
group now claiming credit for the hack.

The hack shut down the company`s entire computer system. And according to
the L.A. Times, employees were reduced to using old fashioned pen and paper
complete assignments, and, god forbid, taking calls on land line
telephones. We even fired up our fax machine, one person told the paper.

And days later, five of Sony`s feature films leaked online, including four
that have not yet been released in U.S. theaters. One of those was Annie,
a star-studded remake of the much loved musical which doesn`t come out for
another two weeks.

Think for a moment about how valuable that is, a holiday season family
movie that no one has seen yet.

Over the weekend, Sony started to put things back together, hiring a big
Silicon Valley security firm to help get its systems back online and get to
the bottom of what happened.

The FBI also confirmed its investigating the hack. And then yesterday
morning, a reporter a Fusion got an email from an anonymous source with a
link to
thousands of internal Sony documents, including one spreadsheet containing
the salaries of more than 6,000 Sony Pictures employees, including top
executives, another one listing the names, birthdates and social security
numbers of over 3,000 employees also including top execs.

The question is, who`s behind it all? Who are these so called Guardians
of Peace?

Re/Code reported that Sony is investigating links to North Korea. While a
senior U.S. official told NBC News that North Korea is indeed among the
possible suspects in the hack.

Today, the Wall Street Journal reported the malicious code used again Sony
is nearly identical to the hacking tools used in a March 2013 attack
against South Korea. That attack, which shut down South Korean
broadcasters, banks and ATMs was traced back to an IP address in China
thought to be operating on the North`s behalf.

And if North Korea has the capability, it may also have the motive.


SETH ROGEN, ACTOR; So what can we do you for?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The CIA would love it if you two could take him out.

ROGEN: Take him out, like, for drinks?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, take him out.

ROGEN: You want us to kill the leader of North Korea?




HAYES: That is an unlinked Sony Pictures movie called "The Interview"
coming out on Christmas Day starring James Franco as an inept talk show
host and Seth Rogen as his producer who were recruited by the CIA to
assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong un.

An absurd concept, sure, but to the North Koreans not a laughing matter.
After the first trailer came out in June, they released a statement
decrying the movie as terrorism and war action and vowing to carry out a
strong and merciless counter measures.

When asked yesterday if his country was responsible for the hack on Sony, a
spokesman for North Korea`s mission to the UN responded, wait and see.

Joining me now Russell Brandon, reporter for The Verge.

This story is bananas.

RUSSELL BRANDOM, THE VERGE: It`s the craziest thing I`ve ever covered.

HAYES: I mean, the whole thing, the whole taking the whole thing down.
The fact that it might be North Korea as retaliation for The Interview. I
mean, how much do we know at this point? Let`s start there.

Well, we know that a lot of this is very, very different from what you
would normally see in a hack of this kind, like the red skeleton, for
instance, is not standard operating procedure. Generally, the biggest
advantage hackers have is they can be in the system for months before
anyone knows they`re there.

HAYES: Right, so when we`re talking hacking -- presumably all these
companies, right, have these enormously valuable files sitting on their
system somewhere, right? The file to a move they`re going to release or an
album, and they have pretty firm security measures to keep those protected,
I would imagine.

BRANDOM: One would hope. I mean, you never know.

HAYES: Right, so the fact that they advertise the hack is different than
what you might anticipate if people were really just trying to get those

BRANDOM: Well, yeah, I mean, you know, they weren`t selling the movie,
they were just putting it for free on the Internet. All those social
security numbers would be worth a lot of money on the open web, but they`re
not open if -- I mean, they`re not valuable if people know that their
security, you know, their security has been hacked. It`s sort of only good
if it`s secret.

So, whoever it is they don`t seem to be interested in money. They don`t
seem to be trying to make a political point, because they haven`t said
anything about why they`re doing this. They really just want to make life
difficult for people who work for Sony Pictures, which is really puzzling
kind of only makes sense if it`s North Korea.

HAYES: And how -- I mean, what`s the back story on the North Korean
reaction to the interview? I mean, I remember it being a story for a few
days that this movie is going to come out. North Koreans were unhappy, but
it seems like they`re really more than just unhappy.

BRANDOM: Well, I mean, they`re very unhappy about a lot of things. I
mean, generally, the North Korean reaction to sort of western perceived
insults from the west has been very heated, right? And I think they look
at cyber capabilities from countries like China, countries like Iran and
sort of, it`s a matter of national pride that they want to keep that up.

And, as we saw in the attacks on South Korea last year, they have been able
to do so in some cases.

HAYES: I did not know about the attacks in South Korea until I was reading
it on this story. And they -- I mean, it`s incredible what they were able
to do -- it appears, against I don`t it was definitely established -- the
IP address in China -- what they were able to do in South Korea.

BRANDOM: Yeah, no, I mean I think -- well, the story of internet security
is you can do a lot of damage with a small group of well funded and well
motivated people. I think, you know, even in North Korea`s case we don`t
know how well funded they they are, but I think it`s always remarkable how
much damage you can do with just sort of the little foothold in a system.

HAYES: So what is the kind of world going to look like as increasingly it
is the case that every valuable thing is stored by these companies on
computer, right. I mean, I had the thought today that forget North Korea
who is doing this -- if they are, in fact, doing it as retaliation, or
whoever is doing it who doesn`t seem to be driven by monetary goals, right.

But, you know, Annie three weeks before it`s released is the equivalent in
the 21st Century of like a diamond heist. I mean, it`s this massively
valuable thing that you can break in and get. And it actually made me
think it`s amazing it doesn`t happen more often.

BRANDOM: Yeah. I mean, I think the main takeaway for me is if we`re
trying to stop this, it is true that are spending $4.3 billion a year --
you know, the U.S. intelligence community on cyber actions ostensibly to
protect America from cyber attacks by foreign actors.

And when a hack like this happens, and you see this with Sony, you saw this
with the New York Times when it was attacked last year they turned to
private security firms and the FBI has been very helpful, but they have a
fraction of the budget that an organization like the NSA has to throw at
this and a much harder task.

HAYES: Quickly, there is some reporting that there might be malware in the
actual torrents that were seeded onlien?

BRANDOM: I would not be surprised.

HAYES: Interesting. Russell Brandom, thank you very much.

President Obama has been keeping himself pretty busy lately, what with
Guantanamo prisoner transfers, finding a new secretary of defense, and oh,
that executive order immigration.

That is not all, we`ll tell you what you probably haven`t heard next.


HAYES: You remember how four weeks ago the Obama presidency was over?
Midterm election drubbings sent Republicans crawling about a massive
repudiation of his agenda and the political pundit world was quick to
declare the end of the
Obama era?

Here`s where we are four weeks later. The president protected up to five
million undocumented immigrants from deportation, a move that his approval
ratings among Latinos surging to 68 percent, and while Republicans have
promised earth shaking consequences to the president`s executive action,
the GOP has, it turns out, responded with basically, nothing.

The latest report is that Republicans after all that chest thumping are
going to pass a bill that would fund the government through September 2015
along with a largely symbolic vote int he house to protest the president`s
executive action on immigration before going home for the holidays.

Four weeks ago, Ebola in the U.S. was one of the top new stories as we
documented on this show.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ebola is in America.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Breaking tonight with Ebola scares popping up across
the country.

UNIDENTIIFED FEMALE: Ebola, what a mess.

BILL O`REILLY, HOST, O`REILLY FACTOR: All flights from West Africa should
immediately be discontinued to the USA.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why not? Just as a precaution until we get things
under control, seal off the border.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ISIS terrorists now reportedly urging supporters to
use a new weapon to kill us westerners: Ebola.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Meanwhile, we have a border that is so porous Ebola or
ISIS or Ebola on the backs of ISIS could come through our border.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Should pets who have been exposed to the
Ebola virus be euthanized.


GEORGE WILL, CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST: There are now doctors who are saying
we`re not so sure that it can`t be in some senses transmitted by airborne.


HAYES: Oh, those are the days.

Well, today at Massachusetts General hospital patients suspected of having
the Ebola virus has been admitted for evaluation. But also today, the last
of the health care workers who cared for the now Ebola free doctor Craig
Spencer were themselves given a clean bill of health, all 114 people who
cared for Dr.
Spencer in New York are now safely passed the 21 day active monitoring

Meanwhile, the noise and panic about Ebola has subsided so dramatically the
president`s visit today to the National Institutes of Health felt like the
president reminding everyone that this disease is still a serious threat
and that we must remain vigilant.


OBAMA: So our strategy is beginning to show results. We`re seeing some
progress. But the fight is not even close to being over. As long as this
case continues to rage in West Africa, we could continue to see isolated
cases here in America.


HAYES: And there is President Vladimir Putin of Russia who the president`s
critics would have you believe was the tough guy pushing around our weak,
spineless American president four weeks ago. Now, the Russian ruble
continues to plummet under the twin pressures of historically low oil
prices and the sanctions that President Obama and Secretary of State John
Kerry worked hard to implement.

The Russian economy is so strained, the Russian government is even warning
of a recession in 2015.

Oh, and finally Obamacare, remember that? Senator Ted Cruz and others
claim the Republican victory four weeks ago was a clear mandate against the
president`s health care law. And healthcare.cov continues to sign people
up during the open enrollement period. And according to a government
report, an unprecedented decline in the harm suffered by patients during
hospital treatments has lead to about 50,000 fewer fatalities in about $12
billion in savings since 2010 partly due to Obamacare provision.

Immigration, Ebola, Russia, Obamacare, on every major issue, President
Obama has been attacked on in the last year he`s kind of crushing it.
We`ll see if my guest disagrees next


HAYES: We`re back.

Here with me now, Heather McGhee, president of Demos; and MSNBC contributor
Josh Barro, national correspondent for the Upshot of The New York Times.

So, I feel like this is my feeling about in some ways the last four weeks,
it`s sort of a microcosm of the Obama administration in general, which is
there is this asymmetry, right, where there`s a mood of panic and disaster,
it`s Barack Obama -- it`s what`s Barack Obama`s Katrina. Ebola is Barack
Obama`s Katrina, and then if things are okay, it`s just like, oh, yeah, we
don`t care about that anymore.

JOSH BARRO, NATIONAL EDITOR, UPSHOT: I mean, it is pretty impressive how
the president cured Ebola and drove down oil prices and got his approval
rating up to 68 percent with a core Democratic Party constituency. That`s,
you know, it`s a really, really impressive month, it should be...

HEALTH MCGHEE, DEMOS: You can`t take away what he actually did on
immigration, what he`s actually done, which on something you didn`t mention
which is China and climate. You really can`t take away these things, sure.

BARRO: The China thing I think is actually the most impressive thing out
of the last month. On the immigration thing, he`s not out of the woods on
the CR. I would -- you know, they`re going to pass a bill probably to fund
the government through September 30, but they`re only going to fund the
Homeland Security Department for three months. So that`s setting up for a
fight over this again in the winter.

HAYES: But here`s the key thing about that, Josh, and here`s what I think
is so fascinating about the way that Obama has approached the post -- the
post-mid-term presidency is that I think he wants those fights. Like, it
does seem to me like the tables have turned in terms of who is the
initiator of conflict and who is -- like who is back on their heels and who
is -- to use the phrase, leaning forward.

MCGHEE: Well, maybe he actually recognizes that the Republicans don`t
exactly have a real mandate with just 37 percent of the electorate voting
in the mid-term and the fact that actually things like, you know, tens of
thousands of young people demonstrating both on immigration and on police
and state violence in Ferguson are exercises of democracy that he needs to
respond to.

I mean, I think he`s really sort of actually recognizing again, anew, that
he has a constituency, it is the American people who are being super
citizens at a time when most people are wanting to check out of politics
and he owes them something.

HAYES: He does seem more responsive to that constituency after the mid-
terms than he seemed before it.

MCGHEE: Oh, of course. Because he was surrounded by political calculation
that said, no, you can`t do that.

HAYES: And phone calls from Red State Senators who were saying, dude, I`m
trying to get reelected here.

HAYES: But I think we are seeing two very different responses on these two
constituencies. I think he`s finally delivered on what he said he was
going to do on immigration and that`s been -- that`s pleased one
constituency of his.

I think his response on...

MCGHEE: And helped the economy and our democracy overall by bringing
people out of the shadows.

BARRO: It still leaves us in a position where we have an immigration
policy that is not stable long term. We need a 100 percent -- it`s not a
workaround of it.

But on Ferguson, I think his response has actually been very underwhelming.
And I think it`s reflective of the fact that on immigration, the Democratic
Party position is pretty broadly popular. Republicans are mostly raising
process objections because substantive objections don`t work that well for

I think it`s not clear that politically the country is ready for a national
fight over race and policing.


BARRO: ...doesn`t think so.

And so I think he actually -- this is when people talk about, you know, a
challenger to the left from Hillary, this is the issue on I think if we
have one...

HAYES: Here would be my response to you on that, I think people thought
politics of immigration used to be that way. Like I sat across people who
thought you can`t do the DREAM Act in 2012. It`s too, it`s -- even if it
was -- even if it had bipartisan report, even Rick Perry, it`s like that`s
like giving a gimmie to some constituency that your median white voter is
going to be like oh, here the Democrats go again.

And people thought that about -- this is the things that`s so amazing to me
about the immigration announcement, political professionals thought it
would be cataclysmic politically. They really did. There was all these
warnings about it. And then it happened and it was like, oh, OK.

So, I think my point is that if that`s true about race and policing, I want
to hear you to respond to this, Heather, if that`s true about race and
policing now, that`s subject to change.

MCGHEE: That`s absolutely subject to change at a time when you have, on
Black Friday, you know, dozens of malls being shut down and protested
outside by white, black, Asian, African-American, Latino young people and
their parents who were just saying, you know what, something is broken and
it is wrong, the -- like sort of bold stereotype that everyone knows and
experiences, that there are the criminalization of black and brown youths.

And there isn`t necessarily the feeling that we -- that most sort of the
median white voter knows exactly what to do about it, but because of the
activism, over a hundred days of young people interrupting their own lives
to stand up for a
value -- for valuing their own lives and the lives of their community,
things are changing. And that`s really what democracy is.

So, I don`t really care about a poll that`s taken about people who aren`t

HAYES: But that also matters to the politics -- but that also matters,
right? In the sense that I don`t think it`s the thing that should be
definitive, but I mean, it is the case that matters in terms of how they`re
making those political decisions.

MCGHEE: Well, and it`s just a starting point. And I`m just saying that
public opinion changes when people are in motion. And that`s what`s

HAYES: I think it`s just remarkable that in the face of all of that public
grandswell and all that protest, those response from actually elected
officials, especially in the Democratic Party, has been so tepid and I
think their sense is that associating themselves with the protesters is
politically dangers.

And we saw from the White House this week them basically saying we can`t
even stop sending tanks to local police departments. Like, oh congress is
going to have to change that law.

They can hand out millions of work permits, but they can`t like come up
with some pretext about why the Pentagon can`t give up any of its

HAYES: But part of that also has to do with the fact that -- and this is
where I think -- this is going to be really interesting, because I think
about -- we think about this next chapter, the last two years of the Obama
Presidency, I think about the trajectory of how Barack Obama has talked
about race in his presidency. And I will always remember sitting in that
East Room when he got asked the question by Lynn Sweet about Henry Lewis
Gates Jr. and he had this moment of just sheer honesty. And it became this
ridiculous blowback. and you could just tell it was like the toddler with
the hot stove. It`s like, whoa, we are never, never doing that again.
Like we`re going to not have honest...

And you wonder if that`s part of the legacy of the last two years is,
because it`s been teed up by what`s happening in the news, like, if you
talk -- if it`s like you`re not the Obama doesn`t have to be elected, if
you -- whether the country is ready or not to have that conversation, if
there`s a person to lead that conversation it`s Barack Obama.

BARRO: But this was the week to do that. And when -- and after the grand
jury came back with its ruling, you had this incredibly tepid statement
from the president trying to make as little news as possible.

I actually think the president is in a difficult position to be the voice
on this, because he`s such a polarizing figure partly because he`s black.
I think it actually...

HAYES: You think?

BARRO: ...less latitude.

MCGHEE: Well, here are who actually are going to be he voices to lead that
is the seven young people who were invited to the White House who have
changed their lives in order to represent to this country what it means to
really to be a citizen, what democracy looks like, and that is standing up
against the status quo and interrupting your life and not just being a

HAYES: And there was something -- and I agree with you I think that the
rhetoric from the White House, specifically from the president, less so
from Attorney General Holder, in the wake of this has been kind of in
surprising contrast to the boldness on integration and on a bunch of other
issues, but I did think it was a bold call some of the people that got
invited to the White House yesterday, which I can imagine in other
iterations that not getting through political vetting, because like well we
want to make sure -- you know, these are people that were on the streets
protesting who were in the White House yesterday. And that to me
represents something about what the trajectory of this have been.

But this to me is like this chapter and how Barack Obama understands the
mid-terms, particularly when that new congress comes in, the question is
like what are we doing here with this Republican congress? And what am I
doing with them? I think it`s going to be much more fascinating than I
think people anticipated.

Health McGhee, Josh Barro, great to have you here.

BARRO: Thank you.

HAYES: All right, that is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow show
starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.



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.