All In With Chris Hayes, Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
Date: March 3, 2015
Guest: Chris Murphy, Jeremy Ben-Ami, Sari Horwitz


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

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

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: The alternative to this
bad deal is a much better deal.

HAYES: The speech is over and the reviews are in.

REP. JOHN YARMUTH (D), KENTUCKY: This speech was straight out of the
Dick Cheney playbook. This was fear-mongering at its ultimate.

HAYES: Tonight, the president`s response and the folly of comparing
Netanyahu to Churchill.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: There is a reason that the adjective most
frequently being applied to the prime minister today is Churchillian.

HAYES: Then, Ferguson police sending racist jokes and unfairly
targeting African-American residents of Ferguson, Missouri. Tonight, the
scathing details of a new report from the Department of Justice.

And just how bad is the Hillary Clinton e-mail story?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The State Department never came forward with this
information.

HAYES: The presumptive Democratic candidate gives her first remark
since "The New York Times" blockbuster report and we`ll bring them to you
live tonight.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Madam Secretary --

HAYES: ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

After weeks of political jockeying and unprecedented damage, the
U.S.`s relationship and with upwards of 50 Democratic lawmakers boycotting,
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his much anticipated, very
controversial address to Congress, on nuclear talks with Iran today, two
weeks before elections in Israel.

Ultimately, the speech was less an argument against the current deal
being negotiated with Iran, or a proposal of a serious alternative, but
rather a polemic on the inherent evil of the Iranian regime.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: Iran`s regime is as radical as ever. Its cries of "Death
to America", that same America that it calls the "Great Satan", as loud as
ever. Now, this shouldn`t be surprising because the ideology of Iran`s
revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam. And that`s why
this regime will always be an enemy of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: While Netanyahu made a point of praising President Obama for
his consistent support of Israel, he argued that the deal he`s pursuing
with talks still underway in Switzerland, would effectively embolden Iran
to produce a nuclear weapon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: This deal has two major concessions. One, leaving Iran
with a vast nuclear program. And two, lifting the restrictions on that
program in about a decade. That`s why this deal is so bad. It doesn`t
block Iran`s path to the bomb, it paves Iran`s path to the bomb.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Netanyahu insisted the U.S. could get what he called a much
better deal by extracting concessions through the threat of sanctions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: We can insist that restrictions on Iran`s nuclear program
not be lifted for as long as Iran continues it`s aggression in the region
and in the world. Iran`s nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond
the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the
pressure on a very vulnerable regime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: A strong rebuttal from the Oval Office, President Obama
countered that Iran requires positive incentives, not just sanctions to
change the course of its nuclear program.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have evidence from
the past decade that sanctions alone are not sufficient to prevent Iran
from pursuing its nuclear ambitions. And if it, in fact, does not have
some sense that sanctions will be removed, it will not have an interest in
avoiding the path that it`s currently on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Dismissing Netanyahu`s speech as nothing new, the president
maintained that current negotiations aren`t about regime change. They`re
about the fundamental goal of keeping nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: This will be the best deal possible to prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon. Nothing else comes close. Sanctions won`t do
it. Even military action would not be as successful as the deal that we
have put forward. And I think it is very important not to be distracted by
the nature of the Iranian regime`s ambitions when it comes to territory or
terrorism.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: In a statement, Senator Marco Rubio, a potential Republican
presidential candidate, said Netanyahu`s speech, quote, "provided a stark
assessment of the dangerous path the administration has taken us on through
its negotiations with Iran. We must not trade away U.S. and Israeli
security for vague commitments from a terrorist-sponsoring regime that has
killed Americans and threatens to annihilate Israel."

While a group of House Democrats, many of whom skipped the speech,
held a press conference to express a very different reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YARMUTH: This was straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook. This was
fear-mongering at its ultimate.

REP. JOHN LEWIS (D), GEORGIA: The floor of the House is a centerpiece
of public debate in our democracy. It should not be used as a partisan
tool.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a prime minister who has never seen a war
he didn`t want our country to fight.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Indeed, it was political theater, worthy of an
Oscar.

REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D), ILLINOIS: What I heard today felt to me like
an effort to stampede the United States into war once again.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

HAYES: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who did attend the speech
said in a strongly worded statement, quote, "As one who values the U.S.-
Israel relationship, and loves Israel, I was near tears throughout the
prime minister`s speech -- saddened by the insult to the intelligence of
the United States -- and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge
of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing
nuclear proliferation.


Joining me now, Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat from Connecticut,
member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who was in attendance
today.

Senator, were you persuaded? Was your opinion changed by what Prime
Minister Netanyahu had to say today?

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: No, I don`t think a lot of
people`s opinions were changed. I went today notwithstanding the fact that
I thought it was a bad idea, that I do think that it`s a step back to the
U.S.-Israeli relationship. It`s kind of part of my job to listen to
arguments that I disagree with.

And in the end, I just didn`t hear any real credible alternative to
negotiations. It`s really easy for Benjamin Netanyahu or anybody else to
say that you just hold out for a different deal, or you should re-impose
sanctions.

But the reality is, is that sanctions only work if the United States
is doing them in conjunction with our partners and the other partners who
are sitting at the table with us, primarily China and Russia, are not going
to reimpose the next set of sanctions. Meaning that we have a window now
to get this deal.

Now, the other thing that I think is mixed up today is that there is
no deal to look at, right? The president has not signed off on anything to
send to Congress or to put into practice. And so, the jury is still out on
whether we have the ability to get a good deal, and many of us agree with
Netanyahu that a good deal is what we should be looking for. Not just any
deal.

HAYES: But let`s be clear, this is what is so bizarre about this. It
makes people think this is as much to do with Prime Minister Netanyahu`s
political considerations in Israel where he`s up for re-election in two
weeks, is that we`re all talking about something that no one is seeing, no
one signed off on. There is no deal or anything. There are negotiations.

So, you know, what -- how is anyone formed a concrete opinion on this
still seems to me a bit unclear.

MURPHY: Well, if you listened to Netanyahu today, you would believe
there is a deal on the table, that there is a document people can review.
That is not the case.

And this is not just about Netanyahu`s politics, because, you know,
the reactions back home are all over the map. There`s arguments that he`s
actually lost support because of his decision to come to Congress without
Obama`s support.

But this is also about what the Republicans are trying to do. The
Republicans are trying to politicize this issue. They`re trying to create
a wedge on Israel between Republicans and Democrats. We saw that play out
again this evening when the Republicans in the Senate decided to bring
another partisan bill on Iran negotiations to the floor of the Senate,
without the consent of Democrats.

This is -- yes, about Israeli politics, but this is as much about
Republicans trying to politicize support for Israel, which is something
that when I got to Congress in 2007, that we swore we would never do. But
we`re watching it happen.

HAYES: Speaking of that, I was struck today that a prime minister
from Israel comes to the United States Congress, and if I am not mistaken,
I read and watched the speech, the word Palestinian did not escape his lips
once, nothing about the peace process, nothing about the rebuilding of
Gaza, which lies in ruins according to all international estimates. I
mean, it is striking the degree to which the focus of Iran has served the
purpose, whether intentional or not, of disappearing the, quote,
"Palestinian question", the peace process from American politics.

MURPHY: Well, listen, Netanyahu is passionate about this, but so are
we. The reason that I came today is because I am an ardent supporter of
Israel, and I draw the same line that the president does. But I`m not
going to sit by and let Iran get a nuclear weapon, thereby creating a
nuclear Middle East.

So, this is serious. And I don`t mind that he focused on this one
immediate issue. But it is true, that there are a host of other issues
that the United States has to be engaged with Israel on. It certainly
makes it harder to do that, at least between this president and this prime
minister when he is coming to Congress and effectively poking a stick in
the eye of the president, but if you`re ever going to get that ultimately
settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis, the United States is
going to have to play a role and that seems like it`s a little harder today
given the fissure that`s broken between Netanyahu and Obama. It can heal,
but it`s pretty raw, I would imagine tonight.

HAYES: Finally, there was a line in there about the enemy -- he`s
talking about ISIS in Iran and the fact that, obviously, they are fighting
each other. We see Iranian special force advisers on the ground in Iraq
fighting ISIS, you know, helping Shia militias there, and he said, the
enemy of your enemy is your enemy. And it struck me, the past year, we
have had prominent advocates both in Israel and the U.S. called for U.S.
military involvement against Assad, against ISIS, and against Iran, all
engaged in fighting each other.

MURPHY: Yes, and that`s why so many of us want to be very careful,
what to be very thoughtful about any military commitments that we make in
the region. There`s nothing about the last 10 years that is an
advertisement for the United States military involvement in the Middle
East. We`ve screwed it up basically every time we`ve tried it.

Now, it doesn`t mean you don`t keep military options on the table when
it comes to Iran, but that is a country that is three times the size of
Iraq, and the idea that you can just come in with surgical strikes, walk
away without any consequences to the United States or the region is
fiction. And so, there are those of us who may support military action if
that`s what it comes to.

But I got the sense that there was a little bit of cavalier-ness,
maybe not from Netanyahu, but members of the Republican Party here that, of
course, is something we`re used to, I guess here in the Congress.

HAYES: Senator Chris Murphy, thank you very much.

Congressman John Yarmuth characterized Netanyahu`s address as a,
quote, "straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook." And he has a point.

On the speech today recalled Bush era rhetoric about the clash of
civilizations or the battle between good and evil.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: In this deadly game of thrones, there`s no place for
America or for Israel. No peace for Christians, Jews, or Muslims who don`t
share the Islamist medieval creed. No rights for women. No freedom for
anyone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Like Bush and Cheney, Netanyahu seemed more concerned about
the evil nature of the Iranian regime and the actual strategic tools
available to try and contain it. In the speech today, he explicitly evoked
the Nazi regime.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: Iran`s regime is not nearly a Jewish problem, any more
than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews
murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million killed in World
War II. So, too, Iran`s regime poses a grave threat not only to Israel,
but also to the peace of the entire world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That comparison seemed to fit perfectly into the world view of
certain conservatives for whom the current moment is akin to Munich in
1938. If Iran, the Nazis, already I think a faulty comparison, and
President Obama is Neville Chamberlain, ready to sell us out for peace.
And, Netanyahu, of course, is Winston Churchill, the only man willing to
stand up and fight tyranny.

Here was Ted Cruz yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRUZ: There is a reason that the adjective being most applied to the
prime minister today is Churchillian. If we go forward with a deal that
allows Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capability, I believe that history
may well record it as a mistake and a catastrophe on the order of magnitude
of Munich.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Today, a tweet from Mike Huckabee, quote, "I applaud
Netanyahu`s strong and courageous leadership. He is a Churchill in a world
of Chamberlains."

What that comparison misses is the fact that like all conflicts, World
War II was hardly a clear cut, black and white struggle between good on one
side and evil on the other. After all, the U.S. was allied with Joseph
Stalin, a man responsible for the deaths of over 30 million people.

I`m joined now by Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder and president of J Street, a
pro-Israel, pro-peace organization, who`s there in Washington.

Jeremy, your response to a lot of invocations of the Nazis, of
Chamberlain, of Winston Churchill. There is obviously a reason that for
the prime minister of Israel, for Jews throughout the Diaspora and the
world, that historical precedent looms possibly larger than anything,
obviously larger than anything.

But do you think it`s being properly applied here?

JEREMY BEN-AMI, PRESIDENT, J STREET: You know, it seems that every
threat gets compared to and matched against the threat from Hitler, the
threat from the Nazis and we look back always to the parallels. But every
threat that has ever come along in history has its own unique situations
and its own circumstances.

And this isn`t the same as 1938. It is a very, very serious threat.
This is a regime that none of us are going to argue is anything but a
terrible actor on the world stage. And we have to deal with it.

But to throw in those kinds of comparisons is a simplistic black and
white good versus evil view of the world that just doesn`t match the kinds
of threats that we`re up against in the 21st century.

HAYES: You know, it occurred to me, there`s been so much about the
personalities viewed between Netanyahu and President Obama. You know, it
occurred to me what might be the issue here is what if the U.S. and Israel
have fundamentally different interests, vis-a-vis Iran? I mean, is that a
possibility?

BEN-AMI: Well, there is the question of geography. And that`s
something the prime minister has raised and others have raised that, you
know, what is a very, very serious strategic and possibly existential
threat to Israel is not of the same magnitude for a super power that is
6,000 miles away.

So, there is -- there is a difference in perspective, and the
overarching interest of ensuring that Iran doesn`t get a nuclear weapon is
the same. The scale and the scope and the perception of the threat is
going to be influenced by the proximities of the threat.

HAYES: Do you think that Israel having nuclear weapons being the only
regional power with nuclear weapons incentivizes nuclear development by
other regional entities?

BEN-AMI: Well, you know, it is hard to say that in the light of the
reports that Israel has had nuclear weapons now for four decades, and that
hasn`t been the case. I think the concern that we all have is that if Iran
does proceed down this path, then other Arab countries perceiving a Persian
threat, whether it`s Saudi Arabia or Egypt or perhaps the Turks outside of
the Arab world will pursue their own agenda. And that hasn`t happened in
response to the allegations of Israel`s program thus far. But the Iranian
program might be the trigger that sets that off.

HAYES: There was a moment yesterday when Susan Rice was addressing
AIPAC and she said, I know some -- she was sort of offering a straw man
rhetorically, saying I know some of you want to walk away from the
negotiations altogether and just hammer away sanctions forever. She got a
standing ovation for that.

There is a certain set of people within the U.S. who just don`t want
any negotiations whatsoever, right?

BEN-AMI: Right. And I think that it goes back to the world view. I
think the Republican Party here and the neoconservatives who have been
driving a lot of the foreign policy agenda for the last decade and more are
very much in tune with the hard liners in Israel. And there`s an overlap
of thinkers, there`s an overlap of donors and funders, and Netanyahu is
really the nexus of all of that.

And they think alike. They have a comparable world view and it`s
rather simplistic. It is always a fight between us and them, black and
white, good and evil. And the only language that`s understood is force and
you can`t compromise. You can`t find win-win solutions. You can`t
negotiate.

And I think there is a fundamental argument here between the Obama
approach to these problems, and the Netanyahu and Republican and Likud
approach to these problems.

HAYES: Jeremy Ben-Ami, thank you very much.

BEN-AMI: Thank you.

HAYES: The Justice Department finds a pattern of racial bias in the
Ferguson Police Department, apparently contained in the report -- an e-mail
exchange between police and local court employees that says Obama will not
be president for long because, quote, "what black man holds a steady job
for four years." More on that explosive report, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: OK, Jess McIntosh, what do you got for me here?

JESS MCINTOSH: I`m clearly in the lead based on great skill of this
game. I`m confident about number 11.

HAYES: Number 11, here we go. Jeb Bush, you`ll be adding to your
roster with -- who are you going to get? Oh, Ben Carson.

ANNOUNCER: Ben Carson, he`s a retired world class surgeon, recipient
of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and says Obamacare is the worst thing
since slavery. He`s Dr. Ben Carson.

(APPLAUSE)

MCINTOSH: You know, don`t applaud that. There`s no need to applaud
that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That`s right, America, it`s time for another update to our ALL
IN fantasy 2016 candidate draft, because Dr. Ben Carson made a big
announcement today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. BEN CARSON: With the launch of this Web site, I formally
establish what a called a presidential exploratory committee, to examine
whether I should become a candidate for president of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Did you hear that? Did you hear the sound of points accruing?
Jess McIntosh is going to be here later in the show so we`ll get her
reaction to this momentous news. Maybe she`ll want some applause after
all, because if Dr. Carson actually does decide to run, she`ll get 100
points. And as we know, every point counts. We`ll continue to monitor all
the latest developments to see how the rest of our players fair with their
draft picks as the race for 2016 heats up.

For now, you can check in on everyone`s picks from the draft`s scoring
system at our Facebook page, Facebook.com/allinwithchris. And if you hit
the like button while there, we all win.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: New details tonight on a Justice Department report in Ferguson
that seems to be largely in line with a picture painted by many residents I
spoke with during my reporting trips down there. They told me of a police
department that systematically and is racially discriminatory in its
practices, sometimes even hostile towards and contemptuous of the largely
black population that it serves.

And now, as "The New York Times" points out, the investigation by the
Justice Department`s Civil Rights Division into the police department in
Ferguson, Missouri, found a pattern of racial bias between 2012 and 2014,
violating the Constitution and federal law.

Federal officials started the investigation after Ferguson Police
Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown last August. Brown was
unarmed. Investigators spent about 100 day there is, looked at 35,000
pages of police records, conducted hundreds of interviews. While the
report says nothing about the death of Michael Brown, and whether Officer
Wilson will face federal charges, it does conclude that between 2012 and
2014, in a city where 2/3 or 67 percent of the population is black, the
Justice Department found that black residents accounted for 85 percent of
all traffic stops in that period and made up 88 percent of cases which the
police used force.

Also, 90 percent of all citations went to black residents who also
accounted for 93 percent of all arrests. According to the report, the
Justice Department also found evidence of racial bias in e-mails written by
Ferguson police and court officials. "Washington Post" reporting one such
e-mail from 2008 stated that President Obama could not be president for
very long because, quote, "what black man holds a steady job for four
years."

The full Justice Department report which is scheduled to be released
tomorrow also criticizes Ferguson`s ticketing practices. From 2011 to
2013, African-Americans accounted for 95 percent of all manner of walking
in roadway charges, jaywalking essentially. In his grand jury testimony,
Officer Darren Wilson said that when he originally spotted Michael Brown`s
companion, quote, "The first thing that struck me, they were walking in the
middle of the street."

Joining me now, Sari Horwitz, who covers the Justice Department and
criminal justice issues for "The Washington Post".

Sari, you`re one of a very select group of people who have seen this
report. What is your impression of it?

SARI HORWITZ, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, Chris, you were there in
Ferguson, so you know how people felt about the Ferguson Police Department.
The Justice Department came in and they did two separate investigations.
One was to look at the civil rights situation involving Officer Wilson and
whether he violated the civil rights of Michael Brown.

The second one was the one you just discussed, which is going to be
released tomorrow. We haven`t seen the report, we heard of the findings.
And that one was to look at the whole department, not just at Officer
Wilson.

We know now that the Justice Department is not going to bring federal
civil rights charges against Officer Wilson. The standard is very, very
high. They would have to prove that officer Wilson willfully deprived
Michael Brown of his constitutional rights. So, they`re not going to bring
those charges.

What they are going to do tomorrow is release these findings that show
that the department has -- they`re going to accuse the department of racial
bias and they`re going to say that officers routinely violated the
constitutional rights of black people in Ferguson.

HAYES: What does that mean legally? I mean, we know recently saw the
city of Cleveland enter into an agreement with the Justice Department after
a similar finding about Cleveland`s police department. What does that mean
for the future of the Ferguson Police Department?

HORWITZ: Well, what`s going to happen next is the department, the
Justice Department is negotiating with the Ferguson Police Department. If
they are able to negotiate and come to an agreement and have a consent
decree, then they will be putting in some reforms and trying to make
changes in the department so that these numbers that you just cited will
change. If they don`t come to that agreement, with the Ferguson Police
Department, they can sue the department. As they have done in other cases.
For example, they`ve sued several other law enforcement agencies in the
Obama administration.

In Arizona, the Maricopa sheriff, Sheriff Arpaio has been sued by the
Justice Department. So, that is a possibility, if the two don`t come into
agreement.

Now, a Justice official told me today that so far, the Ferguson Police
Department has been cooperating. As you pointed out, the Justice
Department went down to Ferguson, they were able to look at 35,000 pages of
documents. They sat in four court sessions. They interviewed hundreds of
people, including the police chief, the supervisory command officials, rank
and file.

So, there was a lot of cooperation on that front, and it looks like
they will continue to cooperate.

HAYES: One of the things that people told me repeatedly down in
Ferguson was that, you know, Ferguson is just one of a whole bunch of
municipalities that are basically run all the same way. You can point to
Jennings, which was A, had its police department disbanded by the feds.
And B, is where Darren Wilson got his start.

I mean, there`s also the question of, does this stop at Ferguson?

HORWITZ: Well, the reaction tonight is that some community leaders,
some of the people who are very active in the protests afterwards, are
upset that the Justice Department didn`t go far enough. They feel like the
Ferguson Police Department should be disbanded, that the chief should be
fired. And that other departments should be taken to task for the same
kinds of violations.

HAYES: Sari Horwitz, thank you for joining us tonight. Really
appreciate it.

HORWITZ: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: Barack Obama has a message for John Boehner today and it goes
a little something like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: The House voted today to fully fund the Department of Homeland
Security, no strings attached. And that did not sit well with
conservatives who only a greed to fund the rest of the government because
they thought they were going to be able to shut down DHS over President
Obama`s executive action aimed at protecting millions from deportation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT, (R) TEXAS: Last December we were told that the
best way to approach, despite some of our thinking to the contrary, was to
fund everything but DHS. We were told this is the play. Well, some of us
were afraid that if we did that that we would come to this point and
totally cave.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The distinguished gentleman from Texas is ticked off because
on a news day dominated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu`s
speech to congress, John Boehner quietly crept into the House chamber,
unfurled a white flag, waved it in the air, and then rolled over and
exposed his belly to Barack Obama. Which is to say the Republicans lost
today, definitively, unreservedly.

When President Obama announced his executive actions on immigration
back in November, Republicans threatened the parliamentary equivalent of
World War 3, promising to shut down the government if that`s what it took
to stop the president`s immigration policy.

Last week, House Republicans did hold out on homeland security
funding, threatening a partial government shut down before finally passing
a stopgap measure to fund the department for one week.

But today John Boehner did what has become his signature move. After
great delay, after much hemming and hawing, he just gave up, passed the
bill with
Democrats. That`s precisely what happened today.

The bill was to fund DHS passed with 75 Republican votes, including
John Boehner, and 182 Democratic votes.

A big majority of Republicans, 167 to be precise, voted no along with
zero Democrats.

Now, if you`re a die hard conservative activist, you must be sitting
there thinking wondering what the heck you worked your butt off for during
the last election cycle. And that is a very fair question.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Last night, Kelly Gissendaner had already finished last meal
when the state of Georgia postponed her execution for the second time in a
week. And both the case itself and the reason for that postponement are
remarkable. Gissendaner has been on death row for the murder of her
husband, Douglas Gissendaner. He was killed in February 1997 by Kelly
Gissendaner`s boyfriend, Gregory Owen by ambush and multiple stabbing.

Gregory Owen, the man who plunged the knife in, is not on death row
and is up for parole in eight years, getting the lighter sentence of life
in prison because he testified against his girlfriend in their plot to kill
her husband.

And Gissendaner`s lawyers had challenged her sentence as
disproportionate. They`d also submitted her case to the clemency board,
which included testimonials from dozens of spiritual advisers, inmates and
prison staff.

The reason her execution was halted last night is alarming and
bizarre. The drugs that the state of Georgia was going to use to kill her
just didn`t look right.

Quote, "within the hours leading up to the scheduled execution, the
execution team performed the necessary checks. At that time, the drugs
appeared cloudy," a George Department of Corrections spokeswoman said in a
statement.

After consulting with a pharmacist and in an abundance of caution, the
execution was postponed.

The drug in question is Pentobarbital, a one-drug protocol compounded
by specialty pharmacies because an FDA approved form is no longer
available.

Now, this is not the first time the Georgia Department of Corrections
has had issues with its legal drug supply. In 2011, the drug enforcement
agency seized Georgia`s supply of its legal lethal injection drug following
concerns that one of the drugs in its then the three-drug cocktail was
bought in violation of federal law. In other words, bought on the gray
market, because reputable drug companies were no longer selling it.

And let`s be clear, Georgia is not alone. Following recent horrific
cases of lethal injection in states like Oklahoma and Ohio and Arizona,
states have been scrambling to establish a reliable drug cocktail in a
fashion that increasingly looks like pseudo scientific improvisation and
one taking place largely, if not entirely, outside any formal medical
expertise.

Lawyers in Kelly Gissendaner`s case in Georgia had asked the U.S.
Supreme Court for a stay of execution. They were still waiting to hear
whether that stay would be granted when the Georgia Department of
Corrections delayed her execution based on those cloudy drugs.

Today, Georgia delayed another death row execution scheduled for next
week.

So, nothing has been resolved in this ongoing, real-time chemistry
experiment that is America`s death row at the moment.

This Thursday we will take a closer look at one particular death row
inmate a man who was scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection this
Thursday before the court intervened.

I`ll be taking a look in our special All in America: The 11th Hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: After the New York Times broke the story that Hillary Clinton
exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as
secretary of state, the Drudge Report ran this headline,
"HDR22@clintonmail.com.

And if you`ve ever had the wonderful occasion to read the comment
section on a Drudge Report linked story, you can probably imagine what
happened to her inbox after that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re eating her. Oh my god.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: More on that story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: This afternoon I did something I do probably about 300 times a
day, no exaggeration. I sent an e-mail to the staff here at All In asking
what kind of crazy person uses their personal e-mail, joke being that I am
that sort of crazy
person.

You know why? Because I hate, and I mean really hate Microsoft
Outlook. Hate it.

So I`m somewhat sympathetic to Hillary Clinton who the New York Times
revealed today in a front page story, exclusively used a personal email
account to conduct government business as secretary of state.

It turns out that Clinton did not even have a government email address
during her four year tenure at the State Department.

That said, I`m a cable news host, not the secretary of state. And,
well, there are a bunch of potential problems here. One of them whether
Clinton`s personal e-mail HGR22@Clintonemail.com, whether that email
account was secure from
hackers interested in U.S. State Department business.

Clinton was asked about her e-mail use during a 2011 interview with
NBC`s Savannah Guthrie.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FRM. U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I have a lot of
security restraints on what I can and can`t do. But I do try to stay in
touch as much as possible and electronically is by far the easiest way to
do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Another big question is whether Clinton`s use of personal e-
mail to conduct state business violated federal requirements. Now, Collin
Powell who served as secretary of state from 2001 to 2005 said in a
statement today he used personal e-mail at the time, but here`s the thing,
federal regulations on email use have changed since then, though, according
to Michael Tamaschi (ph) of The Daily Beast it appears the new regulations
weren`t fully implemented until a year-and-a-half after Clinton left the
State Department in 2013.

But the biggest issue probably here is transparency. And Clinton`s
team, handed 55,000 pages of e-mails over to the State Department two
months ago, but some of her e-mails were held back. A Clinton spokesman
said her email use was within the, quote, letter and spirit of the rules
and that because she emailed colleagues on their government email
addresses, she had every expectation her emails would be retained.

Representative Trey Gowdy, however, who heads the latest committee
investigating Benghazi said today that Clinton should not be in a position
to decide which of her emails are released.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TREY GOWDY, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: I just think it`s good practice
if you are conducting official business that you do so in a way where it
provides a record. Right now, we are in the position of having to go to
her, or her attorneys to ask for work that was done on behalf of the
American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Joining me, Eric Boehlert, senior fellow at Media Matters.

OK, swap out Hillary Clinton, OK? Put in Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney
was running around with a private e-mails -- or Karl Rove who actually was
doing this, right, a nongovernment sanctioned one so he could have it, and
then Karl Rove comes and says well, Media Matters, Eric Boehler, don`t you
worry, we gave over our 55,000 e-mails to comply with federal rules, are
you going to be OK with that?

ERIC BOEHLERT, MEDIA MATTERS: Well, I think there are legitimate
questions here. And that`s fine. And, you know, where did the emails end
up? What servers where they were on? Is she giving them over, 55,000 does
seem like a lot.

But I think, the problem that we raised is the problem with the New
York
Times story which is it hasn`t held up. YOu know, they omitted key facts.
They omitted the fact that the law pertaining to private e-mail accounts
was passed in 2014 after she left office. The didn`t include the fact that
John Kerry is the first secretary of state to primarily use a government e-
mail address.

These are important issues that they knew that they left out. I don`t
understand. It gives the story context.

HAYES: OK. So the question to me is that there is two possibilities.
One is that basically Hillary Clinton, like myself, is like I don`t want to
use the stupid BlackBerry, Outlook. I want to use this account. But then
that account was created a week -- only a week before she was sworn in I
think, right, during her confirmation hearing? So, clearly it is being
created for this purpose.

I mean, to me the question is, if you trust the Clintons, if you trust
Hillary Clinton and the people around her, you think this is relatively
benign, and maybe they didn`t dot their Is and cross their Ts.

If you don`t trust her you think they were trying to hide e-mails from
the record.

BOEHLERT: Well, people always think that about the Clintons. And
when this story exploded last night, you know, Twitter exploded and
everyone immediately assumed the worst because this is the Clintons and we
have sort of been through the cycle for 20 years.

And what always happens, if you wait 24 hours, if you kind of take a
step back and take a few breaths, you see that, again, the Times story
didn`t quite add up. It is not as dramatic as they suppose.

You know, frankly The Times had a story of rather mundane story about
email archiving, where should these emails end up, which servers. And if
they had printed that story, it would have been on A12 and you and I
wouldn`t be talking about it tonight.

They sort of dangled illegality. They dangled a certain arrogance
that she refused to do this where other secretary of states have also used
personal email.

HAYES: But I do know, I know firsthand from talking to people, right?
This is a big deal inside the executive. It is a huge deal in the White
House, because they have a different law. The Presidential Records Act,
where they are psycho about it. I mean, like people get chased down and
like rapped on the knuckles. That is a different law than what guides
these cabinet officials.

That said, it also just does seem to me like why wouldn`t you just go
by the
rules, right? I mean, that is the thing that I just found sort of bizarre
about this. Like, you would not just set up a state.gov e-mail, right,
just so the archiving? Like, just do the thing, just do the thing that is
going to be minimally compliant.

BOEHLERT: Well, that is a question. We don`t have an answer on why
they did
that. And that is a totally legitimate question and hopefully we`ll get to
the
bottom of that.

Again, John Kerry is the first secretary of State to primarily use a
government email account. So, from the creation of e-mail up until a
couple of years ago, that was not the norm. So, again, it wasn`t as
dramatic and arrogant and the Clintons are always -- you know, creating
their own rules for themselves. It just wasn`t the case.

There are questions. I`m sure they will be asked in D.C. for weeks to
come, nobody is hiding anything right now.

HAYES: The most substantive one to me actually was raised by Gawker,
which is this question of, were essentially these e-mail accounts being
used to just basically shield stuff for FOIA requests, right? Because
Gawker had actually made FOIA requests and have been told we don`t have
anything on that.

And now it seems possible -- that to me seems like actually the most
serious violation rather than the archiving and stuff like that.

I am sure we`ll hear more about the emails for the next 18 months of
our lives. Eric Boehlert, thank you very much.

All right, in a short time, Hillary Clinton -- probably have heard of
her, we were just talking about her -- she`s going to speak publicly for
the first time
since this story broke. I`m going to talk to two people who were there in
the room, ahead. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Joining me now Emily`s List spokesperson Jess McIntosh and New
Republic`s senior editor Rebecca Traister who are at the Emily`s List gala
where Hillary Clinton is about to speak for the first time since the story
broke the secretary of state had conducted business exclusively on her
personal e-mail account. Rebecca also clearly in the midst of having it
all with her new daughter Bella, by her side.

Rebecca, this is to me is like the paratomatic (ph) Clinton story that
we are going to get for 18, 19 months. Like if you squinted it one way it
looks shady, if you squint it another it looks like they`re being
completely like held to some ridiculously high standard. We`re going to
sort of sort ourselves into the two tribes that view the Clintons as unduly
persecuted and those who view them as unduly ethical lapse and rinse and
repeat for the next 18 months.

REBECCA TRAISTER, NEW REPUBLIC: Yes, I think you summed that up.
That is also the past 24 years. It is both the past 24 years, the next two
years, and then who knows maybe the next ten years. That is what you --
there are legitimate questions to be asked, and we ask legitimate questions
about every candidate, right, especially candidates with long political
histories and deep political ties. So you don`t want to take away the
legitimacy of it.

You also see the eagerness to blare like scandal headlines, and then
the eagerness to make a kind of foggy smear about how this is all like, you
know, scandal ridden Clinton stuff. And you sort of -- even before you get
the details of exactly was legitimate and what might not be legitimate
about the questions, you`re already in that sort of foggy Clinton scandal
world. That is like fasten your seat belts, that is the next two years of
our lives.

HAYES: And that`s -- and Jess, the dynamic -- one of the dynamics of
that struck me in interacting with people around Clinton is, like you know,
even paranoids have enemies, right? Like, they`re paranoid about their
enemies and so they act in a way that sometimes seems suspicious because
they`re convinced everyone is out to get them, because lots of people
really are out to get them.

JESS MCINTOSH, EMILY`S LIST, EMILY`S LIST: I have got to say that no
one in this room is talking about that right now. I`m in a room with about
1,700 people where she just got the most amazing rousing ovation.

HAYES: Well, yes, Emily`s List gala, of course.

MCINTOSH: Yes. Where activists are absolutely fired up for somebody
who is so good on women and families. And I think that that`s what voters
are going to care about more. So the media can do this and everybody is
going to talk about it and we`re going to have a lot of fun with it. But
in the end, it is about the women and families that she is talking about
and the policies that she is going to pursue, and I swear that is what
American voters actually care about.

So we`re going to try to keep it to that as much as possible.

HAYES: I would love for that to be the case, right? But I just don`t
think that is actually true in the sense that being of a Clinton.

MCINTOSH: I would guess...

HAYES: ...that`s going to mean something. In the same way that Jeb
Bush being a Bush is going to mean something, right? This is an American
election, right. And that last name and the connections to the people who
had that last
name, for good and ill, is going to really mean something.

TRAISTER: Can I combine your two arguments for a second? I`m going
to say that you`re both right because part of the intensity that has always
fueled the interest in the Clintons, even back when it was Bill running for
office, had to do
with a sort of explosive and disruptive nature of Hillary Clinton and what
she represented, which was a particular story of women in America.

And what we are now seeing -- and the intensity both of the positive
energy here at this event, which is bound to be positive, and the negative
intensity is tied up in very complicated and non-simple ways with the
craziness of the project that she is probably embarking on which is to
become the first woman president in
two-and-a-half centuries of American history, right.

MCINTOSH: We`ve never done that. If it were easy, it would have
happened already. And anyone who is taking on being the first is...

TRAISTER: Which is not to say that a story like this is motivated by
anything quite so simple as sexism or because she is a woman, right. There
are obviously -- all I`m saying is that a lot of the intensity on both
sides, the
positive, the anxious, the negative, the damming, that is very tied up in
an extraordinary thing that is happening or that people are trying to make
happen.

HAYES: And the point you guys made is a really important one. One of
the things that has happened I think is that Hillary Clinton has become so
ubiquitous both as a public figure -- as a secretary of state, her while as
a presidential candidate and now as a presumptive nominee, the fact that it
would be the first woman president somehow feels like almost a foregone
conclusion, right, because she`s considered so formidable.

What I think you`re seeing in that room, Jess, right, this is Hillary
Clinton`s base, right. These are the people devoted to elected women of
high office and this for them is kind of like a mission of a lifetime.

MCINTOSH: Absolutely, absolutely.

But the number of times that I get asked about the inevitable problem,
it is not inevitable, it is unprecedented. And everybody in this room
knows how hard it is going to be. And how much work we have ahead of us.
And we are really excited about the opportunity to actually be able to take
on that challenge in a successful way finally.

So, that`s where a lot of the enthusiasm is coming from. And she`s
been talking about a really, really important policy agenda for the middle
class that every speech that she gives -- women, families specifically --
and I think that the rest of the American electorate is going to be excited
to hear about what the next president is going to do for them.

That was the problem in the 2014 election. People didn`t articulate
enough of a vision for the voting electorate. And Hillary Clinton seems to
be doing exactly that.

So I think more than whatever the Washington story of the day is going
to be, it`s going to be her agenda.

HAYES: Jess McIntosh and Rebecca Traister in Washington at an Emily`s
List event where Hillary Clinton is giving a speech. Thank you, guys.

That is All In for this evening, but hang tight, because Hillary
Clinton will be speaking a little later. The Rachel Maddow show starts
right now.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

Copyright 2015 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.>