tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC August 27, 2014 12:00am-1:01am PDT
people wanted very much to end. they want a leader who will take us from here. how can hillary clinton convince the country that she will start the minute she takes office to bring on brighter days? the same with whomever the republicans trust? it's not about how hard you bash obama. it's about the future, stupid. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight, we are "all in." >> america does forget. our reach is long. we are patient. justice will be done. >> two more air strikes in iraq, an american jihadi killed fighting for isis, and the u.s. begins surveillance flights over syria. tonight, the latest on the isis offensive. then, a new recording said to be gunshots from the michael brown shooting. how does this possible new evidence square with what we already know? plus, the republican immigration problem in one handy video. >> we came all the way from florida because you want to deport us? when it comes to taxes, this
fast food chain is thinking outside the country. robert reich on burger king's bolt to the great north. "all in" starts right now. good evening, from new york, i'm chris hayes. u.s. officials have confirmed to nbc news the u.s. military is now flying unmanned and manned surveillance flights over northern syria using drones like this and other aircraft in what is widely seen as a step toward potential u.s. air strikes against isis forces inside the current syrian border. officials also told nbc news that president obama authorized the flights for the purpose of selecting potential targets for strikes including isis weapons, equipment, and a critical supply line from iraq to syria. this, as the u.s. conducted two air strikes near erbil, iraq, today, in the continuing air offensive against isis in iraq. if that campaign is expanded to syria, it would mean the u.s. is effectively aligning with
president bashar al assad in the fight against isis, the same assad the u.s. officials were threatening to attack exactly one year ago after his regime was found to have used chemical weapons in syria's horrific war. >> president obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people. nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny. >> if it seems inexplicable, the u.s. has gone from threatening to bomb assad's forces to potentially joining the war against assad's enemy, that speaks to just how ugly and messy the situation is in syria. the u.n. estimates more than 191,000 people have been killed since the civil war began in 2011. have a look at this graphic put together by "think progress." this spider web shows all the many players in the syria conflict and how they are in
conflict or aligned with each other from outside government seeking influence like saudi arabia and turkey and qatar, to the syrian government of bashar al assad, himself, to various groups that are fighting for control inside syria against assad, islamists like al qaeda, islamic front and nusa brigades, viewed as more secular to the free syrian army to the notorious isis, itself. it's often confusing. any given stretch of time, different factions may be shooting at each other one moment or shooting next to each other at some shared third enemy the next. speaking today in north carolina, president obama addressed the murder of journalist james foley by isis militants and vowed the u.s. is committed to seeing isis vanquished. >> rooting out a cancer like isis won't be easy and won't be quick but tyrants and murderers before them should recognize that kind of hateful vision ultimately is no match for the strength and hopes of people who
stand together for the security and dignity and freedom that is the birth right of every human being. >> earlier today i asked nbc news foreign correspondent ayman moyheldin about the significance to start u.s. air strikes over potential targets inside syria. >> well, certainly in terms of u.s. military operations a very significant step. there's no doubt the u.s. has maintained very strong intelligence over syria for some time, but the fact that this involves both unmanned and manned flights would suggest the u.s. is planning some type of attack on syria. that doesn't mean it will carry out, but it does at least suggest that military preparations are under way. keep in mind, we already know the u.s. has put troops on the ground when they tried to rescue james foley, and not already has drawn criticism from the syrian government which is saying this is a violation of its sovereignty and warned the
united states not to do it. >> so, it's really difficult to get your head around the current battlefield conditions in syria because there are so many groups from the free syrian army, to assad's forces, isis, the nusra front. you can go on and on and on. what are the battlefield conditions? seems to me there's been a chaotic stalemate for at least six months or so. is that more or less accurate? >> absolutely. in fact, there's a sense of cannibalism among some of the syrian rebels because they've been fighting each other. and that has made it extremely difficult for the united states to identify potential lines or fault lines or even battlefield lines between the syrian opposition it has supported, given weapons to, that it wants to see succeed in toppling the regime of bashar al assad. the hardliners and those hostile toward the u.s. and its allies including not only isis but al qaeda-affiliated groups operating inside syria. there are some pockets we know are firmly in control of some of
the groups. that is possibly where the united states could start if it were to take out any operations. but it's not going to be able to go beyond that to tip the balance of the fight in favor for one group over the other because in some areas they're fighting side by side and others they're fighting against each other. >> given how complicated and chaotic it is in syria, given the fact that assad doesn't have many allies left in the region, and isis certainly doesn't seem to be ingratiating itself. as someone who's covered the region for as long as you have, how to you think american air strikes against isis in syria would be perceived? what would be the kind of regional ramifications of that? >> well, certainly, you know, among several countries in the region, u.s. military involvement would be welcomed news. you know, i've spoken to some diplomats in the region and they say the fight against isis is no different than the fight that the u.s. is engaged in in other parts of the word.
it would be an illogical extension of u.s. military operations, but at the same time, what we are saying just a few seconds ago is the fight against isis in itself is only one group. it would not necessarily be -- you're not going to be able to dry out the conditions for that ideology by military strikes, alone. you have to think about this from two perspectives. short-term military operations to contain isis, long-term defeat of isis' ideology. that's probably not going to happen on a battlefield. that has to happen with genuine reform across the arab world and muslim world, but for the time being, fighting on the ground, the u.s. can certainly contain isis which has been expanding very rapidly both in iraq and syria over the past several months. so they can slow down that advance and certainly at least prop up some of the moderate rebels that it has been supporting over the course of the past several months as well. >> there's also news today of the u.s. resupplying kurdish forces with arms. at what point does kurdistan go from being basically independent in everything but name to being actually fully declared an independent state? >> you know, that's the
aspiration of the kurdish people, but there are geopolitical realities that make it nearly impossible at least for the time being. there's no doubt that any kurdish national you speak to would like to see an independent kurdish republic. as you mentioned, they're pretty much an effective independent state. they certainly have a lot of sovereignty in terms how they conduct their internal affairs and some extent their foreign affairs. keep in mind if kurdistan was to be declared an independent state, it would be a landlocked state surrounded by countries that are not necessarily friendly to it including syria, iran, the new iraq, and turkey, and it would be at that point compelled to try to establish diplomatic relations for all kinds of reasons. kurdish officials i've spoken to have always said their biggest reality on the ground is reason they're unable to declare a state. they can't declare a state unless the neighbors around kurdistan want to see an independence day and for the time being none of those countries want to see an independent kurdistan. >> ayman mohyeldin, thank you, ayman.
big news today about two americans involved in this incredibly messy, complex situation, though in very different ways. this is douglas mcarthur mccain. san diego, california. grew up playing basketball. described as a goof ball in high school and who was, as first reported by nbc news, killed over the weekend allegedly while fighting with isis in syria according to the free syrian army which was fighting against isis in that battle. u.s. official confirmed today's death and his presence in syria. this is footage from the battle between isis and free syrian army in which mccain is believed to have been killed. both groups are opposed to syrian president assad, but the free syrian army is viewed as the moderate, secular opposition by western forces. free syrian army forces discovered $800 in cash and american passport on mccain's body after that fight, allegedly three foreign jihadis fighting with isis who died during the battle. 33-year-old mccain who had taken to call himself slaveofallah on social media tweeted this in may, "i reverted to islam ten
years ago and i must say in sha allah, i will never look back. the best thing that ever happened to me." isis demanded a $6.6 million ransom or release of a pakistani neuroscientist convicted of attempted murder in report in exchange for the aide worker. before brutally killing american journal james foley, isis demanded ransom. joining me, marie harf. i met you face to face a year ago. i came down to washington to interview john kerry, and it was about a push from the state department to the white house for possible military strikes against bashar al assad. here we are one year later and it looks like the groundwork is being laid for possible air strikes against a group that is fighting bashar al assad.
how are american people supposed to make sense of this? >> well, i remember that day well, chris, and i'd make a few points on that. the first is that we will not be working with the assad regime or coordinating with them to fight isis. they are not the answer to isis. they are the reason that isis has been able to grow in strength. they've been able to flourish. they've allowed them to move freely back and forth to iraq. so on the one hand, while they may be fighting isis in places, on the other hand, they have allowed them to grow, so we're very focused right now on how we, working with other partners, whether it's the syrian moderate opposition as you just mentioned, the iraqis, the kurds, working with those partners to take the fight to isis. we're not going to be working with the assad regime. >> at a certain level, the enemy of my enemy -- if in fact you bomb isis, do you that then, ergo, strengthen assad? >> well, unfortunately nothing in syria is as simplistic as that. from your reporting you just did, i think that's very clear.
we have been clear we will take the fight to isis and do whatever we can regardless of geographical boundaries to protect americans. we've been clear assad lost all legitimacy to lead. you look, 190,000 people dead. that's why we've increased our support to the moderate opposition because they're fighting a war basically on three fronts. against regime, against isis, and against nusra. >> the "ap" had a story, quoting people within the administration. things according to the "ap" of being contemplating of bombing isis targets and assad targets, that begins to start sounding like madness, we're going to essentially going to try to ration out our bombing on both sides to maintain this horrific equilibrium because there's nothing but bad options left. >> well, when i've heard conversations inside the administration and certainly what we're focused on right now
is how we can take the fight to isis directly. we've talked about doing that in iraq. you mentioned more strikes around erbil today. what the president is considering is what options we can take, what actions we can take, to really degrade isis' capability, but long term as your correspondent just said, there's not a purely military solution here. we need to cut off the flow of funding to isis which has been extraordinary and has allowed them to flourish. we need to cut off the ability for foreign fighters, like the american that we saw killed recently, from getting there. so it's a challenge on all fronts here. >> does the american government know how many americans are fighting under the banner of isis right now? >> well, we know there are dozens, possibly up to 100 americans who have gone to syria to fight for various groups, isis, nusra and other splintered groups. we don't have an exact number. we track the people. we knew this individual, douglas mccain, was there. we're aware of his death, as we said. we track these individuals because when it comes to the threat to the homeland, that's
probably the most concerning aspect right now is that an american could come back to the united states and try to promote their ideology here. >> there was a period where we were talking about the vetted opposition. you just mentioned the free syrian army. how can you give any assurances at this point of anyone being vetted in the maelstrom of chaos and violence that is syria? >> well, we go to great lengths to vet people we give any assistance to. particularly when we're talking about this new department of defense program we asked congress to authorize, to train and equip the syrian opposition, we go to great lengths to vet them. for exactly the reason you mentioned. we don't want our assistance falling into the wrong hands. >> if an american kid who liked to play baseball and hip hop can end up fighting for isis, one imagining a free syrian army fighter with an american weapon can someday decide he also wants to join isis and there's not exactly going to be a process in which he hands over his weapon. marie harf from the state department. thank you so much. >> thank you.
up next, a new audio recording surfaced, the lawyer of the man who recorded it said it's from the very moment that officer darren wilson shot michael brown in ferguson. we have the tape. we'll play it for you, ahead. [ male announcer] surprise -- you're having triplets. [ babies crying ] surprise -- your house was built on an ancient burial ground. [ ghosts moaning ] surprise -- your car needs a new transmission.
there's some good news out of the middle east today. a new long-term cease-fire between israel and hamas would ease traffic restriction and allow much needed humanitarian aid into gaza. the current war began 50 days ago and resulted in the deaths of palestinians, and people killed by air strikes just today, and 70 israelis including two civilians hit by rocketfire just as the cease-fire was being announced. i have to say, it is very, very difficult to say after all this horrible destruction and death and cruelty and sorrow exactly what it was all for. be right back.
tonight we've got new audio recording purported to capture the exact moment when michael brown was shot by police officer darren wilson. according to his lawyer, a man who wants to remain unidentified came forward with audio of the gunfire which he says he recorded inadvertently while taping a video message to a friend. while the recording has not yet been confirmed as the actual shooting, the lawyer, lupa blumenthal told nbc news the fbi has a copy they're working to identify and speaking with their client. she'll be on "the last word with lawrence o'donnell" tonight. they do confirm they're collecting audio and video of the fatal incident on tape which the lawyer played for nbc's ron allen.
you can hear what sounds like gunshots in the background of the man's amorous message. >> you are pretty. you're so fine. just going over some of your videos? >> we counted what seemed to be a burst of six gunshots followed by a three-second pause then four more shots. this point, we don't know happened immediately before or after, and whether it's the shooting of michael brown. the lawyer tells him she's confident it's the real deal. >> no doubt in your mind this is real? >> absolutely not. he's a very solid citizen, you know, he's, i think that if it came to testifying, he would be a very reliable witness. and he has no reason to make it up. >> law enforcement officials told nbc news it's impossible to know at this stage what significance the tape may be,
but a spokesman for bob mcculloch, leading the grand jury investigation, said if it's validated the tape could be a key piece of evidence. will be added to what is already a large and frankly very public body of evidence including multiple eyewitness accounts of the deadly confrontation recounted in interview after interview and amateur videos taken by various angles shortly after the shooting and given how public the location was in the middle of an apartment complex, in the middle of a saturday. i was there saturday afternoon and there were dozens of people around. there could be more potential evidence to come. joining me now is areva martin, civil rights attorney and legal affairs commentator. so, first, i want to get your response to this new recording, which, again, it's very difficult for us to verify. but any given piece of evidence it seems to me can be used by either someone seeking an indictment, or someone in defense to put what facts they need to to defend their client. so it doesn't seem that any individual piece of evidence so
far has been dispositive. >> absolutely, chris. and what's important at this stage is that this case is being presented to a grand jury, so the traditional rules of evidence at the grand jury stage, those rules are relax. the prosecutor can present any evidence, even evidence that's typically considered hearsay or otherwise unreliable. we know this prosecutor has vowed to submit all of the evidence that's only to light in this case. we should suspect if this, you know, audio is verified that this evidence will be presented to the grand jurors. >> okay. let's go -- areva, can we do criminal procedure 101 here? >> yes. >> i think there's some confusions right? the shadow of reasonable doubt is a threshold for conviction in a reasonable -- in a criminal case. what is the threshold? what is the evidentiary threshold that has to be crossed by a grand jury to return an indictment? >> much less. think of it as a preponderance of evidence. as you correctly stated, at a style when we're trying to
determine guilt, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. at this level, all we're trying to determine is what a crime committed and who committed that crime? is there probable cause for the case to move forward to an actual jury trial? so they're not determining guilt or innocence. this is really about whether there should be a trial on whether excessive force was used by the officer against mr. brown. so, again, the rules of evidence are far more relaxed, and almost anything can be presented by the prosecutor. and it's his choice. no judge is going to be there to rule evidence inadmissible or to, you know, make any kind of objection, evidentiary rulings. this is the prosecutor's playground. sometimes lawyers say a prosecutor can take any case to a grand jury and leave out with an indictment if that's his or her intent. >> there's the old joke about you can indict a ham sandwich. >> ham sandwich, yes. >> if you want to. this is a process which is in some ways by design skewed toward the prosecution. it is just the prosecutor
presenting evidence, presenting people to people he's kind of established a rapport with, sitting in a jury room week after week, day after day, depending on the deals of it. >> yes. >> it's usually a case if a prosecutor wants an indictment in a specific case, they can get an indictment, although not always. >> not always, but high probability, and you have to remember there's no defendant. there's no defense attorney. and there's no judge. and what evidence is presented, again, is in the sole discretion of that prosecutor, so he can tell a very persuasive story that can cause those grand jurors to give him an indictment. and we don't need unanimous vote. there are 12 grand jurors in this case. we only need nine to side with this prosecutor for him to get an indictment in this case. >> so final question here is, how to think about the prosecutor's role in this, because i think there's some way in which some of the communication out of bob mcculloch's office is kind of
he's a neutral arbiter here, his job is to take the evidence collected by investigators and present it to the grand jury as a kind of courier step. is that the way it works? >> that's way this is being skewed in this case, chris. that's not the normal way you think of a prosecutor and relationship to the grand juror. the prosecutor's job is to seek justice, and if a crime has been committed, to actually leave that grand jury with an indictment. you know, there's some concern in this ferguson community about whether this prosecutor can be unbiased given some of his history with respect to indicting others who -- where there's a belief that they engaged in excessive force. so, a lot riding on this case for this prosecutor and all eyes are definitely watching. >> civil rights attorney areva martin, thank you very much. >> thanks, chris. all right. you may see this corporate logo and think whoppers or burgers with fries on them or the weird creepy ad campaign from a few years ago. wall street sees dollar signs and opportunity in the land of moose and syrup. plus, what it looks like when dreamers show up at a marco rubio event.
now that president obama has returned from vacation, he could be announcing any day now what actions he'll take on immigration. whether he intends to use his executive power in light of house republicans' continued stone walling of legislation. and in the run-up to that, dreamers, group of young, undocumented americans brought here as children, have been confronting their political opponents, particularly in the
gop which somewhat amazingly has become the pro-deportation party. their targets include people like marco rubio once thought to be the party's great immigration hope and who just last year helped pass comprehensive immigration reform through the senate. more recently, last month, rubio said he supported ending relief for undocumented childhood arrivals. the dreamers in question. so yesterday, bunch of dreamer activists showed up in a gop fund-raiser in south carolina when marco rubio was speaking, and this is what it looked like. >> my name's jose, and we are dreamers from the state of florida, and our senator wants to deport us. senator rubio, you don't stand with latinos. latinos stand with dreamers. >> senator rubio, stop flip-flopping with our community. >> we are here, senator rubio, came all the way from florida. >> all right, all right. stop the tape right there. this is sort of an interesting move by the man in hat and stickers. the old try to cover a 15-foot-wide sign with your two-foot-wide body. once it becomes painfully clear the math is not in his favor,
well, he tries to move around a bit. >> we are here, senator rubio, came all the way from florida because you want to deport us and our family. you want to deport us and our families, senator rubio, and we know that your mother who live -- >> ultimately our bestickered friend in the hat realizes the futility of what he's trying to do and grabs the entire sign and leads them out of the fund-raiser. the entire thing is a good encapsulation of the gop's conundrum. young latino organizers booed by an audience of predominantly older white people not a good look.
backlash because many people thought they knew exactly what burger king was up to, something called a tax inversion. a tax inversion deal is essentially when an american company acquires or merges with a foreign company, usually a smaller one based in a low-tax country and reincorporates and moves its headquarters abroad to lower its tax rate. president obama described it this way. >> if you're doing business here, basically still an american company, but simply changing your mailing address in order to avoid paying taxes, you're really not doing right by the country and the american people. >> because people have seized on the so-called tax inversion aspect, a few other things are being overlooked. total market value before the merger, the companies were not far apart relatively speaking and as msnbc contributor josh barro pointed out in "the new york times," some measures tim hortons is a bigger pane than burger king. 2013, tim horton $3 billion in revenue to burger king's $1.1 billion. canada is the biggest market for the combined company.
it is true that by moving its home to canada, where there's a lower corporate tax rate than the nearly 35% corporate tax rate in the u.s., the highest on the books in the world, burger king would undoubtedly save money on taxes. but this is important. according to the government accountability office, some u.s. corporations paid an average effective tax rate of around 13% in 2010. so, there's a real question here for liberals and conservatives alike whether the current corporate tax policy is good policy. joining me now is a former secretary of labor in the clinton administration, robert reich. robert, i fail to see why -- i know why, as a liberal, i'm supposed to want a high corporate tax rate, but given the fact there's this massive gap between what it is on the books and what's being collected and given the fact it creates incentives for all kinds of shenanigans like inversions possibly start to sweeten the deal on the bergen king, why shouldn't we get rid of the thing or lower it and get the taxes from other part of our tax collection that we can actually collect?
>> well, by that logic, chris, why not lower taxes on the wealthy because they certainly try to hide a lot of their income? i mean, the problem is once you get into the business of a race to the bottom, and that's basically what a lot of corporations are doing, internationally. they are trying to use whatever shenanigans they can to avoid paying taxes. then there's no end to it. i mean, yes, if we had major tax reform and had a territorial tax system and had a system where they paid fully on all the business they did in the united states, that would be one thing, but we don't have that. you know, if pigs could fly, that would be nice as well. burger king -- >> isn't it the case -- let me stop you there. is it not the case that corporations as entities are even better and more sophisticated at it? >> corporations are terrific. undoubtedly what a lot of people
are afraid of, that american corporations are following at the footsteps of walmart's attempt, walgreens' attempt, also burger king's apparent attempt, are going to be doing this because it looks like an easy way of making some money. what is not being considered, however, is all of the ways in which the united states actually supports these former or present american companies. i mean, look at all of the medicaid and all of the food stamps that you and i and other taxpayers are providing to the employees of burger king because they are paid minimum wages. well, we're still going to go on paying that. it's just that burger king is going to be paying fewer taxes. >> okay. burger king also -- i went back and read this column from 2012, and i didn't really know much about burger king as a company, but in some ways it's kind of a perfect symbol of modern american finance capitalism. it's basically been this shell company that's been private equity turned over and over.
screamed for clever financiers. in 2002 goldman sachs and two others teamed up to buy burger king. their purchase price included $210 million of their own money. two years later they took burger king public and rewarded themselves with $448 million dividend. this has been around wall street as a corpse to suck the blood out of. >> burger king is going the way of a lot of american corporations that used to be businesses set up to do something like provide hamburgers. it's now a finance company. i mean, essentially it's a finance company. all american companies are becoming finance companies. and, yes, the financial company that is owning burger king stands to make a lot of money by this transaction. it's not that they are investing more money in jobs. in fact, their reputation, this finance company that owns burger king, their reputation is you guy companies and you actually slash payrolls, you squeeze
customers, you squeeze as much profit as you possibly can get out of it, and now their reputation is going to be you also go abroad to get lower taxes. >> there's got to be something wrong with a system in which takes a company that's been troubled, franchisees have been troubled and moves it through different rings on leadership, each time there's a new owner they take a lot of money out of it and the kind of brand prospects or business prospects don't seem to improve. what exactly is happening here? >> well, what's happening is two things. employees are not getting any place, obviously. they're being paid nothing. the rest of us, as i said before, are subsidizing those employees to keep them out of poverty. shareholders are doing fairly well. i mean, when the announcement yesterday came through, shareholders did remarkably well in the very short term. but the people who are the -- but the people who are the big winners, obviously, are these big finance types. these private equity types. they are treating burger king as a poker chip. >> yep.
couple weeks ago, early in ferguson protests that followed the police shooting death of 18-year-old michael brown, as police in riot gear were ordering demonstrators off the streets, they encountered a group of people gathered not on the street but in a private backyard to observe and protest the police action that night. st. louis "riverfront times" captured what happened next. >> you go home! >> you go home! you go home! you go home! >> hands up! hands up!
hands up! >> hands up! >> hands up! >> this is my property. >> what you just saw is the police in ferguson, missouri, fires tear gas at a small group of unarmed protesters standing in a private backyard after one of them says, this is my property. can you imagine a scene more designed to inspire conservative outrage than this? if people on their own property in their own yard engaged their constitutionally protected right to peaceably assemble and they are met with big government in the form of riot gear and a tear gas canister in their faces? people invoke the founders a bit frivolously for my taste but this thing pretty clearly seems like exactly the kind of thing the founders would have hated. indeed, there was this moment two weeks ago after the tear gas
and rubber bullets and images of snipers on top of s.w.a.t. vehicles came out of ferguson, missouri, when it really did seem like some strange, very important left/right political coalition was falling into place. ted cruz came out with a statement expressing his concern over what he was seeing after the apparently illegal arrests of reporters ryan riley and wesley lowery saying "reporters should never be detained. free press is too important." rand paul wrote, "there's a legitimate role for the police to keep the police. there should be a difference between a police response and military response. the images and scenes we continue to see in ferguson resemble more than traditional police action." even glenn beck wrote last week, "the local police are supposed to protect and serve, not shock and awe residents and transform their towns into a middle east-like war zone at the flip of a switch. imagine for a moment how history would be different if the birmingham police were militarized like many towns are today." now, as surprising as it was, it
did make a whole lot of ideological sense. keep in mind, obama-era conservatism is the same political movement that rails against the petty indignities brought about by recalcitrant clerks at dmvs, obamacare navigators controlling health centers with clipboards. it's a movement that staged a massive freak-out over the admittedly invasive tsa body scans. political movement that's adopted as its unofficial flag the yellow and black gadsden flag. a defiant message, don't tread on me. there is no set of people who should be better equipped with the ideological priors to recognize the specific kinds of indignity and infringement of liberty presented by overzealous, uncaring and unaccountable police officers. but i fear that all that might soon seem like a distant memory. as recent polling shows opinion in ferguson and policing in general divided among depressive lines. when asked to rate how well
local police do at using the proper am of force for any given situation, half of republicans think police do a good or excellent job, compared to 24% of democrats who feel the same. part of this has to do with the great polarization machine of which i am at times admittedly a part. here's the core truth that comes out of ferguson. and it holds true in tens of thousands of cities and towns across this nation. within the police stop and frisk you because you fit a profile, make condescending comments or order you around, that is what treading looks like. that is what petty tyranny feels like for millions and millions of our fellow citizens. so after ferguson, conservatives really have a choice. to be true to their principles and join liberals in a coalition to rethink and remake the way criminal justice works in this country, to attack the cancerous growth of the criminal justice
and prison system, or to stick with articulating the politics of white racial grievance and resentment and fall in line behind police authority and mass incarceration. but you cannot have both. so choose. i hope you'll join us. she inspires you. no question about that. but your erectile dysfunction - that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved
to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any allergic reactions like rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a free 30-tablet trial. so i get invited to quite a few family gatherings. heck, i saved judith here a fortune with discounts like safe driver, multi-car, paperless. you make a mighty fine missus, m'lady. i'm not saying mark's thrifty. let's just say,
i saved him $519, and it certainly didn't go toward that ring. am i right? [ laughs ] [ dance music playing ] so visit progressive.com today. i call this one "the robox." today, more and more people with type 2 diabetes are learning about long-acting levemir®, an injectable insulin that can give you blood sugar control for up to 24 hours. and levemir® helps lower your a1c. levemir® is now available in flextouch® - the only prefilled insulin pen with no push-button extension. levemir® lasts 42 days without refrigeration. that's 50% longer than lantus®, which lasts 28 days. today, i'm asking about levemir® flextouch. (female announcer) levemir® is a long-acting insulin, used to control high blood sugar in adults and children with diabetes and is not recommended to treat diabetic ketoacidosis. do not use levemir® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. the most common side effect is low blood sugar,
which may cause symptoms such as sweating, shakiness, confusion, and headache. severe low blood sugar can be serious and life-threatening. ask your doctor about alcohol use, operating machinery, or driving. other possible side effects include injection site reactions. tell your doctor about all medicines you take and all of your medical conditions. check your blood sugar levels. your insulin dose should not be changed without asking your doctor. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, sweating, extreme drowsiness, dizziness, or confusion. (male announcer) today's the day to ask your doctor about levemir® flextouch. covered by nearly all health insurance and medicare plans. imagine for a moment if conservatives in america applied the same level of skepticism to the police as they have for, say, the irs. joining me, robert george, editor of the "new york post." and daria roithmayr, author of
"reproducing racism." she also co-wrote a great police with dahlia lithwick at "slate." >> imagine if democrats applied the same skepticism to the irs as they do with the police. >> that's a good point, right? here's actually why -- i will defend this, actually. that's true, right? official government pronouncements, at least by journalists should be treated with skepticism. that said, it always strikes me there's a weird inversion among conservatives which is the places where government action have the highest stakes, when there's guns involved, bombs involved, are places where the least amount of skepticism is applied and places where the stakes seem relatively minor, compared to whether you drop a bomb or not like a tax mandate, is where you get the most, right? >> well except, you know, our country was founded on the idea of fighting against a tax mandate, so i wouldn't necessarily say that the stakes are low just because it's a tax -- i mean, tax is money.
>> right, but it was taxes but it was also -- i was thinking a lot about the founders. i was going back and reading federalists when i was in ferguson. when you look at fifth amendment, fourth amendment, third amendment. a lot of what they're rebelling against is the petty indignities of men with guns being able to tell you what you can do. it's precisely that sense of indignance at that kind of petty -- >> just to disagree with the way you set this up, i still think there is still a lot of possible discussion and ability to work together amongst democrats and -- >> i do. >> -- and libertarians. >> i agree. >> look, there's always been -- there's been a kind of a tension within the right, within conservatives between law and order conservatives and government skeptic conservatives. that's in there for a long time. i think that's -- i think that tension is actually even greater
now. you know, about -- >> i think the non law and order side, the sort of government skeptic is ascended in some way. >> yes, is ascended. i could agree with that. >> the law and order side comes back whenever there's race at issue and that's where the law and order side really in some ways found their first footing during reagan, nixon, and goldwater, the whole law and order conservative movement in some sense came to power precisely in reaction to the civil rights movement. it's not surprising we see an ascendant law and order movement again in response to racial unrest or unrest that's classified as racial. >> this is a really important point because if up to look at law and order as the politics of law and order, which are a political formulation that have led to policies, actually policies that led us to incarcerating more people. >> mass incarceration. right. >> they're really successful in '67 with nixon. that's two years after riots. that's kind of a call in response that happens, the watch riots and law and order policy.
>> no, i don't disagree with that. i mean, nixon ran on -- nixon ran on a kind of a law and order appealing to the silent majority. that's, you know, that is a fact. but you are now, as you said, you are having this kind of an ascendant libertarian government skeptic. i mean, i might -- about two months ago, i was actually surprised, on my timeline, i had both democrats and liberals out. a black liberal was defending the police and a white libertarian was talking about how -- about how the police need to be restrained. and he's distrustful of them. i was kind of surprised how it was playing out. i think it's more dynamic now post-ferguson. >> daria, the big core of this all to me also seems to me we've got these kind of legacy politics, legacy policies and have the fact that, look, crime is horrible. okay? being the victim of crime is terrible.
i grew up in new york in the bronx in the 1990s when the murder rate was three, four times what it is now. i know firsthand it's awful to be a victim of crime. the fact is we have the lowest crime rate in this country now since around 1957 or so. and yet it doesn't -- seems like the politics as they relate to crime shift much more slowly than the actual facts on the ground would suggest. >> well, i would say two things. first, i think there certainly does seem to be an opening for a fiscal conservative to argue against mass incarceration on fiscal grounds. you're leaving out the question of economic anxiety. economic anxiety brings out the law and order conservatives in a way you have to take into account with regard to explaining why conservatives don't get behind a mass incarceration that would save a lot of money. economic anxiety research shows provokes law and order conservatives in some sense to increase their conservatism 37
and in some cases democrats do that as well. >> that's exactly -- that's where the immigration fight is, too. >> yeah. >> people seeing people coming in here illegally or being given amnesty. that has both a legal and an economic discomforting aspect. >> you know, when i was in ferguson, i was thinking about this phrase, law and order, because i never thought about the second word in it, right? law, we think about the crime and the breaking of laws. but there were scenes i saw in ferguson that were legal but would be viewed by some as disorderly. right? which is that there was protected, peaceable assembly on the sidewalks on certain nights web the police -- >> on their own property. >> right. that was -- >> constitutionally protected disorder. >> that's exactly right. and it struck me for the first time in that phrase that i've turned over in my head that, of course, nixon kind of made famous, that that order part is a sort of important component in terms of what it's doing politically. it's not just crime. it's a sense that everything and everyone is in their proper place, daria.
>> right. a sense of stability. a sense of order is what in some sense gives reassurance in the face of economic anxiety. and so to the extent that disorder is coupled with economic anxiety, we need to hold on to ours, lest they take it away from us. law and order becomes even more important in the face of racial unrest of the kind you saw in ferguson. >> so what do you think, do you think there's space here? my fear is this all plays out in this very predictable way. >> as you know, you've already got rand paul, cory booker looking at sentencing kind of guidelines so i think that might be a building block we can work on. and i think, i really do think that there is going to be more discussion on the militarization of the police as well. you've already got nancy pelosi's been talk about that, the administration's talking about that. i think they may find some republicans who will look at it as well. >> robert george -- >> i would agree with that. i would add as the protest phase of ferguson moves off and we go on to the question of whether or not there was excessive force in
the shooting, you're going to see an ascendance of the law and order conservatives come back. >> robert george. daria roithmayr. thank you both. that's "all in." the "rachel maddow show" begins now from down the hall. welcome back, chris, great to have you back, man. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. this is may day 1960. may 1st, 1960. it's a may day parade in moscow. the thing that is remarkable about this parade in 1960 in moscow is that the theme of the parade that year was all about peace. that year the soviets decided not to parade around their artillery and rockets and military equipment and stuff like usual, and instead the theme that year was all about children and doves and peace. which is kind of a remarkable thing if you think about it because 1960 was right in the middle of the cold war, right? this is the year before they built the berlin wall. it's two years before thba