tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC April 21, 2015 12:00am-1:01am PDT
through all the struggles and difficulties, this is something that i believe in and i'm really proud to be a part of it. it represents more than just how this is pot. it represents freedom. tonight on "all in" saddam hussein's men plot to take back iraq, and a report from der spiegel and the former numbs number of times reporter judith miller on the -- that led america to war the next 20 months will be a dangerous time, like "lord of the flies." 18 republican hopefuls square off. and anthony weiner on
hillary clinton's return to the granite state today. >> we're back into the political season plus amazing police restraint caught on tape. >> man, i'm not going to do it. >> the fbi makes a bombshell admission about the use of junk science to get conviction. "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. a bombshell report reveals just how much the new war in iraq is the same as the old war in iraq, as isis releases new video claiming to show a massacre of ethiopian christians, supposed proof of is the group's reach and more charges against american residents conspiring to help isis. the german newspaper's report shows stunning evidence that the rise was planned and engineered by the former baathist regime in an effort to restore the sunni rule that was ended by the american invasion?
2003. we knew before about the link of the -- diagnose der spiegel" says it has -- hajji bulker mapping out a -- and a strategy for infiltrating new territory until the cover of religious institutions using a complex network of spies. quote -- what he put on paper page by page was carefully outlined boxes for individual responsibilities was nothing less than a blueprint for a takeover. there's not a manifesto of faith, but according to the newspaper, that state was modeled on the infamous security and surveillance apparatus, some of the sage ones who served in that regime. whale the islamic state claims is what may be draws teenage girls from london to syria and
holds the -- "der spiegel" suggests that it's the same people and the occurrence campaign is just the outgrowth of what we started back in 20036789 i'm joined by judith miller, former reporter for "new york times" has blamed for a helping to build the case. she writes about the controversial time in "the story. jules jude ill miller joins me now. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> when you look at the news out of the iraq, do you -- do you feel guilty? i mean, do you feel like you have a piece of that? that you own in some deep professional or moral sense what's going on >> no, i don't feel guilty. i feel that as a reporter i did the very best job i could to disclose to the american people
some of the intelligence information that the president and the former vice president got that helped them form their decision to go to war. as the information evolved, i continued to stay with the story. i went to iraq to cover soldiers hunting for the weapons we thought were there -- >> it's the "we" right? who is the "we"? >> yes, the "new york times" and american press who were more or less reporting the exact same story leading up to the war. >> you don't think this is a disaster? >> i never said that. you said that. of course this is a disaster. i mean, all of it. >> it is iraq war was a disaster. the way in which it was fought was a disaster. and i covered that year after year. i kept going back and reporting on it. >> you don't feel like you played some role in bringing that about? >> no. >> you genuinely don't think that? >> no, i don't think so. i relied on the sources who had
been right about the buildup of al qaeda, had been right to warn about osama bin laden and his threat to the united states. no one wanted to listen then. they eventually did when the twin towers were attacked. i was relies on the very same sources who had wand warned me about anthrax and the threat to the united states. >> that's contested. >> no, the fbi has blamed two individuals for it, one of whom conveniently committed suicide, so we can't contest his being charged with it. >> this is what i think is frustrating about watching all of this unfold. you write in your book -- you write basically saying as a citizen as a person, you favored regime change. >> because i had covered iraq since 1976. >> and saddam was brutal, he had done horrible things. >> and his abuse of chemical weapons against his own people. >> do you take away a lesson
from this, as we watch essentially former baathist reconstitute themselves, wage this permanent war, as we watch the cascade of effects of regime changes in a place like libya, do you think now -- do you see wise people thought regime clang was a bad idea there? has it changed your mind about regime change as a following? >> i think regime change, people were very divided even before the war about the wisdom of the invasion units i'm asking you verb did you changed your mind about the idea of regime change? >> no. had i known, however -- >> you had not changed your mind -- >> wait a minute. if he did not have weapons of mast destruction, i wouldn't have favored an invasion. it was only i was persuaded by the intelligence. >> you're operating this role and favoring an invasion. >> no, no, i did not favor it in print. others favored it in print. i never did. i'm a reporter.
what i was doing was reporting on the intelligence. >> this strikes me as the difficult disingenuous thing to deal with, or maybe it's just the nature of the job. >> it is the nature of the job. >> you thought it was a good idea to get rid of him. >> yes. >> and you're writing these articles, but that feeling had nothing to do with articles that wrou that ended up being a huge part of supporting the war. >> no. i don't think that president bush and dick cheney decided to go to war because "new york times" and "the washington post" and every paper in the country was reporting the intelligence that they were getting. for the book i interviewed dick gephardt many one of many of the democrats -- >> if they were right here, i would be giving them the same question, absolutely. >> but the point is the intelligence is what it was. >> but everybody's got to own it, right? >> i own it. that's why i wrote this book. >> the book doesn't own it. the book says -- >> yes. >> it really doesn't.
it says my sources were wrong. >> that's right. >> and so -- so the editor at "rolling stone" about what happens when your source is wrong. >> no, no, that's a very difficult situation "rolling stone" does not ask the basic questions they needed to ask. >> we did. >> you're saying that the editors talked to the anonymous sources. did they have any access to them? >> our editors asked -- did they have access to the sources? >> almost all of them. almost all of then were not anonymous. a lot of them were quoted by names. almost every one was quoted by name. i did not write those stories alone. more than half were written with other colleagues at "new york times," but no one was reporting something substantial different about the wmd -- they had no specifics. >> the only thing specifically was the general thrust of what true.
>> and that is accurate. they were accurate -- let me give you an example. when michael gordon and i had just reported that in fact the cia had diverted a shipment of lume nim tubes, three days before that paper reported there was no new intelligence. you can argue the intelligence was thin or the intelligence community misunderstood what they had. what you can't argue is that there was no new intelligence. >> part of the problem is there is tons of data, right? so you can't say -- it -- >> not that's available to you and me. >> that's precisely the problem. >> this is what we had to learn, right? there are thousands of individual data points. so the whole problem from an epistemmic standpoint is one can truthfully report intelligence that totally paints the wrong picture about what is happening, and that continues to be the indicate in national security reporting long after judith
miller left "new york times." >> that's not what happened here. the intelligence community, men and women of good faith, did the best they could, but they were terribly wrong. what should bother all of us, i think is that 16 intelligence agencies, which are paid billions to get it right, got it wrong, and may be getting it wrong today. >> let's remember where the horse and the cart was. the intelligence community was being dragged behind a vision of regime change that of course was -- >> what do you mean dragged behind? >> we know all of the trips that the vice president made to the cia, we know for a fact that the policy of regime change, wolfowitz said quote wmd was the thing we could all agree on. wait, wait. let's just remember, you want to talk about the intelligence, which has been well litigated. >> so has this issue of pressure and distorted intelligence. rob silverman, the senate select committee -- you can roll your
eyes, but they were bipartisan reports that looked at the issue and didn't find any pressure. >> there are analysts that will tell you to the day they were pressured, that dick cheney came into my office. they didn't say that when they were testifying. >> so what's the lesson here? >> i have people after the fact say i had doubts. my resignation letter was in the desk. >> what is the lesson? >> maybe it's the lesson that colin powell drew in miss own book on leadership. where were these doubters when i was giving mea speech at the u.n.? >> wasn't it your job to go find them, though? >> we tried the best we could. we never stopped looking. >> having covered iraq for different decades, i simply could not imagine that saddam would give up such devastating weapons or the ability to make them. to your credit, this is some confirmation bias.
the point is -- >> not confirmation bias. >> of course it is. >> it's the conclusion i had reached based on what the intelligence analysts and experts were telling me. i had worked with international inspectors for ten years, they were all saying the same thing -- he's still hiding stuff, we think, with high confidence. >> did judith miller from before this reporting episode learn some things, have different thoughts -- >> that's why i wrote the book. >> but my question is, are there deeper thoughts about american foreign policy and about war and what the threshold for war should be. >> when i left anbar province in 2010, what you were just showing on the screen there, chris, anbar province the murder rate was lower there in chicago. i think that the iraq that i left after covering those soldiers who were there stabilizing the place, they were pretty confident that we had -- they had succeeded in their goal.
>> they were wrong. >> because we left. >> no, because -- here's why, because the people who live in anbar are going to win in the end, right? the people who live in anbar and who want to fight for anbar will win in the end. >> but the point is they weren't fighting as long as we were there. >> how long should we stay in iraq? >> you know, we're still in jenny and italy and japan. >> 40, 50 years? >> but not as combat soldiers. to provide support to a government that has support. when the iraqi sunnis stop supporting malaki, that's when isis regained a hold. i know very well these were baathists. that's what the soldiers were worried about. that's what i went on covering. the sin in journalism is not a wrong story. it's not going back to correct a wrong story. that's what i've tried to do both in my journalism and the -- >> "the story" thank you very much.
i appreciate you coming on congressman bash ra lee will be with me when we return. elping hand. after brushing listerine® total care helps prevent cavities strengthens teeth and restores tooth enamel. it's an easy way to give listerine® total care to the total family. listerine® total care. one bottle, six benefits. power to your mouth™. and for kids starting at age six, listerine® smart rinse delivers extra cavity protection after brushing.
ining skeptical about military intervention. as you see this new report from "der spiegel" and my exchange there about what's going on in iraq, what lessons do you draw in informing the way you are thinking about conducting your role in congress as we think about the possible authorization of the use of military force, for the ongoing campaign against isis in iraq, possible intervention in other places, et cetera? >> i think what's important is first we always need to recognize that a military solution is not the only option, and give equal weight to other options and alternatives at that time, but going -- >> let me stop you there for a keck. does washington do that? is the conversation on capitol hill any less dominated by military solutions than 12 years ago?
>> i think we're building that type of critical mass on capitol hill. when you look at members of congress and the progressive caucus, the tri-caucus, black caucus and democratic caucus, and when you look at the vote authorizing force against iraq, i believe it was 132 or 133 members of congress most le democrats who voted against that authorization, but i think it's important as it recent to iraq and the weapons of mass destruction and the presentation of, quote, the intelligence data, if you remember correctly, the u.n. was conducting inspections process, and during that period i was on the foreign affairs committee when the bush administration decided to use force and go to war. i offered an amendment which of course the committee did not pass, but i took it to what we got the rules committee, and brought 9 rule to the floor. what that resolution said was, look let the inspections process continue --
>> and they were coming back and saying we're not finding anything. >> let's determine if there's weapons of mass destruction. i got that amendment to the floor. guess what? i got 72 votes for it. we need 218 just to get it passed. so i share that, because we have to remember the history that there were alternatives. we could have waited to determine whether or not the intelligence was accurate and factual. >> you're in a congress right now that said we need -- we need an authorization for use of military force, and basically as far as i can tell, no one is doing much about it, but as soon as the president strikes the preliminary deal with iran, congress is rushing to have a vote to say whether up or down. what do you make of that? >> first of all, i have to say i think the president is doing a phenomenal job in trying to make sure there are no nuclear weapons in iran and that he addresses that in the deal. and the fact we have not authorized the use of force in terms of realm once again and
what's taking place in the middle east as it relates to isis, and we need to debate and decide whether or not we're going to authorize that war that began last august. that's the contradiction and the hi pock. >> you want to say on peace and war congresswoman lee, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. good to be here it's on. many republicans, one democrat. we have it covered from all angles plus a mind-blowing admission, the fbi says the forensic examiners have been given flawed testimony to get convictions, some resulting in executions.
that's all coming up.] rate suckers! [ bell dinging ] your car insurance goes up because of their bad driving. people try all sorts of ways to get rid of them. [ driver panting ] if you're sick of paying more than your fair share... [ screams ] get snapshot from progressive, and see just how much your good driving could save you.
the next 20 months are going to be like "lord of the flies." but let me tell you something, january 2017 is coming. this weekend? new hampshire store ted cruz managed to use three distinct colorful descriptions. as described by philosopher thomas hobbs, the outbreak of savagery whether a group of boys are stranded on an island in "lord of flies." and "game of thrones" with the
comment january 2017 is coming. it isn't all that different from "game of thrones" but hopefully with a lot less bloodshed. and there can only be one survivor. considered what played out this weekend. just 200 miles or so from the wall, where 18 different presidential hopefuls gathered to make their play for the throne. for now, at least, they focus the rhetorical armies on another. >> hillary clinton will raise $2.5 billion, that's a lot of chipotle, my friends. >> this listens to her is something out of north korea. >> hillary clinton jokes will not do the job much longer. the race is expected to be perhaps the most crowded, just
like in "game of thrones" they'll eventually have to battle each other, in an environment where even the most seemingly minor missteps have the potential to be seen as a damning side of betrayal. at scott walker learned this weekend when he called america --, with the tweet of arguably the greatest? it makes a candidate long for the pleasant company of dragons. joining me is sam, michael steele, both of you gentlemen contestants in our epic fantasy draft show. >> yes. all right. before we get into substance, we're going to play a game. you guys ready? >> always. >> michael, ready? >> i'm ready i think we have 18. 18 candidates in new hampshire this weekend. i'm going to go back and forth between the two of you and see if you can name every once.
>> oh, geez, all right. >> get nervous. >> sam. >> jeb bush. >> michael. >> marco rubio. >> chris christie? >> michael? >> bob ehrlich. >> correct. give him a ding. >> sam. >> marco rubo. >> did you say that? >> all right. ted chris. >> done. michael steel? steele? >> carly forney a. >> rand paul. >> yes. >> john kasich. >> john kasich is correct. >> lindsey graham. >> you guys are going to get this. let's do it. >> let's sigh lindsey graham was the last one? >> yeah. >> scott walker. >> yes, boom. >> bolton. >> yes, the stash, michael steele -- >> let's see, bolton, scott walker, hmm -- a hint -- how about a former new york governor. >> oh, oh, yes, pataki.
>> long island congressman. >> peter king. >> boom. former texas governor. >> perry? >> yes. there's still more. >> oh, my god. how about this? >> i'll do another one. >> bobby jindal. >> yes. we've got 1, 2, 3 more. >> i know that ben carson couldn't make it. >> a man who won't run under any circumstances, but says he will. >> huckabee. >> nice, that him, too. there's another one who says -- natural laughingstock. national laughingstock. >> the donald. >> o and finally jim gilmore. go google jim gilmore. now that that's out of the way. michael, this is my favorite headline of the day. scott walker apparently is the pick of the koch brothers, who nick confessori off the record behind closed doors, they want him to be the candidate. how important is that? >> it's huge.
i've heard it from a number of circles far removed from the koch brothers that scott walker has a lot of energy. he is i think for a lot of the establishment types and conserve tills the fallback. he's the guy that is going to take care of the bush problem, with jeb, and help them sort of segue beyond, you know, the marco rubios and others who don't necessarily have the presidential gravitas at this point. he's a sitting governor. i've said this for a while and we have talked about this. i think this race changes dynamically when the republican governors get in. you've seen the lob that chris christie has thrown in on social security. you'll see these guys come from a space of governing that changes the way the candidates talk, and the donors and political class like that. >> the scott walker thing is really no surprise. i think the last time we were on together, it was the day that
the koch brothers announced they were going to dump $900 million into this election. six, eightiers, the afp and scott walker's campaign were virtually indistinguishable. in fact there's still investigations going on about that in wisconsin. this is no surprise. >> how much -- the big question to me, and we were having this debate earlier today, right? there is this sense about in the new citizens united era, you can last much deeper than you used to. the question is, have the rules changed? >> when chris christie goes out in new hampshire and he starts talking about cutting social security, but he is talking to one person in america, his name is pete peterson. he is trying to get his billionaire so he can go through the race. you have marco rubio his billionaire, this guy in florida used to sell cars. you have scott walker with his billionaire. jeb bush has his minions.
aside between the two positions impossible to run away from -- immigration and common core -- >> he's already done a backflip on that. a general overall notion of climate change. there's no ideological difference between any of this is candidates. >> that's true. >> there's more in the "game of thrones." >> that's a great idea. the space that people are trying to carve out will be identity rhetorical as opposed to substantive, though as we go down the debate process, you'll see people starting to stake out distinct positions. >> that is true true, you see where we are already before this thing takes off when you have scott walker say that the united states is blaring the greatest nation and all of a sudden people are like, they're going to parse that, you know? so this is what you're talking about. because the space, the ideological space between a jeb bush and ted chris is not as wide as a lot of people pretend
it is -- >> thank you. >> they are going to carve as hard as they can. sam is right, they start with the billionaires, because the billionaires -- it's sad we're at this point that these folks are having the conversation first with people who are going to write checks rather than with the american people who are the ones who will vote them in. >> in greek democratic theory, they always say and i'll translate from the original greek, start with your billionaire and work out. that's the old -- >> sam, michael, who are inarguably two of the greatest pundits in history. thank you both. we'll take it and go. >> exactly. it feels like the campaign season is really in full swing as hillary clinton campaigns with a baby in new hampshire. anthony weiner will be here for more 2016 talk. that's next.
believe it or not, it is only day nine of hillary clinton's 2016 presidential bid. today her van rolled into new hampshire, of course home for the first primary of the election season and where she pulled out a surprising victory during her last presidential run in 20208. today voters got more of the low-key road trip campaigning first introduced last week, a small child got carried around. initial small group gatherings and talk of actual substance. while major policy are not -- mrs. clinton talked about everything from insurance
coverage to universal pre-k to the challenges of drug abuse. the book reportedly examines donations to the clinton foundation. "new york times" which obtained a copy of the book that it asserts that -- and to mr. clinton through high speaking fees received favors from mrs. clinton's state department in return. >> the campaign says the example cited a free trade agreement for colombia and reconstruction for haiti were obama priorities, not clinton's. >> as for the candidate herself, they tried to brush off the bubbling controversy. >> well, we're back into the political season, and therefore we will be subjected to all kinds of distraction and attacks, and i'm ready for that. i know that that comes unfortunately with the territory.
>> anthony weiner, former democratic congressman, clinton supporter, married to one of hillary clinton's top aides. welcome. >> thank you. >> we'll talk about the foundation stuff in a moment. i thought this tweet was fascinating byrne yorking a good political journalist, covering the event. he said tweeting the event is boring, yes it is, but covering serious, important stuff, gonna get word of mouth. and i heard maggy saying this reminded her of the 2000 race. >> you know, i think a lot of things that people forget in all of our analysis of stuff is that you actually learn as a candidate a great deal when you go out and just talk to citizens. when you're hillary clinton, that's really hard to do. >> right. >> so i think this is really just her having a very comfortable level with citizens that she's talking to now -- >> stop there for a second. you're saying i think there's two ways to interpret this. okay, the strategy is to to show her in small environments,
humble, et cetera. you think there's some genuine desire to talk on people, because it will make you a better candidate? >> you know, every campaign has they moments where a candidate referencing something, a joe the plumber moment. >> right. >> references something as happened that struck them. we have this cynical notion, that's phony, that's someone who created this idea, in fact, as a candidate, particularly one like hillary who has been off the for so long, is a helpful process. she was the one that came up with this idea. so, you know, there's a tendency, and we do it for a living, to try to figure out the metta viewpoint that we're supposed to have. from the candidate's perspective she will get better. the citizens that are watching the conversation go on, they connect to it. >> the thing i've been thinking about is there was a "new york times" that followed jerry seinfeld, and he like will still go to the comedy cellar and do
just five minutes. if you have a comedian, the way you hone your craft is the feedback of people. if you are a politician, you cannot be a good politician in the absence of feedback with voters. >> right. the other thing is you really do learn the language that people are speaking, the way they refer to their challenges, the way they refer to the issues that are out there. you get better at it. i know there is this tendency, particularly with hillary to say she's done it all before, but let's remember something. a lot of people don't remember from 2008, don't know the story of her upbringing, don't know the story of how committed she's been on a lot of these things. not only is she getting a chance to listen to citizens talk about their concerns, but she's also saying something else. i'm taking nothing for granted in iowa, nothing for granted in new hampshire, i'm doing the very best to have this is conversations with all these cameras around, but i think it's helping her out martin
o'malley is giving some interviews, he clearly carving out a space to hillary clinton's left, at least in sort of the profile so far. you had this quote -- de blasio, kind of suedo controversy about whether he's going to endorse or hasn't, the nothing he's somehow the spokesperson that she needs to audition for is wrong, not helpful. she was work -- when bill de blasio was smoking pot or wherever he went. >> i actually didn't remember. i think bill de blasio is an excellent mayor. i'm very supportive of his policies. the thing that struck me is he's kind of like family, you know, you don't ask your family member to audition. and the other thing is, look, i think there's this mythology that hillary has somehow not been there on important progress everybody issues. the motherlode of our generation might be the fight for health
care, and she created the children health insurance program. she was the one that bears the battle scars for trying to do national health care first. i think there's another thing about this. i love bill de blasio, he defeated me, i voted for him at the end of the day, you know, i believe this mug probably has more supporters in iowa than bill de blasio does. i think frankly we want to watch the campaign unfold. i honor him for wanting to do that, but this notion of i want -- >> forget altar, though. let's talk about just for a moment foreign policy. there's a debate to be had. should we have bombed libya? hillary clinton was the secretary of state at the time we know from reporting that she was an advocate of that nato intervention, libya is a mess right now. in 9 absence of a primary, there's nowhere to go with the discussion about what the heck -- >> i think that's fair, except -- first of all hillary clearly doesn't believe there would be an action of primary.
her campaign talks about how difficult it is to win, having martin o'malley winds up running, there will be a primary. she's proceeding as if there is. she's only taking primary election money, things like that. i don't begrudge having a conversation about it. i just think on the announcement day, you know, you don't do this stuff about i want to see what she has to say. bill de blasio is going to support ir, i will supporter. i hope overwhelming numbers of democrats will vote her, but it's because she works for it. >> thank you we could all watch the oil spill in real time that bp would like you to forget. that's next. . ...if hiring plumbers, carpenters and even piano tuners were just as simple? thanks to angie's list now it is. we've made hiring anyone from a handyman to a dog-walker as simple as a few clicks. buy their services directly at angieslist.com. no more calling around. no more hassles.
stay still, like a statue! just like a statue. look here! when your day goes on and on you need 48 hour odor protection that goes on clear for no white marks. new secret outlast clear gel. forget. that's next. five years ago tonight the deepwater horizon rig, which was drilling an oil well for bp exploded. 11 workers we are killed. the rig burned for 36 hours before sinking into the water.
5,000 feet below the surface oil kept spewing from the blown-out well. live cams showed thousands gushing out for 87 days total. by the time the leak was stopped more than 3 million barrels were spilled into the gulf, the worst oil spill in u.s. history. as much as bp wants you to think it's all better, it's really not still ahead, a police encounter video that ends differently than so many others. stick around, you'll want to see it. and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? with cialis for daily use, you don't have to plan around either. it's the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. 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 symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. why pause the moment? ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. for a free 30-tablet trial go to cialis.com tomorrow at noon eastern time, i'll be doing a facebook chat at facebook.com/all in with chris. ask me anything, well, almost anything. you can ask my anything, but i don't promise to answer it. and i promise i won't tell you to like the page when you're already on the page.
that he could be armed, yet the officers exercises incredible restraint while confronting him. >> get your hands up. get your hands up! [ bleep ]. stop. stop right there. i don't want to shoot you, man. [ bleep ] don't do it, man. i'll shoot you i'll [ bleep ] shoot you. [ bleep ] shoot me! shoot me! >> get your hands out of your pocket now. >> no, man, i'm not going to do it. >> shoot me. shoot me. >> you [ bleep ] back up. [ bleep ] back the [ bleep ] up. get down on the ground.
>> officer kidder said hess family bought him a body camera after the shooting death in ferguson, missouri. he talked to the local affiliate about what was going through his head during the encounter. >> he jumped out and sprinted towards me. i had my fire democrat arm all right drawn on him. i told him to put his hands up in the air. he was screaming "shoot me" he has his arms at his side. that's the first thing i noticed. so my eyes are watching that hand right now, nothing else. >> get your hands out of pocket now. >> reporter: officer kidder kept back pedals after the suspect insisted. >> i was trying to open a dialogue. i don't want to shoot you, just get on the ground. he just kept repeating shoot me. at one point he said shoot me or i'll shoot you.
then the suspect charged. >> hi got towards my face right as i lost balance. i thought if he does attack me i'll have to use deadly force. >> just in the nick of time there's the sound of backup. >> the past several months we have shown a number of police encounter videos, often showing very disturbing behavior on the part of law enforcement. several police officers who said to me these videos often do not properly capture the difficulties of making life-and-death decisions during interactions with suspect. what this video shows is a testament to that incredibly difficult task. it could have ended easily in death, and that is a testament to officer kidder's bravery and commitment to bringing the situation to a peaceful resolution. the question is, how do we create policing nationwide that produces more peaceful outcomes?
oh, i love game night. ooh, it's a house and a car! so far, you're horrible at this, flo. yeah, no talent for drawing, flo. house! car! oh, raise the roof! no one? remember when we used to raise the roof, diane? oh, quiet, richard i'm trying to make sense of flo's terrible drawing. i'll draw the pants off that thing. oh, oh, hats on hamburgers!
years after fbi first started reviewing the flawed forensic hair analysis testimony, the bureau has formally acknowledged that before 2000, for over 20 years, almost every single examiner from the microscopic hair comparison unit gave flawed testimony at almost every single trial they participated in. according to "the washington post," of the almost 300 cases the bureau has review sod far, examiners overstated the
forensic evidence to the prosecution's benefit nearly 95% of the time. quote -- those cases including 32 people who have been sentenced to death, 14 people will ver been executed or died in prison, and reportedly the fbi few of only troubling cases for years, since 2009, five men whose trials included false testimony from exonerated. every single one of them served 20 to 30 years in prison for rape or murder. i'm joined by peter neufelt, peter, this is just a staggering thing to find out. you have this unit in the fbi. you've got local law enforcement around the country collecting hair samples, sending it to the unit, the under sending back the analysis and coming to testify in the trial. >> that's what they would do. first of all, what is hair analysis?
>> sure. what they're actually doing is, let's say they find a foreign hair lying on a deceased victim. they'll send that off to the fbi, and let's say i'm the suspect. they'll plumb a number of my head hairs and they'll send that to the fbi. they will microscopically compare the hair found on the victim with my hairs to see are they similar or not? >> and then they will send an expert to trial to say, sometimes -- >> the problem was is that sure, they may be similar, but they had no idea how many people would also have similar hair. and so -- >> they're literally sitting in a lab going this thing looks like this thing. >> they are under the microscope, but that's not the biggest problem. the biggest problem is all they could say is two people had similar hair. instead what they would say is the chances of the hair coming from anyone else are 1 in 10,000. >> based on -- >> base odd nothing. numbers taken out of the hip pocket.
>> really? that bad? >> that bad. >> other than dna where we have the vast databases there were no databases for lair at all. they did this for 25, 35 years, not only did they do it without any databases, but supervisors and management let them do it. it went unchecked. lawyers didn't catch it. prosecutors let it happen, judges didn't care. everybody in the criminal justice system was at fault. you mentioned only five people who have already been exonerated. in fact there's another 70 people who have been exonerated with hair testing given by state analysts who were trained by the fbi. >> the question is, is this a salvageable method? >> it can be used as a screen as long as you now do dna testing after you do the microscopic review to see if in fact this is a match and if it has some probative value.
>> so you've got hundreds of cases that are now tainted by this. what do you do? how do you unravel this? >> you may have thousands of case is tainted by it, okay? fortunately the fbi to their credit and the department of justice to their credit, are very serious about a duty on correct, and a duty to notify defendants and defense attorneys of this problem, and they are working hard at it, and we are grateful for that, but they haven't done enough to identify the cases. there could be several thousands more cases, but they're not in the computer database, so it's hard for them to find them. once they find them, they write letters to local prosecutors to say, hey, could you find the transcript for us? if they don't answer not much more is done in terms of follow-up. there's already 700 cases in the initial 2500 they looked at where prosecutors simply haven't responded. they can't accept that. they have to go out and get the transcripts, review them and right the wrongs. >> and they brought you guys in?
it's sort of amazing you're working together. >> we're working together, because we went to them. when there were three quick xon raise in rapid succession a few years ago in washington involving three different analyst who is testified about hair matches, we looked at the transcripts, and in every single case they grossly exaggerated the probative value of the evidence. >> so you went to the fbi and said you have a problem here? >> yes, and they acknowledged the problem, to their credit. they said will you work with us to try to fix it? >> very quickly 20 years from now, what will be the thing we look back on the way we're looking at this? are there other methods being used now -- >> there's many methods involving pattern evidence, impression evidence, trace evidence where they didn't have databases and made problemistic statements that simply had no basis in science. >> this extends -- i think there was an amazing piece about bite marks. >> we've had 20 xon raise involving bite marks.
>> peter neufeld, thank you. >> my pleasure "the rachel maddow show starts right now." >> thanks, man isis has released another new very disturbing video showing members beheading and shooting dozens of people. what's the difference about this laters video is that it compares to combine the home base in iraq and syria with new execution footage which appears to have been very shot far away in the nation of libya. terrorist groups all over the world have pledged allegiance, but it's not always been clear that there was an operational relationship between isis headquarters in iraq and syria and the far-flung groups in places like nigeria or somalia or libya or anywhere else, but in this latest propaganda film,