tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC May 29, 2015 12:00am-1:01am PDT
sounds like she's a political candidate for office. >> marilyn moseby under attack as conservatives try to score political points in baltimore. >> she appears to be a problem. >> all this as the officers charged with the death of freddie gray seek a change of venue. plus, what happened to surveillance footage from the night chicago police shot and killed a teenager? then the corruption probe into fifa widens as its president speaks out for the first time. >> we cannot allow the reputation of football and fifa to be dragged through the mud any longer. and the republican presidential field gets a little more crowded. >> this is exactly what the founding fathers feared. >> who is this man? why is he running for president? "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. dennis hastert, speaker of the house with bill clinton and
george bush has been indicted according to the "chicago tribune" on charges he agreed to pay $3.5 million in apparent hush money to a longtime acquaintance blackmailing him then lied to the fbi when asked about suspicious cash withdrawals from several banks. the indictment from the u.s. district court northern district of illinois, "during the 2010 meetings and subsequent discussions, defendant john dennis hastert agreed to provide individual a $3.5 million in order to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct against individual a." help us make sense of all this, a national political reporter for "the washington post." robert, did this come out of left field to geopoliticals as it seemed to all of us? >> i've spoke within several top republicans and former close friends of speaker hastert and they stunned. he's someone who's always kept
close counsel, who wasn't a candid figure, a colorful figure even when he was inside of the house. what's most interesting is this references in the indictment perhaps his time has a teacher at yorkville high school. >> yeah. so let's be clear on the dennis hastert bio here. this is a man who was famously high school teacher and wrestling coach, right, and every profile you ever read about him was front and center the guy was an everyman, just a small-town high school wrestling coach and teacher. the indictment says that individual a, the person that hastert was allegedly paying this money to, is someone who knew him, quote, most of his life. isn't that correct? >> correct, someone who is a longtime acquaintance. >> obviously we have no idea what denny hastert could have possibly done to individual a such that he decided to pay $3.5 million, but the mind reels at the thought of what the original infraction could have been that he would pay this.
>> the idea that it's hush money is fascinating. i spoke with a former virginia congressman, former committee friend of hastert's, and i said what was the most defining thing about hastert in the house? he said, "he was coach," that's how he thought of him, coach and teacher, a quiet man but always telling stories about his time at yorkville high school. so if there was any kind of shadow or thing from his past that haunted him, that was so key to his persona that you could see why it bothered him and why it interacted with the fbi in such a way. >> the indictment basically is on two major infractions, lying to federal investigators. at some point federal investigators got wind of this and started questioning him about why he was making these cash withdrawals, and also essentially evading currency reporting requirements. banks have to report, right, when people are taking huge amounts -- large amounts of cash out. he appears to have structured
his withdrawals to avoid that reporting requirement. >> that's right. according to the indictment, when pressed by the fbi and federal investigators about why he structured his withdrawals in this way, he said he kept the money and he did not mention any type of possible extortion attempt or any kind of donation or payment to an outside person. >> finally, tell me about his postcongressional career such that he was liquid enough to have $3.5 million sitting around. that's not a sum of money your average high school coach or even member of congress has. >> he's been a highly paid and prominent lobbyist here in washington but not a high-profile lobbyist. he's not someone who appears in a lot of news stories, doesn't do much television. for someone at his level he's kept a quiet profile. there was an investigation, however, by the "chicago tribune" in 2012 about his use
of speaker office, former speakers are provided offices and funds by the federal government. there was a question about whether he misused his office in 2012 by the "chicago tribune." that's the only blot on his political winter. >> robert costa, thank you. >> thank you. >> the longest serving speaker of the house in this nation. only losing following the democrats' takeover of congress in 2007. >> dennis hastert was an accidental speaker thrust into the limelight eight years ago in the wreckage of republican losses and other scandals. speaker newt gingrich was forced to step aside. his heir apparent confessed he had committed adultery. frantic republicans turned to a former high school teacher and wrestling coach from illinois. >> a good coach knows when to step back and let others shine in the spotlight. >> hastert's poor handling of the mark foley scandal in 2006 almost brought him down. congressman foley resigned after allegations regarding his sexually explicit messages to congressional pages.
when democrats gained control of the house in 2006, he chose not to run for minority leader. in 2007 he resigned from congress and has been working as a lobbyist since. andy shaw, former award-winning political reporter in chicago and full disclosure, my father-in-law, andy, you know denny hastert well, have covered him for a long time. your reaction to this news which seemed pretty shocking on its face. >> well, you know, chris, normally these sorts of things dribble out long before indictments, and you have scuttlebutt that so and so is under investigation for such and such. this is one of the few times in my 40 years of washington illinois politics that something has come completely out of the blue. there hadn't been an inkling of acknowledgment that anything was going on with respect to denny hastert and past transgressions. and so i agree with the previous guests that this is about as shocking as a political indictment can be. >> what was hastert's reputation
like in illinois politics? obviously illinois politics can be a bit of a cesspool. there's -- you could line up quite a perp walk of illinois politicians. what was hastert's political reputation? >> first context, chris, illinois is regarded as the third most corrupt state in the nation, chicago the most corrupt city. denny hastert comes out of what's called the illinois combine. the combine was republicans and democrats who controlled the political structure and it was a mix of business and contractors and politicians, all of whom seemed to do extraordinarily well within the political confines. remember, denny hastert spent four years in the illinois house as a representative, then a number of years in congress. and he, as speaker, was one of the key figures in the illinois combine, a combine that basically takes care of contractors and business people and politicians. so he is not stranger to the
rough and tumble and often corrupt world of illinois politics. remember, one of his closest friends, former governor george ryan, went to jail on corruption charges. there have been a number of low-level allegations over the years against denny hastert, one involving the congressional office that your previous guest referred to, another involving a land deal near his home that he profited on and even in '05 there was an allegation in a "vanity fair" article he'd been paid off by turkish interests to help them in america. so he's no stranger to controversy, but he's been low key all the time and the key is he's always been known as denny or coach. >> so i want to ask this question and i want to sort of tread carefully here because obviously we're dealing with -- i mean, the thing about this indictment that is so weird and also tantalizing, frankly, is the fact that the allegation is there was some underlying fraction, he did something to individual a, who's known him most of his life, that was so awful that hastert was then going to pay him $3.5 million.
and you have to ask what was the initial infraction. i don't want you to irresponsibly speculate, but i guess my question would be were there rumors about hastert having skeletons in the closet in the world of illinois politics in his personal life that you knew of? >> no, there never were, chris. and look, you can only try to connect the dots as best you can. in this case it feels like something that stems from his coaching years, that could easily involve a former student, because that tends to be the way these things play out, a student who for many years said nothing and then perhaps when hastert stepped down as speaker felt a little more empowered to say something or raise an issue. i'm speculating but only speculating within the world that the indictment suggests it involves. >> right. >> i don't think it involves a next-door neighbor and barbecues. but you have a wrestling coach and a football coach and former
teacher and somebody he's known all his life. that's the only place you can take this without knowing the facts. >> important point in terms of what we have from the indictment. again, allegations by the federal government, nothing proven, this man is innocent until proven guilty. the only facts we have are basically, "known most of his life," suggesting a long-standing relationship, and also that the initial meeting happens in 2010 after that congressional career is over as you noted. andy shaw -- >> and what we -- >> yes. >> what we also know is that this is a man who wanted to preserve his reputation and have his legacy be that of the longest serving republican speaker in u.s. history, certainly not having it marred by these allegations, which would explain the desire to have this go away at whatever cost. >> andy shaw, the better government association, thank you much. all right. speaking of charges, a day after over a dozen people were arrested for corruption, the head of the most powerful sports organization in the world breaks
his silence. then the gross reaction from certain right-wing quarters to baltimore prosecutor marilyn moseby. and the governor of new jersey makes a decision that smacks of 2016 politics. ♪ take me into your darkest hour ♪ ♪ and i'll never desert you ♪ ♪ i'll stand by you ♪ yeaaaah! yeah. so that's our loyalty program. you're automatically enrolled, and the longer you stay, the more rewards you get. great! oh! ♪ i'll stand by you ♪
likely presidential candidate chris christie, governor of new jersey, is abandoning common core, quite possibly because he's about to become a presidential candidate. christie denounced common core in a speech at burlington county college today saying the educational standards program that's been in place in new jersey for five years is, quote, simply not working. christie's evolution on common core began with his strong support in september 2011 saying aggressive implementation of these standards will ensure our children have an education that will serve them well in the next stages of their lives. common core has become, of course, the latest hated target of the gop base and politicians looking to court it, except for likely presidential candidate jeb bush, who himself has been attack for that support. christie's gradual move away from common core, whether authentic or not, would
certainly be opportune should he decide to seek the republican nomination.ak a pill? 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 today the city of baltimore recorded its 37th and 38th homicides in the month of may. 31-year-old woman and a little boy in second grade both found shot in the head. making this the deadliest month in baltimore in almost 20 years. since 1996, according to the "baltimore sun," the wave of violence follows widespread unrest after the death of freddie gray, who sustained fatal injuries while in police custody in april and it comes amid the sharp drop in arrests by baltimore police raising
fears of an intentional slowdown by police as payback for the protests. the horrific violence in baltimore over the last month statistically abnormal but not completely foreign to a city that has been poor and violent for a long time is now being used as a deeply cynical tool to score political points with the right trotting out very familiar and tired lines about, quote, black on black crime. it's also helping to feed the conservative backlash against baltimore state's attorney marilyn moseby accused of ulterior motives in bringing charges against the police officers involved in freddie gray's death. >> off prosecutor who acts and sounds like she's a political candidate for office, not an office involving the administration of justice but an office involving the administration of the government. >> but she is running for office and she's got an agenda. >> exactly. were i the judge in this case, i would seriously question her competence to try the case in a fair manner because her goal is not conviction. her goal is justice.
her goal is the correct outcome on the basis of the evidence. >> and justice, what she said there, was by any and all means necessary. >> that's a little threatening. >> wrong, wrong, madame. wrong. >> here's the six officers indicted in the death of freddie gray. they've filed another motion demanding moseby recuse herself in the trial because of alleged conflict of interest and also filed for change of venue arguing their clients won't get a fair and impartial trial in baltimore city limits. joining me the author of "indefensible." my first thought about this motion to change the venue was rodney king. >> yeah. >> before we talk about that precedent, because that -- on what grounds do you file these motions? on what grounds are they granted? what do you have to show a judge to get a venue change? >> you pretty much this to show a judge you can't get a fair and impartial jury. they are denied almost invariably, except like rodney king when a police officer is
involved. >> rodney king was tried in simi valley outside of los angeles. and the community there was much whiter, more affluent than the demographic composition of, say, a los angeles jury pool. and a lot of people think that was key to what ended up happening in the verdict of that trial. >> right. look, let's be clear. the venue is huge here. and in a way you can understand this motion as a parable about the failure of policing itself. you know, it's like this -- the fact that different races and different places will see this case as differently as they will tells you an enormous amount about the sort of heartbreaking legacy of stop and frisk and of the kind of policing practices that the baltimore police department has been engaged in in baltimore. >> by that you mean that the interpretation of this is going to be so dependent about where people are in terps of their own life experience, how they've interacted with the police, and
that is so much a product of the prism of race. also where you fall on the socioeconomic scale. >> not just race, but police practices. they police baltimore differently than, for example, howard county. interestingly they cite this case in their motion of -- that had to do with a civil suit against the police. and it's one of the only other ones they found a case, their venue was transferred and it was transfer in that case and guess what happened. after a woman sued because they handcuffed her 7-year-old son, they moved that howard county more white, more affluent, the jury found against the plaintiffs and for the police. >> this is in a civil suit. >> civil suit. right. >> if turn defense attorneys for the these cops you would be filing this motion absolutely, right? >> oh, absolutely. it is absolutely critical. and frankly i think there's very little chance these officers will ever face a baltimore jury.
i think it is likely that the venue motion will be granted and if it isn't i suspect they'll waive a jury. >> that's interesting. talk about that. we saw that in the cleveland case. >> we did. >> a bench trial. the judge presided over that. handed down the verdict of not guilty to the officer in the shooting of that couple that was being chased in a car. why do you think they would waive a jury? >> well, i think they've made it clear in their papers they do not believe they can get a fair trial from a jury in baltimore. they just think that the dynamics are too sort of not in their -- too against them. by the way, i don't think that they're wrong about that. and, chris, let me say this too -- i'm for changes of venue. i'm for fairness. i just wish that this doctrine meant something outside these cases. >> right. basically your frustration having worked as a defense attorney is all of a sudden things become so much -- the scales that are so tipped against the defense in all
normal circumstances, all of the things we talk about, due process, innocent until proven guilty, all these checks on overreaching of prosecution suddenly start to mean something when the people being prosecuted are the police. >> it's astonishing. what's really funny is, think about it, tsarnaev, the boston bomber -- >> a city unbelievably traumatized and terrorized by a mass murder, it was that trial. >> another one, jeff skilling in houston, denied, right? but what's really crazy is in rodney king, granted, and here's what's really funny about that whole thing, is that one of the better sentencing decisions ever to come from the united states supreme court u.s. v koonce, that's stacy koonce. >> david, thank you very much. up next, disturbing details about the surveillance video from where police shot and killed the chicago teen.
you wouldn't do half of your daily routine. so why treat your mouth any differently. brushing alone does less than half the job leaving behind millions of germs. complete the job with listerine®. kill up to 99 percent of germs. and prevent plaque early gum disease and bad breath. complete the job with listerine®. power to your mouth™! also try listerine® pocket packs to kill bad breath germs on the go.
tonight, a troubling update in the case of laquan mcdonald shot and killed by chicago police. there's a report of missing surveillance footage that may have shown moments before and after he was killed. as we reported on this show, he was shot and killed by chicago police last october. at the time of the shooting, cpd did not offer an official account but the spokesperson from the fraternal order of police union said at the time that, "the teen began walking toward pulaski road," a major street in chicago, "and ignored the officers' request to drop the knife. officers got out of their car
and began approaching mcdonald, again telling him to drop the knife. the boy allegedly lunged at police and one of the officers opened fire. mcdonald but shot in the chest. he was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital." the medical examiner's report showed the teen was not just shot once in the chest but 16 times in the chest, scalp, neck, elbow, leg, arms, happened, and back. that revelation led us at "all in" to file a foia request for police dashcam video which we heard existed of the actual shooting. cpd rejected that request saying that release would "interfere with active enforcement proceedings and create a substantial likelihood a person would be deprived of fair trial or impartial hearing." then last month a bombshell development.
the city of chicago's top lawyer went before the city council's finance committee and urged the committee to approve a $5 million settlement for the family of laquan mcdonald saying "the officer who fired all 16 shots claimed he was in fear for his life and cited the unreleased dashcam video as crucial to the city's decision to set it will case for that astonishing sum." the city council unanimously approved the $5 million settlement and that dashcam video still has not been made public. but the lawyers for the family of laquan mcdonald have seen it and one described the footage to "all in." >> the client is about 12 to 15 feet away from officers, the width of an entire lane of southbound traffic, one officer begins shooting. laquan immediately spins to the ground and the video then clearly shows that the officer continues to shoot laquan
multiple times as he lays in the street. 16 seconds pass from the time laquan hits the ground until the last visible puff of smoke rises from his torso area. an officer then approaches laquan, stands over him and appears to shout something as he kicks the knife out of his hand. >> the fbi, u.s. attorney, and the cook county state's attorney's office are all investigating now laquan mcdonald's death along with the independent police review authority known as ipra. now come revelations first reported by nbc television station in chicago that over an hour of surveillance footage from a burger king located less than 100 yards from where mcdonald was shot and killed is missing. according to his family's lawyer. listen so this. the footage would not have shown is actual shooting but may have shown mcdonald running through the burger king parking lot and witnesses in the parking lot. we spoke to a district manager for burger king. while he was not there the night
of the shooting he told us that several police officers entered that burger king after mcdonald was shot and requested to view surveillance footage. he says he authorized employees at the burger king to give police the pass word to access that footage. he says police stayed for around three hours, then left. the next day, he says, he was present when the independent police review authority, that's the chicago version of internal affair, came to the burger king and asked to view their security footage. he says they discovered a chunk of surveillance footage missing from around the time 17-year-old laquan mcdonald was shot and killed. according to a mcdonald family lawyer, 86 minutes was missing. in a statement to a nbc station in chicago, a spokesman said we have no credible evidence at this time that would cause us to believe that cpd purged or erased any surveillance video. chicago police did not respond to our request for comment. joining me, michael robbins, representing the family of laquan mcdonald.
mr. robbins, your reaction to this reporter. >> the fact that the police entered without a warrant, accessed the video with the pass word, then left, and that 86 minutes or so is missing from all 11 cameras is something that gave us a great deal of concern. now, the video would not have shown the actual shooting, but it could have shown the events leading up to the shooting and perhaps some of the witnesses during the course of the shooting and the police interaction with the witnesses following the shooting. so there is no credible explanation for why this video is missing. >> are you in contact -- this case is really kind of stunning to me, i have to say. it's something we started looking at, people we knew in chicago brought to our
attention, and the more it goes on, the more it feels to me something is not right here. are you in contact with the various law enforcement authorities that say they are investigating this? are you confident there's actually a process in place right now to investigate whether a crime was committed? >> yes. well, during the five months or so that we investigated this, during which we found out about the missing burger king video, we were able to contact or come into contact with one or more of the occurrence witnesses. we were able to -- and then we got the dashcam video and we saw that the dashcam video depicted an incident that was completely different than what was represented as having happened by the fop spokesman. so there's a couple of aspects of this that are really quite shocking. the absence of the burger king video is very difficult to understand. as i understand it, the police
claim when they arrived immediately after the shooting and accessed the system, that it was off, that it was powered off. burger king has told us it's never powered off and insofar as they know it was working. so this 86 minutes during the relevant time frame is missing and it would be an enormous coincidence if it a just happened to be powered off during this particular time frame. but in addition, the police conduct in connection with the witnesses is very troubling. there are occurrence witnesses, two of them we have spoken with, who witnessed the actual shooting itself because they became stopped in traffic at the moment when the shooting occurred, and they were within feet of the shooting and observed it from their stopped car. and immediately after the shooting the police went up to these witnesses -- these individuals who were witnesses and told them to leave or be arrested. and so these people who were motorists were ordered to leave and nobody asked hem what they'd seen let alone even their
identifications. so these witnesses were told -- i'm sorry. >> no. i just want to make sure i'm understanding this. this all happened in the middle of traffic on pulaski. there are motorists who obviously are stopped because this is happening in the middle of pulaski, multiple police cars. you're telling me there are motor vehicle drivers who are in stopped traffic who actually witnessed the shooting and are then, after a man is shot and killed by police, instructed by police to leave the scene without any information collected or interviews conducted with them. >> that's correct. or be arrested. now, as it turns out -- and these were motorists because as this developed, many police were on the scene, arriving the scene, and traffic was to stopped on this busy four-lane street, this commercial boulevard. immediately after the shooting witnesses were told to leave. what happened in connection with one of them is this individual, who was there with his son and witnessed this fatal shooting, heard what the fop spokesman said had happened and with his
own eyes saw that was not true, after a great deal of searching his conscience, he came forward and presented himself to ipra, the independent review police authority, and gave them a statement to tell them what actually had occurred. >> michael robbins, we're staying on this case, filing an appeal of the rejection of our foia. we will stay with this. thank you for joining me. really appreciate it. all right. the president of world soccer's governing body, fifa's sepp blatter is defying calls to step down amid allegations of widespread bribery and corruption in his organization. why does a prominent world leader have his back?
thin minority, like in society, but like in society they must be catched and held responsible for their actions. >> sepp blatter, the embattled president of world soccer's notorious governing body, fifa, spoke today for the first time since yesterday's shocking indictment of top fifa officials by the u.s. department of justice, which alleges widespread corruption within the multibillion-dollar organization. >> we will cooperate with authorities to make sure anyone involved in wrongdoing from top to bottom is discovered and punished. >> blatter, who's ruled over fifa for 17 years and faces a re-election vote tomorrow, is defying calls to step down as pressure builds to reopen the bidding process for both the 2018 and 2022 world cup, which fifa awarded to russia and the tiny oil-rich nation of qatar respectively amid allegations of rampant bribery. the situation is extraordinarily
grim in qatar where migrant workers are building world cup stadiums in slave labor conditions with hundreds, perhaps thousands dying in the process already. with investigations continuing in the u.s. and switzerland, many wonder if batter would be charged. and while that would be welcome news from longtime critics it would be an outrage for one of his allies, russian president vladimir putin, which suggested the prosecution is part of the u.s. plot to keep russia from hosting a world cup. joining me, a man who knows a lot about who can and be not be prosecuted in the u.s. you've done corruption cases. first, just to talk about this corruption case, it seems so strange when i saw it. everyone thought, well, that's great because we have all thought fifa is construct and it seems like there's good evidence there are. how does the u.s. do this?
what's the jurisdiction here that allows the u.s. to bring this case? >> so fifa is an umbrella organization over confederations in different continents and a lot of the charges in the indictment here relate to the confederation for north america, central america, the caribbean. they were using banks in the u.s., offs in the u.s., wire transfers here, more than enough reason for jurisdiction. this was not just an allegation of bribery and money laundering in connection with the world cup. there are other tournaments sponsored by fifa confederation, the gold cup, the north american confederation's premier event, there are allegations of bribery, money laundering that spread to different confederations around the world. so the u.s. has more than enough jurisdiction. but the remarkable thing about this case is that it's multigenerational. and i have to disagree with president blatter saying this is trying times, unique circumstances. read the indictment, this has been going on for decades. people come and go and the corruption stays.
>> that seems like a segue to our great state of new york here. there's been a raft of indictments, the fifth straight senate majority leader has been indicted, five in a row, denny hastert in illinois where they have a long line. how do you go about building and making corruption cases and do they do any good? that's the real question, right? maybe -- so maybe these guys get prosecuted at fifa or you get someone in new york state, you know, majority leader, but it seems like these institutions are very, very, very hard to change. >> i think that's a very important point. it's clear when the attorney general and the acting u.s. attorney and others announced this, they clearly had their eye on this ball, as we do in investigating corruption in new york. catching bad guys is good. the goal has to be reformed. it has to be changing systems and conduct so that there aren't more bad guys to catch.
i've come out with comprehensive ethics reform proposals in connection with cases we bring to send the message. there are only two paths for it. either you have more indictments and further erosion of public confidence. in new york now 90% of those polled say corruption is a serious problem. i'm not sure how much -- how higher it has to go before people take action. the goal is not just to continue the prosecutions, but path one is more prosecutions. path two is real reform. same thing will go on in soccer and it's clear that the u.s. attorney's office has their eye on that ball. their goal is not just to fin wish these indictments, catch more bad guys but to give what they called a fresh start. >> there's an interesting political role you play as a prominent law enforcement official, particularly a u.s. attorney or attorney general like yourself or a state or for the national attorney general, which is that, you know, you're an impartial arbiter of justice but you're also a politician, right, in your case you're elected, loretta lynch is appointed. what was your read on here was
this woman introducing herself in the u.s. with her first big case, right, and it's not a terrorism case, it's not a bank case, right, it's an international soccer organization. she couldn't control that because it started ahead of time, but it was a sort of remarkable way to introduce herself to the u.s. going after these bad guys, alleged bad guys, than most americans who have no idea who they are. >> no, but this is clearly a case that she was pursuing in her capacity -- >> it came out of her office. >> it was the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york. i have to say to undertake an investigation like this where you go back decades and you have to get cooperating witnesses and you have to get wire transfers and records, it was an extraordinarily complex conspiracy including dozens and dozens of people -- >> alleged conspiracy. >> yes. all of these are allegations. but the quality of the work that goes into a case like this or into the cases that have been brought against public officials in new york state, you really have to get -- really have to
surround those you're accusing of corruption with cooperating witnesses and documentary evidence. i think this case sends a message that is a powerful message for new attorney general, which is that she's prepared to go not just after individual malefactors but after the much harder cases of endemic corruption and big institutions and whether it is a bank or it is a nonprofit or it is a government, it's the same sort of complex conspiracy that a lot of prosecutors have shied away from in the past and they're not doing that anymore. >> that's an excellent point and something to look at as we go forward. thank you. yet another republican has entered the presidential race, though you shouldn't feel bad if you only have a vague idea of who he is. the insanely huge field next.
boy: once upon a time, there was a nice house that lived with a family. one day, it started to rain and rain. water got inside and ruined everybody's everythings. the house thought she let the family down. but the family just didn't think a flood could ever happen. the reality is floods do happen. protect what matters. get flood insurance. visit floodsmart.gov/flood to learn more.
in just this one moment, your baby is getting even more than clean. the scent, the lather, even the tiny bubbles of a johnson's® bath are helping to enhance the experience. the touch of your hands is stimulating her senses. nurturing her mind. and helping her development. so why just clean your baby when you can give her... so much more™? johnson's®. so much more™.
we're here in exeter, new hampshire, birthplace of the republican party, abraham lincoln's party, who saved the union and who brought the promise of freedom to all americans. teddy roosevelt's party, who fought for the square deal so that the rich and powerful couldn't limit the freedom of working americans. and ronald reagan's party, who restored americans' belief in ourselves and in the transcendent value of freedom. it is to preserve and protect that freedom that this morning announce i am a candidate for the republican nomination for president of the united states. >> former new york governor george pataki is officially running for president. and there are a lot of reasons why his entry into the race is being met with let's call it skepticism by political observers. for my money, the number-one reason he's not going to be the gop nominee is this -- he is
pro-choice. he is a republican who supports abortion rights. in 1999 he went so far as to call on the republican party to change its platform and get rid of language calling for a ban. but in the year 2015 it is simply not possible in any way, shape, or form for the republican no, ma'am fee for president to be a perp who supports abortion rights. it will not happen, cannot happen. a cbs poll in march found that 75% of republicans think abortion should be banned or more strictly limited. these people are not going to nominate a pro-choice candidate, so you have to ask the question, why is george pataki running for president? there are now eight republican candidates officially running with another seven potential on deck. it's going to be a historically large field. what is going on? why is this crowded republican field so large? we'll try to answer that question next.
i'll draw the pants off that thing. oh, oh, hats on hamburgers! dancing! drive-in movie theater! home and auto. lamp! squares. stupid, dumb. lines. [ alarm rings ] no! home and auto bundle from progressive. saves you money. yay, game night, so much fun. joining me now, jess mcintosh, vice president of communications for emily's list and sam seder, msnbc contributor. let's start with -- let me just start with a disclaimer here. i think it's great people are running for president. there's a certain kind of weird undercurrent to some of this coverage, like why are these people running for president? run for president. it's a free country. i wish more people ran for office. i wish we had 15 candidates on the democratic side. that's great. i'm not hating and i'm not judging. that said, why is george pataki running for president? sam. >> i don't know. to be honest with you, i don't know.
there used to be a time where we had this premise that to run for president was a very difficult thing to, do it was very hard on your family, there's a lot of downside, and i think frankly, particularly on the republican side, i've said this, there's very little downside, and particularly there becomes even less downside the more people that enter the race. so george pataki, when he ends up getting no more than 1% -- >> doesn't matter because other people will too, because it won't be an embarrassment. >> 15 guys. >> this is important. you said this before, the more that enter the more the downside diminish, ergo, the more people enter after that. if he's in, i'm in. if he's going to get 1%, i can be better than that. what you yao never know in politics what way the winds blow. rick santorum, jess, this i think is part of what's driving this, my grand theory of why this feel is so big, rick santorum didn't have a thriving
political career, i would say it's fair to say. heed been out of politics when he ran in 2012. he did surprisingly well. >> came in second. >> he came in second. it probably revived his political career, people want to hear from him. >> and everybody's like if that guy came in second then i should at least give it a shot. remember when it was mitt and rick at the end and everybody was like why did tim pawlenty drop out? this would have been his moment monopoly. >> right. >> nobody wants to be tim pawlenty this year, so now we have george pataki running for president. i don't think it's going to be the pro-choice thing that's ultimately his down first of all. i think it's going to be the boring thing. >> yeah, well, but, yes, he's not a particularly super charismatic public speaker i think it's fair to say. >> he was my governor for 12 years and i forget his name all the time. >> subdued.
>> i think it's not just -- i think it's less that there's a chance i could win, although, you know, there is a chance, i mean, you know, no one in the republican race now has more than ten points, you know, so there's only ten points that separate number one and number 16 or 17 or wherever we're at at this point. but the bottom line is this is going to help pataki at the end of this, he's going to be able to get a job as a commentator, may be sitting next to me next time we show up in a year. and there's value in it. i mean, i think every one of these guys realize there's value in it. herman cain has a radio show. he may not have needed the money but he wanted that type of celebrity and he has it. >> the other big thing to me is the debate stage is a big deal. if you can get on the stage, there will be tens of millions of people watching those debates. you can have a real effect if there's issues you're passionate about. jess, i don't know, like if -- to come back to the choice
question, i think there's a lot of reasons george pataki will not be the nominee before you get to that, but do you agree with me that's just a disqualifier? essentially impossible. >> yeah. i mean, george pataki is pro-choice like a republican can be. he once endorsed the idea of making late-term abortion a felony even if the woman needed it in order to survive. but compared to this field where you have scott walker today sign an abortion ban with no exemption for rape and incest, rick santorum, who thinks contraception is abortion and should also be wrong and jeb bush who intervened as goff november to force a disabled underage rape victim to carry her baby to term, these guys are a completely new breed of republican when it comes to choice. and george pataki actually can distinguish himself that way. i just can't imagine he would want to. the huge problem, they alienate women who ought to be their supporters with these hard line doctrinarian advances and can't get out of it.
>> there's been a sorting process. democrats could never nominate anti-abortion candidate and the republicans could never nominate a choice candidate. >> in 2004 there was a little bit of talk about how the democrats should soften their portion on abortion. hillary clinton was part of that, of that movement. >> i think that's gone. >> that's gone. >> i think that's very gone. >> very much gone. let me get back to a guy like pataki. a guy like pataki, he could stick around far lot longer than anybody anticipated because we've said this before, too, if i'm pete peterson and chris christie is not going to carry my message of cutting entitlement, i'm just going to pay for pataki. >> stick around. thank you both. that is "all in" for this evening. the "rachel maddow show" starts now. >> good evening. thanks, my friend. thanks for joining us at this hour. this is kind of an amazing story.
historically speaking one of the things that will always be awkward about the bill clinton impeachment era is that newt gingrich, who was speaker of the house at the time of the clinton impeachment, right, leading the impeachment crusade against president clinton because of president clinton's extramarital affair, newt gingrich later had to admit that at that time that he was leading that crusade against president clinton because of the president's affair, he, too, newt gingrich, he was also himself having an extramarital affair at that time. one of several as it turns out. that is like the, you know, neon glowing hypocrisy asterisk that will always float over that particular and particularly weird time in american political history. you know what, newt gingrich was not the only one. in 1998, in the middle of the whole clinton impeachment