tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC November 6, 2015 12:00am-1:01am PST
tonight on "all in" -- >> as relates to dick cheney, he served my brother well as vice president. >> jeb bush is pressed on his brother's legacy after his father blasts dick cheney and donald rumsfeld. >> i think my dad like a lot of people that love george want to try to create a different narrative perhaps. then marco rubio under the microscope. >> for years i've heard about marco and his credit cards. >> as fellow republicans dig into his past. >> i've recognized in hindsight i would do it different to avoid all this confusion. plus, senator elizabeth warren joins me and shares what troubles her about marco rubio. and i'll speak with a former police officer about what quentin tarantino said on this show last night. >> we want justice. stop shooting unarmed people. but they don't want to deal with that. >> when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. breaking news tonight.
the line-up for next tuesday's republican presidential debate was announced just a short time ago, and the big news is that new jersey governor chris christie has fallen off the main stage. eight candidates made that main stage by pulling above 2 1/2% in four recent national polls. john kasich, jeb bush, marco rubio. front-runners donald trump and ben carson, who will be center stage based on their poll numbers. ted cruz, carly fiorina, and rand paul. christie, once seen as a strong contender, even a front-runner for the nomination, will be relegated to the undercard debate earlier in the evening along with the other candidates polling between 1% and 2 1/2%. mike huckabee, who like christie was on the main stage in the last debate along with rick santorum and bobby jindal. in a humiliating turn lindsey graham and george pataki did not even have enough support to make it into the undercard debate. as for one-time front-runner jeb bush, he did make that main stage but not by all that much. bush is polling at 4% in the two most recent national polls, and
he's trailing both trump and carson by nearly 20 points. today as he has throughout his struggling campaign bush once again had to reckon with the legacy of his famous name. a new biography of the former president george h.w. bush, now 91 years old and fighting a form of parkinson's disease, reveals some amazing details including that bush privately referred to his 1988 democratic presidential opponent michael dukakis as "midget nerd." but the bigger muse was bush's scathing comments to biographer john meacham about former vice president dick cheney and former defense secretary donald rumsfeld, two of the key figures in his son george w. bush's administration. cheney built his own empire and asserted too much hard-line influence within george w. bush's white house according to george h.w. bush. while rumsfeld "served the president badly and was an arrogant fellow who wouldn't listen to others." in the book george h.w. bush also criticizes his son, george w. bush, for at times using overly aggressive language as president including when he
coined the term "axis of evil." in a statement responding to the revelations w. bush stood by cheney and rumsfeld while cheney told fox news he took george h.w. bush's criticism that he became too hawkish as a compliment. >> i took it as a mark of pride. i think a lot of people believed then and still believe to this day that i was aggressive in defending -- in carrying out what i thought were the right policies. >> rumsfeld, meanwhile, hit back with a pointed comment about the former president's age, telling nbc news in a statement, "bush 41 is getting up in years and misjudges bush 43, who i found made his own decisions." and as for that other bush, the one currently trying to turn his presidential campaign around, earlier today he sat down for an interview with msnbc political correspondent kaci hunt, who asked jeb bush how cheney and rumsfeld affected his brother's administration.
>> my brother's a big boy. his administration was shaped by his thinking, his reaction to the attack on 9/11. i think my dad, like a lot of people that love george, want to try to create a different narrative perhaps just because that's natural to do, right? as relates to dick cheney, he served my brother well as vice president, and he served my dad extraordinarily well as secretary of defense. the context changes. we've got to get beyond i think this feeling that somehow 1991 is the same as 2001, which is the same as 2017. it isn't. the world has changed. it always changes. and the context changes as relates to foreign policy and everything else. so looking forward, i think there are lessons to be learned from both those presidencies and the presidencies of ronald reagan and bill clinton. >> join egg m now, colonel lawrence wilkerson, who was chief of staff to colin powell when colin powell was secretary of state under george w. bush, who's now visiting professor at the college of william & mary.
colonel, you know all the principal players involved in this. your reaction to this. >> i loved what dick cheney said. "lots of people" unquote think he did a good job and so forth. i'll tell dick cheney how many of those people think he did a good job. the 11% in this country who are certifiably nuts. that's who thinks he did a good job. >> do you get a sense back when you were in this administration? i think there was a little bit of a sense. i remember brent scowcroft who'd been an adviser to george w. bush wrote a famous op-ed in the run-up to iraq saying it was a bad idea. many people saw that as essentially a kind of open negotiation from w.'s to him that this was a mistake. was that the sense you had moving in these circles? >> yeah, we all knew that brent and h.w. were very, very close, probably as close as any two men can be in these kinds of high-level circumstances.
so if brent was going to say something and he had held his fire for a long time, i have to think that he talked to h.w. before he did it. this is -- chris, this was in my view the best presidential administration since eisenhower. you can disagree with the policies they created. but in terms of collaboration, cooperation, the cabinet, the team that surrounded h.w. bush and mostly because h.w. bush was the most experienced man to come into the white house since eisenhower, was exceptional. so when you compare his rather exceptional administration to the one of his son which i think is going to go down in history as the worst in the post-world war ii era up to this time, it's a stark comparison. >> it's a real question about where this leaves jeb bush, of course, who is in this kind of shakespearean fashion been both blessed and cursed by that name, which is kind of his fate and also his burden to carry around.
they announced a bunch of foreign policy advisers when they rolled out their campaign initially, and it was a lot of people from both his father and his brother. >> this is disturbing to me because of all the republican candidates the only one that i thought had the gravitas and the acumen to really bring it into the white house and maybe be a halfway decent president even if he were a third bush, which says something about our process that we can't find anything but clintons or bushes to run for president. and now i think he's pretty much done himself in. i don't think he's a viable candidate anymore. i could be wrong. we've got a long way to go. but i just see the whole apparatus of my political party self-destructing even as i watch it. the "london times" called it a freak show. others have called it a circus.
i think most americans are probably either turning them off or watching them for entertainment or very frankly are embarrassed by them. and jeb bush has just not seemed to be able to call out of that entertainment network and make himself a valid and a solid candidate. >> it's also true that george h.w. bush is as much a personification of the republican establishment as could possibly exist. obviously, his father was a senator. he comes from a long line of wealthy affluent successful businessmen and sort of movers and shakers. are we watching the stake being driven through the heart of the republican establishment right now? >> i think you may be right. i've said that before with some caution. i'm no longer saying it with caution. i think the republican party is destroying itself, at least in the sense of eisenhower, go all the way back to lincoln. the kind of people like nelson rockefeller and so forth.
i was just out west and found a group of young republicans who were truly irritated and frustrated about what's going on in washington. so i think there is a 30 to 40-year-old element out there, male and female, that sees what's happening and would like to recapture the party, open the tent, invite women, hispanics and others in, but they don't know how to get around this leadership we have in washington right now. all of it. whether it be the ultra right leadership represented by the tea party or the leadership that seems to have abandoned the republican party represented by people like john boehner. you're right. it's a suicidal party right now. >> all right. colonel lawrence wilkerson, thank you very much. >> thanks for having me. >> joining me now to discuss the state of the race and the fallout from tonight's gop debate announcement republican strategist katie packer who was deputy campaign manager for mitt romney's 2012 presidential campaign and msnbc contributor sam seder, host of "the majority report." katie, let me start with you. what does it say that someone like lindsey graham, sitting
senator, elected numerous times from his state of south carolina, a fairly prominent politician, is not just going to be on the undercard debate, will not be debating, is relegated to essentially also-ran status? >> well, it's a very, very tough thing for senator graham, and he certainly is somebody that has served his state and served his party very effectively. but the fact of the matter is that politics isn't the same thing when you're running for u.s. senate as it is when you're running for president. there is a political component to this, and there's some talent and some skill that comes when you're campaigning in iowa, campaigning in new hampshire. and that's how this process works, that you have to sort of winnow the field at some point. and it's no disrespect to lindsey graham, but people are make different choices. >> sam, it's struck me, we've ended up in kind of a winnowing process as katie just said that no one actually designed. right? what happened was a ton of people ran for president. there was a bunch of debates.
networks cannot run debates with 16 people. right? >> right. >> so they have to make some decisions. the decisions started getting made around national polling averages, which seems like a totally decent way of doing it. >> yeah. >> but now you've got this situation where you're running in this totally different set of rules. right? because rather than trying to glad-hand your way through iowa you need national polling numbers to get on the debates. 24 million people are going to watch. to then drive for coverage. and so people are competing in a game that was not the game they got into when it started. >> yeah, i think that's true to a certain extent. i mean, because i think there's a lot of those 16 or 17 where we started out who really didn't think that they were going to be president. i think for lindsey graham i think he's got to be sort of shocked that he's sort of fallen out of even like maybe making a case for vice president. you know, after the last debate cnbc was basically putting him on their shoulders and saying that he was the victor of that debate. and he had been going on with a very clear narrow message.
i have to say that there's one thing that lindsey graham did is he made it very clear what he wanted. >> yep. >> he wanted a ground war in syria in addition to iraq and perhaps anywhere else we could go. and that was -- i mean, when you can't reach 1% i think it's pretty clear that message was rejected by any calculation whatsoever. >> katie, i think that's a fair point. graham was running almost more than any other candidate-e was running on a very specific, substantive, particularly foreign policy platform that has not appeared to gain much traction with republican primary voters. >> well, i'm not sure that it's even fair to say that there was an actual analysis of what his message was. he didn't raise enough money to have a team, to have real organization, to -- you know, to have television ads up. so i think that it would be very, very hard for most republican primary voters to articulate what lindsey graham's message was other than he's very hawkish on foreign policy, which is sort of his lane.
but that's what happens in this process su do start to winnow the field and the candidates who aren't raising money, aren't gathering support out in the field, aren't showing up in the early state polls or the national polls, eventually they do have to drop out and allow for the other candidates to emerge. >> i'm sorry. i mean, if there's one candidate in this entire race who has had a very clear message, i mean, it's lindsey graham. i did ask him a question about abortion -- >> that's true. but it doesn't mean it was heard just because he has it. >> if it wasn't heard then that sort of prompts the question what exactly -- if lindsey graham is not getting heard, this gets to the deeper issue, which is what is the issue that people are associating with a given candidate at this point? i mean, really. >> well, nobody's associating anything with anybody. all the networks cover donald trump pretty much all the time. so the been very hard for any candidates to articulate -- >> but not ben carson. >> until carson started to emerge. but you really haven't seen much from anybody in the last three months except for trump. >> but carson's an interesting
-- there's two theories on donald trump. theory a, media creation essentially in a kind of like compulsive affect of cable news, they kept covering him and he rose to prominence. theory b, organic support for what the man stands for among the republican base. the ben carson thing because he was able to burst through without the kind of obsessive coverage would seem to be a point in favor of the theory b, which is what i take it your position is. >> yeah. and i wouldn't even say the theory b -- >> because -- >> -- is about his positions as much as personality. one thing that's clear right now is that the carson voters and trump voters, they're distinct in the republican party. there's not the huge overlap that everybody presumed there was. >> absolutely. >> we're watching what happened to mitt romney in terms of trump where you had mitt romney was in the teens and 20s throughout the year before the primary and occasionally people would rise and this and that. >> but woe stay steady. >> he would stay steady in those teens and maybe early 20s. trump i think it's quite clear,
and frankly you and i talked about this on the day he announced. his personality is such that it attracts republican voters. and i think it's the same with carson but for maybe more theological reasons. >> katie, sam made a point think think is important. people talk a lot about okay, go back to where we were in 2011 and herman cain was winning or go back to 2007, rudy giuliani. but if you want to make the comparison one thing about mitt romney, he never fell in the way jeb bush has. mitt romney may have been supplanted by these flavors of the month and newt gingrich had a run in front but romney's support was fairly consistent as other people were taking a turn leader of the pack as opposed to jeb bush who really has lost support. >> and the other thing that was consistent with mitt is he was always leading in new hampshire. he always sort of had new hampshire going for him. but i do think it's a little unfair to compare the two years. they're totally different cycles, totally different cast of characters, and one thing that's really different about trump that people fail to take into account is that he is a known quantity. there's not a lot of new information about him left to be
known. >> that is true. all the dirty laundry has been aired about donald trump. katie packer, sam seder, thank you p both. >> thank you. >> still ahead, as marco rubio goes up in the polls he goes under the microscope. i'll k. senator elizabeth warren about the rubio story everyone's talking about today and about her new bill to help seniors. plus, what a former baltimore police officer has to say about quentin tarantino's interview on our show right here last night. and later all talk with "lord of the rings" actor viggo mortensen about the pitfalls of being a public figure with opinions. these stories and more ahead.
if you happen to be cruising around these eight cities tomorrow and listening to what advertisers like to call urban radio, well, then there's a chance you might hear a little bit of this. ♪ ben carson, 2016 ♪ vote and support ben carson ♪ for our next president would be awesome ♪ ♪ if we want to get america back on track ♪ ♪ we got to vote ben carson, matter of fact ♪ ♪ go out and vote
senator marco rubio filed his papers for the primary in new hampshire. a state where he's seen a significant bum np his polling fortunes since the last debate. a 9% bump since september. and for an interesting indication of which way the winds are blowing along the republican establishment 538 points out that in contrast to bush's three endorsements since labor day rubio has received 22, by far the most of any republican candidate over that
span. at the same time rubio is also getting a taste of what it's like when the establishment starts rallying around you. he's coming under increased scrutiny on immigration on fellow candidates and big names in conservative media who are pointing to a bill rubio co-sponsored two years ago that included a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and although he's since ruled out supporting a path to citizenship during his presidency he's going even further to please the immigration restrictionist wing of the party now saying he's committed to getting rid of daca, that's the president's executive action that protects undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children from deportation. >> daca's going to end and the ideal way for it to end is it's replaced by a reform system that creates an alternative. but if it doesn't it will end. it cannot be the permanent policy of the united states. >> it's not just his stance on immigration that's getting careful examination. rubio is facing renewed scrutiny over his personal finances including liquidating a retirement fund prematurely and paying penalties as well as questions about his use of a republican party credit card for personal expenditures.
as a florida legislator rubio charged $10,000 to the republican party for a vacation which he later said was a mistake by his travel agent and he repaid. he will release his credit card history in the next few weeks. joining me, josh barro, correspondent for the "new york times" and msnbc contributor. two things. two lanes. the sort of rubio's personal finances are a mess. that's not me saying that. that's his opponents saying and what some of the reporting has indicated. then there's did he misuse this credit card which strikes me as a more legitimate issue. what do you think about the first bucket of issues about his personal finances? >> i think this is not a potent issue against him because i think he has a perfect response, which is i wasn't born with hundreds of millions of dollars and i've had financial struggles like normal people and you know, it's a little bit rich for people with last names like bush and trump to criticize me. >> and they will. one of the things that's been interesting is trump clearly thinks this is -- this sort of fiscal recklessness or whatever
you want to call it, again, i don't want to characterize it because i don't think it's that big a deal-s a potent issue. >> this is the uniqueness of trump. trump is shameless. that's why he can do this. and the shamelessness is part of his brand. trump will almost literally say i'm rich, i'm so rich i should be president because i'm so rich and my richness is a reflection of how awesome i am. >> what's wrong with you not being rich? >> yeah. marco rubio wouldn't have had to do this if he were good enough to be rich like me. other people can't really make that argument. and so the sort of subtle things where people insinuate like oh, he did this early withdrawal, isn't that weird? yeah, it's a little weird. but a, a lot of people do early withdrawals from i.r.a. accounts even though they often probably shouldn't. >> look at the financial crisis. people were liquidating left and right. >> and they did it because they had to. because normal people who are not rich have financial problems in their lives. so even -- yeah, maybe he could have managed his finances better but a lost of people maybe could have managed their finances better. >> then the gop credit card strikes me as a notch up in possible importance because at
least -- in personal finances that just speaks to whatever you think of his management character and his own personal financial situation. the use of this party credit card at least there's some whiff of something. >> maybe. except there's been no suggestion that he ever tried to -- >> exactly. >> and i think people need to understand there are two kinds of corporate credit cards. there's like a purchasing card where the card really belongs to the company, you charge stuff, the bill goes to them and they pay for it. there are a lot of these corporate cards that are really -- they're either technically your own credit card or they're shared liability. where the bill actually comes to you and then you have to submit the expenses to your employer if you want them to pay them. that's the kind of card that rubio had. >> good point. >> so there's charges on it but there's been no suggestion he ever filed paperwork trying to get the republican party of florida to actually reimburse him for this charge. >> that's a good point. >> that would be a scandal. >> yes, exactly. if he was like oh, i tried to bilk them for $10,000 for a vacation that would be a problem. but there's no evidence of that. >> right. and it's probably against the rules of use on the card to put
a variety of public officials are now weighing in on the speculation that it was a bomb that took down the russian plane over the sinai peninsula on saturday, killing 224 people, and the possibility that isis or an isis-affiliated group was behind the possible bomb. in an interview with a seattle radio station president barack obama was very careful when asked if he thought there had been a bomb on board.
>> i don't think we know yet. you know, whenever you've got a plane crash, first of all you've got the tragedy, you've got the making sure that there's an investigation on site. i think there is a possibility that there was a bomb on board, and we're taking that very seriously. >> the president added the u.s. will spend a lot of time listening to investigators and u.s. intelligence before making any definitive pronouncements about whether it was a bomb or mechanical failure that caused the crash. this echoes other notes of caution today from a ranking member of the house intelligence committee, adam schiff, from the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, richard burr, republican of north carolina. senator burr saying, "the fact that some unknown government source has said it's this, i can tell you, i mean, we can't nail it down to one thing and i dare say i think we've got more information than the british do, so i think they've walked a little further out on the limb." now, britain has taken the lead in suggesting the likelihood of a bomb on that plane but flights between britain and the sinai
peninsula are expected to resume tomorrow following an agreement on additional security. russian officials and egyptian officials are pushing back on the bomb theory. the u.s. does not fly to and from the sinai peninsula, but the department of homeland security is considering enhanced security for overseas flights from certain countries.
for 15 million americans social security is all that stands between them and poverty. but not one of these americans, not one will see an extra dollar next year. >> couple weeks ago the social security administration quietly announced an across-the-board benefits raise in 2016. for just the third time in four decades beneficiaries won't be getting an annual cost of living adjustment, or cola. according to the government, inflation was near zero over the last year thanks in large part to dramatically falling gas prices. but for many senior citizens who are affected more by rising health care costs than by low gas prices, freezing social
security benefits is a very big deal. now, one lawmaker has a plan to give beneficiaries a one-time bump to get them through the next year. i spoke with senator elizabeth warren, democrat from massachusetts, about the bill she proposed today. >> for 70 million americans who count on social security, who count on veterans' benefits, who count on disability benefits and others that are all related to each other, they're going to get nothing this year by way of an increase if we don't make some changes. but for 350 ceos in the largest corporations of america they just got a raise basically of about 3.9%. and that's a lot of money because their base rate is already over $16 million on average. now, why is this relevant? if both of those are related to federal policies. the first one as you rightly
identify has to do with how the federal government identified cola and set up the calculations. and the short answer there is it's based on about a quarter of the population. it's not targeted to the seniors who actually are depending on social security. and as a result not a very good reflection of their expenses. but the other one, the ceos, they've got their 3.9%, is also the consequence in part of some federal rules. there it's the rule that says corporations can decide how much to pay their ceos and that's fine. but when they do it, the taxpayers are forced to make a subsidy to that. there's a giant tax loophole that permits corporations to be able to deduct a substantial portion of what they're giving to these ceos. so here's what my bill says. it says why don't we stitch up that loophole and take exactly that same money, we're not going to run up the deficit or
anything, just take exactly that money where right now taxpayers are subsidizing ceos, how about if we take that money and make a one-time payment to the social security recipients and the vets, make a one-time payment to make up for the fact that they're not getting a cost of living this year? we've got the money. >> this -- >> how we want to spend it. >> here's my question to you. this sounds like a good idea as policy goes. but you've got a minority in the senate. the author of the ryan budget which just a few years back the first iteration of it wanted to essentially privatize medicare is now the speaker of the house. have you had any interest from republicans on any of this? is this a doable, accomplishable thing with the current congress? >> so let me point out that republicans have criticized this particular loophole already, which is really interesting.
senator grassley has gone after it. senator mccain partnered up with senator levin a couple of years ago to eliminate this loophole. and the republicans in the house, in 2014, said a big part of what they were doing in their whole tax reform passage -- package included stitching up this loophole. so look, here's the deal. we know how to do this. we know where the money is. nobody wants to defend this loophole. what we need is we just need the momentum to get this done. and what that means is we need people all across this country to be saying i want this change. instead of subsidizing ceo pay, i want that very same money to be used for people who are living on social security and veterans' benefits and disability benefits. same money.
don't run up the deficit. besides that is an extra bonus, i want to help strengthen social security over the long run. that makes so much sense. we just need to get out there and get it done. by the way, i should say, i'm organizing people at elizabethwarren.com to try to get folks to sign on and to tell senators and congressmen all across this country make this change, this shouldn't be partisan, everybody jump on, let's make the change. >> senator, let me ask you this question. you wrote a great book called "the two-income trap" before you were senator, and it's about the struggles that two-income families, middle-class families face in terms of mounting debt, and i was curious to get your opinion. your colleague marco rubio has been getting a lot of attention. he's obviously running for president. a lot of people have been pak paying attention to his personal finances, debt he ran up, student debt, whether it was responsible or not. and i was curious what your thoughts were on this line of critique, inquiry on this colleague, particularly because it seems to pertain so closely to something you've been
studying and thinking about for so long. >> you know, what's interesting to me about it is what do you take away from it? you know, it's tough out there. it's tough for people trying to get an education. it's tough for people trying to start out in life. so what do you take away from that? what i want to -- what i think are the right takeaways are that we need to do more to invest in young people who are trying to get an education. that we need to do more to raise wages around this country. we need to do more to protect people who are on social security. what troubles me about marco rubio is for him to live firsthand some of the squeeze on a lot of americans across this country and to take away the message that government should still run for those at the top, that we need to recapture our government and we need to recapture it so it works not
just for those at the top, not just for millionaires and billionaires and those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers. we need to make it work for americans, for everybody. >> elizabeth warren, senator from massachusetts. thanks for your time. >> thank you. >> still ahead, i'll talk to a former police officer to get his reaction to quentin tarantino's remarks on our show last night. stay with us.
they say a u.s. warplane shot people who were trying to flee the burning hospital after the initial attack. >> patients that couldn't move burned in their beds. the shrapnel amputated legs of doctors and nurses and even one of our staff was decapitated. and on top of that what we've heard from our staff is that from the plane people who were fleeing the building were shot at. >> u.s. and afghan officials have given shifting explanations for what happened, first suggesting u.s. forces had come under attack from the hospital before later backtracking. u.s. and afghan governments have launched three investigations into the incident. doctors without borders is calling for an international
i'm not a cop hater. but patrick lynch, that's the way they attack me, is calling me a cop hater. at the same time they say that about anybody who acknowledges that there's a problem in law enforcement in this country right now is considered by law enforcement part of the problem, whether that be me, whether that be bill de blasio, whether that be president barack obama. >> quentin tarantino called out the head of new york's police union right here last night which has along with many other police unions across the country called for a boycott of his upcoming film "the hateful eight." it's tarantino's first television appearance since the controversy erupted over his comments. he made an anti-police brutality protest and rally on october 24th. at that seven-hour event tarantino said, and i quote, "i just do also want to say what am i doing here? i'm doing here because i am a human being with conscience and when i see murder i cannot stand by and i have to call the murdered the murdered. and i have to call the murderers the murderers."
we reached out for further reaction from the north police union, the patrolman's benevolent association and have not heard back. yesterday the union stood by its original statement condemning tarantino's remarks, that statement referring to tarantino as a cop hater. today baltimore's police union joined the police unions of seven other cities in calling for a boycott of tarantino's new film. joining me former baltimore police officer peter moskos, professor at john jay college, author of "cop in the hood" and my friend. what do we make of this? >> i'm going to see his movies because i like his movies. i don't really care what he says on the side. this in some ways is a made-up story. it gets reported by fox news. it inflames the issues. i mean, do i think tarantino understands police officers? no, i don't. but you know what? a lot of people don't. that's not new. do i think he overemphasizes the idea that, well, his point is that people are unarmed. well, some of those are still justified shootings. cops have been killed by unarmed people. but you know what the police union could have said in response, short of nothing?
they could have said we too are against murderers and we wish him the best of luck in his creative endeavors. >> i have to say, this is one of those stories where i heard the reaction but heard -- before i heard the source which happens sometimes. >> which is a red flag -- >> route. so i heard the reaction and then i went to the tape. look, i understand sensitivity around the word "murderer." but there's certain circumstances, let's talk about walter scott in north charleston, where you know, the police officer that shot that man in the back on the videotape he is being charged with murder, right? so calling him a murderer -- >> but he named specific people of officers who were acquitted by the criminal justice system. they did not commit murder, says our system, right or wrong, and he's still calling them murderers. so of course you're going to be a little peeved if you're a cop. >> yeah, you are. but that's also -- people are going to say things like that all the time. people make independent judgments -- i understand the sensitivity but it's also like -- i guess my point is i expected to go to the tape and see him say down with the pigs, all cops are bastards or something of that -- that's what i was expecting.
>> my reaction was is that all you've got? you're letting me down. you can do better than that. >> based on the reaction. and it was not that. it does get to -- there is a real sensitivity around that word which i understand. >> yeah. >> but it also seems to me he keeps emphasizing if you're at a -- one of the things he said to me and this is i think part of this conversation that keeps lacking particularly from the statements by the unions is he was with family members of people who have lost their loved ones at the hands of police. there's a broad spectrum of the conditions under which that might have happened. but i think we can all say as human beings that must be a horrible thing. >> yeah. >> it must be a horrible thing for that to happen. and the same way that you can -- anyone i think with a sensitive thinking person says -- looks to the family of randolph holder, the police officer shot and killed in new york and says that's terrible, i feel horrible for his family and colleagues. it doesn't seem like we're -- >> benefit of the doubt when he said sort of crazy things about de blasio at the cop's funeral. would you extend that to the other side?
they're passionate times. you're with families of people who have been killed. crazy things are said sometimes. and i just think it splits so predictably on an ideological line. just because you have two sides that are living in a bubble to some extent. >> but then what's the play here? i just don't get this. explain why we have eight police unions now offering statements boycotting the quentin tarantino movie. what is that about? >> it's a sense of victimization. it is the sense that they, meaning the liberal and the mainstream media are out to get us and we -- >> here's a perfect example of that, the sort of out of touch celebrity who's at this protest. >> exactly. >> yeah. well, we'll see what happens. peter moskos, always a pleasure to have you here. >> great to be here. >> up next my interview with actor viggo mortensen of "lord of the rings" fame. i'll ask him about his experience expressing political opinions while being a major public figure. stay with us.
quentin tarantino is far from the only celebrity to have gotten in trouble for expressing an opinion about politics. i got a chance to speak with actor, artist and publisher viggo mortensen who's no stranger to political activism and the backlash it can produce. he's most famous for his role as aragon in the "lord of the rings" trilogy. he's had a long history of involvement in left politics including protesting the war in iraq in the early 2000s when he was criticized for exploiting his public platform. tonight in new york mortensen's doing a reading at lincoln center as part of the 35th anniversary of howard zinn's "a people's history of the united states." got a chance to talk with him and what he thought of the
crazy-firestorm surrounding quentin tarantino. >> it's not that crazy to me and it's not that surprising. i was pleasantly surprised at how eloquent quentin was and how calm he was. when he spoke with you. because you know, the facts are the facts. he said what he said. he didn't say that all cops are murderers. he didn't say i don't like the police, i hate the police. he said there have been incidents that i would agree fully with him and most people, certain videos that have been seen that are clearly cases of illegal behavior, behavior that has been condemned and that has been judged to be murder in some cases. that's what he was talking about. and that the names of those people are worth not only mentioning but defending, you know. and their families have a right to be heard. to say that and to be attacked,
you're going to the point of entertainers speaking about politics. and they are in some ways i suppose easy marks. it's easy for people in power, people who are threatened by the statements that they might make, actors, directors, musicians, you know, sportsmen. they don't always sound stupid. sometimes they actually make sense. and sometimes they have their facts straight. as quentin did last night on your show. and that can be threatening to the status quo. when i say easy marks, it's because we say, well, they're just actors or they're just directors, they're privileged citizens and they should just be quiet. but the message is whenever you attack the right of one citizen, no matter what their line of work, or even if they don't have work, to express their opinion about what's going on, you're
attacking all citizens. >> you know, there's this sort of cliche about hollywood like liberal hollywood and they're all liberals and so and so will go and fund-raise. >> i've had plenty of arguments with people in the entertainment business who differ, you know, with me on politics. talking about politics. >> that's what i wonder -- >> politics discussed by the politicians. the politics don't tell you how to act in your movie. that's an interesting comment. by don't think there's a very good history of leaving politics to politicians. you know, there's a presidential election that seems as interminable as -- i mean, the permanent state of war that we have been accustomed to for decades from our government is -- has become sort of the same thing with the presidential campaigns.
they're kind of round the clock reality shows that never end. donald trump has thrown a few bombs at jeb bush just to get a rise out of him. and jeb bush has been clumsy about it. he doesn't know what to say other than sort of to defend his brother. but that's going to go away and i don't think hillary clinton or any of the republicans obviously are going to talk about the real problems and the consequences that we can see today in the region, you know, of iraq and the middle east and west asia. >> you talk about the sort of reality show of the campaign, which you know, there is a lot of truth to that. but then also you seem to be following, it right? >> it's entertaining. >> right. >> it is. undoubtedly. but also it's frightening. every candidate has to -- has to at some point use the phrase american or u.s. exceptionalism.
and i find this to be at the root of many of our problems as a country. most people in most countries in my travels i found are decent hard-working, considerate of others, struggling with life and death and illness and their families, the education of their children, all the choices that they have to make from day to day. people are basically decent everywhere. i don't know what good it does to say that they're better, they're even better, they're especially better, better than all other peoples of the world in the united states. it's made up of people from all over the place. for me to point that out it's like see? there you go. >> yes. you will get blacklisted. >> that was my interview with actor viggo mortensen. that is "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now live from mchale's irish pub in rock hill, south carolina. that looks good. i'm going to go get me a pint.
good evening, rachel. >> i am moments away from that pint, chris. trust me. thank you very much, my friend. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. if you are noticing some striking dissimilarities from what our usual set and our usual studio look like, it's because we really are live tonight from an awesome irish pub called mchale's in downtown rock hill, south carolina. where tomorrow night msnbc's going to be hosting the first in the south democrats candidates forum. martin o'malley, bernie sanders, hillary clinton, they're all going to be here in person before an audience of thousands at winthrop university. i am going to be moderating that first in the south forum tomorrow, which is totally fine, not at all nervous. there have just been, speaking of the south, there have just been two big governor's races in the south this week. in mississippi, the mississippi democratic party essentially did not get it togethe