ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
September 11, 2014
Guest: Jack Kingston, Chris Murphy, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Bomani Jones,
Walter Jones, Stephen Lynch, Jeremy Kohler, Jon Swaine
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight, on ALL IN.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Tell the American people the truth. We
need to do a lot more.
HAYES: The president`s ISIS plan is out. Republicans want more, more,
more. One even calling for shock and awe.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: A lot of our members think
a lot more needs to be done.
HAYES: Congressman Jack Kingston and Senator Chris Murphy will join me
live.
Then, Roger Goodell is speaking again.
ROGER GOODELL, NFL COMMISSIONER: We were obviously very disturbed at the
first video.
HAYES: The latest on the investigation of the Ray Rice scandal as NFL
owners signal they may be willing to fire their commissioner.
Plus, new details from the two latest Michael Brown shooting witnesses.
And there has been a major twist in the story of a young man shot dead in a
Ohio Walmart.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Something stinks and we want justice.
HAYES: ALL IN starts right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. As
Washington reacts to President Obama`s call for military escalation against
ISIS, including the possibility of air strikes in Syria, the president is
taking criticism from a number of different directions, including some
prominent Republicans, who say his plan doesn`t go far enough. We may need
combat boots on the ground, American soldiers fighting and dying on the
ground, according to certain members of Congress, possibly even in Syria.
On the Senate floor today, John McCain argued the president`s strategy
won`t be enough to completely destroy ISIS.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: I`m confident that the steps the president laid out last night can
degrade ISIS, but that`s not sufficient to protect our people. We need
special forces and advisers on the ground. We`ll soon have more than 1,500
there and there will have to more.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: While McCain`s colleague Lindsey Graham said the mission will
require a major commitmment by the U.S. military.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: There is no way we`re going to
beat these guys without an American ground component in Iraq and Syria.
There is not a force in the Mideast that can take these guys on and win
without substantial American help. You don`t need the 82nd Airborne, but
we`re going to need thousands of troops, over time, on the ground, holding
the hands of the Arab armies that are going to do the fighting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: When asked today whether he could imagine sending combat troops
into Syria, Congressman Paul Ryan responded it should be on the table.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: I can imagine doing whatever it takes to
finish off ISIS. If that`s what`s required, that`s what`s required. I
don`t think you should ever take options off the table. We`ve been
involved -- I`ve been in Congress for 16 years and I`ve learned that there
are certain things you want to give the military the ability to do to
actually finish the job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Meanwhile, Louisiana Congressman John Fleming is essentially
calling for a full-on repeat of Iraq war, the Republican telling the
"National Journal", quote, "I think we would want to see an all-out war,
shock and awe. We put troops on the ground, we put all of our assets there
after properly prepping the battlefield, and in a matter of few weeks, we
take these guys out and we leave a stay behind force to keep our friends up
and going, and also maybe a no-fly zone over Syria over the area Assad
controls."
Piece of cake.
While Congress seems willing to comply for the president`s request for
approval to train and equip the Syrian opposition, it`s still not clear
whether they`ll take up a vote on broader authorization for military
action. In his primetime address last night, President Obama stopped short
of calling on Congress to do so.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have the authority to
address the threat from ISIL. But I believe we are strongest as a nation,
when the president and Congress work together. So I welcome congressional
support for this effort in order to show the world that Americans are
united in confronting this danger.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Asked today where the House intends to vote on a military
authorization, Speaker John Boehner simply tossed the question back to the
White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOEHNER: Now, normally, in such a case -- I`ve been through this a few
times over the 24 years that I`ve been here -- the President of the United
States would ask that support and would supply the wording of a resolution
to authorize this force. And, at this point in time, we`ve not gotten that
request; we`ve not seen that language.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Earlier this week, Republican Congressman Jack Kingston, who
supports holding a vote, told "The New York Times" why he thinks lawmakers
are reluctant to do so.
Quote, "A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, `Just
bomb the place and tell us about it later.` It`s an election year. A lot
of Democrats don`t know how it would play in their party and Republicans
don`t want to change anything. We like the path we`re on now. We can
denounce it if it goes bad and praise it if goes well and ask what took him
so long."
And joining me now is Congressman Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia.
Congressman, do you still think that`s the prevailing mood inside Congress
as they discuss the possibility of a vote?
REP. JACK KINGSTON (R), GEORGIA: Chris, I think that the president did a
lot last night, and has done a lot within the last 24-48 hours, to change
that mood. I do believe that there are members in both parties who would
rather avoid a vote, and some of it is for political reasons and some if
it`s just because you`re darned if you do and darned if you don`t. When it
comes to the Middle East, we get it wrong so many times over there.
But I think that now, you -- the president would find a lot of allies in
both parties who probably would welcome a vote and support a vote. And I
think that the advantage to the president, of course he mentioned it last
night, it would show that we are united, but it would also put more eyes on
the plan. Because one of the things that we have learned in a hearing
today, a briefing, is that the air strikes and the training will not be
enough, that we are going to have to have coalition forces that step up and
fill in the gap and squeeze ISIS.
And I don`t think if we`re going to have troops on the ground, we`re not
going to be able to have that happen. And I think most of us are saying,
well, we`ve got to get our coalition partners to have equal skin in the
game, which may mean troops and definitely means money.
HAYES: So do you agree with some fellow Republican who are calling openly
for ground troops, at least not taking ground troops off the table, or
sending in combat troops? Or even your colleague, Mr. Fleming, who
basically says we should just be declaring all-out war. Just go in there.
KINGSTON: Well, I think that to put it on the table is appropriate when
you look at the task that`s in front of us. And I`ll say this, Chris.
President Clinton effectively used air strikes in Bosnia. But in so many
other conditions, air strikes aren`t sufficient, and we know training
troops over there sometimes doesn`t work. One of the statistics that we
have heard today is that we have trained 938,000 Iraqis, and at a cost of
about $20 billion. And, yet, look what`s happened to them. Really,
nothing.
HAYES: So just to be clear, so you think -- you agree with Paul Ryan that
ground troops should not be taken off the table? That should be a
possibility in the future?
KINGSTON: I think it should be a possibility. And I also think there`s a
strategic reason you want to leave it on the table, because we don`t want
to broadcast to our enemies everything that we`re thinking.
HAYES: Would you then support some kind of authorization of American
ground troops back in Iraq, or in Syria, as a matter of a sort of
authorization for military force?
KINGSTON: I think that the way the military force resolutions are worded
gives the president a broad authority, as it should give the president
broad authority, to do what needs to be done to accomplish the mission.
And in this case, the mission is, as I understand it, to disrupt, degrade
and to defeat ISIS. In order to accomplish that mission, he`s got to have
a lot of flexibility.
HAYES: Can I ask you an honest question here, Congressman? Frankly. Do
you ever, on these matters, when you`re talking about this massively
complicated situation, do you ever think to yourself I have no idea? Like,
I have no idea, and none of us have any idea, walking around these halls of
Congress.
KINGSTON: I think anybody -- I think that`s a very good question, Chris.
I think anybody who has seriously been involved and looked at the Middle
East has to have that moment or those moments when you`re dealing with it
because we seem to get it wrong.
You know, Colin Powell said very famously, 13 years ago, "If you break it,
you own it." And when he said it, he wasn`t the most popular guy in town.
And, yet, here we are -- and that`s why the president, by the way, is
saying he doesn`t need further authorization from Congress, because the
2002 authorization is almost where we are today.
HAYES: Right. Congressman Jack Kingston, I appreciate you coming on
tonight, Congressman. Thank you.
KINGSTON: Thanks, Chris.
HAYES: Joining me now, Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecitcut.
Senator, you took to the floor today to sort of outline of your basic
vision of this. It more or less seems to line up with the president`s and
more or less seems to be around where the kind of consensus is forming, but
your biggest concern seems to be about the training component. Talk to me
about that?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: Well, I just don`t believe that a
strategy to effectively confront ISIS necessarily has to get us immeshed in
this Syrian civil war. It`s more complicated now than it was a year ago.
There was more inter-tanglement between the so-called modern rebels and
some of the very, very bad extremist groups like Al Nusra. So I think that
we can take the fight to ISIS without risking, essentially, being
counterproductive to national security interests by ultimately getting
involved in a sectarian civil war inside Syria that we may lose.
But I`m proud of the president for taking his time, putting together what I
thought was a thoughtful strategy. I disagree with going into Syria and
for his statements about taking ground troops off the table. You
essentially have to have taken a nap for the last ten years to believe that
a massive deployment of ground troops by the United States is going to do
the job. It is, in part, what created impetus for the creation of ISIL in
the first place. And the president`s right to be looking to other ways to
take on this foe.
HAYES: Were you surprised to hear that today? I have to say, I was --
Congressman Fleming`s statement was particularly jarring for me. I was
surprised to hear that. But I was generally surprised that there seems to
be people coalescing around the idea that that`s the answer to this.
MURPHY: Yes, old habits die hard for neoconservatives. I mean, they have
always had a very singular view of how the United States exercises power
around the world. They believe that we act with the military first and
everything else second, third and fourth.
If you learned anything about the Middle East over the last 10 years, it`s
that the blunt force of American military power really does nothing to
change the reality on the ground. To the extent that it does, it`s only
temporary until we leave. And so I agree with the president that there is
a military component to taking on ISIS, but it`s with the United States
playing a supporting role, not as a lead role, as my friend, John McCain
and many others up here want.
HAYES: I want to ask you the question I just asked Congressman Kingston.
It has to do with a very specific thing about knowledge, intimate, local
knowledge, right? Which is we now are going to have 535 members of
Congress, we have a White House talking about what we`re going to do in the
midst of a massively complicated situation that is highly determined by a
whole set of local factors, cultural, linguistic, religious traditions that
are coming into conflict into each other. I mean, how many fluent Arabic
speakers are there working on this issue in the staffing of the halls of
Congress the 535? 10? 15? 20? I mean, do we know enough to not do this
terribly?
MURPHY: Well, but you`re outlining the difficulty of a citizen legislature
to begin with, right? Whether we`re debating policy in the Middle East or
health care policy or judicial policy, none of us are experts on all of
these fields.
HAYES: Right, but Congress -- but Senator, you can talk to your
constituents about health care and you can talk to your constituents about
the pollution that might be in your water and you can talk to them about
food stamps, but you can`t talk to them about what the situation is on the
ground in Syria.
MURPHY: Well, listen, I think that`s the reason why -- if it were up to me
here, I would argue to divide the case. I think the question of ISIS is
pretty simple. This would be the first autonomous terrorist state in the
modern post-9/11 era. We should do everything to stop that.
Syria is a very difficult question and a very different, complex question.
I don`t think we can predict how that is going to play out. I don`t think
that we can predict with any confidence that the rebels, even with arms and
training, assistance from the United States, are going to be able to
prevail. And so when I think there`s that amount of uncertainty in the
Syrian civil war, that is I think when our default position should be to
stay out.
But when it comes to ISIS, I do think that that`s a pretty clear threat.
And I think the American people know enough about that to be right in their
mandate that we do something about.
HAYES: Senator Chris Murphy, always a pleasure. Thank you, sir.
MURPHY: Thanks.
HAYES: Joining me now, Anne-Marie Slaughter, president and CEO of New
America, former director of policy planning at the State Department.
Anne-Marie, great to see you. You were in the State Department making a
number of very difficult calls, including around Libya, and I think Syria
had sort of - the Arab Spring had started while you were there. What`s
your reaction to the plan that the president laid out?
ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER, PRES., NEW AMERICA: Well, Chris, it`s great to hear
you. So I have been very, very critical of the president`s policy on Syria
for 2-1/2 years, arguing that the Syrian civil war was going to spin out of
control, that we were seeing the formation of very, very extreme groups,
that we were seeing the destabilization of neighboring countries, et
cetera.
But, even with all that criticism, I think he got it right last night. I
think, at this point, we do have to focus on ISIL. We have to protect
Americans; we have to protect our allies, the Europeans. We really, we
have to degrade ISIL. Whether or not we can actually destroy it is a
harder question. I disagree with Senator Murphy, with respect. I think
there`s no question we have to strike in Syria as well as in Iraq.
Otherwise, you`re just hitting them in half their territory and letting
them retreat to the others.
But I also think the president got it right that e can`t do them without an
Iraqi government that is willing to include different groups of Iraqis,
and, critically, that there must be a regional coalition alongside of us.
HAYES: But this always sounds to me - two things here. One, everyone says
this. Everyone. The White House says it; Congress says it. We need an
Iraqi government that will do X. But why are we to believe that al-Abadi,
who`s been in power now for, what, seven days? Oh, this is going to be the
guy to do it. This time, the power sharing.
All the same fundamental issues around this sectarian division and who has
power and who is on the outs are the same that we saw in the civil war and
that we tried to conquer with the Awakening and the surge, et cetera. What
faith does anyone have that this is going to be the new inclusive one? I
mean, you have people that were ground under the heel of tyranny who`ve
been spending decades waiting for the moment when they can seize power.
Like, what are we expecting they`re going to do?
SLAUGHTER: Well, look, none of us have loved the Iraqi government. But
actually, the government was holding together. It was radically imperfect,
but until Maliki went all out, essentially, for the dominance not only of
Shiite factions but of his parties, you had a halting, radically imperfect
but nevertheless functioning political process.
Now what you have is the state coming apart. And the difference is we have
real leverage. I mean, the president did this right. He made clear we`re
not going to help you unless you are willing, in fact, to reach out to the
Sunnis yourselves. And if they don`t do that, and this is very important,
then fine. We go back to protecting American interests and humanitarian
assistance.
So if they want us in the game, they`re going to have to their part. And
the president -- that`s why we shouldn`t go all in. It would be crazy to
go in all in, in part because, as Senator Murphy said, the best way to drum
up support for ISIL is to land American troops and declare war essentially
on the Islamic State with troops. But the other point is we want
absolutely to have ongoing leverage on the Iraqi government, and, frankly,
on neighbors.
HAYES: Anne-Marie Slaughter, thank you. It`s great to see you.
SLAUGHTER: Great.
HAYES: What would it take for 32 NFL owners to turn against the league`s
commissioner, Roger Goodell? Maybe news Goodell knew exactly what happened
in that elevator when he decided to only suspend Ray Rice for two games?
That`s ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: The Ray Rice NFL scandal is giving one owner in the league a sick
feeling. Commissioner Roger Goodell speaks out again, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOODELL: We obviously were very disturbed AT the first video. And what
happened in that was reason for us to take the discipline action we did,
albeit not what we would like to have taken. But when we saw the second
video, it was clear what happened, and it was completely unacceptable. It
was graphic; it was violent; and it was something that we felt we had to
take an immediate reaction to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: What did the NFL know? What did Roger Goodell know it and when did
he know it? That`s the question that continues to plague NFL commissioner
Roger Goodell.
Tonight, we have more blockbuster reporting suggesting Goodell knew more
than he has said he knew. This following a stunning report from the AP
late last night, citing a single unnamed source, reporting, quote, "A law
enforcement official says he sent a video of Ray Rice punching his then-
fiancee to an NFL executive five months ago."
The person played the Associated Press a 12-second voicemail from an NFL
office number on April 9, confirming the video arrived. A female voice
expresses thanks and says, "You were right. It`s terrible."
In an apparent attempt to quarantine himself from the scandal and prove he
hasn`t been lying, Roger Goodell has asked former FBI director Robert
Mueller to conduct an independent investigation including the league`s,
quote, "pursuit and handling evidence in the Ray Rice domestic violence
incident."
But is that investigation as independent as it`s reported to be?
Considering Mueller is now a partner at the law firm Wilmer Hale, a firm
connections to the NFL that helped negotiate the NFL`s deal with DirecTV.
And, as the AP points out, several former members of the firm have taken
positions with NFL teams.
In fact, Ravens` president Dick Cass was a partner there for 31 years, when
it was known as Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr. And it`s important
to note that John Mara, co-owner of the Giants, and Art Rooney II, the
owner of the Steelers, are supposed to oversee the investigation. But,
ultimately, Roger Goodell`s fate is in the hands of not just Mara and
Rooney but all 32 owners. Those are the people for whom Goodell works, and
one owner told "Sports Illustrated", "I`m starting to get a sick feeling
about how out of control this is getting. I`m standing by Roger. He`s
been great for our league."
Right now, at least, the owners seem to be getting along -- going along to
get along, but that could change.
Joining me, Bomani Jones, co-host of ESPN`s "Highly Questionable". And the
big blockbuster story tonight, Bomani, is that four sources have told
ESPN`s "Outside the Lines" that Ray Rice told Goodell on June 16 that he
punched then-fiancee in a casino elevator, an assertion that contradicts
Goodell`s statement this week that, "when we met with Ray Rice and his
representatives, it was ambiguous about what actually happened."
Your reaction to that?
BOMANI JONES, ESPN`S "HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE": Well, I think it was fairly
predictable. It wasn`t hard to find people who were adamant that Ray Rice
told the commissioner what happened. The Ravens, their (INAUDIBLE), said
that Ray Rice was honest with them about what happened. So it seemed like
it was just a matter of time before somebody said what happened. I didn`t
expected it to be a four-stores blockbuster, though. I mean, that`s a lot
of people.
HAYES: Well, that`s a lot of people and it`s another problem for Goodell
in a number of ways. Number one, the video was never the issue. I mean,
this gets to the original sin here, which is they basically knew what
happened and then suspended him for two games that. That`s the original
sin. That`s the thing that got people so angry. They then tried to kind
of catch up with things after Goodell said it was, quote, "graphic," but if
you knew what happened, there`s no justification from the jump.
JONES: Well, the NFL, the one good thing they`ve done a good job of in
this whole disaster is they spun this around to the idea what matters is
whether or not Roger Goodell saw the video. So you`re going to need a
video of him watching the video before anybody believes it, because you had
a police report, you had all of these people who said the same thing and
they came away with the two-game suspension.
Now, to come back and say, well, we didn`t realize it was like that. I
mean, she was unconscious. I don`t know what exactly he thought would have
resulted in her becoming unconscious. But they`ve kind of shifted
narrative to now where somebody has to absolutely prove that Roger Goodell
was watching that video.
But I think the thing that will ultimately do him in, if anything, is
whatever credibility he had is now just gone. It`s impossible to believe
anything he says from here on out.
HAYES: And that, that strikes me. That`s where this dynamic is
interesting. This guy works for the 32 owners. At the same time,
obviously, they have a tremendous amount of loyalty to him. They pay him
$44 million a year from the non-profit, we should say tax exempt, NFL,
which is a non-profit organization.
"Washington Post" Mark Maskey had some reporting, sort of talking to
owners, and basically continues to have solid support of the many leagues`
32 owners. The group is prepared to act against Goodell, potentially
considering his dismissal, if investigatioin concludes he was guilty of
willful and egregious misconduct.
Do you see that happening?
JONES: It`s hard to believe right now, but I do believe that they`re with
him all the way up until to the point that he`s not. No owner can show any
(INAUDIBLE) in his support for Roger Goodell because his authority,
incumbent upon him, certainly is the fact that he has all the owners are
behind him. So even if they`re not, they all have to say that they`re
behind Roger, because if he makes it to the other side, it`s got to be
known that he`s behind them.
But if this gets to a certain tipping point and they can`t save him, he`s a
disposable as anybody else. Not one person has said yet what exactly makes
Roger Goodell irreplaceable. I haven`t heard that a single that.
HAYES: That`s a very good point. And I think we`re going to be see - this
is being covered now. I mean, this is the situation. You`ve got the game
tonight, CBS has their news team covering it. This is a situation now
where this is getting the treatment of a political scandal, of something
that involves a senator. So there`s no way out at this point. This isn`t
going to go away.
Bomani Jones, thank you so much.
JONES: Thank you.
HAYES: Two Congressman from opposite sides of the aisle are coming
together, demanding that a certain part of a 9/11 report, which has been
classified, is released. More on that ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: The amazing account of the conversation Michael Brown had within an
hour of being shot and killed, and the implication of still more witnesses
who saw the teen with his hands in the air as he was shot.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: Secretary of State John Kerry was in Saudi Arabia today, on the
13th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, building regional support in
the fight against ISIS and other forms of terrorism.
There are those that think that Saudis are not the most ideal partners in
such a fight. After all, 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers came from
Saudi Arabia, as an al Qaeda founder, Osam bin Laden, who hails from well-
connected Saudi family. And a lawsuit from victims of the attacks and
their families now working its way through the court system alleges that
the hijackers received direct assistance from Saudi government officials
the United States. The plaintiffs are calling for the release of a
classified report.
As Al Jazeera reports, 28 pages from an official 2002 report detailing the
foreign government assistance to the September 11 attackers remains
classified. In 2003, then-President Bush seen holding hands here with
Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah in 2005 at his Texas ranch, explained why he
would not release the patrons.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, THEN-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have an on going
war against al Qaeda and terrorists. And the declassification of that part
of a 900-page document would reveal sources and methods that will make it
harder for us to win the war on terror.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: As a presidential candidate in 2003, John Kerry himself called for
Bush to release the 28 pages in order to, quote, "make the record clear."
And the Saudis have long-maintained they, too, want the pages released. In
2003, their ambassador to the U.S. saying, quote, "Twenty-eight blanked out
pages are being used by some to malign our country and our people," and
that "Saudi Arabia has nothing to hide."
Now, two members of Congress, Democrat Stephen Lynch and Republican Walter
Jones, who have read the 28 pages in question, have now introduced a
resolution calling on President Obama to finally declassify them. To
family members of September 11 victims say the president promised them
personally he would declassify the 28 pages. But, as of now, the makes
remain classified.
Today, National Security Council told ALL IN that White House had requested
that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence review the pages
for possible declassification and that review is ongoing.
Joining me now, Congressman Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina;
Congressman Stephen Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts.
Congressman Jones, what`s the case here? Why does this matter?
REP. WALTER JONES (R), NORTH CAROLINA: Well, yesterday, today actually, is
the 13th year since the tragedy that hit our country. And I think that the
families who lost so much in the 9/11 attack have every right to see these
28 pages. And as you made mention in your presentation, that President
Bush is the one that decided that this information should be classified,
and Stephen Lynch and I, along with other colleagues, believe sincerely
that the families and the American people need to know the truth as to what
happened that day and what led up to that day.
HAYES: So, Congressman Lynch, do you believe that the reason it was
classified in the first place was to protect U.S. relationships with the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?
REP. STEPHEN LYNCH (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Well, I think there were reasons
right after the attacks and right after the report came out, that I think
people thought there might be security implications and, also, there was
virulent passion at that point. I think that President Bush might have
been thinking about that.
But what you asked Walter, that`s a great question. Why do we want these
released? I agree with what my friend Walter Jones has put out there about
owing it to the families, owing it to the American people. But I actually
think that an additional reason is that these 28 pages, in my opinion,
would inform our antiterrorism policy going forward. I think it would be a
good thing to have the American people understand the complexity, the
months of planning for these attacks, and the individuals who were
complicit in that activity.
HAYES: Congressman Jones, there`s a lot of discussion right now about
funding, particularly for ISIS, and how it`s getting money . And part of
it`s oil and part of it`s kidnapping and hostages. But there is concern
about money flowing into them from private citizens the Gulf. Are you
convinced that the Saudis or the Qataris are -- have safeguards in place to
make sure that something like that couldn`t happen again?
JONES: Chris, again, I want to go back to these 28 pages. Our country is
in deep trouble in many, many ways. There is nothing that can bring peace
to the families who lost so much on 9/11, except for them, the families,
and the American people to know the truth. And let the American people
decide for themselves, once they see the 28 pages, then what should be the
next action by our government.
HAYES: And, Congressman Lynch, are you persuaded or are you convinced by
the White House`s response? They have someone on this; they`re reviewing
it for possible declassification?
LYNCH: It`s been a while, Chris. They`ve had somebody looking at this
before. The Bush administration had people looking at it. So I think that
the most important thing for members of Congress to do, and people at home
-- encourage your member of Congress, your representative, to go and read
the 28 pages. And then I think, after they read that, they will sign on to
our resolution, urging its declassification.
HAYES: Just so we`re clear about this, this was the joint -- the sort of
special joint committee that was put together. This is not the 9/11
commission. This was issued in 2002, if I`m not mistaken, right?
LYNCH: That`s correct, Chris.
HAYES: And so any member of Congress can read it.
JONES: Well, you have to get permission.
LYNCH: If you`ve got the proper clearance, and I think most members either
could get it or already have it. And then you`ve got to go to a designated
location, a secure location, and there will be several people there to
observe you while you read the 28 pages. You`re not allowed to bring any
technology in, you`re not allowed to take any notes or anything like that.
HAYES: Well, I got to say this, Congressman. Obviously it`s classified so
you can`t discuss what`s in it, But as we talk about this, and as I`m
sitting here, the mystery is building up. I want to read it now. And I
can also imagine why the Saudis want it released. Because the things I`m
imagining my head can`t possibly be borne out by the facts of the thing,
which now sounds incredibly damning because I can`t see it.
LYNCH: Well, I think there might be some duplicity on the part of the
Saudis in terms of them desiring this to be disclosed.
HAYES: You don`t think they actually do?
LYNCH: No.
JONES: Chris --
HAYES: Congressman Jones.
JONES: Yes, sir, if I could speak very quickly. People, your listeners,
and thoser who follow your show need to fully understand that the chairman
of the joint congressional committee of inquiry on this issue, Richard
Shelby, and Senator Graham from Florida, have been very outspoken to say
this needs to be made public. And if it implies (sic) other countries like
the Saudis, so be it. But let the American people know the truth. Let`s
rebuild the confidence of the American people by letting them know the
truth of 9/11.
HAYES: I think it`s a persuasive case. Congressman Walter Jones and
Congressman Stephen Lynch, thank you, gentlemen, both.
LYNCH: Thank you, Chris.
HAYES: The reporter who has firsthand knowledge of new witnesses in the
Michael Brown shooting joins me, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: There are two witnesses whose accounts have emerged over the past
few days that corroborate one of the key details in the shooting death of
Michael Brown that`s been offered already by more than a half dozen other
witnesses.
The two men happen to be working outside the Canfield Green apartments the
day Brown was killed. Other witnesses who have shared their accounts of
the events of August 9 with media outlets, including this show, either knew
Michael Brown, lived near where the shooting took place, or were visiting
friends and relatives there. These two men did not know anyone at the
Canfield Green apartment complex. They can be seen in an amateur video
that has been circulating on social media of what appears to be the
immediate aftermath of the shooting. One of the men raises his hands up in
disbelief saying, "Man, he was going like this."
According to the "St. Louis Post-Dispatch," both men have given their
statements to the St. Louis County Police and the FBI, and one shared his
story, his voice disguised, with a local news outlet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE, WITNESS TO MICHAEL BROWN SHOOTING: I started hearing
"pop!", and when I look over, I didn`t even know what was in there, but I
seen somebody start running. And then when he finally caught himself, he
threw his hands up and was sort of screaming, "OK, OK, OK, OK, OK."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: The other witness agreed to speak for the first time to the "St.
Louis. Post-Dispatch" which reported this week the workers` account, quote,
"largely matches those who reported that Officer Darren Wilson chased Brown
on foot away from the car after the initial gunshot and fired at least one
more shot in the direction of Brown as he was fleeing." That Brown
stopped, turned around, and put his hands up, and that the officer killed
Brown in a barrage of gunfire.
Earlier today, I spoke with Jeremy Kohler, the investigative reporter for
the "St. Louis. Post-Dispatch" who interviewed one of those two workers.
And I asked him what he learned.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY KOHLER, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH: In the
aftermath of the shooting, we had talked with people in the neighborhood
who told us about two construction workers that were there, and that they
actually seemed to be pretty upset afterward. It took us a little while to
track them down, but we were able to actually first talk to their employer,
who told us that one of the guys had already talked to the local Fox
station. And we were actually able to track down the other worker.
He said that they were in the neighborhood. They were laying some pipe.
And about an hour before the shooting, Mike Brown had walked by and struck
up a conversation with his coworker. And the coworker had just struck a
root with his shovel, and was cursing. And Mike Brown stopped and said,
hey, what`s the problem? What`s happening? And they ended up having a 30
minute conversation about Jesus and God and anger management before Mike
Brown walked away, "I`ll be back to pick up our conversation."
HAYES: Wow. Wow, wow, wow. Well, that`s -- so, obviously, these people
have not -- this is just a stranger to them. They`re construction workers.
They have this intense, it sounds like, or at least somewhat involved 30-
minute conversation. Mike Brown then comes back and then do they witness
the moment that it all goes down?
KOHLER: Yes, they`re working about a half hour after Mike Brown walks
away. And they hear a gunshot. And they look over, and from what the
worker that I talked to said, they see Mike Brown running away from the
officer, who pursues him and fires one shot at his back. The worker said
that Mike Brown then turned around and said, "OK, OK, OK, OK, OK," and
appeared to be moving towards the officer. He said it wasn`t -- he wasn`t
sure -- he believed he had been shot, because it was sort of a stumble
before he had come to stop and turned around. And that Mike Brown either
stumbled forward or walked forward, and the officer was backing up and
firing the fatal shots at him.
HAYES: And what about the hands up, or at least the posture of Mike Brown,
from the perspective of this construction worker you talked to, about
whether it was -- if he was putting his hands up, if he was generally
acting as someone who was surrendering or non-threatening, or someone who
is bull-rushing or going an aggressive fashion toward the officer?
KOHLER: Yes, it was hard to read into what Mike Brown`s mindset was at
that point, in terms of surrendering. He says his hands were up. His
hands were up. But there have been some supporters of Darren Wilson who`ve
said that it is a belief that Mike Brown was actually charging at the
officer. And the worker that I talked to said, no, he wasn`t bull rushing,
he wasn`t running at him. He was either walking or stumbling towards him.
HAYES: I should note that I have heard similar accounts from supporters of
Darren Wilson. As of yet, in my role as a reporter, and you can correct me
if I`m wrong, I have yet to encounter a publicly identifiable witness who
has come forward who was on the scene who has said that. There`s been some
background tape on one thing posted on the internet. There was someone who
was claiming to know the girlfriend of Darren Wilson. But, as far as I
know, this rushing forward has not yet been offered by anyone publicly. It
doesn`t mean that it didn`t happen or that no one saw that.
KOHLER: And that`s what we reported, too. We actually went to great
lengths in our story to try to summarize the statements that have been made
to the media thus far, and no one has said that.
HAYES: And we now have a situation where part of this strikes me, the
significance of these two witnesses, at least from a certain perspective,
is these are folk who is had no existing ties to the folks in the Canfield
apartments there that would have no reason -- not that I think there`s any
reason to necessarily think that other folks are shading the truth -- but
have zero prior relationships to anyone. It`s almost like they kind of
came in, landed from Mars and saw this.
KOHLER: Sure. That`s a delicate distinction, and one we tried to make.
We pointed out that these guys just have no connection to the neighborhood.
They were there by pure happenstance, and witnessed the shooting. And they
acknowledge - -the worker that I interviewed acknowledged that that makes
him important source. He doesn`t have any allegiance to anyone in the
neighborhood. He just happened to be there.
HAYES: Jeremy Kohler of the "St. Louis Post-Dispatch", thank you very
much.
KOHLER: Thank you, Chris.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HAYES: All right. How the story from a key witness in another shooting of
a young black man, this one in Ohio is now changing. That`s ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The gentleman walking around with a gun in the store.
FEMALE REPORTER: That`s the call that 911 dispathcers that alerted Beaver
Creek police.
911 DISPATCHER: Has he got it pulled out?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, he`s pointing it at people. He`s loading it right
now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: While people in Ferguson, Missouri, continue to call for a special
prosecutor to investigate the shooting death of Michael Brown, in Ohio,
there`s been a special prosecutor appointed to investigate the death of 22-
year-old John Crawford, III. Crawford was shot and killed by police in a
southwest Walmart last month.
Police in Beaver Creek, Ohio, were called to the scene following that 911
call that you just heard, in which a shopper, said Crawford, was pointing a
gun at people in the store. Police say they repeatedly asked Crawford to
put the gun down. They opened fire, and Crawford was pronounced dead at a
local hospital short time later.
It turned out he was carrying an unloaded BB air rifle sold by Walmart he`d
reportedly picked up off a store shelf. Police released dash cam video
from the incident along with emergency dispatch recordings. But
authorities have declined to make public a surveillance tape from inside
the Walmart showing the events unfold. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine
did allow members of the Crawford family and their attorney to view a
portion of that tape. That attorney is encouraging DeWine to release the
tape to the public but DeWine has declined to do so, citing worries that it
may hinder prosecution of any defendants.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE DEWINE, OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think that it is -- not -- it`s
playing with dynamite, frankly, to release that tape at this point.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: OK, but now another person has come forward saying he too has seen
the surveillance footage. And his name is Ronald Ritchie, reportedly the
caller in that 911 tape you just hard. Ritchie tells reporter Jon Swaine of
"The Guardian" newspaper that officials in Ohio Attorney General`s bureau
of criminal investigations showed him the footage. As the "Dayton Daily
News" reports, a spokesman DeWine declined to confirm whether Ritchie had
seen the video.
Days after the shooting, Ritchie spoke to local reporters about what he
witnessed inside the Walmart.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD RITCHIE, WITNESS: A black gentleman walking up, holding what looks
like to be an A.R. 15. Called the police. Waving at people, waving at
little children, waving the gun.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: But a month after giving that account, Ritchie has now changed some
of the details of his story. So what is his story now?
Joining me now is Jon Swaine, correspondent for "The Guardian." You talked
to Mr. Ritiche. What`s changed?
JON SWAINE, "THE GUARDIAN": You heard on that 911 call, he used a specific
word, "pointing". He repeated that.
HAYES: Which is what`s scary, right? I mean, if someone calls you and
says there`s a guy pointing a gun, that`s --
SWAINE: It sounds like a deliberate act. It sounds like someone who is
choosing to point this weapon at people in the store. He repeated that
word to reporters afterwards on the scene.
Now, I spoke to him last week and really wanted to press him on what that
meant. Because as you saw also, he was using the phrase "waving it
around". And in the course of speaking to him for several minutes, he sort
of recanted on the word "pointing". He said at no point did he shoulder
the weapon and point it. He was, however, waving it around.
Now, the Crawford family attorneys denied that as well, we should say. But.
HAYES: Yes, they say he wasn`t even waving it around. Also, if it`s a toy
gun that you have in a store, I mean, you can imagine a whole bunch of ways
that you would hold it that`s not pointing it at people.
SWAINE: The Crawford family`s attorneys and Mr. Crawford`s father have
viewed the footage. They say what they see is Mr. Crawford only moves the
BB gun once in a significant way. They say what it looks like is it got
heavy to him. He maybe slung it over his shoulder, then returned to it his
side.
They said they`ve seen this footage; they don`t see him pointing it or
waving it around in the direction of anyone.
HAYES: There`s also the matter, and it`s not the important thing, but
there`s a matter of his service, the people -- I remember the report being,
oh, he`s a Marine, he was a Marine, which lent this kind of credibility of
gravitas to his account? He was only in the Marines for 7 weeks, right,
before he was discharged?
SWAINE: That`s right. He, on the scene, gave every reporter the same
account. He was an ex-Marine. We thought it was worth checking out. We
asked the Marines for his service record. They gave it to us and it was
only 7 weeks long.
Now they wouldn`t come it on why, but when I spoke to him, I asked him.
And after some persuasion, he didn`t really want to talk about it, but
after some persuasion, he confirmed that it was, for what the Marines
concluded, was a fraudulent enlistment. What happened was they discovered
a heart condition seven weeks into his training, or into his service, that
they said he didn`t disclose. He says he did disclose it, and his
recruitment officer didn`t put it --
HAYES: The point is that he was Marine for seven weeks.
SWAINE: That`s right.
HAYES: So you`ve got this -- I mean, the details of this are so horrible
and maddening. This young man, John Crawford III, was killed for no
reason. I mean, he posed a threat to no one. This phone call, it seems,
was made by someone perhaps misperceiving the threat of ill-advised. But
the key thing here is there`s video of the whole thing.
SWAINE: There`s video of the whole thing. And I spoke to Mr. Crawford,
Sr., and their attorney at length about what`s in this footage. And I
spoke to them separately to try to --
HAYES: Yes, we`ve spoken to them here too.
SWAINE: You`ve spoken to them. They maintain that John Crawford moves
from one aisle, where he picks up the BB gun, to only one more aisle, the
pet aisle, and he stops. He`s on the phone to the mother of his children
and his father says, he stops, and he`s so still, that when the father
viewed the footage, he thought the footage had paused or there was an
error. And he said to the technician, "What`s going wrong?" And the
technician says, "Well, it`s still running. Look at the time stamp."
And he says how can my son be judged to be posing a threat when I thought
he was standing still, I thought the video had stopped?
HAYES: And you have a special prosecutor now, but what on earth are they
doing showing this to video to Ritchie?
SWAINE: So I should make clear Ritchie claims he`s seen the video. He
said he`s actually seen it several times, and he says officials in the
Attorney General`s office showed him when they were interviewing, when they
were taking a statement. As you said, the Attorney General`s office will
not confirm that. But it is clearly unusual and strange that an
eyewitness, who you`d expect to give a statement based on what they saw and
remembered --
HAYES: Right. And then who you could then independently corroborate
against a video, would be shown a video that could possibly then taint
their memory. Not for an even nefarious reason; people integrate those
things in their recall.
SWAINE: Exactly, so if confrimed, I think that would be very unusual and
Mr. Crawford family`s attorneys have said they`re very unhappy that.
They`ve complained.
HAYES: And they want that video made public.
SWAINE: Well, this is out. Mr. Ritchie says his account will be borne out
by the video, but Mr. Crawford`s family and their attorney say we`ve seen
it. We want it out there. And you have to think, if the video showed
their son in a bad light, why would they want this out there?
HAYES: All right, Jon Swaine, "Guardian" U.S., thank you very much.
That is ALL IN for this evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right
now.
Good evening, Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thanks, man.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END
Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
All In With Chris Hayes, Thursday, September 11th, 2014
Read the transcript from the Thursday show