DOWNLOADS: (148)

PLAYS: (1532)

Embed

MSNBC's Chris Hayes slammed House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican party for being foolish enough to play a game of political suicide with this latest proposal of theirs called the Full Faith and Credit Act, which would, as Democrats have rightfully been going after them for, mean that the United States would pay China before paying our troops if Republicans decide to keep playing more games on raising the debt ceiling.

John Boehner On Debt Ceiling: Let's Pay China First, Then U.S. Troops:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Tuesday essentially agreed with Democrats' arguments that a Republican bill to prioritize debt payments would put China before U.S. troops -- except he suggested that would be a good thing.

During an interview with Bloomberg TV, Boehner was asked about this week's vote on the Full Faith and Credit Act, which, in the event that the U.S hits its debt ceiling, would direct the treasury secretary to pay only the principal and interest owed to bondholders before making any other payments. Money for other payments, such as those for veterans, Medicare and national security, would have to be divvied up from what remained of the scarce federal funds.

Republican supporters of the bill maintain that the most important thing is that the nation won't default on its credit as as long as those interest payments are made on time.

"Our goal here is to get ourselves on a sustainable path from a fiscal standpoint," Boehner said. "I think doing a debt prioritization bill makes it clear to our bondholders that we’re going to meet our obligations."

When show host Peter Cook asked if Boehner's comments mean that, as Democrats have suggested, Republicans are basically choosing to pay China before paying U.S. troops, Boehner didn't disagree.

Republicans never cared about blowing mile wide holes in our budget until we got ourselves a Democrat elected as President. Now they're continuing to be willing to play with the full faith and credit of the United States government over a budget mess they helped to create to score political points with their wingnut base.

Rough transcript of Hayes letting them have it for this not only being bad policy, but really, really stupid politically below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (180)

PLAYS: (2496)

Embed

In the aftermath of this Wednesday's hearings on Benghazi, which the right has been hyping for weeks, as Chris Hayes and his guests, Rep. Carolyn Maloney and Media Matters' Eric Boehlert discussed, they turned out to be nothing more than a bust.

Surprise, surprise, right?

As Media Matters has documented, it was hard to keep track of all of the lies and myths being pushed by the right and by Fox News ahead of today's hearings, and but once they actually got started, there was very little to no new information, but plenty of attempts to lay the whole mess at Hillary Clinton's feet.

Maloney reiterated what she said during the hearing today about the Republicans and their motives:

“I find it truly disturbing and very unfortunate that when Americans come under attack the first thing some did in this country was attack Americans, attack the military, attack the president, attack the State Department, attack the former senator from the great state of New York and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton,” Maloney said, before going on to question the witnesses on the fact that the secretary of state’s signature is included on all sorts of documents he or she never actually sees.

Fox's coverage of the hearing was hardly what you'd call "fair and balanced" with them cutting away from the Democrats constantly during the hearing, including Rep. Maloney, which Hayes showed her a portion of during their discussion here.

As Maloney told Hayes during the segment as well, Republicans are entitled to their own opinions about the attacks and what went wrong, but they're not entitled to their own facts and even after being debunked, Chairman Issa is still refusing to take down their lies about Hillary Clinton on their web site.

As Hayes and Boehlert discussed, compared to other administrations, attacks on U.S. diplomatic targets are actually way down under the Obama administration. We all know that doesn't matter in Republican-land though, where their alternative reality refuses to acknowledge anything that happened prior to President Obama being elected.

DOWNLOADS: (141)

PLAYS: (1330)

Embed

DOWNLOADS: (211)

PLAYS: (1054)

Embed

While thousands of low-income Americans are suffering under sequestration, our Congress somehow managed to rush through a fix for the FAA cuts that were delaying their their flights. Imagine that! As Chris Hayes discussed in the opening of his show this Friday, it's so nice to see that those members of Congress have got their priorities in order.

HAYES: But we begin tonight with the big flashing headline breaking news of the day, from the least popular branch of government, the branch of government widely seen as the most dysfunctional branch of government, the one that contains the right-wing Republican House caucus committed to obstruction above all else. In that branch of government today, today we saw a remarkable display of urgency and pragmatic bipartisan problem solving come together in a matter of hours to fix the most pressing trouble facing America today.

And that very pressing problem is extended travel delays for frequent flyers and members of Congress. Yes, it was a long and tortured path to triumph on this issue. but today in a 361 to 41 vote, a resounding margin, House of Representatives overwhelmingly agreed to tackle the scourge of flight delays being caused by the furlough of federal aviation workers.

Sadly the first piece of legislation that members of Congress saw fit to pass will make those lines at the airports shorter, and as Hayes reminded his audience, here's who will not be getting relief from the bill passed this Friday.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (337)

PLAYS: (3301)

Embed

Following today's niceties by his fellow former presidents and President Obama, who of course felt compelled to try to come up with something polite to say about George W. Bush at the opening of his library, Chris Hayes reminded his audience that, luckily, he and his staff are under "no obligation to be nice for the sake of being nice" to Bush.

Hayes proceeded to lay waste to the Bush apologists who have been doing their best to rewrite his legacy, such as Fox "News", Jennifer Rubin and a host of his former advisers who have been making the rounds on the talk shows these days.

And then there's the bizarre "choose your own adventure" video game being featured at the library and the fact that they're trying to paint Bush as a great president because he had to make "tough decisions," regardless of how horrible those decisions were.

HAYES: This does not sound like the kind of thing that's going to make everyone realize what a great president George W. Bush was. In fact, it sounds to me like the world's easiest video game. Invade a country for no reason, or don't invade a country for no reason? Don't invade a country for no reason.

Celebrate John McCain's birthday while a deadly storm hits New Orleans or don't celebrate John McCain's birthday while a deadly storm hits New Orleans? Don't celebrate John McCain's birthday while a deadly storm hits New Orleans. I could do this all day.

Torture people or don't torture people? Don't torture people. Deregulate and tax cut the country into financial ruin, or don't deregulate and tax cut the country into financial ruin? There is no reason people, to over-think the Bush presidency.

It was just as bad as you thought.

DOWNLOADS: (181)

PLAYS: (1198)

Embed

Chris Hayes gave a little send-off to Sen. Max Baucus on the news of his upcoming retirement from the United States Senate. After running down a list of why the only people who are really going to miss him are the lobbyists who will likely see their salaries go down once he leaves, Hayes reminded his viewers of what it really means when we hear pundits talk about so-called "centrists" in Washington.

HAYES: I know some of Max Baucus' defenders. I like some of Max Baucus' defenders. And they will say to liberal critics like me that we don't understand that the man is from Montana, the conservative state, and he wouldn't have lasted very long in Washington voting or sounding like say, Elizabeth Warren.

But here's what's so notable about so many of the items in Max Baucus' record that are objectionable. When you scratch the surface, they don't seem to have a lot to do with public opinion, either in Montana or anywhere else. I doubt there's a groundswell of public opinion in favor of the very tax extenders included in the fiscal cliff deal, or for raising the payroll taxes for that matter. Or permanently repealing the estate tax, which he voted for in 2006. Or disallowing the government from using its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices with big pHARMA.

No. The way to understand Max Baucus and the center isn't in terms of where the median voter is, or the peak in the bell curve distribution of Americans' political views, because the center in American politics is much less often the place of sensible moderation and much more often, the name we give to the place where power resides.

DOWNLOADS: (123)

PLAYS: (662)

Embed

Pardon me if I have a problem with someone who was happy to be a cheerleader for us invading a couple of countries that were not a threat to us and the huge overreach by the Bush administration in response to 9-11, now saying that maybe the city of Boston and law enforcement there potentially overreacted because they locked down a good deal of the city, while in pursuit of suspects who were lobbing explosives in their path as they tried to escape.

JEFFREY BROWN: But 9/11 was a while ago. Have we forgotten that sense of -- in our own cities?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I don't think so, judging by the reaction.

When this is all over, I want to see a debate from people who know what they're talking about, about the wisdom of shutting down a region to chase one 19-year-old. I mean, it -- it could be an overreaction. We will wait and see.

And, also, when you go to places that suffer from these sorts of attacks, Israel and other places, one of the things they tell you is that the power and the importance of resilience and the importance of normalcy. So, say in Israel, during the Intifada days, when there would be an attack in a cafe, that cafe would be open the next day. And so the idea was to keep society normal, not to minimize what's happened, but to keep society as normal as possible.

And so I'm not sure we're achieving that with the media coverage and the shutting down an entire city.

Brooks is a decade late with his feigned concern for Americans and their response to terrorist attacks. He's also a day late and a dollar short with catching up to Chris Hayes and Jon Stewart, who both expressed similar concerns over the way Americans react to gun and crime compared to the resources they're willing to pour into the name of preventing terrorism.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (149)

PLAYS: (754)

Embed

Despite some blogs attempting to conflate Sen. Lindsey Graham's remarks that Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzokhar Tsarnaev should be held as an enemy combatant with the Obama administration's decision not to read him his Miranda rights due to the public safety exemption, as Roger Cressey explained to Chris Hayes this Friday evening, Tsarnaev still going to be tried in civilian court and eventually read those rights.

Think Progress has more on that here: What You Need To Know About Why The Boston Bombing Suspect Hasn’t Been Read His Miranda Rights:

Despite initial reports to the contrary, FBI agents did not read Boston Bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights immediately after he was taken into custody. Instead, they invoked what is known as the “public safety exception” to delay reading those rights to the alleged bomber. Here’s what you need to know about this narrow exception to the Miranda rule: The Public Safety Exemption Is Real

The Supreme Court first held that there is a public safety exemption to Miranda in a 1984 case known as New York v. Quarles. In Quarles a woman told police that a man with a gun raped her, and that he’d run into a nearby grocery store. Police quickly found the suspect within the store, arrested him after a brief chase, handcuffed him, and discovered that he was wearing an empty shoulder holster. Before reading him his rights, an officer asked him where the gun was, and the suspect told the cop where to find it. After retrieving the gun, police then read the suspect his Miranda rights.

Although the Constitution generally forbids law enforcement from interrogating suspects in custody without first reading them their rights, the Court held that a narrow “public safety exemption” permitted the limited questioning that occurred in Quarles. As the Court explained, “procedural safeguards which deter a suspect from responding were deemed acceptable in Miranda in order to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege; when the primary social cost of those added protections is the possibility of fewer convictions, the Miranda majority was willing to bear that cost. Here, had Miranda warnings deterred Quarles from responding to Officer Kraft’s question about the whereabouts of the gun, the cost would have been something more than merely the failure to obtain evidence useful in convicting Quarles. Officer Kraft needed an answer to his question not simply to make his case against Quarles but to insure that further danger to the public did not result from the concealment of the gun in a public area.”

As the Court emphasized, this exemption is “narrow.” It permits police to ask a limited range of questions for the purpose of removing any imminent threats. It does not permit wide-ranging questions intended to build a case against the suspect.

Go read the rest, and as they made clear, the FBI is not allowed to ask broad ranging questions for the purpose of building a criminal case and the suspect will eventually have his rights read to them, and they cannot be indefinitely delayed. And as Cressey explained in the segment above, they're going to have solid case against him due to all of the evidence they've collected already before he was taken into custody.

DOWNLOADS: (506)

PLAYS: (5876)

Embed

Jon Stewart took our "broken bad" Senate and their failure to pass even some watered down gun regulation to task during the opening segment of The Daily Show this Thursday night. Stewart also took a page out of Chris Hayes' book, going after them for being willing to move heaven and earth to combat terrorism, while pretending there's no point in even passing any laws if criminals are just going to break them when it comes to guns.

After showing a portion of Hayes show comparing the number of terror vs gun fatalities in the United States, here's how Stewart wrapped things up.

STEWART: Well, thank God for Chris Hayes, because I'm not good at math. I'm so stupid. I still think 54 votes is more than 46, because I'm a f**king idiot. But I'm pretty sure that a million is more than 3400, and yet, to battle the evil of terror, we started two wars, tortured people, reorganized almost the entire federal government, disallowed the air trafficking of shampoo and conditioner and okay'd the robot sky killing of American citizens, if warranted by... someone.

Because one American life lost to terror is one too many, which I agree with. But it seems to me we'll move heaven and earth to do whatever it takes to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of foreigners who might kill our citizens, because apparently we think killing our citizens, is our job.

John Oliver continued the theme in the following segment, where he made a complete mockery of the Virginia Citizens Defense League's President, Philip Van Cleave, who was attempting to make many of the same arguments as those Senators, despite the fact that, as Oliver pointed out to him, Australia has proven that gun regulation can prevent mass shootings and gun deaths.

DOWNLOADS: (403)

PLAYS: (4549)

Embed

DOWNLOADS: (233)

PLAYS: (1691)

Embed

With the Senate just voting down the Manchin-Toomey amendment to the gun safety bill, while the media continues to focus on the Boston bombing attacks, MSNBC's Chris Hayes discussed the difference between the way crimes are handled once they're "put in the terrorism bucket" as compared to the "gun bucket" and the differences between what Americans are willing to accept in each instance.

Violence and terror: What’s the difference?:

On Wednesday night, host Chris Hayes asks the question: What happens when someone is apprehended? Will the identity of the bomber(s) impact the way we describe and govern the incident?

Incidents like the Boston Marathon bombings, that appear to be driven by unfettered hatred, shake us to our collective core. They make us think twice about entering public spaces: going out for a meal, taking public transportation, taking a dog for a walk. There is no doubt that the intended consequence of an act like the bombings at the Boston Marathon is to scare. But how should we characterize and define that fear? And what does this fear drive us to do? Does it drive us to suspend rule of law?

What exactly is the distinction between an ordinary crime and what we call terrorism?

After showing some of President Obama's speech following the filibuster, Hayes wrapped things up with this:

HAYES: And so, as we follow the developments out of Boston, as we leave no stone unturned attempting to find the perpetrator, another eighty eight or so people will lose their life to a bullet tomorrow, and the day after that and the day after that. And meanwhile, all worry that if the suspect who blew up the finish line isn't caught, we can't be sure that we're safe.

DOWNLOADS: (214)

PLAYS: (1571)

Embed

As Chris Hayes noted at the end of his segment above, "Welcome, America, to the new Republican party." Which of course is exactly the same as the old Republican party before their ridiculous rebranding effort. This is the third time they've introduced legislation like this, only to have it fail time and again. Maybe they're hoping the third time's the charm.

Overtime pay vs. comp time: Will House bill benefit workers or their bosses?

On Thursday morning, the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing regarding the innocuously titled Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013, which would allow workers to choose between receiving overtime pay or additional time off in exchange for extra hours on the job. While supporters of the legislation say it would give employees the freedom to decide on their own how to use their overtime, critics argue that the power would really be in the hands of the boss.

“This legislation is based on smoke and mirrors,” said National Partnership for Women and Families senior adviser Judith Lichtman in her testimony before the committee. “It pretends to offer the time off people need, when they need it, but in fact, it is a pay cut for workers without any attendant guarantee of time.”

Speaking to MSNBC.com later that day, she described the legislation as an “Employers Flexibility Bill.”

“It’s the employer that gets to decide when and under what circumstances you can take this comp time,” she said. She also expressed concern that employers could pressure employees into taking comp time rather than pay. These employers could then also decide who to give overtime hours on the basis of who they would have to grant overtime pay or comp time.

Continue reading »