tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC June 19, 2014 12:00am-1:01am PDT
decide they've had enough. i don't think that day will come in the life of this presidency or in the lives of those of us now trying to take sides. could it be there is no american side in this thing? that's hardball for now, thanks for being with us, all in with chris hayes starts right now. good evening, from new york, i'm chris hayes. president obama has just wrapped up a meeting with congressional leaders on how to respond to the deepening chaos in iraq. lawmakers reportedly pressured the president to force nuri al maliki to step down over what they see as his failure to rain in the sectarian strife that's fueling the sunni insurgency now bearing down on baghdad. as isis militants strengthen today. the maliki government requested u.s. air force in the form of
surveillance and drone strikes. martin dempsey told the congressional panel that air strikes might be easier said than done, given the unclear intel against picture on the ground. we still haven't worked through the ramifications of the crime that was the iraq wall. we had small account aeblts moments in 2006 and 2008 which functioned as rebukes of the people who led us into that war. here we are, 11 years after the war started, having what amounts to the first real public reckoning with the full horror of what we unleashed, who was responsible for it, and how we should move forward. what we are watching is the internal psycho drama of individuals responsible for more death than one could reasonably
be asked to internalized. we are watching them work through that guilt publicly that intends to reconcile the sheer scope of what we did, and some people were seeing and actually learned the lessons of history, hillary clinton struggled to explain her vote for the iraq war has admitted it was plainly a mistake. >> and i wanted to make clear in this book, in the context of my thinking what i would recommend to president obama concerning additional troops in afghanistan, that i did get it wrong in iraq, and it was a mistake. >> glenn beck no fan of the left came out and said this. >> they said we couldn't force freedom on people. let me lead with my mistakes. you're right, liberals you were right, we shouldn't have. >> liberals you were right. >> tom freeman told iraqis, suck on this.
he wrote in today's new york times, now is not the time to reinvade iraq. even john bolton, one of the most rabid militants thinks we should stay out of it. >> and then there are the dead enders, the people who have dealt with the sheer magnitude of what they brought by doubling down. the method of how badly they got it wrong, is to scream even louder they got it right. to let a little truth work its way in, would annihilate the sense of the world order and their place in it. we've seen this from officials like paul bremmer and lindsey graham, commentators like bill crystal, but at the top of the list was this man and his they're daughter. >> al qaeda is -- >> dick cheney and his daughter liz announcing they're founding a new organization to advance
american foreign policy, let that sink in for a minute. they wrote a wall street journal op ed condemning president obama's approach to iraq. it includes lines like this, rarely has the u.s. president been so wrong about so much, at the skens of so many. you see the spectacle of dick cheney weighing in on iraq. at one level, it feels the society would have done something formal to sanction this person for what he did, and place him outside the bounds of polite society. in the absence of that, this man is speaking from a mountainside in a funny hat rather than the oval office. this is a man whose family name has been so tarnished, he couldn't get his own daughter through a primary campaign in his own party in his own home state he had to go back to the drawing board to find her another job, which he's achieved by starting this new organization. of course, no accounting for this psycho drama, the spectacle of the reckoning of the horror of what they did would be complete without this man, who
to his credit has seen fitting to spend no more wisdom or advice and spend his days in texas trying to paint his soul clean. >> joining me now, someone who was an open opponent of the war about the folly it woulding, what is your reaction to watching the bizarre spectacle of people who supported iraq, debating with each other on each side what we should do with iraq now? >> i think you're right it is partly delayed, the discussion they haven't been having, we haven't been having for a dozen years, about the sides people took then. it's not so much that he's criticizing his successors, after all, al gore is a former vice president, was criticizing the decision to go into iraq in 2002, but the tone he's had and
lack of self-awareness is really quite something. and i think that also the question of bookers on our shows, bringing in repeatedly people like paul bremmer and paul wolfowitz were as responsible as anybody for this whole thing. >> a strange kind of metadebate has erupted. everything that's happening there, it's hard to find good silver linings. the conversation politically here about who has standing in this debate, and they're people making the argument you can't constrain the boundaries of debate, people lose and people might have been wrong once before, they might be right again, what do you say to that? >> i have some experience with this? i put out a fairly ill considered tweet a few days ago, saying, how about this -- if you stump for the war, maybe we don't need your advice now. oh, you're going to lock up people that disagree. that's not my point. my point is, if you were really grossly in error on this particular topic, on the likely
consequences of military operations in this country, at least you should have a little bit of deference or retticence in saying, i was wrong then. i think in the last couple days, there's been some kind of shock awareness of why we are listening to crystal, wolfowitz and bremmer opine on what to do in iraq. >> the structure of the arguments around this right now, very much look like the structure of the arguments back then, in that there is this kind of temp taking to advocate some immediate sort of intervention to deal with what is seen as an immediate problem, in this case, it's a bad situation in iraq. i don't think there's anyone who thinks that's not the case. without asking the then what yeah, and the then what question is the question that was failed to ask the first time around, called the 50 first state about what the iraq occupation might look like, do you think we've gotten better as a society at asking that question?
>> i think there is some sobering effect to the last dozen years and people looking at iraq now looking at afghanistan and saying, for what have we lost these lives, sacrificed all the money and international standing and the torture and all the rest, we maybe have been forced into some sort of that, i think also, it is as you well know from this show and the business of public opinion, there really is almost an irresistible compulsion, here is a problem. if the answer is, there isn't really any good solution, or if there's a solution, it's not one that our cruise missiles and drones are likely to solve, let's solve it with the tool we have. >> i was not working in cable news in 2003, i see how the images that we show are the
horrifying images of isis. terrifying, right? and there's a certain kind of frenetic excitement around the crisis and violence that even in an ideological sense that lays the groundwork for people to be thinking in terms of military intervention as the solution. >> and i think you're right, you've written about this, and there is the immediacy and the permanent crisis mode of cable tv where you think people are suffering around the world, we have to do something. and the next stage of what will it mean if we take this step, is that going to make a difference a week from now, a month from now, there's a laudable part of this human desire to do something, in addition to sort of the crowd frenzy part, and the fact that as americans in the 21st century, we know we have a military, that's the main thing we have, we're tempted to use it, maybe we're seeing some resistance on what's happened over the last several years. >> the greatest and most active deadend, there is john mccain
whose whole m.o. is that he's never learned anything. every crisis is proof positive and demands the same aggressive response. there is one issue where mccain has changed his mind. the arizona senator used to support closing guantanamo. >> i believe we should close guantanamo and work with our allies. and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the expo significance of dangerous detainees under our control. >> now in an apparent amazing reversal, he thinks that's where we should send abu khatallah, the alleged ring leader of the benghazi attack. he was charged in criminal court, the obama administration announced that once u.s. officials -- joining me now, retired air force colonel morris davis. and colonel davis, do you think it's a good idea to send him to guantanamo?
>> it's a terrible idea. the worst thing we could do, i think the president made a wise decision here bringing him to the u.s., trying him in federal court, and let's close this chapter at guantanamo and put it behind us. >> if we were to bring him to guantanamo as opposed to trying him in federal court. my understanding is giving him the legal ambiguity about the legal detainees, what you wan the to see is this man pay the price, civilian trial is much more likely to assure that in a speedy fashion than the morass that is guantanamo. >> back in september of 2006, there were 14 men transferred from the cia to guantanamo, of those 14 men, there's one that's been convicted and sentenced, and that was ahmed gallani. the other 13 men that got off the plane with limb that day are still in legal limbo at
guantanamo. khalid sheikh mohammed is in hearings this week, there's still no trial date. i believe if it goes to guantanamo, it could be sometime next decade. >> do you sense backsliding? do you support closing guantanamo in. >> definitely, senator mccain, it's disappointing, i worked with him a bit when i was chief prosecutor, and both he and lindsey graham pushed back against the bush administration on enhanced interrogation and with the second rate proceedings at guantanamo when that was not popular to do i have a lot of respect for both of them. it was a year ago senator mccain and senator feinstein said it's in our national interest to close guantanamo. that was a year ago, things haven't gotten better over the past year, it makes no sense.
>> can you square that belief by senator mccain that it's in our interest to close guantanamo with the idea that we should bring a new detainee to guantanamo? >> it's a disaster. our allies have condemned guantanamo. we've had some progress over the last few years, beginning the process of closing it down. at this point to add to the population by taking khatallah there makes no sense. it accomplishes nothing. there were some who thought it was outside the reach of the law, to them, it was the perfect place to take people to be exploited for intelligence. that's back when you had the memo that said anything short of death was acceptable. >> organ failure, painful organ failure. >> right, all that's changed. guantanamo, it turned out was not a law free zone. they have a right to an attorney and a right to hab yus corpus in federal court. there's really nothing to be
gained by taking khatallah to guantanamo other than making some political point to try to paint the president as weak. there's nothing you can do at guantanamo that you can't do on board a ship or on u.s. soil. >> as former prosecutor there, we saw people angry about the release of the five taliban figures in the swap for bowe bergdahl, what is the likelihood, do you think of people returning to battle, and what do you say to people that are scared of that? >> well, certainly over the past 12 years there's been a lot of pandering to fear and a lot of profit made off of fear mongering. you can't guarantee that no one is going to return to do bad things. i mean, if we're waiting for the risk to be reduced to zero we'll never get there. we're going to take some calculated risks, i think the president has done that.
i think it was a good move to send the five back and get bowe bergdahl back home. >> retired air force colonel morris davis, thank you. >> sure. coming up, right before the super bowl this ad was released. >> rancher, teacher, doctor, seminole, seneca, mohawk, native americans call themselves many things. the one thing they don't. >> well, today, the u.s. patent and trademark office cancelled the trademark for that helmet. what does it actually mean? we'll talk about it next.
federal law protects trademarks so long as they are not deemed to be disparaging. the u.s. trademark office found a preponderance of evidence that native americans found the nickname disparaging. if it's disparaging now, was it disparaging in 1967? if so, they should have never been given a trademark in the first place. that doesn't mean the team nature will disappear. just like the last time this happened in 1999, when the same office found the trademark was not valid, the team will likely appeal the ruling. in the meantime, they'll be able to continue exclusively using the trademark, the name. in recent months, president obama and himself have called the team to change its name about we'll never change the name, it's that simple, never, you can use caps.
when a federal body rules that your nickname is disparaging to a great number of people, senator harry reid may be on to something. >> there's no trademark any more for the redskins. daniel snyder may be the last person in the world to realize this, but it's just a matter of time until he's forced to do the right thing and change the name. >> joining me now, congressman eleanor holmes. your reaction to today's rule something. >> the lawyer in me said you shouldn't be surprised, because a snyder, dan snyder has tried to trademark the name four separate times since, and four times this patent and trademark office said that this word was disparaging. how many times does he need to hear it. the trademark office found in a prior case it was disparaging,
it was not overturned on the courts on the merits, it was -- the courtses essentially didn't reach the merits. >> that's right. >> there was a technicality as to who the plaintiffs were. this time the petitioners are the right petitioners, he's going to go down in flames, why do so over a racial slur. >> this is an important point. the last time it was thrown out, it was appealed. lawyers went out, they found a younger crop of people that they think will pass that same this remember hold. if they get to the merits, the lawyer in you says they have no chance. >> no chance. >> and the reason i say so, is that the courts have to give almost complete deference to the fact finder here, to the expert agency. they can't just say, we don't like -- i don't know what kind of lawyers dan snyder has, and i don't know what kind of a leader
that the nfl has that he hasn't gone to the other team owners -- he hasn't gone to fedex and said, help us to get dan to understand. this is going nowhere, and all of us are being painted and implicated. >> this shows you how long the offensiveness of the word -- edward bennett williams who is former redskins owner in 1972 saying, yesterday i met with the leaders who are objecting to the continuing use of the name redskins. he's writing to the current owner, this is not a secret. why do you think it's gained the kind of ground swell that it's gained now? >> chris, it's because the native people have stepped up themselves to ed kuwait the country.
they're at a severe disadvantage, oath 3% of the country, they are all around the country. they're not like latinos and african-americans who are much larger group. they wouldn't dare do this if any of those groups were involved. he can do it because naturive americans are spread all out. they have come together now, and they have raised the consciousness of all of us, look, all of us have used the name, the old name, because we didn't know any better. we know better now, and you have what has been spawned, chris, is a virtual movement. not only a native people but people of every conceivable background behind them now. >> he's losing in the public and he's losing in the courts. >> you know, i agree, it seems absolutely inevitable. the question -- people on social media today were coming up with possible replacements for the name. is there -- do you have a favorite possible replacement? is the city of washington, engaged in the early stages of collective brainstorm something.
>> you know, chris, there are people who engage in that name, that's the one thing i want to give him, the right to name his own team so long as he doesn't use a racial slur. >> that's right, keep it out of a racial slur, and the new name will be fine with you. >> tell me this, i thought this was a rich man who knew how to make money. can you imagine how much money he would make if he had a new name and all that paraphernalia had to be changed? >> that's right. >> why isn't he smiling to the bank and say, let it be. >> iphone comes out with a new version every year, it's a business model. congresswoman, thank you so much. coming up, remember this guy? >> i hope they're home. oh, wow! you cats hit the jackpot. there's enough food here to feed a lion. >> that sock puppet is the mascot for the last tech bubble burst. now there's a new app that may be the next one, i'll tell you what it is ahead.
great story out of texas. the dallas county commissioners board unanimously approved to pay reparations to african-americans for a lengthy list of injustices, ranging from slavery to jim crow to predatory lending practices. the resolution was put forward by the county's only african-american commissioner. now, he may have been inspired, but the rest of the board apparently voted for the resolution by accident.
after the vote, other commissioners admitted they had never read the resolution before voting on it. it now stands, dallas's official position. no money will be going out any time soon. however, there is another place in this country where at this very moment people are applying for reparations, those reparations will be paid. it's in an republican controlled southern state, we travelled there to bring you that story, and you'll never guess who's putting their weight behind the effort? we're going to bring you that story next week as part of our series, all in america, behind the color line. i hope you'll join us.
it sends your friends the word yo in a robot voice. no other words are available. but it turns out, i couldn't believe this, my million dollar idea is already out there, and now i'm no longer joking, someone actually raised $1 million for it. >> the developer took eight hours to code. it's so simple apple rejected it from the app store the first time around, because the quality assurance guys thought it was unfinished. >> it seems pretty ridiculous on its face. an app that just says yo, and yet someone got a million dollars for it. of course, a million dollars is not all that much. facebook bought the texting app for $19 billion in february. which works out to about $350 million per employee, and $40 peruser. snapchat turns down a $3 billion
offer from facebook. and uber is now valued at $18.2 billion. just to put that in perspective, at that valuation, uber is worth more than avis, hertz and sony. this has people asking, are we experiencing a massive tech bubble. investors be wary. if there is a tech bubble and it's ready to burst. how much damage could it cause? when pets.com and many other web based companies were falling victim to the last tech bubble, it helped drag the economy into recession. with an app that says yo, with that bringing it in a million. this is dangerous. it's high time to figure out what is going on. this does seem to me like this
is the thing we're going to write about five years ago. >> is this is where we say, you ran out of ideas, we're going to get the million dollar idea to anybody who walks in the door. can you come up with good talking points about it. it's a low latency communication app. it makes sending a message like one tap, versus 11 taps to send to yo, it's not the yo that's important, it's the fact that you can ping someone. >> i'm defending the concept that you can have an app that does one thing simply. the guy that came up with this app, someone asked him, can you make an app that will ping my assistant the. what if i can make this for everybody? >> here's the broader issue, right? the reason that there's a million available, there is so much money sloshing around the world of venture capital. i see it, people i know -- i see
it in people i know, who got into app development, there is a lot of money. why is there so much money out there. >> nobody wants to get left out of the next big thing. somebody says, you know, if it costs me a million or two to get in on this, if i lose it, that's okay, i'm going to spread it around and maybe i'll hit one of these jackpots. >> where does the money come from? >> i remember when the financial crisis happened around the housing, there was this planet money called the global pool of money. there was this glut of savings worldwide. there's all this money moving around. i wonder if there's something in miniature happening here, with the concentration of wealth in this country that there's so much capital. >> a handful of people that are using this to cherry pick their favorite projects. sometimes they're getting real when i good return on their investment. they get favorable terms, if you
have a great idea like the yo app and somebody comes to you and gives you a million dollars for a chunk of it. they're getting a great app down the road. >> am i wrong? i know there are millions of people around the world that use it, free messaging service. it's a great product. it's unclear to me how it's going to make money. how -- that's the other thing, that is the other thing about this that's similar to the tech bubble, companies that had no clear strategy getting acquired or doing ipo's for hundreds of millions or billions. >> i was around for that original dot com bubble. i think some companies have large things, build warehouses that cost a lot of money, this stuff is cheaper to put together. what's app i think i'm going to keep using that in the future. with yo we're going to be done by the end of the week, and
everyone will have their million dollar laugh and move on. >> yeah, i think this is a one day story or a one week story. what is the way that someone gets that turned into real money. >> the real reason why what's app sold for so much, these bigger companies like facebook and google and like youtube, they want to get in on these before someone else snatches it up. in some cases, it's getting it before someone else gets it, and they'll figure out what to do with it later. >> it was basically buying the competition. messaging is important, these other people might displace you, so buy them before they can. >> for such a gigantic company, facebook has done a not so good job. instead of building a mobile messaging plant, they bought the most popular one in the world. coming up, an ugly event at the conservative heritage
any time something like this gets said, you know what follows is going to light the internet on fire. >> at this time, we take political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs. >> we'll talk to someone who was at that event next. [ male announcer ] prilosec otc is the number one doctor recommended frequent heartburn medicine for 8 straight years. one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. frequent heartburn medicine for 8 straight years. woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water.
that comment. part of a tape, the benghazi coalition benghazi panel at the heritage foundation. dana milbank showed up for the event, wrote a column about some of the ugliness that occurred. a nine minute clip of the event was also released and showed the reaction of the panel when an american university law student noted she did not see muslim representatives represented at the event. there's a bit more of that response. >> there are 1.2 billion muslims in the world today. of course not all of them are radicals, the majority of them are peaceful people. the rads cals are estimated to be between 15 to 25% according to all intelligence services around the world. you're looking at 180 million to
300 million people dedicated to the destruction of western civilization. >> so are you an american? you're an american citizen. you sat in this room and instead of standing up and saying a question or asking something about our four americans that died, and what our government is doing to correct the problem, you stood there to make a point about peaceful muslims. i wish you brought 10 with you about how we can hold our government responsible. it is time we take political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs. >> the atmosphere in the room was worse than what's depicted there, i have to say that video makes me uncomfortable. when the clips started getting attention, some said it was misrepresented. frank gaffney is openly paranoid about muslim americans. bridget gabriel has been named as one of the anti-muslim inner
circles. all muslims or a massive portion of them are violent extremists, who domestically constitute a column to bring down the west these voices increasingly in the conservative mainstream would if they were to say the same thing about jews or christians would never be tolerated. what was it about this that made you write about the column? >> i had gone to the event to write something totally different. a guy that barely figured into the article. and things took on a life of their own as i watched this sort of baiting going on throughout this hour long thing, capped off at the end by -- not just what they were saying to this muslim law student that asked the question, but the taunting that ensued in these longstanding ovations that were given to that
woman, who's clip you just played. >> what did this have to do with -- what is the benghazi bsh what is this weird nether world of benghazi conferences? >> it was a little odd, and then the heritage foundation tried to say, it wasn't their event, it was the benghazi accountability coalition. the program was on heritage letterhead and said the heritage foundation welcomes you to this event. i think what happened in the larger sense is that, you know, look, we just got the mastermind apparently of the benghazi attack. these are running a bit thin in terms of, what are we going to say next. are we going to still go on about susan rice's talking points? when you have a benghazi forum
like this, it tends to go off into very odd directions. this is not at all the first thing like this i've witnessed. >> the key point to me here is that #benghazi as i describe it, which is distinct from the actual attack that actually resulted in this horrific loss of life and four dead americans, the #benghazi is the swamp world of conspiracy theorys that's become its own iteration of vince foster. similar to what we saw during the clinton years? >> so you mentioned frank gaffney who was there on the panel, before the clip you played, he went into this long thing about how the president of the united states uses w0rds that should be on the website of al qaeda. i'm not clear they have a public website, the president of the united states is funding jihadists and goes on about this disproved kennard about someone who worked for hillary clinton,
having depersonalized ties with the muslim brotherhood. there are muslims working to get a ban on sharia law across the united states of america. really far out there stuff, this is what benghazi has become. >> this is being said at this panel. the huma abedean kennard is disgraceful. >> very tricky by marrying anthony weiner, a jew. >> that was part of her cover, of course. were you surprised at the push back that you had somehow defamed the defenseless heritage foundation? >> you're never surprised in this business. a lot of it came from the far right. the #benghazi crowd you mentioned.
they had seen a nine minute clip of the 65 minute event and didn't get a full picture of it, and i pushed back considerably on that. when you see the taunting and see what's going on in the room, you get a sense of what's going on that you don't get from the antiseptic videotape. >> i want you to stick with us. the enduring power of the islamphobia on the right. da(????
robert berg dalg looked like a muslim, he looks like a muslim. i said that robert bergdahl looked like a muslim when he appeared at the white house with president obama. he absolutely looked like a muslim, he talked in poshdom, the language of the taliban, and he thanked allah. i thought his appearance was inappropriate, i stand by it. >> what is your reaction to the video we played? >> i think it's the snapchat of the islamphobia in this country. it was disgusting to watch the.
it was exactly what dana said, it was lob sided and ugly, and to treat any woman, regardless of what her faith was like that was disrespectful. it goes back to how dare a muslim woman stand up for herself. how dare she assert herself and ask a question. i think that's the kind of confusion the islam phobes have. it's like who do you want us to be exactly. >> do you think this kind of weird self-contained world, is that representative of something broader or is it it's own weird sub culture? >> it's part of obama's a muslim, looking at -- you know, they're listening to what gabriel said, her math is off by the way, 25% of 1.8 billion people is one out of every 4 people wants destruction of the west, and it seems like we're doing pretty well, we're still around. i think the thing that concerns
me the most is that this is really acceptable bigotry, nobody's up in arms about this, they're more up in arms about dana writing the article than the actual content of what's going on. >> right -- >> if we flipped it around and put a jewish woman in there or christian woman in there, we would be up in arms, we would be asking for them to be shut down and the government to be investigating their finances and find out who they're connected to. my thing is the hypocrisy around this acceptable industry that is backed by millions of dollars. islamphobia industry is at least $120 million. they have tracked money this is a lucrative business. these people are making money off this hate. >> peddling this, that's the point. this is like, this is just red meat for the base? >> yeah, chris, and it's sort of the last area where discrimination for some people seems to be perfectly legitimate. imagine if bill o'reilly said, bergdahl's father looks like a jew. could you imagine the reaction to this?
or gabriel saying the peaceful muslims are irrelevant. it's like saying, peaceful italians are irrelevant because there's organized crime. it's preposterous, and if you substitute another ethnic group in there, you see why this is unacceptable. >> do you think -- i've been thinking a lot about what's going on right now in iraq. and it does occur to me, there's this old adage about news that we don't cover every plane that lands. people have an outside sense of the danger of flying. for a long time the only thing we covered were crashes, that's what's in your mind. the fact of the matter is, we don't cover like peaceful muslims, hanging out going about their day. performing surgery, we cover isis marching through with black flags looking super terrified. >> when we did do that, the learning channel put together that reality television show called all american muslim, the right wing went crazy, started
pulling ads, how dare we show normal muslims in michigan living like normal americans. that's the problem, the question is, where are the peaceful muslims that are head of the peace movement. there are plenty of them out there, but that's not a spicy story. >> exactly. we don't -- even in the case of syria and the syrian resistance. the secular left resistance of syria got no play here. what got play was the al qaeda folks and isis affiliated folks. i wonder how much the way we all cover this is part of the problem. >> well, that's true in this area as in all areas. we accentuate the negative. people see it on their news screens. to take a leap from there and say that there's 300 million muslims out there, bent on the destruction of western civilization. if we have a war on terror, what does that mean, we have to kill all 300 million people?
good luck with that about. >> that is exactly right. there is this desire for some kinds of cataclysmic clash with some groups of people. the reaction was to inflate the importance and the credibility of precisely those groups that are most marginalized. >> i mean, look, we're giving platform to like pastor terry jones from florida, the koran burning pastor. who are we giving credibility to? the media needs to do their homework on who we're giving a platform to. we're just another addition to the large list of people that have been vilified. my concern right now is that we keep saying no bigotry, no racism, when it comes to arabs and muslims, it's acceptable bigotry.
>> he looks like a jew, just forget it. dana milbank, thank you. that is all in for this evening, the rachel maddow show starts right now. >> thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. on december 19th, a united states senate candidate was at his home minding his own business when he heard a knock at his front door. he later explained to the newspaper that when he peered out the window of his house, he recognized the local police officers of the lusk police department. he noticed the police officers had others with them. the candidate told the paper, at first i thought they were there to take me to a fema concentration camp to kill me. the local police did not take him to a fema concentration camp nor did they kill him. it was the local employment at the door. accompanied by officers frhe