All In With Chris Hayes, Transcript, 8/9/2016

Gordon Humphrey, Jennifer Granholm, Michael Barbaro, Norm Ornstein, Nina Turner, Khizr Khan

Date: August 9, 2016
Guest: Gordon Humphrey, Jennifer Granholm, Michael Barbaro, Norm Ornstein,
Nina Turner, Khizr Khan


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN –

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Hillary wants to abolish –
essentially abolish the Second Amendment.

HAYES: Donald Trump does it again.

TRUMP: If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.
Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.

HAYES: Tonight, the Clinton camp responds to what they say is a call to
violence and how the Trump campaign is defending its apparent endorsement
of Second Amendment remedies.

Plus, another GOP senator jumps ship, as battleground polling go south for
Republicans, the latest Trump hedge on debating Clinton, and the ongoing
attacks on the Muslim father of a slain army captain.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Do you think he was purposely hiding his real
views until now?

HAYES: Khizr Khan is here to respond when ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.

The very day after his big campaign reset, Donald Trump addressed a crowd
of supporters in Wilmington, North Carolina, today, and appeared to call
for armed violence against his opponent, Hillary Clinton.


TRUMP: Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the second amendment.
By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing
you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I
don`t know. But – but I`ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.


HAYES: Now, there`s some precedent for this kind of talk from Trump`s
party. Remember back in 2010, while running for Harry Reid`s Nevada Senate
seat, GOP candidate Sharron Angle floated, quote, “Second Amendment
remedies” to fix Congress.


it`s good for our country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope
that`s not where we`re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going
the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment


HAYES: Angle went on to lose that race by five percentage points.

More recently, New Hampshire State Senator Al Baldasaro who advises Trump
on veterans issues called for Hillary Clinton to be summarily executed,
prompting an investigation by the Secret Service.


STATE REP. AL BALDASARO (R-NH): She is a disgrace for the lies that she
told those mothers about their children that got killed over there in
Benghazi. Hillary Clinton should be put in the firing line and shot for


HAYES: While the Trump campaign stipulated that Mr. Trump didn`t feel this
way, Baldasaro stood by his statement insisting Clinton`s use of her
private email server merited execution by firing squad, and the Trump
campaign didn`t move to sever their ties. In fact, just this weekend,
Trump gave Baldasaro a shout-out during a rally in New Hampshire.

Now, the Clinton camp responded to Trump`s comments today in a statement
from campaign manager Robby Mook. “This is simple. What Trump is saying
is dangerous. A person seeking to be the president of the United States
should not suggest violence in any way.”

But according to the Trump campaign, their candidate had something totally
different and totally harmless in mind. Quote, “It`s called the power of
unification. Second Amendment people have an amazing spirit and are
tremendously unified, which gives them great political power.”

Tonight at another campaign stop in North Carolina, Trump introducer Rudy
Giuliani gave the campaign`s alternate version of Trump`s comments.


RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER NYC MAYOR: What he said very clearly was that if
Hillary Clinton were elected president, she would get to appoint judges to
the Supreme Court. And among the other things they would do to destroy us
would be to do away with the Second Amendment and your right to bear arms.

And then he said and you have the power to do something about it. What he
meant by that was, you have the power to vote against her. You have the
power – you have the power to campaign against her! You have the power to
speak against her! You know why? Because you`re Americans.


HAYES: Well, that`s wonderfully patriotic, but you saw the tape and it`s
pretty clear, that is not what Trump said.

And if you look at the reaction from this audience member who appears to
mouth the words “whoa,” it`s not what he heard either.

All this comes barely 24 hours since Trump tried to turn the page on a
disastrous week for his campaign, delivering a fairly standard supply side
economic speech yesterday in Detroit. But even that hasn`t been able to
stem the tide of growing GOP defections. The latest from Senator Susan
Collins of Maine, who have been holding out hope for Trump`s much promised
general election pivot.


SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: I`ve come to the inescapable conclusion
that there is no new Donald Trump, that he is incapable of change and
growth. He is incapable of apologizing, of saying that he was wrong.


HAYES: Collins said she won`t vote for Hillary Clinton, but a number of
former Republican officials, including a New Hampshire senator and a
Michigan governor now favor Clinton over Trump. Even Newt Gingrich, an
early Trump endorser and a finalist to be his running mate, had trouble
assuring “The New York Times” that Trump meets the minimum requirement to
be president.


NYT: Does he have the mental fitness, psychological suitability to the
office of the presidency?

NEWT GINGRICH (R), FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: Um, yeah and my answer would be

NYT: Sure?

GINGRICH: Sure. I mean, he is at least as reliable as Andrew Jackson.

NYT: Can you be more forceful than “sure”?

GINGRICH: Um, I think that Trump has a willingness to break up a system
which is decaying.


HAYES: By the way, if you`re so moved, read a biography of Andrew Jackson
to see what kind of guy he was.

Now, Trump`s blunders and the steady stream of defections are continuing to
push down his poll numbers and expand Hillary Clinton`s lead in key
battleground states. In a new NBC News/”Wall Street Journal”/Marist poll,
Clinton is ahead by four points in Iowa, five points in Ohio, and 11 points
in Pennsylvania. A new Quinnipiac poll also out today has the candidates
statistically even in Florida, but Clinton again, leads by four points in
Ohio, and ten points in Pennsylvania, a state that has increasingly become
must-win for Trump.

Now, compare that to the last time this poll was taken almost a month ago,
then, Clinton and Trump were tied in Ohio, and Trump was winning in Florida
and Pennsylvania.

Joining me now, former Senator Gordon Humphrey. He`s a Republican from New
Hampshire who called Trump a sociopath and plans to vote for Clinton if the
race is close.

Senator Humphrey, let`s begin with the comments today about Second
Amendment people. Do you see the comments? Do you have a reaction?

I`ve reviewed that tape a number of times. Notwithstanding what Rudy
Giuliani just said, it`s very clear what Donald Trump was implying, namely
that gun people could wreak violence against Hillary Clinton. And against
the history of assassinations in the United States of presidents and
against the more recent history of indiscriminate gun violence and tragedy
on a grand scale, it`s unthinkable that any candidate for president would
make such a statement.

And it only reinforces again what so many of us have been saying, that
Donald Trump is possessed of an unbalanced mind. In the common parlance,
the man is a nut cake, a loony bird, and it would be the height of
responsibility to elevate him to the presidency. It would be recklessness
to make him commander in chief. I`ve issued a call to members of the RNC
this afternoon to demand an emergency meeting of the Republican national
committee to strip Donald Trump of the nomination and to replace him with
someone of sound mind.

HAYES: You`re calling on the RNC to – can they do that? Is that
something the RNC could do? Would be to impanel some sort of emergency
meeting to strip him of the nomination?

HUMPHREY: Well, Rule 9 of the RNC empowers the RNC to replace a candidate
who dies or who refuses to run. It also – that same language contains the
word “otherwise,” which is meant to be a catch-all for all other things,
including presumably disability, mental or physical. Let me point out
this, there`s a very strong model for that kind of action in the
Constitution of the United States.

The president`s cabinet, a majority of the president`s cabinet can declare
the president to be physically or mentally unfit to exercise the powers of
his office, and immediately there upon those powers are transferred to the
vice president. Now, the president, if he`s conscious, may appeal to the
House, and that initiates another process of appeal.

But the fact is, the president`s cabinet, a majority of them, can remove
the president, effectively from office, at least temporarily. And if the
Constitution empowers the cabinet to do that, surely the RNC can do the
same thing in a moral crisis such as this. The national interest demands

HAYES: So, this is very – this is strong. I mean, I should note, you`re
I believe a two-term senator from New Hampshire. You`re a Republican in
good standing. You`re not someone who`s left the party and gone on to some
sort of retirement years as a crypto liberal or something.


HAYES: I mean, you endorsed John Kasich. You consider yourself a member
of this party in good standing. How do you feel about watching this

HUMPHREY: I need to tell you, Chris, that I`ve been on the verge of
resigning from the party now for – ever since Cleveland. But I`ve decided
I can be more effective by remaining within the party and fighting for some
sensible resolution to this crisis.

The RNC can solve it. The hour is late, to be sure. But there is still
time to effectuate a change, to replace Donald Trump and to appoint someone
of a sound mind, a sane man or woman hopefully with substantially more
experience than Donald Trump and a lot more knowledge, wisdom.

There`s time to do that. There is, if you examine it in detail, there is
time to do that. Some say that it`s too late to remove Donald Trump`s name
from the ballot. In a number of states, that is true now, and in more
states, it will be true in like two weeks.

But remember this, it`s the Electoral College that elects the president.
That happens in December. If Donald Trump has been replaced as nominee by
the RNC, votes cast for Donald Trump in those states where his name is on
the ballot almost certainly will be allotted to the new nominee of the
Republican Party. So, even that problem can be overcome.

HAYES: Senator, you have clearly given this a lot of thought. I
appreciate your time tonight. Great to have you on. Thank you, sir.

HUMPHREY: Thank you so much, Chris. Good night.

HAYES: I`m joined now by Jennifer Granholm, former Democratic governor of
Michigan, senior adviser to the pro-Clinton super PAC, Correct the Record.

seen anything like this. It`s amazing.

HAYES: I want to reiterate –


HAYES: – the gentleman you just saw, you know, he was not –

GRANHOLM: He`s legit.

HAYES: He`s also not some liberal RINO. He was a conservative Republican,
northeastern New England senator for two terms. He was to the right on
issues like gay rights and other stuff. You know, we`re not – the people
that are raising the kind of objections you`re hearing like the senator,
these are people who have been very – very legitimate people.

GRANHOLM: They are legitimate. They`re in good standing. Susan Collins,

I think you`re just going to see this cavalcade of Republicans who will be
raising their hand. Because what`s going to happen? You know, how can
Kelly Ayotte or John McCain or Senator Burr or Ron Johnson in Wisconsin,
how can these senators who are running for their lives and their seats, how
are they going to be able to continue to stand by this man?

And it`s not – I mean, with – I totally respect his creativity in trying
to get the Republican Party to do something about this. Honestly, that`s
not going to happen.

HAYES: They`ve shown no actual will to do that.

GRANHOLM: Right, because I mean, Chris, you started by showing his
comments today. This is not new. None of this stuff about him being crazy
and saying things that are unacceptable is new. I mean, I went back and
looked at the stuff he has said from when – since when he declared.

I mean, he was lamenting that this is what we should have been doing to the
other side for seven years, when protesters were getting beaten up at his
rallies. Or in the old days, they`d be carried off in a stretcher, he
said. Or part of the problem is that no one wants to hurt anyone anymore.
Or if you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out
of them, or make them haul them out on a stretcher.

It`s not like any of this is new. This is just a continuation of a

HAYES: Let me – so let`s take a moment, I will – I will rise to the
defendant in a devil`s advocate sort of way for the Trump campaign, which
says that he was talking about mobilizing, if you were inclined to be
charitable towards him in the sort of Olympian kind of fashion, you could
say. He was saying that even if Clinton were elected, the NRA folks are so
powerful, they could block the confirmation of anti-gun justice.

GRANHOLM: OK, so what a load of garbage. And if you really did think
that, why wouldn`t you come out and say, wow, I was really misinterpreted.
I feel sort of like, when they say, oh, that`s not what I meant, I feel
like, you know, when Melania Trump had the thing about the plagiarism and
everybody who watched it knew what was going on, but they continued to deny
it for days.

He can`t admit that, but he can come out and say, I am sorry, I didn`t mean
to say this. And he`s not capable constitutionally of doing this.

HAYES: Jennifer, can I ask you this question? Sometimes I wonder like, in
the last few weeks, it`s been a bizarre period, right? What does it mean
for the meaning of this campaign if the campaign ends up being a referendum
on, is this person fit to be president? Which I think it is going to be.
And I don`t think that`s inappropriate.

But what it means to me is, it seems, what are the American people voting
for? If they`re essentially voting that this man is unfit for the office?

GRANHOLM: I think there will be a portion of people who vote like that.
And certainly the Republicans who have come on board may think that.

But Democrats want to vote for something. We want to vote for what we saw
at the Democratic Convention. We want to vote for the platform that we
stand and whole heartedly believe in.

HAYES: You think that`s present in the minds of voters?

GRANHOLM: Well, I do think it`s present in the minds of many Democrats.
But I do think Democrats are scared out of their minds about Donald Trump
potentially. So, there`s a motivation that goes as a carrot and a stick,
if you will. But the carrot is really important and we can`t forget the
carrot. Hillary Clinton is going to be delivering an economic speech on
Thursday in Detroit.

HAYES: Very interesting.

GRANHOLM: Yes, it will be very interesting as a counterpart, and I hope
that she really calls us to that higher place that Democrats were so proud
of when we left the convention.

HAYES: All right. Former Governor Jennifer Granholm – thank you very

GRANHOLM: You bet.

HAYES: Still to come, the continued attacks on the family of a fallen
soldier. My interview with Khizr Khan ahead.

But first, Hillary Clinton makes the first move on the general election
debates. Donald Trump says he wants to, but there`s one thing. We`ll talk
about what he said after this two-minute break.



INTERVIEWER: You can accept the recommendations of the debate commission,
three debates, one VP debate?

TRUMP: Well, I`ll tell you what I don`t like, it`s against two NFL games
and I don`t think we should be against the NFL. I don`t know how the dates
were picked, I don`t know why those particular –

INTERVIEWER: So you don`t like the dates that are out there?

TRUMP: Well, I don`t like dates against – you know, Hillary Clinton wants
to be against the NFL, maybe like she did with Bernie Sanders, where they
were on Saturday nights when nobody`s home.


HAYES: More than a week after Donald Trump floated the possibility of
maybe skipping the debates and alluding to the notion that Democrats were
looking to rig the scheduling, Hillary Clinton`s campaign announced late
last night, she plans to be part of all three general election debates this
fall and threw down the gauntlet, challenging Trump to do the same.

In a statement, Clinton`s campaign chairperson, John Podesta wrote, the
only issue now is whether Donald Trump is going to show up to the debate at
the date, time and places and format set by the commission last year
through a bipartisan process.

Today, in an interview with “Time Magazine”, Trump said, quote, “I will
absolutely do three debates. I want to debate very badly. But I have to
see the conditions.”

Later in the interview, Trump gave us an idea of what some of those
conditions might be. “I`ll have to see who the moderators are. So I look
forward to the debates. But, yes, I want to have fair moderators, I will
fair moderators.”

Meanwhile, all this hedging by the Trump campaign has reportedly unnerved
some folks in the media as “Politico” reports today. Senior media
executives and anchors in New York and Washington are casting serious doubt
about whether Trump will agree to participate in the primetime events.

Joining me now to discuss, Joan Walsh, national affairs correspondent for
“The Nation”, also an MSNBC political analyst, and Michael Barbaro,
reporter from “The New York Times” and host of “The Run-Up”, “The Times”
new election podcast that I got a push notification about on my phone, just

That`s power, dude. You launched a podcast and “The New York Times” just
says to everyone that I –

MICHAEL BARBARO, THE NEW YORK TIMES: We begged and pleaded for that.

HAYES: Well, you got it.

You`ve been covering the campaign. There has been, I think from the
beginning – he skipped one debate in the primaries, famously. There`s
been this sense that maybe this is going to happen. What is your read on
it, having covered this campaign?

BARBARO: Oh, I think he has to do the debates. And I think he will do
most of them if not all of them. I think what this reveals is the degree
to which Donald Trump is anxious about being one-on-one with Hillary
Clinton. And let`s discuss why that would be, right?

During the Republican primary debates, what worked about having 16 people
on stage? It was the brevity and entertainment factor of the way he
approached those debates. But if you only have two people, it`s much more
akin to an interview. It needs to be substantive. It will become

HAYES: That`s a lot to talk about.

BARBARO: That`s problematic for him. By his own admission, he`s an
amateur, when it comes to running for president. He`s new to this.

It`s going to be a relentless barrage of questions about foreign policy,
international affairs. It`s going to be really counting for him – better
to negotiate terms in which there are third-party candidates, libertarian
candidates on stage and he has a moderator who is going to be
neutral/positive in his mind.

HAYES: Well, the fight over the moderator, I want to get to in a second,
but what struck me today, this is the inversion of the iron law of
political physics, which is the person behind in the polls wants more
debates. The person ahead in the polls wants fewer, sometimes none.

And we saw it during the primary, right? Bernie Sanders wanted more
debates when Hillary Clinton was winning. Then, Hillary Clinton saw that
she was behind in New Hampshire and she was like, I want a debate in New
Hampshire. And Bernie`s like, maybe we will if we get other debates. So,
this is just an iron law.


HAYES: Here, we`re seeing the person who`s up by ten points.

WALSH: She`s kind of taunting him, come on, let`s get out here.

But I think – you know, remember, he also skipped a debate, I don`t
remember if it was scheduled, but with Kasich and Ted Cruz, there was one
planned for the last three –

HAYES: That`s right. There was one last –

WALSH: The last three survivors and he ditched that. That would be as
close –

HAYES: And then it fell apart. They were going to do it and then it fell

WALSH: I think he`s genuinely afraid. He was terrible at the debates. He
was able to – he would slap, he would make a few funny or not funny
remarks, and then he would fade into the background. Obviously, you can`t
do that with a two-person debate.

BARBARO: And fading can be quite dangerous.

HAYES: Right, right.


BARBARO: Anything that makes you seem not presidential and when you`re
watching someone carefully in high definition television for an hour, one-
on-one with someone else, there`s a lot of peril.

WALSH: And she`s an amazing debater. I mean, she`s won arguably every
debate –

HAYES: Well, I would not call her – I think she`s quite a good debater.
You think she`s amazing?

WALSH: I think she`s an amazing debater. Yes.

HAYES: I thought her finest moment of the campaign so far wasn`t even a
debate. It was in some ways harder than a debate, which is the Benghazi
hearing, which wasn`t 90 minutes. It was 11 hours, and she was not one-on-
one, she was one on however many.

BARBARO: Well, she`s rehearsed.

HAYES: Exactly. That was where it was like, wow, you really know your
stuff. Whatever you think about Hillary Clinton, whether she should be
president or not –

WALSH: And that`s true in debates too, if you know your stuff in a debate,
which he won`t and she will.

HAYES: So, the presidential commission, there`s controversies about how
the commission works and whether they`ll let in Gary Johnson and Jill
Stein. Stein probably not because she`s not polling enough. Johnson may
be in the ballpark of being allowed in.

How much leverage do campaigns have over this negotiation?

BARBARO: I mean, Donald Trump – just because of the ratings that he can
attract, I would argue has – he has more leverage than a traditional
candidate. But this is an independent group of commissioners who are going
to feel tremendous pressure to not cave. But to what degree the networks
will want to weigh in and the cable stations will tug at this process,
that`s a bit of an unknown.

HAYES: Well, this is a good point, right, because unlike the debates in
the primary, they`re hosted by a specific network, and that network gets
all that ad, and you`re right, just themselves –

WALSH: And has an incentive to cave or work closely with the top person.

HAYES: That is exactly right. That`s not the case here, because this will
be – everyone will be able to carry this feed. It will be broadcast like
the State of the Union, across a whole bunch of platforms. And these folks
are a little more insulated.

But at the same time, I don`t think they`re used to someone playing chicken
the way that he will – he will tie his foot to the gas, and – you know
what I mean?

WALSH: I think he will. I think they`ve got to be strong and they`re
known for being strong. They don`t want to be pushed around. They`re not
tied to a network, they`re not tied to a party. If they cave to him, I
mean, I think they give up something very significant that they`ve evolved
over the years, which is a real control over the rules and how it unfolds.

BARBARO: And a system infinitely preferable to the primary, which was the
whims of the networks. It was awfully driven by ratings. The other thing
that`s happening here, Donald Trump is revealing the degree to which
everything in his life is negotiable.

HAYES: Negotiation, exactly.

BARBARO: You are reaching a point of seriousness in the presidential
campaign where some things are not supposed to be negotiable. You`re
supposed to show up at the debates and you`re not really supposed to demand
a moderator.

HAYES: We should say, just for historical reference here, LBJ refused to
debate Barry Goldwater in 1964, which is interesting. I didn`t know that
until today, a producer pointed out. And Nixon refused to debate in both
`68 and `72. So scarred was he by the infamous 1968 Jack Kennedy debate
where he was apparently sweating.

Joan Walsh and Michael Barbaro, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it.

BARBARO: Pleasure.

HAYES: Still ahead, I`ll speak with Khizr Khan, you don`t want to miss

And later, what could be Donald Trump`s most damaging conspiracy theory
yet. That is ahead.


HAYES: If you are a student of Donald Trump`s Twitter feed, you`ve noticed
it bounces back and forth between two rather distinct voices. For every,
thank you, there`s a media going crazy, they totally distort things on
purpose, Crimea, nuclear, the baby, so much more, very dishonest,
exclamation point, tweet.

Now, I floated my own theory about discrepancies in the style a few weeks
ago. I said you can always tell when Manafort has successfully locked
Trump out of his Twitter account and then when Trump guesses the new
password. Others have picked up on the same thing, attributing the
difference in tone and difference in phone. Every non-hyperbolic tweet is
from iPhone, his staff, every hyperbolic tweet is from Android, from him.

For example, this Trump tweet, “Good luck, Team, USA, opening ceremony, Rio
2016.” Sent from an iPhone.

While this Trump tweet, “Heading to New Hampshire, will be talking about
Hillary saying her brain short-circuited and other things.” It was sent
from an android.

It`s been reported that Trump uses a Samsung Galaxy to tweet. And so, one
data scientist, David Robinson, analyzed the tweets coming from Donald
Trump`s Twitter account from an android and the tweets coming from an
iPhone and here`s just some of what he found. Tweets from the android
happened more frequently early in the morning. Tweets in the iPhone, more
likely to include a picture or a link of some sort.

And when it comes to content, Robinson also found that the Android tweets
are angrier and more negative, while the iPhone tweets tend to be benign
announcements and pictures. Most hashtags come from the iPhone, words like
join and tomorrow. Times like 7:00 p.m. also came from the iPhone.

And a lot of emotionally charged words like badly, crazy, weak, and dumb,
were overwhelmingly more common on Android.

So, looks like my password theory was close but not quite right. That
said, I still think Paul Manafort would be advised to lock the Samsung
Galaxy in a safe the next chance he gets.


HAYES: The Trump campaign tried to get their candidate on message
yesterday with a big teleprompter speech about the economy, tried to
definitively pivot away from the distasteful spectacle of his week-long
feud with the family of a slain American army captain. Last night, Sean
Hannity was
still at it, attacking Hhizr Khan, the father of that slain soldier. And
it is worth recalling the powerful moment the final night of the Democratic
National Convention in which he appeared.


Americans to trust you with their future. Let me ask you have you even
read the United States Constitution? I will – I will gladly lend you my

You have sacrificed nothing, and no one.


HAYES: Joining me now, Khizr Khan, father of United States army captain
Humayun Khan who was killed in 2004 during the Iraq War. Mr. Khan, thank
you so much.

KHAN: Hi, Chris.

HAYES: I guess I will – I don`t want to play or introduce into the record
the various smears that are being directed at you, because they are
baseless. But I would like you to respond to the fact that there`s now
some small group of people close to or allied with the Trump campaign
trying to prosecute a case against you for divided loyalties or whatever.
How do you feel about that?

KHAN: Well, I am as patriotic as anyone in this country. We stand with
the United States. This is our home. We are responsible for its security,
for its protection, to beautify it, to make it better,
to make it safer. It`s our obligation, it`s our duty to do that. And I`ll
be more than glad to specifically answer if there are any questions that
are being raised about my loyalty or about any hidden agenda or anything.
There is no such thing.

It`s amazing that some of these dog-whistle terms are being used without
consulting me, or without asking where do I stand on those issues. That
is amazing. And I`ll be more than glad to answer if there are any
specific questions.

HAYES: Well, one of the things that people are constantly throwing out,
and it`s not just with respect to you – and these are people that I have
to say I don`t think are engaging in good faith when it comes to Muslims,
is the notion of Sharia, that there`s a secret plot among believers in
Islam, to replace
American secular constitutional government with, quote, Sharia law, that
you are an adherent to that secret plot. What do you say to that?

KHAN: Either they do not know the constitution of United States – and I
speak about it at any occasion that I – I wish they would have talked to
me. I would show them the provisions in the United States Constitution
that leaves no room for any other law to be implemented here. The things
that they talk about Sharia law, these are laws of various Msuslim
countries, hodgepodge of French, German, British Portuguese, that colonists
left in those countries, mixed with some Islamic concept. That has become
Sharia law. There`s no such thing in any country that is Sharia law.

Plus, there are provisions in constitution of United States, and I speak
about it 20 million times before coming to this stage and all this, that
there are precautions. The forefathers have left those safeguards in the
constitution. For god sake, read it. Invite me, I`ll show you those
safeguards, that no Sharia law can be implemented in the United States.

These terms are dog whistles to gather people against each other, and that
is the sad part that my brothers that say this, they are wonderful people,
but for god`s sake, read your own constitution, and you will come to the
same conclusion that I have been for the last 10 years, 15 years, that
there is no room for those hodgepodge of laws from Muslim countries.

HAYES: Mr. Khan, I want to ask you this. Your family suffered a
tremendous loss, and I think
that anyone who has seen your story feels deep empathy for that loss,
gratitude for the sacrifice of your son. Do you think – there`s some
sense in which you and your wife and your family have become a
kind of poster family for a certain kind of Muslim patriotism. And I
wonder if you think – if you want to tell people how you think that should
more broadly apply to the many thousands of Muslims in this country, some
of whom have not served, or who have different political views.

How you think folks should be thinking about their fellow citizens who
believe in Islam and who have different stories than your family`s
particularly affecting story.

KHAN: Of course.

In a democracy like United States, you have room for difference of opinion.
I respect their difference of opinion and so should they accept my
difference of opinion. That is what makes this country great. The
tradition of the democracy is that we agree to disagree, and then we put
our differences aside when the time comes to protect this country, to be
patriots. We are all together in defense of this country. It doesn`t
matter one wears the uniform or not. We are together, to protect, to
move forward, to make this place better.

That is the American tradition. That is the founding tradition of this
country, that all of us came from somewhere, and we became American
citizens and we became patriots and we became both sides – Democrats,
Republicans, people that have no political affiliation. I have no
political affiliation. I have voted Republican. I have voted Democrat.
Lee Atwater was a close friend of mine that I was associated with.

So for the folks to come to this rhetoric without knowing, without asking
the question where do you stand on these issues, simple. I concluded that
it is just the dog whistle to gather people, vote pandering, and I respect
their difference of opinion. I agree with them. But we are all for the
safety, for the progress, for moving forward of this country.

HAYES: Mr. Khan, finally, I don`t know if you saw Trump`s comments this
morning about second amendment people, some people – many people who saw
it, appeared to imply a joke or a call for violence. What was your
reaction to that?

KHAN: I was saddened.

I love this country, as any other American does. There`s no room for
violence. There is room – there should be call for unity, call for
patience, call for understanding.

And thad been my my concern, that I implore the people that are still
continuing to think that they will vote for him, that look at the
candidate. Candidate has time after time proven to be undeserving of their

So please reconsider. Reconsider. Look at the record. Look at the danger
that we are headed. So I would implore them, I would ask them that in the
name of patriotism and the love for this country that we all have,
reconsider your position like most of your leaders have already
reconsidered their

HAYES: Mr. Khan, it was a great honor to speak to you, sir. Thank you
very much.

KHAN: Thank you.

HAYES: Still to come, while Republicans continue to stall, it`s starting
to look like President Obama`s supreme court nominee might be their best
case scenario. I`ll explain ahead.


HAYES: Tonight, we bring you the high stakes world of campaign swag.
Those classic campaign buttons just aren`t selling like they used to,
making candidates get a little more creative in their fundraising.

Take, for example, Hillary Clinton`s extensive campaign shop where they
have these Chillary Clinton cozies for sale. Or maybe this Clinton-style
pants suit t-shirt is more your speed.

But her most well known item is probably the official woman card which the
Clinton campaign launched this spring, inspired by Dnald Trump`s attacks
that Hillary Clinton plays the, quote, woman`s card in order to appeal to
female voters.

Clinton`s campaign was quick to respond. For a $1 donation, you can get
your own physical woman card. The campaign used that moment to talk about
the wage gap and paid family leave and reproductive rights.

Now, on the other hand, Donald Trump`s campaign website has more of your
standard, classic election swag. Of course, the MAGA shirts and hats, we
all know. But that changes today. Donald Trump has a card for you, too,
and surprise his is shiny, gold, and way more expensive.

In a fundraising email today, his campaign debuted the Donald J. Trump gold
executive membership card. And for a donation of $35 it can be yours.
Now, this is truly a tremendous looking card. But what does it do? Well,
according to the email, anyone who carries one of these gold, executive
membership cards, is recognized by our campaign, and by me as a true friend
who is doing a lot to make sure we defeat Crooked Hillary.

35 bucks may sound steep for a card that doesn`t do anything. But you can
always use it as a book mark for your limited edition signed copy “Art of
the Deal,” for just $184 more.


HAYES: Senate Republicans continue their completely unprecedented
obstruction of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Now, for the 146th
day, refusing to even give him a hearing.
in the short-term, seems like there`s nothing the Democrats can do about
it. But, here is the thing, as another poll shows Trump down by double-
digits nationally, Republicans could not only be facing another Democrat in
the Oval Office, but could also lose control of the senate.

Then it gets interesting, because the Senate GOP could end up with a
nominee they like even less than Garland, something Republican Susan
Collins suggested on this network today.


SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, (R) MAINE: That`s the very interesting scenario that I
have raised with my colleagues in the senate. And that is that they may be
hoisted on their own petard here. If Hillary is elected, I believe that
she is much more likely to nominate someone who is to the left of Merrick
Garland, because I believe that President Obama deliberately and wisely, in
my view, chose someone who was a centrist.


HAYES: Joining me now, Jason Steed, an appellate attorney, who has argued
before the Supreme Court, contributor at Huffington Post. And Jason, you
have been tweeting about the scenarios by which this all might play out.

So, my sense always is the Republicans want two bites of the apple. Their
plan is, block Merrick Garland now. If Clinton wins, rush to confirm him,
because he`s the best they`ll get in the lame duck. How do you upset that?

JASON STEED, APPELLATE ATTORNEY: How do the Democrats upset that?

HAYES: Yeah, if the Democrats want to prevent that from happening?

STEED: Yeah, I think the best way to upset that is if there`s a credible
threat of Garland`s nomination being withdrawn. So if the morning after
the election, we have President Clinton who has been elected and a
Democratic senate majority and there`s a real threat they could withdraw –
that President Obama could withdraw Garland`s nomination, then I think the
Republicans are under pressure to try to confirm him before the election.

If that seems like that`s a really scenario…

HAYES: Right. So the key is that the White House or the Clinton campaign
or Democrats have to be sending some sort of back-channel message publicly
or privately to Republicans on the Hill, saying, you only get one bite of
the apple. You don`t confirm him, we`re withdrawing him. Hillary Clinton
is going will find a 25-year-old to put on the court for the next 70 years.

STEED: Right, a 25-year-old version of Pam Carlin or something like that.

HAYES: Right, right.

STEED: So, I mean, I think – the fact that Garland`s name wasn`t
mentioned at the Democratic National Convention the entire week…

HAYES: Oh, that`s a good point.

STEED: Yeah, I mean, I think that President Obama`s been pushing him a
little bit, but not a lot lately. And certainly Tim Kaine left open the
possibility that Hillary Clinton might not nominate him. He endorsed his
nomination, but didn`t really say 100 percent that she, for sure, would
renominate him, if she was elected.

So, I mean, I think the door is open. And if the threat is real and it
looks like they`ll lose the
Senate, really all President Obama has to say, is look, you guys wanted the
voters to decide who is going to fill the seat. They`ve decided. So I`m
going to let the new President Clinton control the seat.

HAYES: That`s right. They are hoisted by their own petard there, because
that has been the argument, which is we need to have the people weigh in.
And if they weigh in, it makes no sense to carry over to the lame duck the
person the previous president – I mean, you can`t make both arguments
simultaneously in good faith.

STEED: Right. And Senator McConnell has said no doubt about it, they will
not confirm President Obama`s nominee. So they`ve really sort of opened
the door themselves to the possibility that he won`t be the guy.

HAYES: This is going to be fascinating. We`re going to track this as we
bear down the stretch. Jason Steed, Thank you.

Coming up, how Donald Trump`s allegations of a rigged election could have
impacts far beyond the general election. I`ll explain after this break.



TRUMP: And I`m afraid the election`s gonna be rigged, I have to be honest.

I`m telling you November 8, we better be careful, because that election`s
going to be rigged, and I hope the Republicans are watching closely, or
it`s going to be taken away from us.


HAYES: One of Donald Trump`s many conspiracy theories, is that if he loses
the election, it`s because the election is rigged, not because, you know,
he`s right now polling 10 points behind. And it`s not just him, surrogates
like personalities like Fox News host Sean Hannity have toed the line. And
polling shows supporters inclined to believe it.

According to a new poll in North Carolina, nearly 7 in 10 Trump supporters
said if Clinton wins, it`s because the election was rigged.

Now, such talk is incredibly toxic. It goes well beyond opposing policies
of the opposition party. And it`s reminiscent of the years` long effort to
de-legitimize the entire Obama presidency.

Joining me now, resident scholar of the American Enterprise Institute Norm
Ornstein, also Contributing writer for The Atlantic and co-author of “It`s
Even Worse Than it Looks,” and MSNBC political analyst, Nina Turner, former
Ohio state senator.

Norm, let me start with you, because you wrote about this. You kind of
particular toxicity of
pushing this, which is now something that Donald Trump is talking about a

Why do you find it so unnerving?

NORM ORNSTEIN, THE ATLANTIC: Well, first, Chris, one thing we have to keep
in mind is that unlike Iraq where he was for the war before he was against
it, in 2012, Trump made the same accusations on election-eve, that the
election had been rigged, that Romney had won by a huge margin in popular
votes, that he were a loser nation and he called for a revolution. So,
this isn`t new for him.

But in the same way, if you delegitimize the entire political process, you
cannot govern in this country. The founders created a system where you try
to build at some broad consensus that the process is legitimate, even if
you don`t get the outcomes that you want.

And if you delegitimize not just the president, as we saw with Barack
Obama, but the entire political process, and people believe that the
president who`s been elected is an illegitimate president, you can bring
about, as we saw he did in 2012, a call for a revolution, which is another
incitement, potentially to violence.

But you`re going to have no acceptance of any of the policies that emerge,
and probably no ability to enact policies. It`s a terrible thing.

HAYES: Nina, I wanted to get your thoughts, because Trump likes to sort of
troll the Bernie Sanders` supporters and say, you know, they rigged it
against Bernie, and they tried to rig it against me. And it`s going to be
rigged. And he seems to to be conflating the difference between primaries,
which do have weird sets of rules created by parties as sort of internal
contests and the broader rules of the
American election, which are quite different. What`s your reaction to it?

NINA TURNER, FRM. OHIO STATE SENATOR: That`s right, Chris. I mean, there
is a difference. I mean, it`s one thing to argue as Senator Sanders did
and other pro-voter types, to say that we need open primaries, so therefore
everybody gets a chance to vote and have a bite at the apple.

There`s a different thing in saying that the entire election system, the
general election will be rigged.

And, Chris, quite frankly, the Republicans have been singing this same sad
song for a long time. As you know, in Ohio, places like North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, those of us in the legislature have really had to
endure Republicans really using public policy to take away access to the
ballot box for poor people, for people of color.

And I remember in Ohio – and the point that you made earlier about as soon
as President
Barack Obama was elected – let`s just be honest, as soon as a black man
was elected, all of a sudden
my Republican colleagues went cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs and they could not
believe that he was legitimately elected. And that was when they really
started on this trail of making it harder through public policy, for
African-Americans, in particular, other people of color, elders, young
people, to vote.

And what we should be doing in this country is really pushing for elections
to be – to expand and protect the access to the ballot box.

So, this is not new, Chris.

HAYES: Norm, that point about the sort of – and your point about the
delegitimatization sort of existing earlier, I mean, you have polling in
2009 where the majority of Republican voters thought ACORN stole the
election. You have Donald Trump now on the trail saying, people were
voting15 times, which is not true. People don`t – I mean, it`s just a
myth. But this is one place where Trump seems to kind of continuity of
certain seeds that have been sewn before.

ORNSTEIN: Absolutely. And I think Nina is very much on point here.

All of these efforts to restric tvoting – and it`s not just voter ID laws,
it`s cutting early voting days, it`s cutting the number of polling places
and the like, are justified on the basis of voter fraud, which we know at
the polls is virtually non-existent.

And if you`re arguing that there`s massive voter fraud, you`re suggesting
that elections are illegitimate, or at least that a lot of voters are
illegitimate. So Trump is playing right into that wheel house. And of
course this is also the guy who led the birther movement, trying to
delegitimize President Obama.

HAYES: Nina, there`s something profound also, it just strikes me as just
how much everything is all held together by people essentially accepting
legitimacy. And legitimacy is this kind of – it`s a difficult thing to
identify, but people feel it or they don`t and there are elections that
happen in other places in the world that are illegitimate because people
don`t trust them. And that`s really playing with

TURNER: It is. And we are in a synergistic moment in our country where
people, because of the suffering or the feeling that the system is not
working for them, I think, are more prone to feed
into what Mr. Trump is saying. So it`s quite a tragedy that he is really
playing into those fears.

My grandmother used to say, that you could put truth in the river five days
after a lie, but truth is going to catch up. And the truth of the matter
is catching up with Mr. Trump in terms of, he is just flat out losing this
election, and it`s patently unfair, undemocratic, with a small d, and
unAmerican to really try to take the electoral process.

HAYES: All right, Norm Ornstein, Nina Turner, thank you both for your

That is All In for this evening.



Copyright 2016 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.>