All in with Chris Hayes, Transcript 8/25/17 Hurricane Harvey upgraded to Cat 4 Storm

Jill Wine-Banks, Naveed Jamali, Richard Painter, Charlie Sykes, Catherine Rampell, Raul Grijalva

Date: August 25, 2017
Guest: Jill Wine-Banks, Naveed Jamali, Richard Painter, Charlie Sykes,
Catherine Rampell, Raul Grijalva




HAYES: Mueller ramping up his investigation seeking Grand Jury testimony
from colleagues of Paul Manafort and new questions about Michael Flynn.

of what she did, I would be in jail.

HAYES: Then the latest on Hurricane Harvey.

TOM BOSSERT, HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISER: This is right up President Trump`s

HAYES: How the President is dealing with his first national emergency.

Plus, more fallout.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who were the very fine people who were protesting with
the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville?

HAYES: Cabinet members compelled to explain why they won`t quit!

here and couldn`t be more excited about that.

HAYES: What Secretary Mnuchin and his wife really did in Kentucky and
surprise, there is no plan.

TRUMP: Our tax reform and tax plan is coming along very well. It will be
submitted in the not too distant future.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. Tonight, the gulf
coast is bracing for impact from Hurricane Harvey, which was just upgraded
to a major Category four storm. It`s expected to make landfall in Eastern
Texas sometime in the next two to six hours. Mandatory evacuations are in
effect. Over a dozen counties ahead of what`s predicted to be the most
powerful storm to hit the U.S. in over a decade, bringing winds up to 125
miles per hour, possible record setting rainfall and potentially
catastrophic flooding. We`re keeping an eye on the hurricane as it
approaches, and will bring you updates throughout the show, tonight. But
first, we got breaking news on the Russia investigation led by Special
Counsel Robert Mueller. NBC News reporting exclusively on the first public
indication that Mueller`s team is now issuing subpoenas to compel witness
testimony before a Grand Jury. NBC`s Ken Dilanian was part of the team
that broke the story. Ken, what can you tell us?

Chris, what NBC News is reporting tonight is that Robert Mueller has issued
a series of Grand Jury subpoenas to compel testimony from a group of
executives involved in a lobbying campaign back from 2012 to 2014 on behalf
of a Russian backed Ukrainian party. This is the same political party that
paid Paul Manafort some $17 million we now know now from his latest
lobbying disclosure. In fact, at the time – now don`t forget, this
campaign was disclosed by the Associated Press back during the election in
August of 2016. At the time, none of the firms involved had registered as
a lobbyist for a foreign power.

Some of them have now done that under pressure from the Justice Department.
Manafort has don`t it as well and now, the Mueller team is asking questions
about how the money flowed, what was this about, whether it was a
legitimate lobbying campaign, what was Manafort`s role? But they`re not
just asking, they`re seeking to compel the testimony of people before the
Grand Jury. And as you know, Chris, when you go before a Grand Jury, you
cannot lie, if you lie, you are liable to go to jail.

HAYES: This is the first indication we have, right? This is the first
concrete evidence of the reporting of compelled subpoena for testimony
before a Grand Jury in this investigation?

DILANIAN: That`s absolutely right. There`s been many report and we`ve
reported that Mueller has been using Grand Jury to subpoena documents.
Now, it appears, he`s moving into the test (INAUDIBLE). There may be other
instances of him subpoenaing testimony. This is just the one we know about

HAYES: Right.

DILANIAN: And if – and this is how these things work, right? We can
expect many months of people being called before Grand Juries. Reporters
will find out object about. We will go to the Courthouse, we will seek to
interview and so hopefully, we`ll be learning more about what Mueller is up
to in this investigation.

HAYES: All right, NBC`s Ken Dilanian with a great scoop, thank you very

DILANIAN: Thank you, Sir.

HAYES: That`s not the only breaking story on the Russia investigation
tonight. According to the Wall Street Journal, investigators are now
looking at efforts by Peter W. Smith, that`s a Republican activist,
longtime activist, and donor, to obtain Hillary Clinton`s deleted e-mails
from Russian hackers. Those efforts first reported by the Journal on a
scoop back in June and the big question in Smith`s case at the time and
now, was whether he was freelancing or whether he had the backing of the
Trump campaign. Smith had presented himself according to reporting as a
campaign affiliate, even name dropping senior campaign officials in a
recruiting document and now, according to the Journal, investigators are
taking him seriously. They are reportedly examining whether Michael Flynn,
of course, the former National Security Adviser also a key campaign
surrogate, played any role in Smith`s effort. Conducting interviews and
collecting information as part of their investigation.

Jill Wine-Banks is a Prosecutor on the Watergate Investigation, Naveed
Jamali is a former FBI Double Agent Specialized in Counterintelligence with
Russian Spies. Jill let me start with you. The Peter Smith strand of this
is always been sort of interesting loose thread. We`ve got the – we got
the e-mail that places Don Jr. and Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner at the
meeting with the promised dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian
government, but there`s this other thing that happened with this donor, who
said he was close to the campaign, looking for Hillary`s e-mail from
Russian hackers and saying he`s close to General Flynn. What does it say
to you that Mueller`s team is now looking into that?

seriously and it will be interesting. The other interesting aspect of this
is, of course, is that Mr. Smith committed suicide shortly after talking to
the Washington – to the Wall Street Journal. And so, we cannot get his
testimony under oath. All we have is what we know so far and that`s what
he told to the Wall Street Journal and it certainly implicates Mr. Flynn.
So, we need to find out from Mr. Flynn whether he participated with Mr.

HAYES: Yes, that`s an important point on this. It was only a few days
about ten days before he committed suicide that he talked to this Wall
Street Journal reporter told him this whole story, was a little cagey about
how close to the campaign he was. Naveed, there`s a security analyst who
is contacted by Peter Smith at one point, again, the donor who was a very
connected figure. I mean, he was at the sort of center of a lot of anti-
Clinton work back in the `90s, knows a lot of people. There was a security
analyst that Smith contacted who said look, it sounded when I talk to him
like he was in the know on the campaign. He was pretty connected to the
campaign. What do you make of this part of the story?

NAVEED JAMALI, FORMER FBI DOUBLE AGENT: Yes, you know, I`m concerned. I`m
concerned about it not just because of the potential criminal part of this,
but I`m concerned because you know, the Russians were able to acquire
Hillary Clinton`s e-mails or they were able to set up an elaborate dangle
that was able the to get to someone like Peter Smith and then potentially
by extension to our short-term NSA Michael Flynn. That is something that
we should be concerned about. Look, Chris, at the end of the day, you
know, the criminal part of this is incredibly important and the American
public needs to know what exactly happened and what crimes if any were
convicted – were perpetrated, but the other part of this is what exactly
did the Russians do? Clearly, the Russians had a very deep and wide
operation going. That door was open and do date, I have not heard that we
have spent one dollar, increase the force of counterintelligence to one
(INAUDIBLE) and that really, really concerns me. This leaves the door

HAYES: This is – you`ve been sort of talking about this. I want to
follow up on this and get back to you for a second, Jill. But Naveed, you
followed up, I mean, there`s so much focus on the possible connection with
the Trump campaign and the possibility of collusion, what they were doing.
But your point and one you`re hammering home, this was – I mean, just
based on what we`ve seen, the party part of the iceberg above the surface,
the Russians were up to quite a bit here. There was a lot of different
avenues of entry it would appear and what you`re saying is it`s unclear
whether those avenues have been rooted out definitively chronicled and shut

JAMALI: That`s exactly right and look to kind of bring it even home, you
know, even if Donald Trump today pled guilty to a crime, that does not
close the counterintelligence door that the Russians were able to walk
through. And the only way we can do that – and this is the frustrating
part for people in the intelligence community, is that you need to spend
resources. We need to admit that this was a counterintelligence failure.
The Russians were successful, this was a failure and there should be
something akin to a 9/11 commission to understand what happened and more
importantly, how to fix it.

HAYES: Jill, on the – on the earlier story that we started this block
with Ken Dilanian saying that Mueller is now compelling testimony,
subpoenaing actual testimony before the Grand Jury from associates or
Manafort, how big a step is that?

BANKS: It`s the next logical step. It`s what would normally happen in an
investigation. But I do want to go back to your last question because I
really do feel and have felt from the beginning, that the underlying crime
here skipping ahead to the obstruction, but really just looking at the
underlying crime, could potentially be so much more serious than the break
in at the Watergate. This is something that threatens our democracy at its
very core. There were serious attempts and apparently, some successes in
hacking into our electoral system and that threatens democracy in a way
that a break in at the DNC never did. So I think we have to really spend
time – I agree completely, we need to investigate that even if no one in
the Trump campaign was involved at all. It`s a serious thing that needs to
be investigated.

HAYES: All right. I`m going to ask you guys to hold on a second because
we`re just getting some breaking news on an extremely busy news night with
the Hurricane barreling towards Texas, about to make landfall, first
category four in 12 years, the first one in Texas since 1961. The
President has done two things tonight as he`s departed for Camp David.
One, he`s issued it appears the memo about transgender military service
essentially directing James Mattis to have the ability to close the service
off from transgender members who want to serve and leaving the fate of
those in the military up in the air. And then – that happened a few hours
ago – and now, again, in the midst of this moment with that category
bearing down with the President at Camp David, we just get this.

This is the President of the United States issuing I believe his first
pardon in office and the first pardon in office using his constitutional
power to pardon goes to none other than Sheriff Joe Arpaio, that, of
course, is the extremely controversial figure in Maricopa County in Arizona
who was convicted of criminal contempt of court for refusing to stop
detaining Latino immigrants in violation according to the court of their
civil rights. The President tonight granting a Presidential Pardon to Joe
Arpaio, the former Sheriff of Maricopa County, (INAUDIBLE) talking about
his selfless public service after serving in the Army, his bio, clearing
him of that charge. We know that that was something that he essentially
promised the other night when he was in Phoenix and incredibly, incredibly
controversial decision that will be faced with tremendous backlash.

Joe Arpaio just lost re-election by ten points in an area despite the fact
that it was quite Republican because of the fact largely he was perceived
as being a lawless dogged pursuer of bigoted policies directed against
Latinos. A court finding him criminally in contempt and him being
convicted, which itself is quite rare to get to, and after that, the
President of the United States using his first pardon to come in and say
that this man who a court of the United States found to be in lawless
violation of the law of this country, to be, to be – to be pardoned.
Jill, this is – you know, the pardon power sort of always lurked over
Nixon and when it`s applied in this way, I think lawyers have some pretty
strong feelings about it. What do you make of it?

BANKS: I am appalled and shocked. This is so much worse than anything I
could have possibly envisioned. Let`s point out that President Nixon did
not use his pardon power and that President Ford did Pardon Nixon and lost
the election when he ran for re-election largely because he used that
pardon power. And so despite all warnings to President Trump that there
might be political consequences from this, what I would consider a lawless
act, which is his pardoning someone who violated civil rights at every
opportunity. This is – every time I think that President Trump cannot go
any lower or do anything worse, he surprises me and does.

HAYES: I believe we have our own Justice Correspondent, Pete Williams,
NBC`s Pete Williams on the phone right now to give us maybe some little
more information about this. What do – what do we know about when this
happened and why it happened?

hasn`t totally said yet what the thinking was behind it, but the President
himself has laid it out pretty clearly, Chris. Of course, the President as
pointed out, the President undoubtedly has the total constitutional
authority to pardon anybody he likes. President can pardon people at any
point after they`ve been charged with a crime, while the trial is going on
after they`ve been convicted. The normal pattern though is for presidents
to pardon people after the Justice Department makes a recommendation to a
President. Typically the Justice Department won`t recommend anyone for a
pardon until they`ve served at least five years of a sentence and have
perhaps more significantly, expressed some remorse and of course, there`s
none of that here.

Joe Arpaio has insisted that he never did anything wrong. He was convicted
of criminal contempt after he was found in civil contempt for disobeying
court orders to have his deputies stop the practice of stopping people on
the street if they suspected they might be here illegally and they have
nothing more than to go on than that. So there`s no show of remorse.
Arpaio`s lawyers have said they would appeal the criminal contempt
conviction and that process is still going on. But undoubtedly, the
President had complete authority to do this, so this falls in the category
of what you`ve just been talking about a political pardons rather than the
normal pattern of following the advice of the Office of Pardon Attorney at
the Justice Department. Nothing can be done about this. It`s the
President`s complete authority to do it. There`s no undoing it. It`s
simple that`s that.

HAYES: Pete, I want you to stay with us for a second. I believe we also
have Richard Painter, who served in the White House Counsel Office under
George W. Bush in the Ethics Department particularly and Richard, to Pete`s
point about the normal process for this, coming through the Pardon
Attorney, at the Department of Justice, what do you make of the President`s
actions tonight?

Well, I don`t see how this would have made it through any normal process.
This Sheriff has been known for lawless acts for many years. I don`t think
he would have lasted one week as a Sheriff in my home state of Minnesota.
We were a law and order state, many places are. We favor law and order in
the United States, but when a judge tells a sheriff to do something, the
sheriff does it. That`s what law and order is all about. And if you`re in
contempt of court and you`re a law enforcement official, you`re abusing
your power, you should not be pardoned by the President of the United

And the message here is clear. The President likes Sheriff Joe because he
was going after immigrants, he was going after minorities and that`s the
clear message here. And I think it`s really reprehensible. And there is
something can be done about it. We`ve got to think seriously about whether
Donald Trump is fit to be President of the United States. I`ve been a
republican for 30 years and we`ve got a lot of great people in the
Republican Party who can serve honorably in the United States government
and can serve as President of the United States, but this is just one more
stick in the eye to minority community and those who`ve been victimized by
the very few people in law enforcement like Sheriff Joe who choose to use
their power abusively and choose to ignore the orders of the judiciary.
And that`s – that is lawlessness and that should not be tolerated in the
United States.

HAYES: I want to just say the statements – to Richard Painter`s point
about this essentially being about the Sheriff`s performance in office
where he was an extremely polarizing figure, particularly reviled by the
Latino-Hispanic community there that organized to challenge him and have
him voted out. The statement from the President of the United States is
essentially a tribute to his career. It talks about his service in 1992,
the problems facing the community pulled him out of retirement to return to
law enforcement. Throughout his time, he continued his life`s work of
protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration.
He`s now 85 years old, after more than 50 years of admirable service to our
nation, he`s a worthy candidate for a Presidential Pardon. So this is
essentially an affirmation of the man`s career by the President of the
United States in choosing to grant his first Presidential Pardon.

Naveed, I want to – I want to ask you a question, and we also have former
Acting Director for the CIA with us, when we get to him in a moment but
there`s an interesting subplot here, Naveed which is the information that
the President gets. Infowars the notorious conspiracy site, was running a
cover image saying that Michelle Obama is a man just a day ago. We know
the President reads things from that site. He`s appeared with Alex Jones,
the infamous conspiracy theorist who said Sandy Hook was a hoax. Alex
Jones has been campaigning for Sheriff Joe. Joe Arpaio actually said that
he thought that it was Alex Jones` campaign and his ability to get his
issues in front of the President that had cued up the Sheriff Joe Arpaio
pardon. What do you make of that as someone who had to deal in the world
of intelligence and information that that kind of information is getting
the President of the United States?

JAMALI: Look, I`ve said it a thousand times. I guess 1,001 won`t hurt but
it`s the goal of intelligence to give analyzed information to a decision
maker to do some unbiased fashion. And the reality is that our
intelligence community does exactly that. They look at information and
they present it to decision makers so that he or she can make that informed
decision. When you`re looking at news sources, let alone Infowars, you`re
clearly getting whatever the opposite of that is and look, it`s
unfortunate, but the President has become someone who`s essentially
sequestered in an ivory tower who has frankly made enemies with the
intelligence community. And I think, you know, the article in about Pompeo
leading the CIA`s Counterintelligence Unit is endemic of sort of the
presidency and endemic of sort of what the intelligence community thinks
about and how they`re going to think about the President. And this has got
to drive how they present information.

And look, you know, you want someone who`s going to look truth to power,
who`s going to look at this information and see a value to it, see if these
are – these are people that are – have – career people who have
dedicated their lives to help a president make an informed decision. And
if he`s cutting those people out and he`s using Alex Jones, I mean, I don`t
know what to say other than that`s – that is incredibly worrisome.

HAYES: I want to bring in former Acting Director of the CIA, MSNBC
National Security Analyst John McLaughlin. We had booked you earlier today
Mr. McLaughlin to talk about Mike Pompeo at the CIA and I do want to get to
that, but you`ve been a fairly outspoken critic of this President, the way
that he makes decisions, his interactions with the rest of the other
branches of government. And so I`d like your reaction to the news we just
have of this pardon of Joe Arpaio.

most of my life analyzing foreign countries and here I`ve found myself by
virtue of the mess our own country is in, doing some analysis of the United
States as well. And in this case, my sense here on these things the
President has just done, both the transgender ban and the pardon of Joe
Arpaio is that I think foolishly, he is working overtime to consolidate his
base, which is increasingly narrow. These are both things that will appeal
to the 35 million or whatever the current number is, people who are avidly
in his corner. And one of the – one of the regrettable things about this
President is that he hasn`t learned to speak to the rest of the United
States. In fact, I was thinking the other day, I can`t remember a time
when – and tell me if you think this is an overstatement when I can`t
identify a single individual in our government who speaks for all of the
American people.

HAYES: I think that`s right. I mean, I think it`s – clearly, the
president often talks about his voters. And today, Tom Bossert had an
interesting comment. He`s, of course, the Homeland Security Adviser. He
said the President is worried about everyone in his path, those who voted
and didn`t vote for him, which is a distinction that is obviously front of
mind for this President. I do want to – since I have you here, I do want
to ask you about the CIA right now. There was a Washington Post story
about its leadership under Mike Pompeo, who is quite close to the
President, viewed as quite a partisan Republican and there is concern that
has leaked out at the agency about his closeness to the President and
whether that will mean that the Russia investigation that`s happening under
their agents will be manipulated in any way because he is directly
overseeing it. What do you make of that reporting?

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, first, I think it`s important to say that Mike Pompeo is
a smart person, a person with a law degree, person who severed on the
Oversight Committee and therefore understands the relationship between
intelligence and oversight and of course has a distinguished military
record. I think it`s important also to say that this is a director who has
got an extraordinary set of circumstances and is probably walking a finer
line than almost any previous director. Think about it for a moment. The
CIA thinks of itself I think rightly, as your previous guest said, as kind
the fact witness in the U.S. government. The group that comes in and says,
look, you heard all the noise, here`s what`s really true about what`s going
on. And yet, he`s serving a President who clearly believes in things that
are demonstrably false and says them. Whether it`s you know, thousands of
people cheering for 9/11 or the list is endless. Second, the CIA deals
often in complexity. They`re the ones who will come in and say here`s
what`s going on in the Middle East, here`s how to make sense of it, but
they`re dealing with a person who thinks largely in 140 characters.

And finally, of course, the CIA will have an important role in This Russia
investigation inevitably through their counterintelligence shop and there`s
nothing the President hates more than this Russia investigation. In terms
of how the CIA will do its business on that, I don`t have frankly, I don`t
have great concerns. The people who work in counterintelligence and
ultimately, the Director, has to be – has to be aligned with the facts as
they emerge here. It is not an agency that would I think operate in any
other way in the face of demonstrable facts that emerge in this

HAYES: I want to ask Richard Painter a question if we still have Richard
if you`re there.

PAINTER: Oh, yes.

HAYES: To what former Acting Director McLaughlin just said about sort of
speaking to the base. As someone who worked in a White House that had to
make decisions about when to release things at certain times. All of this
coming, this Arpaio news coming right now as the country`s focus looking at
a hurricane bearing down on Texas, what do you make of the timing of this
decision, in terms of what it says about how much they want this to be

PAINTER: Well, they obviously put things into the Friday evening news dump
when they don`t want massive coverage of it. I guess the hurricane helps,
but I don`t know what kind of base they`re playing to because after
Charlottesville, the only base their playing to was neo-fascist alt-right
and Ku Klux Klan. And that`s not the base of the Republican Party. Those
kind of people we ignored in the Bush administration. We made it very
clear that we condemn racism, almost probably all of that stuff that
Trump`s playing to. It really is offensive and I`ve got to say back to
Sheriff Joe, that he conducted himself in a lawless way over many years as
sheriff down there and a lot of people didn`t like him. And he disobeyed
the orders of a judge, that`s just lawlessness. I am very much concerned
about this, but I`m not surprised because last November, December, Newt
Gingrich was mouthing off in an interview with me with NPR about how
President Trump could just pardon anybody he wanted to who engage in
unethical behavior.

So, I guess police brutality, obstruction of justice, contempt of court,
all of that is going to get pardoned if the President thinks you`re on his
side. But I got to say, we`re talking about a smaller and smaller base
when we`re windowing down to the alt-right and Ku Klux Klan. And that`s
really very troubling for a President who is supposed to be leading the
entire country. There are a loft Republicans and I`m one of them, who have
very, very serious concerns about his mental stability and his ability to
continue to lead.

HAYES: I should note, I figure, I feel about obligated for the (INAUDIBLE)
to note that the President George W. Bush, we are talking about racism and
homophobia, did favor a constitutional amendment that would have banned
marriage equality. He did it back in 2004 –

PAINTER: Well, that was in the Republican platform. The homophobia – the
language that`s coming out of this administration, we`re not talking about
policy. We`re talking about language that`s coming out of this
administration, the attacks on people, right and left, we`re not discussing
the policies that are implemented, but that what said about people, not
policy positions. It is really very, very extreme and this is 2017, too.
A lot has happened. The Supreme Court has ruled on gay rights and what the
President is doing is clearly in many areas contrary to the law and I don`t
think people are going back to George W. or anybody else and he`s going to
be doing that. He`s going back to every previous president to try and
justify what he`s doing and he`s picking the worst examples from Throughout
American history. And he is even reaching into the Confederacy and I find
it very, very troubling.

HAYES: I have Jill Wine-Banks still with us, and John McLaughlin, and
Naveed Jamali. Jill, I want to ask you this as something that Richard
mentioned. Do you think a signal is being sent with this? And I ask you
for this reason. This is someone who`s political, he`s a very prominent
political endorser of the President. He was an early endorser, he appealed
to early rallies. He is a sort of heroic figure to the President`s base.
He violated court orders and was convicted of criminal contempt and the
President is now pardoning him. Is that sending a signal in your mind to
other people particularly with the possibility of criminal conviction
hanging over the heads of some of the people involved in the Russia

BANKS: It would except that I think by now, the President is aware that if
he pardons these people, preemptively, that they can then be forced to
testify against him. So if he pardons anyone, who knows anything about his
role in obstruction of justice or in working with the Russians, they will
no longer have a Fifth Amendment right if they`ve been pardoned. And they
can, therefore, be compelled to testify. So he could I suppose then have
them either refuse to testify, be held in contempt and do what he did with
the Sheriff Arpaio, which is – and then he`ll pardon them again. It is
really so contrary to everything that our constitution stands for and is –
honestly, I maybe Pollyanna, but I don`t believe that his base is as vile
as he is making it out to be.

Because the only thing he`s pandering to, I think, Richard is exactly
right, is to the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazis, the total fascists that
are rearing their head now. The issue with the transgender is exactly the
same. I`ve recently served on a Pentagon Committee and had a lot of
contact with generals. All of whom say nobody in my troops cares whether
there is a transgender member. They – one of them even told me that one
of his best soldiers was a transgender soldier. They don`t care. So this
is an unnecessary step. I watched as general consult of the Army the
integration of women which was greeted with about as much enthusiasm at
that time as possibly he is now feeling about integrating transgenders.

HAYES: It`s a good point.

BANKS: It went just splendidly. The women performed admirably and have
now risen to very high rank. We now have a number of four-star, three-
star, two-star generals who happen to have have been women. And the same
will happen with transgenders if we allow it to happen and we should.

HAYES: John, there`s a question constantly here about the institutions
holding in the rule of law and I think that`s both when we talk about the
pardon, we talk about the Russian investigation writ-large and we talk
about the firing of James Comey and with Mike Pompeo in the terms to which
political interference or sort of untoward abilities to sort of manipulate
processes and information will mean that the sort of basic institutional
nature of the government falls apart.

I want to return to something you said, which you`re confident that that`s
not the case here. Explain more about what you`ve seen in these first
seven months that makes you confident about that.

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I`m talking about the intelligence community here.

Although, I think in a way one could say as a columnist said not long ago
that to a degree, an important degree, the rails are holding against a lot
of the things that Trump has tried to do, whether it`s the congress or the
intelligence community, but just to stick with the intelligence community
for a moment, there`s nothing more sacred in the intelligence business than
its objectivity, nothing more sacred than the belief they are there to look
at events in the world dispassionately, almost clinically and come in and
give their best assessment of things.

I believe they are doing that. I`m not in the room, but I know my former
colleagues and I know that at any time in the past, when that has been
challenged, when that has been in any way jeopardized, there is close to a
rebellion within the ranks.

There were times in my past when I would say to someone who was pushing us
to say something or do something that we believed to be incorrect or false,
I would say to them if we were to
do that, there would be a revolution in this building.

So, I think the assurance you can have, that I hope we can have, and I
believe we can have, is that that ethic is very strong in the intelligence

In fact, when Trump was elected, I said to a number of people, look, the
institutions that are going to be most important in our country at this
time are the intelligence community, the judiciary, the media, the
congress, and to a certain degree institutions beyond those. But those
kind of core institutions that represent respect for fact, that represent
rule of law, that represent separation of powers, those are the
institutions that have to hold and although we could wish for more spine
being shown in some parts of the Republican Party at this point, I think
that broadly speaking they are holding.

HAYES: All right. In case – I want to just take a moment to sort of
reset for folks that may just be joining us, because there`s a tremendous
amount happening as a massive category four hurricane you see there in the
corner of your screen is just hours from making landfall in Texas with
catastrophic and life threatening flooding, President Trump has just
pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the White House has just issued guidance to
the Pentagon that bans transgender Americans from joining the military and
the leaves the fate of those already serving up in the air.

All of that comes as we have significant new developments in the Russia
investigation, including as we start at the top of the hour, exclusive
reporting form NBC News that Mueller`s team is seeking grand jury testimony
from former colleagues of Paul Manafort.

There are also multiple reports now, get this, just reporting this now,
multiple reports, that the controversial deputy assistant to the president
Sebastian Gorka has just resigned from the White House.

This is an individual who has been controversial, to say the least, whose
expertise is unclear, whose job is unclear, it was unclear whether he even
had security clearance. He mostly appeared to go on television, a former
Breitbart contributor Sebastian Gorka, appears to have resigned, at least
multiple reports are saying that.

Right now the panel is still with me.

Naveed, I don`t know if you have strong feelings about Sebastian Gorka. I
know many people do. He has – he was – he was a Scaramucci-like figure,
has been a Scaramucci-like figure for different reasons, different politics
than Scaramucci, but let`s just say a flamboyant in a certain way.

What do you make of that news?

JAMALI: I think it`s an insult to Scaramucci to compare him to Scaramucci.

I think – look, first of all, it should be noted that there are actually
two Gorkas in the White House. His wife is still very much in the
administration and I am concerned that she stays on

Sebastian Gorka, from everything that – you know from his PhD advisor,
he`s not someone who is a terrorism expert. Nonetheless, he was involved
in the White House. It`s unclear that he actually did anything, because as
far as we can tell he never had a security clearance.

So, his ability to actually come in and influence policy while that might
have been there on the TV side, I`m not so sure actually what he did.
Clearly as Richard Painter and the other – and Jill have said, you know,
he was a polarizing figure in the sense that there`s an appeal to this
fringe element of white supremacists and Nazis, and clearly Sebastian Gorka
had an appeal to them. I mean, he was someone who was caught wearing if I
recall correctly, a symbol that harked back to the sort of Hungarian Nazi

And it`s just – these are not the people that we need in the White House
representing our government.

HAYES: Mr. McLaughlin, as someone who was talking about the sort of
importance of information getting to the president, what did you make of
what do you make of Sebastian Gorka being in the White House apparently
advising on matters of national security?

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, you know, I saw him as kind of a disruptive force,
almost in some respects not quite a comic figure, but you know a figure who
– let me put it this way, I think this is a victory for John Kelly and
H.R. McCaster to have that particular point of view not front and center in
the White House.

So, I think most of what he had to say was easily challenged and way over
the top and often just flat wrong.

HAYES: I`m getting a sense, John, of how you communicate information to
the presidents you served – pointed, but diplomatic.

I want to back to – do we have Charlie Sykes now, I believe with us?

We do. Charlie, how are you.

Crazy night for a Friday in August. We`re sort of juggling a bunch of
different stories happening here. And we still want to keep our eye on
that hurricane. We`re going to get to that in a moment, which is about to
make landfall. And a lot of folks in the path of that. A lot to be
worried about in that respect.

But I want to talk to you about these two bits of news, which seem related
on some level, which is the Arpaio pardon and the Gorka resigning. Let`s
start with the Arpaio pardon. What do you make of that? And what do you
make of the timing of that and the issue on transgender guidance happening
at the moment, the president at Camp David as a hurricane barrels down on

interesting because clearly, when people talked about Steve Bannon leaving
the White House, how it would change the presidency, obviously it has not
changed the presidency fundamentally.

These are signals to the base, to the Bannon base, you know, that the
president is still there. He`s still fighting for the things you care
about. But, you know, to bury on a Friday night in August with a hurricane
coming sends a different signal, obviously.

But look, the Joe Arpaio pardon is really an extraordinary thing. And
you`ve touched on every aspect of this, including what a big victory this
is for people like Alex Jones and people from the fever swamp, the message
it sends about law enforcement.

And I have to say that I`m not quite as optimistic as some of the others on
tonight about what it says about the ability of our institutions to push
back against the overreach.

Look, this is about the rule of law and Donald Trump is testing the limits
of presidential power and what he did tonight was to flex his muscles and
to basically say look, there are people who are above the law. There are
things for which we have no checks and balances. There is no going back on
all of this. And I think that the people need to realize that this is a
president who I think is completely capable of using this kind of pardon
power extricate himself from the Russia investigation, so I think it` is
legitimate to raise those questions that really what you`re having here is
laying out the template. I am the president. I can do this. No one can
stop me.

And this is kind of a revelation I think to a lot of Americans who think
that our system of checks and balances actually is more than just a

HAYES: Yeah, we should be clear here to reiterate something that Pete
Williams said about the constitutional nature of this. This is – it`s
only for federal crimes, right so, the president can`t pardon state crimes.
It`s a federal conviction in criminal court.

But in terms of any federal infraction in the past or preemptively things
that might be discovered, the president has absolutely pardon power. And
the only check on it is essentially political, right. And that, Charlie,
is I think the key part here. I mean, the founders envisioned that, you
know, you wouldn`t say pardon mass murders, because that would hurt you
politically and you`re a political creature.

There`s a political calculation with every pardon and with one here seems
fairly obvious.

SYKES: Yes. And, you know, when you talk about appealing to the base –
look, we have 35 percent of Americans who basically have decided whatever
Donald Trump does they`re going back. This is what a cult of personally
looks like. We are are in different political moment here.

So, you know, don`t assume that there is a huge part of the Trump base that
would go, OK, we`re going to go along with all this other stuff. We`re
going to swallow the fact that it turns out the Mexico paying for the wall
has a complete scam, you know, and all of the other stuff about
Charlottesville, but we`re going to draw the line at pardoning people who
have broken the law. That is not going to be the red line for a lot of the
Trump base.

And once again, it`s going to be interesting to see what will the reaction
be of congressional Republicans to the transgender ban. Remember when he
tweeted it out, he got a lot of push back, a lot
of people in congress said this is a bad idea, this is discriminatory.
This the wrong message.

What will the push back be from the law enforcement community and from
congress to the Joe
Arpaio. Which by the way is a pretty dramatic, it is pretty gross
statement by the president on this Friday night.

HAYES: Yeah, I just want to be clear here, Jill, because I`d like you to
respond to this. What Joe Arpaio was doing was essentially sending his
officers to roam the streets and say demand the papers of anyone they
viewed as possibly here in an undocumented, unauthorized fashion, which was
essentially people with a skin color that they felt clued them off to that.
And a court said you can`t do
that. That`s a fundamental violation of our constitutional protections and
then he kept doing it until the court had to convict him to get him to
stop. And that`s what was pardoned tonight. That is a – that is quite a
message to send.

WINE-BANKS: That is a very, very big deal. And it is his crime really
such a violation of her constitution and of what this country means that it
is horrible that you would pardon it.

But it is exactly consistent with everything else that President Trump has
done. He has no respect for the constitution. He acts in a way where he
speaks when he`s speaking honestly to say exactly what he means. And
again, I have to say I feel better having heard Richard Painter and
Director McLaughlin.

I would add to the list of institutions McLaughlin has mentioned that I
really have great faith ultimately in the American people. And although
there are a certain percentage who will stick with Mr. Trump, who even half
of all Republicans in a poll said they would agree to postpone the 2020
election if President Trump asked them to. That`s fascism. That`s no
longer a democracy.

So, if you like him, vote for him. But don`t cancel the election. And…

HAYES: I should note that sometimes – sometimes you can get people to say
anything in polling just as a cautionary note about – what American
citizens are willing to assent to when asked.

If you`re just cruising around trying to figure out what`s going on on this
Friday in August, our lower third gives you a sense of what is happening
as that massive hurricane is hitting in Texas there, Sebastian Gorka has
apparently resigned, a very controversial figure who a lot of people
thought had no business working in the White House to begin with.

Joe Arpaio has been – the first presidential pardon comes for a man who is
criminally convicted to contempt of court for pursuing unconstitutional
racial profiling.

There are new subpoenas being issued by Robert Mueller in the Russia
investigation, the first time we have evidence of compelled testimony to
bring witnesses before that investigation. All of that
happening at this hour as that hurricane set to make landfall.

We also have Catherine Rampell, the great columnist here from The
Washington Post.


HAYES: I have so say there was all this stuff about the Arpaio pardon
going into the Phoenix rally, and there was all this reporting, and then
Sarah Huckabee Sanders said no, we`re not going to do anything on it. And
I think I came to believe that they weren`t going to do it. And then he
sort of promised to do it. He sort of had a kind of almost Pontius
Pilateesque moment before the crowd where he said, well, what should I do
with Joe Arpaio. I still didn`t believe it was going to happen. Are you
surprised that he did it?

RAMPELL: No. If there was any doubt in anyone`s mind that law and order
was code for making it easier to harass people of color this is

I would also point out that this is a direct attack on our constitution and
on the independence of our federal judiciary. Remember, there was a lot of
concern during the campaign about the fact that he attacked a judge of
Mexican descent, Judge Curiel, right. This was an attack on the
independence of a federal judiciary.

This is so much worse, because the crime that he is being pardoned for is
effectively not following the constitution because a judge determined that
what his officers were doing was harassment, was discrimination. He
refused the court`s order. And this is Trump saying to the public, you
know what, I agree, we shouldn`t listen to what judges say.

HAYES: Richard, what do you think lawyers in the White House should do
about something like this?

PAINTER: Quit. I wouldn`t want to be a lawyer for this president.

And you know, Sheriff Joe was engaged in lawless law enforcement. 99
percent of cops in America, 99 percent of sheriffs do their job and risk
their live every day for our safety. And we have a very small number of
bad cops and bad sheriffs, very small number, less than 1 percent I`m sure
and he`s one of them. And he should never have gotten that pardon. And
he flaunted the orders of a court. That is lawlessness. And we should not
tolerate that in the United States.

And now I see what`s going on here. To get rid of Sebastian Gorka was a
real clown. I mean, he didn`t know anything about terrorism other than
trying to condemn a billion Muslims of the world and call them all
terrorists. In order to get rid of him, President Trump needs to throw a
bone to the you know, the neo-fascist right. And that is not a basic 35
percent of American people, that`s a base that`s maybe 3.5 percent or 5
percent of American people.

Unfortunately, that`s a base that may make a difference in Republican
primaries because so few people are showing up to vote in the primaries.
And that`s what happened here. These are people that he used to defeat a
whole bunch of other candidates. He never even got the majority of the
votes in a lot of those primaries, just a plurality. He went in there and
used these people to get the Republican

But this is a very small percentage of the American people who would
sympathize with someone like Sheriff Joe and think he ought to get a
pardon. And at least we got rid of Sebastian Gorka
because showing up on the TV in front of the White House making a clown of
himself all the time and didn`t know anything about what`s going on in the
Middle East.

And then he was wearing the medal that Nazi sympathizer organization at the
inaugural ball. And we`ve really got – but there are a bunch more people
in the White House who we need to get rid of. A lot of them came in
through the so-called alt-right Breitbart affiliation. And they`ve got a
lot more people to get rid of.

HAYES: Richard Painter, thank you so much for your time tonight. I
understand that we have to let you go now.

I want to go to John McLaughlin because we do have now NBC News
confirmation of those multiple reports we saw about Sebastian Gorka
resigning. We assume he was pushed out. And this appears to be part of a
larger effort that`s been undertaken by H.R. McMaster and it appears John
Kelly to sort of exile and push out some of the more fringe elements who
have been brought in, particularly the national security architecture
inside the White House. Is that how you read it?

MCLAUGHLIN: I do, Chris.

You know, I sat in the Situation Room in what they call deputies meetings
and principals meetings. These are the most serious meetings that take
place in the foreign policy establishment in the United States. And
there`s no place, no room in those meetings for ideology coming to the
fore. They have to be focused on fact. They have to be conducted by
people, in this case H.R. McMaster, John Kelly I hope is present, who have
some experience in how the world works. What war is. What geopolitics
amounts to in a practical sense. And so I think what`s going on here is an
attempt to shape
that process in a way that is more conventional, and by that I don`t mean
conventional in the sense of not open to novel ideas and so forth, but more
serious would be another way to put it.

And given the nature of the problems we`re dealing with in the world, as I
mentioned earlier, these are all enormously complex things that are
interconnected and you can`t deal with them in slogans, bumper stickers or
tweets for that matter. In fact, it`s counterproductive to do so. So
that`s how I read this, that there`s an effort underway by the adults in
White House to be responsible and to make sure we are shepherding our
national security decisions in an effective way. That`s my hope.

HAYES: Yeah, well, to the point of tweets. One more piece of news, I
should mention, which is North Korea apparently launched some ballistic
missile tests tonight. I believe three missiles. They appear to have all
failed, at least early reports indicating that as opposed to some of the
most – the successes we`d seen with recent missile test launch.

I thought of that because when you said it can`t be handled in a tweet, I
was taken back to just two weeks ago when we were watching nuclear
brinksmanship via 140 characters.

On this swirling night of news on a Friday in August, I want to bring in I
believe we have Raul Grijalva who, of course, is the Democratic congressman
from Arizona who has tangled politically and
publicly with Joe Arpaio for years and get your reaction to this pardon

REP. RAUL GRIJALVA, (D) ARIZONA: Well, you know, it`s – there`s a level
of sadness to it, because there was anticipated from his rally on Tuesday,
Trump kind of indicated to the crowd, wink wink, nod nod, don`t worry about
it. I`m going to take care of it. So, (inaudible) anticipated.

But the fact (inaudible) but not only is he pardoning Arpaio, who was
convicted of contempt of court, racial profiling, selected persecution and
prosecution of individuals, primarily Latinos in Maricopa County and in the
state, he`s not just pardoning an individual because he deserves a pardon,
if you follow the rule of law, what we`re doing here is pardoning his
actions and his acts.

HAYES: Yeah, which is more than – is a profound whistle to the extremists
that support Trump, the people, many of them at the rallies, that see this
kind of action as part of being presidential.

I think it`s bad for the country. It further divides, it further
minimizes, it further marginalizes people just because of who they are and
what the color of their skin is.

All right, Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona, thank you for joining us
for that reaction. This late-breaking news.

Catherine, there was something you wanted to say.

RAMPELL: Oh, about Gorka. We should bear in mind that it`s not only that
he didn`t add value in his role in the White House, because he didn`t
actually know anything about Islam, he was actively creating harm. As you
may recall, there was recently what appeared to be a terrorist attack on, I
think it was a mosque or an Islamic Center, and he said that the White
House couldn`t come out against it and call it an act of terrorism because
it might be a fake hate crime.

HAYES: This is in Minnesota about a week and a half ago.

RAMPELL: It feels like it was so much longer ago. But yes, recently.

So he was clearly passing along that advice within the White House and
projecting it out to
the rest of the world. It`s not only that he didn`t know anything, but he
was, you know, polluting the water, basically and encouraging people to
second guess actual discrimination, actual acts of terrorism that were

HAYES: He was also – the reporting indicated that part of the reason that
he had managed to hang on as long as he was able to is because he went on
TV a lot.

RAMPELL: That seemed to have been his only job.

HAYES: His only job. And, Charlie, I mean, this is to me in some ways one
of the most disturbing commonalities across a range of issues is what comes
into the president`s purview, where he
gets his information from. It`s something that we`ve read articles saying
that John Kelly is trying to change it. And then the president this
morning starting his day by clearly watching cable news and tweeting it and
we know that Joe Arpaio thinks that Alex Jones, of all people, was the one
that essentially got his issues in front of him and reporting indicating
that whatever you cut the president off from his son, Don Jr., is going to
pass on the InfoWars article.

I mean, that seems to me a central challenge right now.

SYKES: It`s a central challenge and it`s an unsolvable dilemma. You have
the adults in the room, And yes, they got rid of a goof like Sebastian
Gorka, but this larger problem – look, let`s talk
about what`s happening tonight. We have the adults in the room, hopefully
they`re handling the hurricane. But where were the adults when he issues
the order on the transgender ban in the military? Where were the adults
when he, you know, pardons Joe Arpaio and sending the dog whistle that he
did there.

You know, where were they during the rally in Phoenix, the unhinged rant?
This is the problem. You can change – you can rearrange the deck chairs,
but this presidency is about Donald Trump. And Donald Trump is going to
get his news from Fox and Friends. He`s going to read the Drudge Report.
He`s going to pick up the phone he`s going to talk to Sean Hannity, he`s
going to read Alex Jones, and I don`t know how John Kelly is ever going to
be able to stop that or change that.

HAYES: Yeah, that is a central problem.

I want to – can we bring up the hurricane image again, because that – the
hour draws near for that hurricane to make landfall. And it`s worth just
taking a moment to sort of reset that.

That is a category 4 hurricane that`s bearing down – it`s going to make
landfall a little northeast of Corpus Christi, which is good news. The
first little bit of good news we`ve gotten about that hurricane. There`s a
large evacuation area. I think it`s a dozen counties, if I`m not mistaken
at this point. You see the wind speeds are at 130 miles an hour.

The forecasts that are happening for that hurricane right now are shocking
in the amount of rain
that`s going to dumped on that region of the country. We`re looking at up
to 35 inches of rain.

In 2015, you had 11 inches of rain in Houston and it caused massive
flooding. Houston looking to get two to three times that amount in the
city of Houston over the next three or four days, because that storm is
going to sit there.

So this is a very big storm. It`s the first category 4 to make landfall in
12 years, the first category 4 to hit Texas since 1961.

And there`s going to be a lot of folks, Catherine, who are going to have to
do their jobs. And one of the things that – one of the themes of the
night, one of the things I`m talking about is the president`s information,
and the ability of essentially the civil service to function independent of
the dysfunction of the White House.

And that`s been – that`s a big question this president has not faced a
crisis or emergency so far,
except those of his own making, really in the first period of this
administration. Right now, everyone`s crossing their fingers that the
civil servants up and down the bureaucracies, federal, can do what they
need to do.

RAMPELL: Right. And it`s not that we`ve had such great history with FEMA
even in previous administrations, right. I mean, when there are these big
crises, it`s always difficult.

One underappreciated aspect I think of what could potentially happen is
that Texas or that part of the country has the highest number of oil
refineries in the country, right? And so there`s enormous
potential for an environmental disaster, beyond the usual people being
displaced from their homes and that sort of thing. And you have not – you
don`t have the people in place that you need at the EPA either. And again,
it`s not as if Trump is committed particularly to putting resources there.

So there are a lot of things that can go wrong.

HAYES: John, let me ask you this, how much does the operational level of a
government that`s
operating, and obviously intelligence is different than, say, disaster
response, but there`s a commonality in the sense that you have
bureaucracies that function with 99 percent of them are nonpoliticals,
right? There`s folks that are career folks who have jobs, and they go and
they do them every day. And there`s some people in the sort of cap of the
snowtop mountain who are there as appointees.

How much does it matter, I guess, ultimately? I mean, is it the case that
the sort of functioning of that machinery can happen even if there`s chaos
at the top?

MCLAUGHLIN: I think the short answer, Chris, is yes, mostly. It`s one
reason why I hate the
concept that came out of the Trump administration or was ballyhooed by it,
of the deep state and the swamp, all of that.

Essentially they`re talking here about some of the most dedicated,
committed people in the United States. Public servants get a really bad
rap. And in most of these institutions that we call departments and
agencies, there are below the political level, people who come in every
day, are dedicated to what they`re doing, do it because they believe it`s
meaningful, care deeply about their work. If you go to a federal
retirement ceremony somewhere, probably the most frequent thing said is,
I`m going to miss the people here because they care so deeply about what
they do.

Now, of course, are there bureaucrats who are bureaucrats? Of course. But
fundamentally, let me put this a different way, one of the things I worry
about here is that in many ways, the Trump administration, the president in
particular, has carried out a kind of assault on our institutions, whether
it`s the judiciary or the media or some other institution. At the end of
the day, having looked at democracies and authoritarian societies around
the world, democracies succeed in large part because of the health and
strength of their institutions. It`s the way countries are organized, it`s
the way they function.

And our country, at that level, the institutional level, the government
level, the level you asked about, functions rather well on a comparative
basis, looking at the rest of the world.

So this doesn`t mean we shouldn`t worry about the president, and some of
the things that he does that bother us, but there is a certain elasticity
and resiliency in the government that we can be thankful for.

HAYES: Jill, what is your sense of – given the news that we started this
hour with as we come down to the final stretch here, of where – how close
are they on the Mueller side of this? Because, you know, you`ve got a
midnight raid or early dawn raid of Paul Manafort. You`ve got business
associates of him, part of that $60 million contract coming before a grand
jury. It does seem like things are closing in on that respect.

WINE-BANKS: It`s hard to ever predict, even when you`re the prosecutor
with all the knowledge, how fast you will be able to wrap up an
investigation. And none of us knows what information they actually have.

Witnesses can come out of the grand jury and tell the public what they
said, but no one in the prosecution for us can tell us, and no one has, so
we don`t really know.

But clearly there is a focus on at least some of the connections to Russia
and Ukraine, some of
the financial wrongdoing. And we don`t know what documents they already
have, so we don`t know what kind of questions will be asked of those
witnesses. But it certainly is possible that they`re wrapping – that they
will wrap this up quickly.

HAYES: Jill Wine-Banks, Naveed Jamali, John McLaughlin, Charlie Sykes, and
Catherine Rampell, many thanks to all of you for bearing with us through
this somewhat insane news hour that we`ve just gone through.

That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts right now
with Ari Melber.


Copy: Content and programming copyright 2017 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2017 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the