All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 10/5/17 NBC News reports Mueller team met w/ dossier author

Renato Mariotti, Jill Wine-Banks

Date: October 5, 2017
Guest: Renato Mariotti, Jill Wine-Banks

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: “ALL IN” with Chris Hayes starts right now.



collusion is still open.

HAYES: The White House snaps on Russia.

than the President being frustrated, I think the American people are

HAYES: Tonight, the pushback from Trump world as sources tell NBC news
Senate Intel has corroborated parts of the Steele Dossier.

have never been written.

HAYES: Plus –

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Could you address the main headline of this story that
you call the President a moron?

HAYES: New details on President Trump`s furious eruption in the wake of
the NBC News moron report.

TRUMP: It was fake news.

HAYES: Then, is the NRA really making a concession on gun regulations?
And an ALL IN conversation.

MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO, FACEBOOK: I don`t want anyone to use our tools to
undermine democracy.

HAYES: As Facebook comes to terms with its unprecedented power, is there
anything anyone can do about it?

ZUCKERBERG: I wish I could tell you that we`re going to be able to stop
all interference. But that just wouldn`t be realistic.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. Tonight, the infamous
Steele Dossier is at the very center of the news on the Russia
investigation. NBC News reports that investigators on Special Counsel
Robert Mueller`s team have interviewed Christopher Steele. That`s, of
course, the former British Intelligence Officer who compiled that
absolutely explosive document. The Dossier details an alleged effort by
the Russian government over a period of years, stretching back to 2013 or
so, to cultivate and coopt Donald Trump and his inner circle, as well as an
extensive conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian forces to work
together to interfere in the 2016 Presidential Election on Trump`s behalf.
The President denies those claims but clearly, Mueller isn`t taking the
President`s word for it, and neither is the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Yesterday Chairman Richard Burr discussed the Committee`s investigation
into the dossier but said they`re having trouble verifying some details.


BURR: As it relates to the Steele Dossier, unfortunately, the committee
has hit a wall. Though we have been incredibly enlightened at our ability
to rebuild backwards, the Steele dossier up to a certain date, getting past
that point has been somewhat impossible.


HAYES: It appears however that those efforts haven`t been entirely
unsuccessful because according to NBC News Reporter Ken Dilanian, two
sources told NBC, the Committee has indeed corroborated parts of the
dossier. NBC News National Security Reporter Ken Dilanian joins me now.
And Ken, what is your reporting telling you about the ways in which the
committee or the Mueller investigation are dealing with that document?

answer to you Chris, but the real answer is, we just don`t know. It`s
classified and they`re not giving details on what they`ve corroborated.
But I`m really glad you played that rather inarticulate clip from Senator
Burr because the Republicans are trying to say today that he said no such
thing. And he clearly said in his – in his – inartful way, he used the
term “rebuilding.” They have a timeline. I mean, there are meetings,
there are things in that dossier that can be checked with, for example,
U.S. intelligence reports signals intelligence, travel records. And every
effort has been made to do that. The FBI has done it as well.

And so – and there are – and there are parts of the dossier, Chris, as
you know, that track with what we know from public reporting. For example,
the dossier said weeks before newspapers reported that there was a Russian
hack of the DNC in July 2016, there`s a dossier report dated in July that
says that there is a Kremlin effort to hack the DNC. And it wasn`t until
October that the U.S. government formally said, hey, this was the Russians
that hack the DNC.

HAYES: And crucially, I just want to be clear because it`s actually one of
the elements going back to that document. And I have to say that the
document itself which was published to great fanfare and great controversy,
it contains some salacious details and explosive allegations the President
denied that somewhat humorously, that to go back and look at it and read
line by line, there are – you are constantly encountering bits of
information that are just publicly verifiable. For instance, that July
19th report in which the dossier says that Russians have hacked the DNC,
it`s not till like, two weeks later that press reports say that.

DILANIAN: That`s absolutely true. There`s another passage where it says,
look, despite Trump denying that he wants to do business in Moscow, he`s
been actively seeking it out. Well, what do we learn a couple of months
ago that there was a Trump Tower Moscow proposal on the table and Donald
Trump`s lawyer Michael Cohen was pursuing it with top Kremlin officials
during the Republican Primary? So yes, there are some things that have
been verified. There are other things that are unverified, unproven, and
the subject to investigation. For example, the dossier basically says that
Paul Manafort was acting as a go-between, between Russian intelligence and
the Trump campaign. Obviously, that`s not proven, that`s something Mueller
and the Congress are investigating, Chris.

HAYES: Yes, and the sort of final thing I think that seems important here
is just the degree to which the status of this document, which always –
you know, this document has been at the center of a lot of the reporting,
the earliest reporting that it was Comey himself who had to pull the
President aside at a briefing and say this thing was out there. What does
seem clear, and I want you to tell me whether this is how you understand
it, is that this is taken seriously as a document, not itself verified, but
as a skeleton to work off to attempt to verify.

DILANIAN: That is such a great way to put it. You know this is raw
intelligence. Raw intelligence is often wrong, but some of it is right.
And you know, James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence,
said in June that Donald Trump asked him to refute the dossier. And he
said, I could not and I would not. So you`re right, it`s a roadmap for the
investigation. And by the way, the FBI has had most of it from Steele for
a long time. And now it appears that Mueller wants to ask some follow-up
questions. That`s what I think this interview would have been about,

HAYES: All right, Ken Dilanian, thank you. I want to bring in former
Assistant Watergate Special Prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks and former Federal
Prosecutor Renato Marriotti. Renato, what do you make of this news?

interesting and big news because the dossier, I think you and Ken covered
it very well, Chris. The dossier contains a lot of explosive details and
you know, had been denied – had been the subject of very frequent denials
by the administration. They said, it`s this – you know, false dossier,
fake, you know, there`s nothing real in there. But as Ken was pointing
out, there have been portions of it that have been verified. Now that
Mueller`s looking at it, what it tells me is he`s going back and trying to
figure out what he can create usable evidence out of. So just so your
viewers understand, you can`t just toss this dossier in front of a jury.
You actually have to bring in witnesses who can testify as to what they
saw, and what they heard, you have to bring in documents that can be

But look, even if Mueller is able to just verify small portions of it and
bring in that evidence, that could be real problems for some of the
President`s associates like Michael Cohen. You know, he is all throughout
that dossier. You know, there`s been – there are these allegations in
there that he was meeting with Russian representatives. And if you look at
his denials or I should put that in quotation marks, his sort of denials,
you know, he denies certain things and not others. And so you really could
see him potentially getting in trouble for lying to Congress.

HAYES: Jill, I was curious about when you were working on the Watergate –
the Watergate investigation. You know, a lot of what was being uncovered
was happening in the press. You know, famously by Woodward and Bernstein
and others. And the degree to which you in the investigator`s office were
taking tips that you were maybe getting some other places and attempting to
run them down using your powers?

information that we got, every clue, every tip, and took it seriously.
It`s interesting especially in light of the release of the Mark Felt movie
and his being held out as a hero but really, he was telling us what we
already knew, because his information came from the same FBI that worked
for us. So it wasn`t dramatic, new information. The FBI knew everything
that he had and we had it. The people who didn`t have it were the public.

And it was helpful to bring public opinion to support our efforts to
uncover all the information and it really helped, in the end, to bring
about the replacement of the Special Prosecutor after the Saturday Night
Massacre and to get the release of the tapes, because the public was
supporting us because they saw the evidence publicly. Here you have a
situation where the Senate has to get to the bottom of what happened, not
just in terms of the dossier, but in terms of the clear and convincing
evidence that we have that the Russians hacked because they have to protect
our electoral system. And that`s a really important underlying thing that
the Congress has to do, whereas the criminal prosecution has to proceed
through the Mueller investigation.

HAYES: Renato, I want to talk about timescale here. I mean, this is now
an investigation that was opened if I`m not mistaken in summer of 2016, I
believe June. It`s gone through several phases. I think it`s intensified.
It`s been passed over to the Special Counsel. And the argument that you
heard from Sarah Huckabee Sanders, although it was about the Senate
Intelligence Committee but of the same kind ilk was, well, they`ve been
looking and they`ve been talking to all these people and there`s thousands
of pages of transcript, and they haven`t found the smoking gun yet, so this
is a witch hunt. What do you say to that?

MARIOTTI: First of all, we don`t know what Mueller`s found yet. You know,
just so your viewers understand, when you conduct a grand jury
investigation, as a legal matter, it`s secret. So Mueller can`t divulge to
us everything that he knows. We don`t know what he knows. And this is
just in the – you know, frankly, in many ways, it`s still in a fairly
early stage. As we just heard recently, Mueller is interviewing people at
the White House about obstruction and other issues. So each one of those
interviews is going to generate more requests and more subpoenas and more
interviews. I mean, this is going to go on and on as he`s verifying this
dossier. He`s going to be interviewing more people and bringing them in.
This is just the beginning and I would not draw any conclusions other than
what we already know about Manafort and others being indicted.

HAYES: OK, so then Jill, this goes to you. And obviously there`s been
reporting suggesting that Mueller has informed Manafort directly, you are
going to be indicted, which if he was unclear on that, you know, breaking
into his apartment to search a search warrant probably helped him to that
possibility. But, Jill, I guess my question here is to Renato`s point, did
you feel when you were working the Watergate investigation, was there some
sense of external pressure that you guys at some point, in order to sustain
the public interest or sustain people`s thoughts that this was a fair
proceeding, did have to produce something tangible that you could come
public with?

BANKS: Well, let`s look at the smoking gun which you mentioned. And we
were appointed in May of `73. We found out that there were tape recordings
in July of `73. We immediately subpoenaed them, we were stonewalled, but
then we finally got some. And they weren`t the smoking gun tape. It was
nine limited tapes and actually, of course, we only got six because one had
an 18-minute gap and two were missing. So we only got six of the nine.
And then in March, we returned indictments. It was only in preparation for
trial which was set for September of `74 that we subpoenaed 64 more tapes
and got the smoking gun. When we got the smoking gun, and this is now more
than a year after we started, that was an immediate response. The
Republicans acted as Americans. The three top Republicans in the Congress,
House, and Senate, went to Nixon and said, there is no more support for
you, you will be convicted in the Senate if you do not resign. And that
was the end. But that was a year into it. We did not get the smoking gun
right away. This takes time. You know, slow and steady wins the race. We
have to put the puzzle together piece by piece. And it takes a little bit
of time to develop all the evidence that`s necessary. And I think Mueller
is showing every sign of getting it done.

HAYES: All right, Jill Wine-Banks and Renato Mariotti, thanks to you both.
Joy Reid, Host of “A.M. JOY” joins me now. What do you think is the
significance of Mueller sending folks to talk to Steele?

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: I think it`s very important because I think you and
– you and Ken made a really important point that this is a research
document. It`s a document from which the Mueller team can work to try to
find facts. It is not the fact, right? So the important thing that is
people sort of characterize the dossier as sort of the conclusions that
this guy was drawing. No. He was sweeping in all of this information and
then Mueller has to put it together. I think it`s important because
there`s a lot in that dossier that has borne out. And I think that it
provides the most compelling set of facts that could be a narrative as to
how collusion took place. If they can get to the bottom of that by talking
to him, finding out you know, where did he get some of his information, he
may or may not be able to divulge it, I think it just helps them to build
slowly this investigation.

HAYES: You know, the document itself, and part of the reason that I – the
way I think about it, I think it has shifted over time, partly as the facts
have fall into place, is that when you read it the first time, what it lays
out seems really kind of crazy. Like, I mean, or at least so broad in
scope. I mean, the idea is that this was a sustained effort over a number
of years to cultivate Donald Trump, to bring him into the Russian orbit, to
have him be essentially turned into a kind of asset, and then to help his
campaign. I mean, what it lays out in its scope is really, really

REID: Yes. But it isn`t if you think about the way that Russia has
worked. I mean, just let`s remember that the current President of Russia
is – was a former KGB agent. And the KGB spent years cultivating assets.
This is not something they do quickly and I think the idea that you have
somebody like Donald Trump, who showed the affinity in the 80s, that had
showed an interest in the 80s, and then had a need in the 90s, need and
greed are usually the components of the way that the Russians when – even
when they were the Soviets would develop assets. This is how it`s done.
So I think the idea is if you`re going to interfere in a Presidential
election, this is really taking it to a level that is incredibly risky for
Russia. If you`re going to do that, you better do it carefully, you better
cultivate these contacts over a long period of time. It`s not something
they would rush into. So I think it actually makes sense that it was that
comprehensive and that it depended on the greed and need of a lot of
different people who wanted to make money somehow through Russia, or who
wanted to have the power of the Presidency.

HAYES: Do we have by the way, do we have this clip of the President just
speaking a little while ago? Because if we do, I want to play it for joy.
So this is the President. He`s having a dinner tonight with military
officials and their families at the White House. And this is – it`s
slightly off target but it just happened and I want to get your reaction
because I don`t know what to make of it. This is the President in the
photo spray appearing to threaten something and no one can figure out what.


TRUMP: Do you know what this represents? Maybe it`s the calm before the

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s your storm?

TRUMP: The calm before the storm.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s the storm?

TRUMP: Could be the calm, the calm before the storm.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Iran, ISIS or what? What`s the storm, Mr. President?

TRUMP: We have the world`s great military people here in this room, I will
tell you that. And we will have a great evening. Thank you all for
coming. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What storm, Mr. president?

TRUMP: You`ll find out.


REID: Oh my gosh. You know, if Donald Trump –

HAYES: What do you make that?

REID: Well, on the one hand, Donald Trump seems to still think he`s in the
episode of The Apprentice, where he has to do a suspense moment before you
go to break, and he thinks he`s going to come back from commercial and then
announce whatever it is he`s doing. And he treats the Presidency like a
game show or like a reality show.

HAYES: He did this with Tom Price, famously, you know, he said –

REID: Hang on.

HAYES: We`ll have – yes, we`ll have some more information for you.

REID: We`ll have some more information. But at the time that they`re
potentially ripping up the Iran nuclear deal, which could send us on a path
of hostility with Iran. Remember, Iran is not Iraq, it`s an actual
republic, it`s not a put-together you know, republic where the people are
fractured. It was an empire. It is – it has an actual air force. It`s
four times the population. And he`s contemplating any sort of you know,
act of hostilities with Iran, that`s terrifying, and then, at the same time
that he is goading North Korea. If he weren`t doing those two things that
would just be Donald Trump doing his Donald Trump thing. It`s kind of
terrifying in the context of what they`re doing.

HAYES: I mean, presumably there are you know, intelligence agents of other
countries trying to parse this as well.

REID: Of course.

HAYES: And I think he thinks that it`s an asset if they can`t figure him
out, but there`s a lot reasons to think from the literature of deterrence
and game theory that actually that could be quite dangerous, which is, of
course, the theory of Joy Reid.

REID: Indeed.

HAYES: Ma`am, thank you for your time.

REID: Thank you.

HAYES: Next, more exclusive new reporting on the rift between Rex
Tillerson and the man he reportedly called a moron. New details of a
furious President fuming at the White House in just two minutes.

And later, the Facebook effect. A special conversation on the crossroads
of democracy and the unprecedented power the social media giant holds


HAYES: New details tonight on Donald Trump`s fury over an NBC story.
Yesterday our reporters revealed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had
openly disparaged the President referring to him as a moron. NBC now
learning that the president was so angry that Chief of Staff John Kelly
scrapped plans to travel to Vegas to stay in Washington and do damage
control. Also angry, Vice President Pence, who spoke with Tillerson ahead
of the Secretary`s stilted press conference yesterday in which Tillerson
never actually denied calling President Trump a moron. The President
attacking this morning tweeting, “Rex Tillerson never threatened to resign,
this is fake news put out by NBC News, low news in reporting standards, no
verification from me.” The White House today denying the President
undermined Tillerson or any other cabinet secretary.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What`s your response to those who say the President
has undercut the Secretary of State? Sarah, just quickly before you –

SANDERS: I think it`s – the premise of that question is absolutely
ridiculous. The President can`t undercut his own cabinet, the President is
the leader of the cabinet. He sets the tone, he sets the agenda, and I
think that question makes no sense because of that.


HAYES: NBC`s Carol Lee, who worked on that story and subsequent reporting,
joins me now. And Carol, what do we know from your reporting about the
reaction to the story?

furious and he vented in the White House for about two hours. You know, he
had left quite early to go to Las Vegas. And once he got aboard Air Force
One, that when Kelly kind of started to get into action. And two – about
two and a half hours later, we saw Secretary Tillerson`s press conference.
The interesting thing that happened after that is that Kelly then summoned
Tillerson and Defense Secretary Mattis to the White House for this meeting.
And the reason why that is significant is because, as you recall, it was
Kelly and Mattis who intervened in July when Tillerson was threatening to
resign and convinced him to stay.

And so the three of them had this huddle at the White House where they
talked about a path forward. And meanwhile, you have Vice President Pence
who was really angered by this, particularly because Tillerson`s spokesman
said on the record to us for the story, told us the story about a meeting
that Tillerson had had with Pence and suggested that the Vice President
somehow was questioning the job that the U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley was
doing. And Pence`s office have said that was flatly, patently false. And
so he was very upset and he and Tillerson had a conversation and he
basically said to him like, look, you need to get out there and fix this.

HAYES: You`re saying that that was the prompt for Tillerson to come out
before the cameras in that hastily assembled press conference.

LEE: Right.

HAYES: Key point here. So what you`re telling me is that behind the
scenes, the interpretation of your – and colleagues and our colleagues`
reporting was not, this is not fake news, but rather, I am furious that the
man called me a moron?

LEE: It was essentially – you know, yes. Why was he – you know, the
idea that Tillerson had said something disparaging behind the President`s
back, the whole notion of this being out there in the headlines, the
President was just – you know, he was – he was not – he was not at all
happy with anything that was – that was happening yesterday morning.

HAYES: All right, Carol Lee, thanks for joining me.

LEE: Thank you.

HAYES: MSNBC Stephanie Rule, one of our Reporters who broke the news
yesterday, it`s good to have you here. So –


HAYES: My favorite part about this is that they are publicly – the
President tweeting about fake news, fake news, fake news, deny, fake news,
meanwhile, they`re not interpreting it as fake news behind the scenes.

RUHLE: Think about this. Rex Tillerson comes out there, gives that press
conference to an audience of one, apologizing to the President, saying
you`re the smartest, prettiest, greatest, bestest boss there ever was in
the whole universe, but by the way, I`m not going to comment on whether or
not I called you a moron, because, from the parts where I come from, that`s
too petty to say that. Well, you know what, it`s not too petty because
people in that room said it. And what do you think it says about that
palace intrigue, what goes on within the White House? This is a meeting
that took place in July and this has been floating around. So those
colleagues that he`s working with every day, remember, President Trump,
says, the stories you hear about the chaos are nonsense, it`s a well-oiled
machine. What kind of well-oiled machine leaks like this?

HAYES: Well, and the other part of this that strikes me is this is also
been – this account has been confirmed by other outlets now. So you know,
this is something that was clearly – people knew that this had happened
and had been floating around. It was not a crypto secret.

RUHLE: That`s why it`s stunning for the President to say, let`s go after
this fake news, fake news. This happened. Like no way – other word to
say, it happened. Multiple people have confirmed it. But think about how
unhappy Rex Tillerson is. A year ago the guy ran ExxonMobil, right? He
was the CEO. He flew around the world private, had his own security
detail, foreign policy team, didn`t even eat in the cafeteria, and he does
it now. He`s got a staff that doesn`t even interface with other parts of
the administration, he travels alone. People in the administration talk
about Rex Tillerson and his Chief of Staff like they are persona non grata
and that`s how this – something like this gets out.

HAYES: And not only is he persona non grata at foggy bottom, he appears to
be at the White House too, so he`s sort of a man without a country. He
also – I mean, the other part of this is that it seems to me from the
reporting I`ve seen, the President`s furious but also feels paralyzed
because here`s this quick look at the people who have gone from the
administration. This is last Friday we made this. This is like,
Scaramucci, Bannon, Gorka, Gigicos, Comey, Flynn, Priebus, Spicer,
Schiller, and on and on and on that, it will feed the chaos narrative if he
actually does fire Tillerson so he`s stuck with him.

RUHLE: Well, remember, President Trump, “I hire the best people, the best
people” and you`ve got a laundry list of people who have left and at the
same time a laundry list continues of those who keep getting caught flying
private, or flying on military planes. And we know how much that
infuriated the President when Tom Price did it. So who`s he going to be
mad at now?

HAYES: You`re well sourced in all this. So I wondered if I can pick your
brain on the comments the President just made about this being the calm
before the storm. Have you seen this?

RUHLE: I have. Listen –

HAYES: What the heck does that mean?

RUHLE: President Trump loves to be unpredictable. So it`s unclear what
the calm before the storm. The thing is, it could mean anything. But if
you are a member of –

HAYES: Or nothing.

RUHLE: Or nothing. But I`ll tell you, if you are one of his senior staff
members and you hear him go out there and say, the calm before the storm,
you`re not feeling like you know what he`s about to say. You`re feeling
like, what could it be? Realize, it could be Iran, it could be North
Korea, it could be fake news, it could be firing someone. Who knows?

HAYES: It could be he`s going to fire Rex Tillerson for calling me a
moron, which I said was fake news.

RUHLE: Hey, it could be – it could be he`s going to do something very
progressive on gun control.

HAYES: Right.

RUHLE: Who knows.

HAYES: All right. Stephanie Ruhle, thank you for joining me.

RUHLE: Good to be here.

HAYES: Just ahead, the NRA comes out in support of new regulations. Why
it is not exactly the concession some are making it out to be, ahead.


HAYES: There are a lot of people in America who learned that the Las Vegas
mass shooter Stephen Paddock killed 58 people in just 10 minutes using a
device known as a bump stock and thought to themselves – I really need to
get one of those. Bump stocks are legal, even though as this video
illustrates they effectively transform a semiautomatic rifle into a fully
automatic weapon. And bump stock sales are spiking after Paddock`s
massacre. With many retailers now sold out of the device. It comes amid a
push from some lawmakers to ban bump stocks.

The devices are being defended by the Group Gun Owners of America, which
bills itself as the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington. You would
expect the National Rifle Association to take the same position, having
spent decades opposing almost every single gun safety law. But today,
after days of silence following the Las Vegas attack, the NRA announced it
was backing new regulations on bump stocks. Sounds promising, right? Only
there`s a catch and it`s a big one. I`ll explain next.



HEWITT: Jon Cornyn has said he wants to have hearings on bump stocks open
to a vote. Are you open to a vote?

REP. PAUL RYAN, (R) WISCONSIN: Yeah. Look, I didn`t know what they were
until this week. And I`m an avid sportsman. So, I think we`re quickly
coming up to speed with what this is. Fully automatic weapons have been
banned for a long time. Apparently this allows you to take a
semiautomatic, turn it fully automatic, so clearly that`s something we need
to look into.


HAYES: A significant number of congressional Republicans as well as the
White House said
today they are open to banning those so-called bump stocks, the devices
that the Las Vegas mass shooter used to kill or injure more than 500 people
in just 10 minutes.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Should bump stocks be…

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Should people be allowed to buy devices that…

TRUMP: We`ll be looking into that over the next short period of time.
We`ll be looking into that over the next short period of time.


HAYES: Short period of time tends to mean never, but maybe not this time.

In something of a surprise, the normally vehemently anti-regulation
National Rifle Association seems to suggest today it was fine with banning
bump stocks, saying in a statement, quote, “NRA believes the devices
designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully automatic
should be subject to additional regulations.”

But read the fine print. What the NRA is advocating is not legislation to
ban bump stocks. Instead, it is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives to immediately review whether these devices comply
with federal law.

As Politico points out, the move is designed to head off a messy gun
control debate in congress, and a debate over issues such as universal
background checks on gun sales, a ban on assault weapons, and limits on
high capacity ammunition magazines.

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced new legislation to
ban the sale and possession of bump stocks and similar devices, suggested
today that the NRA`s stance is really designed to maintain the status quo,
saying in a statement, “the ATF in 2010 made clear that it did
not have the authority to regulate bump stocks under the Gun Control Act or
Nnational Firearms Act. Legislation can and will save lives, and congress
should act immediately.”

Here to break this down, Democratic Representative Keith Ellison of
Minnesota. He`s a deputy share of the Democratic National Committee.

Congressman, what do you think is happening here?

REP. KEITH ELLISON, (D) MINNESOTA: Well, I think, you know, talk about the
least you can do. I mean, bump stocks, of course we should ban them. They
shoulder in have been allowed.

But what about all of the other lives we could save if we took more action?
I mean, look, you know, there should be universal background checks. You
should not be able to have a high-capacity magazine. We ought to be able
to step up and ban all these weapons of war that people use on our streets
so we can protect human life.

But I mean now that we`ve seen 59 people killed, murdered, over 500 people
injured, you wonder what it`s really going to take to actually take real

You know, I`d say that when they killed 20 kids at Sandy Hook or killed 59
people partying in Miami, I mean, now we see this tragedy. The bottom line
is there is – the bump stock is just a minimal
starting point.

I really do believe that we need to put the lives of people first, and put
somebody`s right to possess these weapons of war way behind.

HAYES: Well, OK, so then I want to ask about the sort of mismatch there is
between the problems and the solutions. So part of the issue it seems to
me is, you know, people who advocate for greater gun safety legislation
say, you know, we`ve got 30,000 Americans dying every year, about two-
thirds of those are suicides, 10,000 gun homicides. We need to do these

And then when you look at the things that are being advocated like banning
bump stocks or even universal background checks, or even high-capacity
magazines, the idea that that`s going to stop
or reduce the amount of gun homicides in Chicago and Baltimore, it`s hard
to make that case, and yet that`s what`s politically possible.

How do you bridge that gap?

ELLISON: Well, look, I think that a lot of the guns in Chicago come from
other states – Wisconsin and Indiana. There needs to be stronger
enforcement there.

But I think in this case, you know, every time you save one life, you are
saving somebody`s whole world, Chris. So we`re going to solve this problem
with a number of different measures. But you`ve asked about the politics.
That`s the hardest part, right? Because even though about 90 percent of
Americans say that there ought to be background checks for handguns, we
still cannot get them. And this is because the NRA and others are funded
by gun manufacturers, give very, very generous donations mostly to one
party, the Republicans, overwhelmingly.

HAYES: Do you think it`s that money? I`ve gone back and forth on this…

ELLISON: Not only, not only.

HAYES: Yeah, it seems to me you could wipe out the money that Mitch
McConnell`s gotten from the NRA and he would be acting no differently about
what legislation he`s going to bring up in that senate.

ELLISON: Well, I`m not sure that`s true either. I think that it is in
part the money. I think that it is aggressive lobbying by some people. I
think some of these folks get into office based on their
devotion to guns. I mean, look at Roy Moore right now. He`s waving
pistols around at a press conference. I mean, these folks, there`s a
selection element to this thing as well.

So I think you`re right. There is a complicated thing. But look, this has
absolutely nothing to do with hunting rifles, shotguns, people going
hunting, being a sportsman. That`s irrelevant. Most sports people agree
there should be background checks on these handguns and these other sort of
measures that really cost so many lives all over this country.

But we really got to look at the money too, Chris. I mean, it`s not just
the money in terms of donations. It`s the money in terms of the money
spent lobbying. It`s the money spent on independent expenditures that try
to shape public opinion. It is a range of advocacy that manufacturers
owned by wealthy people keep on fighting for to stop us from passing sane,
sensible gun legislation.

You know, we`ve had more mass shootings than we have had days in the last
year and a half. It`s outrageous. And if we can do bump stocks we`re
going to do them, but we need to do much more than that.

HAYES: All right, Representative Keith Ellison, thank you for being with
me tonight.

ELLISON: Thank you.

HAYES: Still ahead, democracy in the age of Facebook. As we learn more
about what happened in 2016, what responsibility do social media companies
have to prevent intrusion into elections? The experts are here to talk
about just that coming up.

And a rare breaking news Thing One, Thing Two starts right after this.


HAYES: Thing One tonight, a Sistine Chapel of political hypocrisy by an
elected official. It comes from this Republican, Congressman Tim Murphy of
Pennsylvania, a member of the House pro-life caucus, endorsed by Life PAC ,
given an award in 2015 by the Family Research Council for a perfect,
perfect voting record opposing abortion rights.

So this past January, it wasn`t unusual to see a post like this on Murphy`s
Facebook page. “We`ve had great victories to protect the sanctity of life
in the first weeks of this new year, #defendlife.”

But Congressman Murphy received a text message a day after that post from a
woman he has since acknowledged having an affair with. According to said
text message, the records of which were obtained this week by the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, she texted, quote, you have zero issue posting
your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to
abort our unborn child just
last week when we thought that was one of the options.”

A reply from Murphy`s cell number responded, “I get what you say about my
march for life messages. I`ve never written them. Staff does them. I`ve
read them and winced. I told staff, don`t write any more. I will.”

Murphy has not responded to the Post Gazette`s report, but one hour after
that report published on Tuesday, alleging he urged his mistress to get an
abortion earlier this year, the House held a vote on a bill to restrict
abortion rights. And can you guess what Tim Murphy did? That`s Thing Two
in 60 seconds.


HAYES: Pennsylvania Republican Tim Murphy, a congressman staunchly against
abortion rights, reportedly urged a woman he was having an affair with to
have an abortion. An hour after that report, the House voted on a bill to
restrict abortion rights, making abortions after 20 weeks illegal
in every state. This bill likely won`t have enough votes to pass the
Senate, nevertheless clear muster at the Supreme Court, but Republicans
applauded in the chamber as it passed the House.

And among those voting in favor of restricting abortion rights was
Congressman Tim Murphy.

Yesterday, Murphy announced he would be retiring at the end of his term.
Today, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced that Murphy would be resigning a
lot sooner than that. His last day is now October 21.


HAYES: Facebook, it`s not only the largest media company anywhere on the
globe, it is also, with possibly I guess the exception of the world`s major
faiths, the single institution with the greatest
audience size in the history of human civilization. What other entity has
assembled 2 billion people? Worldwide, more than 2 billion active users,
1.3 billion daily active users, 300 million photo uploads a day. 510,000
comments posted every 60 seconds. And close to 5 billion pieces of content
shared daily.

All of which generates a lot of money, $9 billion in ad revenue in the
second quarter of this
year alone.

And as massive as Facebook is, it isn`t just a social media platform. As
one of our next guests, Max Read suggests, the comparisons include
government metaphors like a state, the EU, the Catholic Church, Star Trek`s
United Federation of Planets, and business metaphors like a railroad
company, or a
mall, physical metaphors like a town square, an interstate highway, or an
electrical grid.

Facebook right now seems to boast the kind of ubiquity of an electrical
grid. But what it delivers isn`t just a neutral commodity, its content can
be as innocuous as a flier stapled to a telephone pole, or as malevolent as
fake Russian accounts buying political ads.

Facebook has the power to flip a switch on an algorithm they own
proprietorially and do – what, exactly? What could they do? I mean, if
Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg were to run for president,
could Facebook`s algorithm assure only favorable coverage of candidate
Zuckerberg? Only unfavorable coverage of everybody else running for

Even if that power is not ever used unethically by Facebook itself, the
scope of Facebook is so
massive it may have grown wildly beyond their control. The perfect host for
a virus.


MARK ZUCKERBERG, FACEBOOK CEO & CO-FOUNDER: We`ve been working to ensure
the integrity of the German elections this weekend. But we are in a new
world. It is a new challenge for internet communities to have to deal with
nation-states attempting to subvert elections.


HAYES: Arguably the most powerful non head of state in the world assuring
us his team of
engineers will get on top of the problem of making sure the world`s
elections are secure.

How exactly did we end up here?

I`m joined by Silicon Valley reporter Kara Swisher, an NBC News contributor
and also the Executive Editor of Recode, where her interview with Mark
Zuckerberg was published earlier this year.

Also with me, Siva Vaidhyanathan he`s a Professor of Media Studies at
University of Virginia, author of the book, The Googlization of America,
and a forth coming book about Facebook called, The Anti-social Network.

And last but not least, Max Read, Senior Editor of New York Magazine,
author of a phenomenal
recent article titled, Does Mark Zuckerberg Know What Facebook Is?

I want to start with you, Max. I love the piece. The basic argument of the
piece is, this thing is so massive and it`s operating at such scale the
person who created it can`t know what it is.

MAX READ, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Yeah. You put it well when you said it`s the
largest gathering of people ever assembled on the planet. It`s about the
size of Christians now. The group of people that we say Christians is about
the same size as Facebook.

And when you say there are 2.2 billion Christian on the planet, most of
them – a lot of them aren`t going to church once a month. But Facebook
users, when we say 2.2 billion, that`s once a month they`re signing into

HAYES: And it`s 1.3 billion daily?

READ: Just in a day that`s 1.3 billion.

So, you`re talking about something that is so big even the guy who created
it only has one particular kind of perspective on it. He can see certain
aspects of it, he can think about how he might want to – what he might
want to do with it, but you can`t grasp something that size, that can
change the world in that kind of way in one phrase.

HAYES: Kara, does Zuckerberg, and I`ll ask you this too, Siva, because I
know you`ve talked to him, but does Zuckerberg – does he himself feel –
he doesn`t strike me as a person who is like easily humbled, and he seems
quite sure of himself in certain ways.

Does he understand what he`s running and the thing that they have built?

KARA SWISHER, NBC NEWS: Well, I`m going to step back on you both of you a
little bit. It`s just a company, and you can say the same thing about
Google or Amazon or any of these companies that run our things.

This happens to be, obviously, the biggest gathering, biggest social
network on the planet, and the biggest communications company, biggest
media company, however you want to call what it is.

I think he grasped it. I think he has a lot of control over it. I think
they do – what they have done is a lot of sloppiness in a lot of areas and
they haven`t thought of the ways the platform could be abused and how
social media can become weaponized.

That`s what I talk about a lot is that social media has become is
weaponized, whether it`s Google or – not really Google but Twitter.

HAYES: Twitter, yeah.

SWISHER: Or Facebook, or some other areas.

The fact of the matter is it`s a big company. They have control over the
platform. They have control over the alga rhythm, and they certainly can do
things to prevent these things and put these things in place. They just
have been growing so fast they didn`t get to it.

People are talking about the nation state idea, I guess. I suppose.

They certainly have sway over a lot of things but, you know, it`s a little
fever dream of old media to imagine they will suddenly sway the election or
something like that.

HAYES: I guess here is my question to follow up on that. I play this idea
– I remember there was a time when Facebook – there was some video they
published and I forget what it was about. It was about something fairly
technical and all of a sudden on my news feed and I talked to other people
and they were like, oh yeah, it was in mine, too.

And, I just had the thought, like, they could just have every person in
America see whatever content they want to have. And if they did flip that
switch, that would be the largest broadcaster in America.

have done and shown that they`ve done.

After the 2012 election, they published an academic paper emphasizing the
fact that Facebook could in fact influence the level of voter turnout
modestly but statistically significantly in certain areas, because the urge
to vote is often socially shared and contagious.

They ran the tests, different places around the United States. They did it
in conjunction with academic researchers, and they showed that they could
actually influence voter turnout.

Now, that`s nothing close to the scenario you just painted of Mark
Zuckerberg picks the president, but Facebook could and in fact did affect
how many people voted in a particular place.

That might sway a local legislative race. It might sway the state of
Florida, because that was 114,000 votes in November, right?

So Facebook has the ability to do more than its ever imagined.

The thing is, you know, I like how Kara put it about being weaponized. What
we have right now is a system that unlike anything else we`ve seen in human
history. So, trying to find the metaphor it
fits in is futile. Facebook is Facebook. There has never been anything like
it. There probably will never be another thing like it.

But if you design from ground up a system that would benefit authoritarian
leaders and benefit various forms of nationalists, you could not do better
than to invent Facebook. That`s not all it does. It`s great for puppies,
it`s great for babies and –

HAYES: It does remind me – Wait, but Kara I want you to respond because
you`re rolling
your eyes.

SWISHER: I`m not raising – listen. I can`t believe I`m defending Facebook
because I`m one of their biggest critics around house – it`s not a benign
platform and that is the problem that Mark and the rest of them –

HAYES: What do you mean by that?

SWISHER: They pretend its a benign – Everyone in Silicon Valley,
everything is a benign platform. We`re just making these tools, we don`t
know how they are used. If you sit with them it`s exhausting to talk to
them about it.

I think one of the things is is they see it as a benign platform. It is not
a benign platform. Facebook Live is not. Any of the tools are not. All of
these are not benign and they have to start taking
responsibility for the tools and for the use of the tools and for the
platform they built.

That said, look, you know, remember when Microsoft was going to kill us

HAYES: Right.

SWISHER: It didn`t. These things happen.

Remember when blank was going – Now Amazon apparently –

HAYES: True.

VAIDHYANATHAN: No one is going to kill us all, but the idea they would take
responsibility for this Frankenstein monster that they built is, I think,

HAYES: Yeah.

VAIDHYANATHAN: There is no way for them to fix Facebook. The problem with
Facebook is Facebook.

What they have suggested is cosmetic. What they suggested might work in a
fairly controlled test environment like Germany, which has deep Republican
roots and has rules against hate speech, and whatever they did in Germany
is not a good test for what is going to happen and has happened in
Miramar and what`s going to happen and has happened in India, what is going
to happen and has happened in the Philippines.

That`s where Facebook is doing the biggest damage, not in the United

HAYES: So that – back – I want to talk about the idea that Kara said
about a benign platform and Siva`s point which is that the thing is built
to be this platform, right?

At NBC News, when we publish a thing, it goes through standards. It gets
lawyered and we say, this content – and that`s not what Facebook is about,
right? It`s like, we just got a platform you published.

But then, to the point what Kara and Siva are saying is like, at a certain
point you can`t disengage from the stuff people are putting on your

READ: Right. I mean, there has to be responsibility taken at some point.
And this is why it`s interesting to hear Kara bring up Microsoft because
Microsoft was going to kill all of us and then an enormous Anti Trust
lawsuit was brought against it. The power of the people and the form of
government was brought to bear against a company that had grown too big.

I don`t think we don`t have a clear sense of exactly how and why the Anti
Trust lawsuit affected Microsoft, but it meant that it was flat footed when
the internet really hit it big and it meant that Microsoft is now catching
up to these other four companies that are newer ones.

In this – in that way, we have to be thinking about how we can put
ourselves in the position to stop Facebook from keeping together.

SWISHER: To be clear, Microsoft broke laws. This is – one of the issues is
Microsoft you can say definitely – listen, I covered that with the
Washington Post. I`m very familiar with what happened
there and what they did.

The fact of the matter is, they also missed out on innovation. It wasn`t
just the Anti Trust laws.
Bill Gates initially did not get the internet. He didn`t think it was that
big of deal. He didn`t get where computers were going. Steve Bomber was
insulting mobile phones for the longest time.

There are cycles of innovation. And this is going to happen to Facebook
too. Facebook is not going to be – remember when AOL was so big and now it

HAYES: Here is my question –

VAIDHYANATHAN: Just because it happened before doesn`t mean it will happen
the same way.

HAYES: Right. I want to separate –

VAIDHYANATHAN: There`s unseen –

HAYES: Let me separate two questions. There is a conception distinction I
want to separate.

There is a question about is the size essentially reached some kind of
escape velocity where it is no longer within the kind of cyclical things
that happen along with innovation and the giants and behemoths, Kara, have
noted that were going to be –

SWISHER: They can control it. They can control it. They just haven`t done
the work they need to control it.

And I know, listen, none of us are technical, let`s be clear here. They
have built this thing and
they can absolutely control it. I think the issues that people are worried
about in Silicon Valleys is around AI and when that starts to control it –

HAYES: Let me just – I want to zero in on that Kara. When they say they
can control it, what I`m hearing – I want to make sure, you think they
have the capacity if they change thier assumptions and they change their
behavior and they change their policies around what the platform is doing
and allowed to be done to make it a benign platform or not a non-benign

SWISHER: Not a non-benign platform, but you know they control adds and
they sure know how to – they don`t control all the Russians but they
certainly have control over spam and they certainly have – the same way
that Google does this.

It`s bad business for Facebook to be in the business that is out of

VAIDHYANATHAN: But Google doesn`t control what it does top to bottom.
Google has some influence over what gets linked high.

But basically Facebook runs differently. Facebook would have to abandon its
self-service ad platforms. It would have to abandon the process of ad tech,
which relies on deep surveillance of nearly two – of more than 2 billion

I mean, they would have to restructure from the ground up, do everything
differently to fix the problems that we see right now, because it is so
easily hijacked at the core.

The problem with Facebook is Facebook. It`s not something around the edges.

HAYS: Max, I mean, we`ve tried –

SWISHER: Google – May I –

READ: We`ve spent five years trying to trust them and letting them say
we`re going to fix this and we`re going to do this and it just keeps
getting worse. At what point do we say, Mark Zuckerberg, you don`t get to
control this anymore. You`ve done a bad job.

SWISHER: Well, that`s a fair point. One of the things they have done is
slow rolled a lot of things. That`s what happening here. He initially said
this wasn`t a big deal and maybe it was a big deal and then he wrote a long
essay saying, okay, maybe there is some issues.

I think the – you know, and then you see statistics.

What is interesting is the statistics around how many people get news from
Facebook and people rely on things.

HAYES: Yeah. It has become central, central to American news consumption.

SWISHER: To many, to many and then the question is, what does that mean?
Is it a utility.
Is it more than that? Is it something else? I think utility is probably a
better word than any of these nation states or his team of Asia –

HAYES: So, I want to – I want to talk about this for hours because I
think it`s fascinating and you guys all know what you`re talking about.

Kara Swisher, Siva Vaidhyanathan, Max Read, thank you. I learned a lot in
that conversation.

Before we go, I want to tell you we have a huge show tomorrow night. Rare
interview with the great Lin-Manuel Mirando on his efforts to bring
awareness to the crisis in Puerto Rico. And I`ll be joined by Ta-Nehisi
Coates. Both interviews tomorrow night right here on All In.

That`s All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts right now.


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