Jane Fonda & Gloria Steinem Transcript 10/25/17 All In with Chris Hayes

Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, Elizabeth Warren, Eric Swalwell, Barbara McQuade, Nick Akerman, Eric Boehlert

Date: October 25, 2017

Guest: Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, Elizabeth Warren, Eric Swalwell,
Barbara McQuade, Nick Akerman, Eric Boehlert



I hope you`re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.

HAYES: Team Trump caught red-handed.

TRUMP: There is no collusion between me and my campaign and the Russians.

HAYES: WikiLeaks admits the Trump campaign solicited stolen Clinton e-
mails from them.

TRUMP: I love WikiLeaks.

HAYES: Tonight, the new report and what it means for the investigation.
Then –

TRUMP: I actually think that`s Watergate, modern age.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: That relates to the real Russia

HAYES: The conspiracy theory from an alternate universe aimed at taking
down Robert Mueller.

has to be fired.

HAYES: Plus Senator Elizabeth Warren on the Republican vote to gut
consumer protections.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I`m really glad to see someone
like Jeff Flake speak up, but what really matters are not words, it`s the

HAYES: And in the age of Weinstein, O`Reilly, and Trump, an exclusive
interview with Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem, when ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. As the White House
and as allies furiously spend counter-narratives about the Russia scandal,
WikiLeaks confirmed today that – what was previously just conjecture. The
Trump campaign itself was soliciting stolen Clinton e-mails. In the last
few days, the President and his associates and conservative media and on
Capitol Hill have finally found what they say is the real Russia story.
Evidence, according to them, that Democrats and not the President are up to
no good. They seized on a semi-obscure seven-year-old uranium deal with
Russia that was approved by nine separate agencies of the federal
government and the revelation that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid at
one point for research that eventually resulted in the infamous deal
dossier. The document detailing the President`s alleged Russia ties and
some other stuff. And for the President who talked to reporters today
outside the White House, those stories came as the ultimate vindication.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, what`s your reaction to –

TRUMP: I have to say the whole Russian thing is what it`s turned out to
be. This was the Democrats coming up with an excuse for losing an
election. They lost it by a lot, they didn`t know what to say, so they
made up the whole Russia hoax. Now it`s turning out that the hoax is
turned around and you look at what`s happened with Russia, and you look at
the uranium deal and you look at the fake dossier, so that`s all turned


HAYES: All turned around. The tables have turned, now you`re sitting on
the legs. But in order for any of that to make sense, you have to ignore
the central fact at the heart of the Russia scandal. The reason it is a
scandal in the first place. And this is really important. It is not that
Vladimir Putin is a bad guy or that dealing with Russia is inherently
suspect, it`s that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded with near
absolute certainty that Russian agents conducted criminal sabotage of the
American election by stealing documents from one of the two campaigns in
order to have them published. Those documents were intended to damage the
Clinton Campaign and it worked. I was inside the hall in Philadelphia at
the start of the Democratic Convention days after the first DNC e-mails
were published and I heard those Bernie supporters booing and threatening
to revolt.



FRANKEN: Hillary.

SILVERMAN: The Bernie – can I just say to the Bernie or Bust people,
you`re being ridiculous.


HAYES: We all watched Trump himself exploiting the WikiLeaks releases on
the campaign trail, making them a central, systematic part of his pitch.


TRUMP: Oh, this is bad one. You need to have both a public and private
position on public policy, oh. In other words, we have to tell you one
thing and we have to tell the bankers another thing.


HAYES: If you don`t think those hacked e-mails, those stolen e-mails,
those e-mails that were the result of criminal sabotage, if you don`t think
they made a difference, I suggest publishing the entirety of your own inbox
to the internet in searchable forum and see how it changes your life. All
along, the central question in the Russia scandal, what the Special Counsel
and the Congressional Intelligence Committees are all supposedly pursuing
has been what exactly Russia did and how they pulled it off and whether the
campaign that benefitted from their efforts was in on it. We don`t know.
Did the Trump campaign collude with the Russian sabotage operation?

It is only through that lens, with those facts in mind that the multiple
undisclosed contacts between Trump associates and Russian nationals looks
suspicious. We don`t particularly care that the President`s son, son-in-
law, and campaign manager met with some unknown Russian lawyer. We care
that they took that meeting on the promise of “information that would
incriminate Hillary, part of Russia at its government`s support for Mr.
Trump.” We know that wasn`t the only attempt to solicit material from
Russian sources because the President asked for Russia`s help in public.


TRUMP: Russia, if you`re listening, I hope you`re able to find the 30,000
e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily
by our press.


HAYES: We now know the President wasn`t alone. Over the summer, the Wall
Street Journal reported that a Republican operative who claimed ties to the
Trump campaign had been trying to get ahold of Hillary Clinton`s deleted e-
mails, the ones she deleted that were personal from Russian hackers. Now
it remains unclear whether that was a rogue operation. Now it turns out
the campaign itself was trying to get its hands on those same stolen e-
mails. According to the Daily Beast, the head of Cambridge Analytica, the
campaign`s data firm, owned in part by Steve Bannon and his billionaire
patrons the Mercers wrote an e-mail last year, they reached out to
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange about Hillary Clinton`s missing 33,000 e-
mails. Assange told the Daily Beast we can confirm an approach by
Cambridge Analytica and can confirm that it was rejected by WikiLeaks.
Congressman Eric Swalwell was a Democrat from California, member of the
House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, what do you make of this

Chris. You know, without even going into our Committee`s investigation,
the revelation from Julian Assange and WikiLeaks itself proves overwhelming
evidence of an eagerness to work with the Russians. You have Peter Smith
who was seeking these e-mails on behalf of General Michael Flynn. You have
Don Jr. taking a meeting where the subject line was Clinton, Russia,
private, confidential. He was being offered information on Hillary
Clinton. You have Felix Sater, who is close with Vladimir Putin telling
Donald Trump`s lawyer Michael Cohen that he himself can engineer the
election for the President and we can get our boy elected. You have Roger
Stone working with Guccifer 2.0 and now you have Julian Assange saying that
the Trump campaign had reached out seeking Hillary`s e-mails. This was a
concerted effort, people inside and out who are working with the campaign
to work with the Russians. We have proven at the very minimum an attempt
to work with them.

HAYES: What we haven`t proven and what we don`t know is what they knew
about what the Russians were up to. I mean, that to me remains a key – a
key question here.

SWALWELL: And it doesn`t seem like they cared either. You know, it seems

HAYES: No, the public profile is they don`t care.

SWALWELL: Yes. That`s right. They were willing and eager to work with
them, you know, as long as they had information that could help Donald

HAYES: Do you worry, first of all, let me read this. The Trump campaign
is trying to distance itself from Cambridge Analytica and I feel duty bound
to read their response. we as a campaign made the choice to rely on the
voter data of the Republican National Committee to help elect President
Donald J. Trump. Any claims that voter data from any other source played a
key role in the victory are false. Of course, you can go online and like
watch a billion documentaries and read a million articles about Cambridge
Analytica and how central it was to the campaign. Does that wash to you?

SWALWELL: No, you know, and Chris, success, you know, has a thousand
fathers and, you know, failure or, you know, any scandal is an orphan and
now they`re trying to make an orphan out of Cambridge Analytica. But just
months ago and in the past year, they had lifted this up as a reliable, you
know, outmaneuvering data firm that they had used.

HAYES: What do you think of the efforts by the people on your own
Committee, the House Intelligence Committee which obviously under
Republican control to essentially start a kind of series of bizarre world
investigations into the seven-year-old uranium deal of the Clinton
campaign, et cetera.

SWALWELL: Well it was a great deal for the Russians yesterday on Capitol
Hill. They scored major victories when it was announced that three new
investigations would be launched to go back in time and look again at
Hillary Clinton. The best thing for the Russians is they seek to undermine
our elections in 2018 would be further disunity. But for us, the House
Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, we`ve seen these plays run before.
We`re not caught flat-footed. We`re going to county to charge ahead and do
our job.

HAYES: Straight up, are they – are they acting? Do they believe what
they`re doing or are acting in bad faith?

SWALWELL: I believe they`re being obstructionists. I can`t speak to their
motives. I never will, but if you just look at you know, what they`re
doing, it`s an incuriosity at the very least about what Russia did and I
think worse, they`re serving as accomplices to further undermining of our

HAYES: Does the revelation that it was, in fact, the Clinton campaign and
the DNC that were paying for the research through GPS sort of law firm to
Christopher Steele as he collected this information, does that change your
assessment of either the credibility of the document and the allegations
contained therein or the possibility of Trump colluding in the campaign
colluding with Russia?

SWALWELL: I think it`s important to know, you know, who paid for the
dossier, but I think it`s just as important and probably more important to
try and ascertain whether the allegations of the dossier are true because
those actually go to our national security if it is true that candidate
Trump was working with the Russians as well as people on his team, you
know, that`s a national security threat. And that`s a person who could be
compromised by a foreign adversary. And I don`t see the same interest and
understanding, the underlying allegations, I`ve just seen an interest in
undermining you know, the source of the dossier and the way it was put
together. I think we should look at all components of the dossier.

HAYES: All right, Congressman Eric Swalwell, always great to have you.

SWALWELL: My pleasure.

HAYES: Barbara McQuade is a former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District
of Michigan and Nick Akerman, a former Assistant Special Watergate
Prosecutor. Barbara, let me start with you. What does it mean if you go
to Julian Assange asking him for e-mails that would by definition,
essentially have to have been stolen? Because if they were deleted off her
server, you can`t leak them, right? So the idea that they were deleted,
someone managed to hack the server and get ahold of them. What does it
mean if you solicit that?

I think it could very well be a violation of U.S. campaign finance laws.
There are laws that make it a crime to solicit a thing of value in
connection with election from a foreign national. Julian Assange is
certainly a foreign national, so I think soliciting those things, they
certainly had value could very well fall under that statute. I think the
key question is what the connection between the Trump campaign and
Cambridge Analytica was at that moment.

HAYES: You know, Nick, I feel like I`m losing my mind a little bit as I
watch all of this happen. I feel that often, but –


HAYES: And partly it`s because of the fact pattern of what happened –
Russia is so sprawling. There`s so many characters. There`s you know,
Oleg Deripaska and there`s Paul Manafort and all of these people that what
I think they have sort of successfully been lost is like what was the crime
and the heart of it?

AKERMAN: The crime at the heart of it was trying to help Trump get
elected, exactly what Ron Goldstone said in that June 3rd e-mail, that`s
what they were doing. I mean, look at that dossier. Everything in there,
I mean most of it has been corroborated, what hasn`t been –

HAYES: Not – that`s not true. I would not say most of it has been
corroborated. A lot of it has been corroborated.

AKERMAN: But it certainly all rings true. I mean, if you`re looking at it
from the standpoint of what I usually do when I send out investigators, I`m
trying to find –

HAYES: Is that something you do?

AKERMAN: Yes, I do it all the time in litigations that I handle. And so
what you want to do is you want to look the raw data that you`re getting
which is what we have here. Then you want to talk to the investigator, get
a feel for who it was they were talking to. They`re not going to put in
writing exactly who the person was, they`re not going to tell you what the
background is, what other information they`ve gotten that makes that person
credible. So as a lawyer, I`m talking to the investigator and I want to
know that information. And I`m sure the lawyers that commission that
investigation did the exact same thing.

HAYES: So you, your assessment of the document doesn`t change based on who
paid for it?

AKERMAN: I couldn`t care less. I think what really matters is are the
statements in there true?

HAYES: Or can they be verified in many other way?

AKERMAN: And can it be verified and do they ring true? I mean, there is
nothing in that dossier that does not ring true.

HAYES: Well, I mean, that is a subjective matter.

AKERMAN: Well, I wouldn`t say so because I think you can take other
evidence that`s out in the public record and show, even on the sexual
allegations that are in there, you`ve got Donald Trump, you`ve got a woman
that came forward during the campaign and said that she was an actor in
adult films and that Trump propositioned her, for money, to have sex. Now,
how is that any different than what we`re seeing in that dossier?

HAYES: That was an allegation that was made. Barbara, the other thing to
me here is motive, right? I mean, one of the thing that`s happening is
people are saying Russia, Russia connections. I mean, the point is that
the Russian involvement had a motive to achieve a certain end.

MCQUADE: Well, yes, I mean, it`s quite clear that Russia preferred the
candidate Donald Trump to be President of the United States and took action
to further his campaign. The publishing of the stolen e-mails from the
DNC, it`s work through social media, the bond of advertisements, there
appears to be a very strong motive by the Russian government to help the
candidacy of Donald Trump. And so, you know, where does that leave our
country? I think regardless of who our President is, I think all of us
have an interest in making sure that it`s the American public who elects a
President and not some foreign government.

HAYES: The other issue here is just the obfuscation, right? So there`s
some idea that you can imagine that there is no underlying collusion. They
didn`t realize. They maybe didn`t – could care if they wanted to care,
but they didn`t collude. Then there`s all of the ways in which they have
lied, repeatedly, about connections with Russian nationals that we keep
saying over and over again, which has this kind of building incriminatory

AKERMAN: Which makes you think they did collude. Why would they lie about
it unless they did have something to cover up? I mean, look, this whole
business about this uranium deal, about Hillary Clinton`s e-mails, I mean,
this is right out of the litigator`s handbook. The best defense is a
strong offense.

HAYES: Right.

AKERMAN: The problem here is this offense isn`t worth squat. I mean, it
really is the most bizarre offense.

HAYES: I mean, it literally is, no you colluded with Russia.

AKERMAN: No, it`s no you colluded and by the way, you have a quid pro quo
for uranium deal that you had nothing to do with. I mean, it really
doesn`t make a lot of sense.

HAYES: All right, Barbara McQuade and Nick Akerman, thank you both.

Up next from outrage cable news segment to the President`s Twitter feed to
an actual Congressional investigation, when right winged media programs a
Presidency in two minutes.



HANNITY: Explosive new evidence on what has becoming the biggest scandal
or at least one of them in American history.

The biggest scandal ever involving Russia. The biggest national security
breach and Russia`s scandal in American history.


HAYES: For the past few weeks, the conservative media, Republicans on
Capitol Hill, and the White House have been working together in an assembly
line fashion to build virtually for nothing what they are calling “the real
Russia scandal.”


GORKA: In just enormity of what we`re talking about now, this is a massive

HANNITY: I have said, and I stand by this tonight, they sold out America`s
national security.



HAYES: What we are actually talking about is a seven-year-old uranium deal
that nine government agencies approved with zero evidence of wrong-doing by
Hillary Clinton. But if you consume conservative media as the President
does apparently exclusively and millions of Republicans do, you live in an
alternate universe, one in which the lying mainstream media ignores the
overwhelming evidence that Hillary Clinton sold us all out. As Media
Matters detailed, all this started with a Steve Bannon associate named
Peter Schweizer who made the allegations in a much publicized, error-filled
2015 book attacking Clinton.


PETER SCHWEIZER, JOURNALIST: I think that deserves further scrutiny. I
would question that to argue that –

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Based on what, based on what?

SCHWEIZER: Well, I think based on –

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened
in this issue?

SCHWEIZER: No, we don`t have direct evidence.


HAYES: Seeking to distract from Trump-Russia allegations, Fox`s Sean
Hannity seeds on Schweizer`s unsupported claims accusing Clinton of
colluding with Russia in 25 different monologues. Trump spotlighted the
allegation on the campaign trail, but it didn`t really explode until last
week when a pair of conservative journalists claimed Russian nuclear
officials paid off the Clintons to get their deal uranium deal approved.
Now the story engaged in preposterous conspiracy mongering according to the
Washington Post Erik Wemple, but it set up a conservative media feeding
frenzy in a Presidential declaration.


TRUMP: If the mainstream media would cover the uranium scandal and that
Russia has 20 percent of uranium for whatever reason and a lot of people
understand what those reasons may be, I think that`s your Russia story.
That`s your real Russia story.


HAYES: The real Russia story. Now yesterday the White House has chosen
water carrier in Congress Devin Nunez announced a probe into, get this, the
seven-year-old deal, which in turn set off another round of breathless
coverage in conservative media and a new pronouncement by the President.


TRUMP: Well, I think the uranium sale to Russia and the way it was done, so
underhanded with tremendous amounts of money being passed, I actually think
that`s Watergate modern age.


HAYES: I`m joined now by a student of conservative media Eric Boehlert,
Senior Writer at Shareblue. It is amazing to watch them build it in real
time because it`s been so fast. Like, I`ve seen them do this before with
other stuff, but it just in the last few weeks, it was like OK, this was –
this was what we`re doing.

groundwork and then they kind of – they got a spark and it exploded. I
mean, I think, you know, Trump gave an interview to Fox today, I think that
was his 19th since becoming President. So this is now, you know, people
joke that Fox is in-house propaganda, this is what it is, there`s no
question about it.

HAYES: Well, but it`s also input and output. That`s what`s amazing about

BOEHLERT: No, the important part is the Capitol Hill part, right? So they
have this infrastructure on Capitol Hill to create this, not distraction,
this is a cover-up. They are covering up the Trump-Russia investigation by
concocting these new investigations to look seven years back. This is, you
know, it`s baffling, but it`s also deeply disturbing and kind of
authoritarian. They want to unleash the power of the federal government to
prosecute a private citizen in Chappaqua. I mean, this – we`ve said this
a hundred times since Trump was elected, this is not how the United States
functions in any sense of normalcy.

HAYES: It also – I watched – I watched one of the programs on Fox last
night, and it was amazing to watch the beginning because it was, it was
like – it was sort of this Truman Show kind of thing where it had all the
– it was like here the Congressman coming very sternly talking about this
deal and here`s the tear of the sheet, and you zoomed out, you think like,
oh, Hillary Clinton`s President or what`s going on, this deal just
happened, but it was – it`s an incredibly effective alternate reality.

BOEHLERT: Well, look, if you have the Republican Party that is committed
solely to protecting its President. It`s not committed to any sort of
truth-seeking or anything like this so you can pull this off, but yes, if
you – if you widen the lens, she`s not President. The scary part is if
she were President, we would have impeachment hearings next month base on
the this scandal, no question.

HAYES: We would have already have. I mean, that`s just very clear. I
mean, it also is very clear when you watch this that they wish Hillary
Clinton had won.


HAYES: I mean, they really do wish she`d won.

BOEHLERT: Right, because this is – this is the kind of the talk radio
approach to governing. This is – this is a acknowledgment they have
punted on any policy, anything. They`re not interested in getting anything
done. They`re going back to their villains and they`re going to bring her
back again from Chappaqua and prop her up as – this is a witch hunt,
literally in the dictionary sense.

HAYES: What are the odds that she gets dragged before a Congressional

BOEHLERT: Well, I think – I don`t know. I mean – you know the good part
is she is very powerful and has good attorneys. But again, unleashing the
federal government on other people, that is a scary thing. I guarantee you
the next step though is calls for Jeff Sessions to appoint a Special
Prosecutor. So then they`ll have a parallel to Robert Mueller, and again,
it`s not a distraction, this is part of a cover-up.

HAYES: And finally, maybe we should say, and to get rid of Mueller.
They`re very clearly trying to taint Mueller.

BOEHLERT: Can you imagine that a year from now, we don`t have Mueller but
we have a Special Prosecutor of Hillary Clinton.

HAYES: Hillary Clinton. That is – you`re absolutely right. They`re
going to call for that next. Eric Boehlert, thanks for your time tonight.

Ahead, Senator Elizabeth Warren slams the Vice President and Senate
Republicans for giving what she calls a giant wet kiss to Wall Street.
I`ll talk to her about what happened, coming up.


HAYES: The big story on Capitol Hill yesterday was dissension and in-
fighting among Republicans. I mean, really remarkable stuff on the floor
of the Senate. And so you might have been left asking, at the end of the
day, what exactly this point unites the Republican Party. And at about
10:00 last night, we got our answer. And it is, protecting banks. That`s
what unites them. Last night Republicans got 50 of their 52 members with
Vice President Mike Pence casting the tie-breaking vote to override a
consumer-friendly rule that gives Americans the ability to sue banks when
they get screwed over either by banks or other financial institutions,
think Equifax for instance.

As if to drive the point home, one of their members Senator Tom Cotton of
Arkansas showed up in a tuxedo to give Wall Street a little love from the
Senate Floor. So after crazy day yesterday in which Senator Bob Corker and
Jeff Flake took a stand against the accesses of President Trump, those same
Republicans voted yes on this bill because frankly, that`s what they went
to Capitol Hill to do, stuff like this. Stuff like override consumer
protections, make it harder to sue banks that screw people over. But for
the donors who fund the Republican Party, last night`s vote was just a down
payment. Senator Elizabeth Warren has a lot to say about that and she
joins me next.



SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: This bill is a giant wet kiss to
Wall Street. Bank lobbyists are crawling all over this place begging
congress to vote and make it easier for them to cheat their customers.


HAYES: Senator Elizabeth Warren last night just moments before a vote in
which Senate Republicans stripped consumers of the right to join class
action suits against banks and financial institutions. Every Democratic
senator voted against the bill, and four retaining this important consumer

As the two Republicans, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana and Senator
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Senator Graham opposed the bill because
he wanted, he said, to protect military families from predatory banking


HAYES: Joining me now, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the
ranking member of the subcommittee on financial institutions and consumer

Senator, the CFPB was your brain child. It issued the rule that the
Republicans overrode last night. Were you surprised by the outcome of that
vote? Did you think you had enough votes.

WARREN: Yeah, I actually, I thought we would have enough votes. And I`ll
tell you exactly why, because consumers had weighed in. People across this
country had weighed in. AARP had weighed in. And do you know who really
was strong on this? The veterans groups and the active duty military
groups who said we`re getting cheated by these forced arbitration causes.
These predators cheat us, and then force us into arbitration where we can`t
get any kind of relief. And they really came out strong.

The American Legion, representing millions of veterans were right on the
front lines saying hang on to this rule. And you know, I just thought for
once, that would be enough to carry the day. But instead, 50 Republicans
in the Senate lined up against it and Donald Trump sent Mike Pence over and
rolled the rule back.

HAYES: What do you make of – I mean, the day starts with Bob Corker
attacking the president, the president comes to Capitol Hill, then Jeff
Flake announces very dramatically he won`t be seeking reelection. He then
gives this very heartfelt speech about what he thinks the president is
doing to the country, and then they were both yes votes at the end of the
day, that sort of capped things off. What was your reaction to that?

WARREN: That`s the problem here. I`m really glad to see someone like Jeff
Flake speak up. I think it`s very important, but what really matters are
not words, it`s the actions, it`s whether or not you`re actually going to
step up and say I`m going to do my part to make sure that Washington works
for the people, not just for those who`ve got money and power and exercise
it right here in the halls of congress.

HAYES: Do you think the Republican caucus right now, what is your mental
model of how they are orienting themselves? Sheldon Whitehouse said
something yesterday very interesting where he talked about donor
maintenance was the phrase he used.


HAYES: That basically they`re right now like we need to deliver. We been
doing this for nine
months, and the people that fund our campaigns and fund the institutional
Republican Party have basically seen nothing. Is that you`re understanding
of what`s going on there right now?

WARREN: Absolutely. That is exactly my understanding, is the Republican
Party and congress right now looks at this like a business. And they say
gee, all these billionaires and zillionaires and giant corporations
invested in us and they`re demanding a return on their investment. And we
better show them some return on their investment or they won`t invest in
the next election. That`s how the game is rigged in Washington.

All of those families, all those veterans, all those active duty service
members who said please keep the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Rule, please hang on to that rule because that rule gives me a chance to
have a day in court, that rule gives me a chance to hold some bank
accountable when they cheat me.

The Republicans couldn`t even hear them, couldn`t even hear them. Instead
they said man, we got a show return on investment for our donors. That`s
what`s happened in Washington.

HAYES: You know, they are now walking into this tax fight. And I wonder
what you make of it. I just talk about a little bit back and forth on
401(k)s. You`ve got the president who I think has good political instincts
frankly saying don`t go after 401(k)s. The tax writers over in the House
are like we might go after 401(k)s. Are they going to come after things
like the state and local deduction, 401(k)s, these things that a lot of
people use, are comfortable with, so that they can cut taxes on the
corporate rate and the top?

WARREN: Well, so I`m just going to take your question and turn it exactly
the other way: they start. They start by saying we`ve got to cut taxes for
the richest in this country, for the biggest corporations, for the richest
Americans, because that`s what our donors expect us to do, that`s what the
people who fund all of these think tanks and all of these bought and paid
for experts and all of these
lobbyists, that whole industry wants us to deliver.

So the rest of the question then becomes, what`s it going to take to get

HAYES: Right.

WARREN: And notice every place they go, it`s just another punch in the gut
to hard-working families. So they start out by saying, well we`re going
to raise the bottom tax rate from 8 percent to 10 percent. You want to
say, wait, what? You think that we ought to raise taxes on people at the
bottom end who are paying so we can pay for tax cuts for those at the top?

And then they start saying how many, how many things can we just kind of
peel out of this
that help reduce taxes, deductions that help reduce taxes for working
families, for middle class families, and they`re just trying to get these
two things to line up.

HAYES: Right, but it seems to me that that`s a political advantage for you
and your colleagues. They are handing you a whole bunch of political
weapons to use.

I saw Chuck Schumer yesterday, I thought he did a good job of this, if
they`re going to try to reverse engineer the whole thing around these tax
cuts at the top, they`re going to give you some political gifts in terms of
how you argue against it it.

WARREN: Chris, I don`t want political gifts. I just want them to stop
banging the hell out of working families.

Look, that was the same thing on health care. Look how they came after
health care for tens of millions of Americans. And boy have they now made
it clear. Anyone wants to understand the difference between Democrats and
Republicans, let me put it right here, one party in America thinks it`s OK
to knock 25 million people off their health care coverage, and run up
health insurance rates for everybody else. And one party thinks health
care is a basic human right. We`re going to keep talking about that, but
what I care most about is that people didn`t lose their health care
coverage. And we`re going to roll into the same thing now. And that is,
that one party says the most important thing about tax breaks is to cut
taxes for the billionaires and the zillionaires and the multinational
corporations, that`s where they want to go.

And the other party says, no, we need – we know what happens when you do
that. When you do that, that means that working families, middle class
families don`t have the money, don`t have the support for their schools,
for transportation, for infrastructure, for roads, for bridges, for water,
for the
kinds of things we build to make this country go.

What I want to see is I want to see us make the investments. And the only
way we`re going to make those investments is if everybody in America pays a
fair share.

So, yeah, there`s political parts to this, but what matters most is we
don`t have time to play politics. We need to be getting out there and
making this country work again for working people, not just for the thin
slice at the top.

HAYES: All right. Senator Elizabeth Warren, thank you.

WARREN: You bet.

HAYES: Still to come, All In exclusive interview with Jane Fonda and
Gloria Steinem on the age of Weinstein, O`Reilly, and Trump. You do not
want to miss it.

Plus, tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two starts next.


HAYES: Thing One tonight, Trump continues to build his roster of
ambassadors to represent America around the world.

Behind closed doors yesterday, Calista Gingrich, wife of Newt Gingrich, was
sworn in as ambassador to The Vatican.

On Monday, the new ambassador to Canada, Kelly Kraft, began her role on her
very first day made some nice Canadian headlines.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you yourself believe in climate change?

KELLY KRAFT, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO CANADA: I believe there are signs – on
both sides that are accurate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You believe that there are scientists that – science
that proves that there is – man is not causing climate change?

KRAFT: Well, I think that both sides have their own results from their
studies and I appreciate and I respect both sides of the science.


HAYES: Sorry.

Sometimes it`s hard to pick a side on a tough issue like climate change,
especially when, you know, your husband Joe Kraft is CEO of one of the
largest coal companies in America, that would be a Alliance Resource
Partners, and donated a million dollars to Trump`s inauguration.

But Ambassador Kraft isn`t the only one having trouble with foreign press.
Did you know Scott Brown is an ambassador?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you under investigation by the office of
inspector general?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: …for your comments in Samoa?

You`re not? There`s no investigation – you haven`t been interviewed by

You`re not going to answer our questions?

BROWN: I have to go to a meeting. Thank you.


HAYES: That`s the ambassador. And that`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.


HAYES: Remember that time the U.S. ambassador in New Zealand started a
major international incident? No, of course not. How could something like
that even be possible?

Well, start by appointing male model and former Massachusetts Senator Scott
Brown to the
position. Brown`s admitting today he was investigated over inappropriate
comments he made at a Peace Corp. event in Samoa in July. The official
State Department inquiry stemmed from complaints that he called certain
guests beautiful, told a woman serving food and drinks she could make
of dollars in America.

Today, the U.S. ambassador to New Zealand explained himself.


BROWN: When someone came over and served food. I said, you know what, you
could make hundreds of dollars in the services industry, you know,
waitress, bartender, sales, you guys are doing a great job. And somebody
took offense to that as well.

And as a result of that, you know, I was in fact told by my people that
listen, you know, you`re not Scott Brown from New Hampshire anymore, you`re
an ambassador and you have to be aware of different cultures, different
insensitivities, and I`m always welcoming that kind of good advice.


HAYES: Since the news broke that Harvey Weinstein is alleged to have
engaged in a pattern of
sexual harassment and assault that went on for decades, we`ve seen a number
of similar allegations against other powerful men. Amazon CEO`s chief Roy
Price suspended then resigned after being accused of sexual harassment.
Backers pulled the plug on the former literary editor of the New Republic,
Leon Wieseltier`s new magazine after he admitted to, quote, misdeeds with
female colleagues.

New Orleans celebrity chef John Besh stepped down from his company amid
multiple harassment allegations.

Knight Landesman, an icon of the art world, has resigned as the publisher
of Artforum magazine after also being accused of sexual harassment. And of
course, former Fox News host Bill O`Reilly was dropped by his talent agency
after a $32 million personal settlement for sexual harassment.

And then thee are the 38 women who have come forward who accuse director
James Toback of sexual harassment.

It feels like the fear that has kept so many folks silent has given way,
like a dam is breaking. Is this a turning point? I`m going to talk to
Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda about the moment we find ourselves in, next.


HAYES: And joining me now, my great pleasure to introduce Jane Fonda,
actress and activist, co-founder of Women`s Media Center, and Gloria
Steinem, author and activist, also co-founder of women`s media center.
What a (inaudible) it is have you here. Thank you very much for coming.

with you.

HAYES: This moment, this #metoo moment. I mean, the Weinstein dam
breaking was one thing, and then this sort of cascade afterwards. And I`ve
just been reading account after account. What do you make of this moment?

JANE FONDA, CO-FOUNDER WOMEN`S MEDIA CENTER: It feels different, it feels
something has shifted. It`s too bad that it – it`s probably because so
many of the women that were assaulted by Harvey Weinstein are famous and
white and you know, everybody knows them. This has been going on a long
time to black women and other women of color and doesn`t get out quite the

But I think it`s so huge, this story. And so much is coming out that shows
that it went on so long over so many countries, with people pimping for
him, that it`s really made a big difference that women have come forward.
And it is like a – hopefully it`s like a domino effect, affecting other

HAYES: There`s already been resignations at places, suspensions. I`ve
ticked off some of
them. It also, Gloria, it struck me as logic of the strike right? The
fist is stronger than the individual fingers, that it`s terrifying for one
person to level an accusation, obviously, against a extremely powerful
person but if 40, 50, 60, changes dynamic.

STEINEM: I think it`s even more true here in this case, because if you
steal money, you probably get arrested and convicted, OK, because everybody
says stealing is wrong.

But if you do something that`s very sexist or racist because there still is
a critical mass of bias
in this country, it takes more cumulative instances for it to be
recognized. So we have reached a tipping point, I think, and it probably
is important that in addition to what Jane is saying, who it is that came
forward, Also, the offenders have been cross-race. There`s been Cosby.
They`ve been cross
political lines of all kinds from right to left, and all of this
contributes to…

HAYES: All men though.

STEINEM: Well, there have been women in the past. I don`t want to say it.
But important thing to remember is that it`s about power. And the idea
that you have to dominate in order to be sexual, that`s the fundamental

So there are occasionally women who sexually harass too, just many fewer
because of the feminine role is not a…

HAYES: Because of the power dynamic.

Let me ask you specifically about Weinstein and then I want up with you
about Hollywood.

He gave money to schools. There`s a chair at Rutgers, I believe, in your

STEINEM: Yes. He gave money to Rutgers in his mother`s name.

HAYES: And USC. And I just thought, well, what – as someone whose name
is attached to this thing…

STEINEM: No, but it was so lucky in a way, because it was early, and
obviously it`s going to a media chair, which is all about reporting on bias
against women, including sexual harassment.

So, Rutgers can become an example to say give this money to causes for
women, give it to rape crisis centers, give it to shelters, give it to –
you know, hello, don`t give it back for his legal defense fund, no.

HAYES: Keep the money.

FONDA: But I think it`s a strategy to…

HAYES: Absolutely.

FONDA: How could he be that bad. I mean, look what he did for women. I
mean, he would give women directors an advantage and all that.

STEINEM: Well, yes, he made movies with Meryl Streep and Julie Taymor that
were big movies. But that`s – but it`s because it`s about power. Those
were powerful women so it wasn`t sexualized.

HAYES: But it also seemed like he was doing a bit of laundering of his

FONDA: Oh, totally, that`s what it was all about.

HAYES: You think that?

FONDA: I do.

STEINEM: It was risky, I have to say.

FONDA: Yeah, but part of the excitement I guess is that is risk.

But, you know, there`s another thing, so many – I mean, 12 million people
in the United
States work in restaurants, most of them women. And they`re often young,
but not always, but they survive on tips, which means that they are – they
have to put up with a lot…

HAYES: It`s a great point. Every customer is a boss.

FONDA: Yeah. And if you don`t look smiley with a low cut dress and tight
and the boss tells you you have to do it…

HAYES: Or if you don`t grimace your way through an inappropriate

FONDA: You`re not being paid living wage, so you depend on your tips. So,
this is often the first job, right. So, these young women, it becomes the
norm. Nothing can be as horrible afterward as what was done to me in
restaurants so must be the way life is.

STEINEM: There are restaurant chains that reward or require women to have
breast implants. I mean, you can`t make this stuff up.

HAYES: Let me ask you a question about – it`s great point about the
service industry and restaurants and just sort of how this scales
throughout an economy, right. So, we`re talking about the stuff at the
very top.

But specifically on Hollywood, you know, there`s this – conservatives have
really run with the
Harvey Weinstein thing, and at some level I understand, right, because your
argument is basically like you Hollywood liberals lecture us
sanctimoniously all the time and here you have got this happening
in your own back yard. What do you think of that?

STEINEM: Roger Ailes, hello.

FONDA; I think it`s most ridiculous argument I ever heard.

STEINEM: Nobody ever says the patriarchy was confined, or racism was

FONDA: Right, it`s just easier for those kind of predatory men, like the
president, to have
access to the kind of women that he likes when he`s in the model business.
You know, one of them runs Miss Universe, Harvey happens to produce the
Runway Project. That`s not an accident.

HAYES: Puts him in proximity to…

STEINEM: We have a president that profiteered off beauty contest is absurd
in itself, in addition to fact that he is a self-confessed harasser.

HAYES: Yeah, what do you – how do you think about him in the context of
all this? Because it seems like, oh, there`s this sort of day of reckoning
has come for a lot of people. It came for Weinstein finally, but at a
certain level it`s like…

STEINEM: Yeah, no, it hasn`t come for him. And I think that part of the
problem, if you`ll bear with him for a minute, is advertising, because
advertising supports television, and therefore television rewards the
number of hits. And that made him a television star, even though watching
him was like watching a traffic accident. That`s why it got so many…

HAYES: But people were watching.

STEINEM: Yeah, people were watching.

HAYES: Which is true of his presidency.

STEINEM: Yeah, and so that`s why whoever it was said, you know, well he
may not be
good for the country but…

HAYES: He`s good for us.

STEINEM: Good for the network.

FONDA: And that`s why we co-founded with Robin Morgan the Women`s Media
Center because the media – all the platforms of media are so important and
they`re controlled by men for the most part.

HAYES: And I should point out that awards are and tomorrow night. Hillary
Clinton will be receiving award and I should also point out, Women`s Media
Center has been doing incredible work for
a very long time, and a huge part of this story was broken – both my
colleague, Ronan Farrow (ph) here, but also two Jodi Kantor and Megan
Twohey, two women who talked about how important it was for them to be
women reporters and getting folks to talk to them and trust them and how
important that representation is in the media that gets produced.

STEINEM: Yeah, both having consciousness and especially a lot of women in
the media, which is what the Women`s Media Center is doing, and
understanding that it is about power, and therefore since the Women`s Media
Center is devoted to trying to equalize the power it`s diminishing the
possibility in and of itself in addition to the individual cases it

HAYES: All right, Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem, what a treat. Thank you.
If you ever want to come back at any time, we`d love to have you back.

Thank you very much.

That is 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