Rep Al Green announces intention to vote on impeachment Transcript 11/30/17 All In with Chris Hayes

Brian Schatz, Patricia Cohen, Norm Ornstein, Al Green

Date: November 30, 2017>
Guest: Brian Schatz, Patricia Cohen, Norm Ornstein, Al Green

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Tonight the Senate votes on a tax cut bill amid
new calls for the President’s impeachment. Then –


HAYES: The radio show host who could be the linchpin of the Russia

Plus pressure on the longest-serving member of Congress to step down after
multiple allegations of sexual harassment.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: Congressman Conyers should

HAYES: And Lindsey Graham 2017 –

SEN. LINSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: What concerns me about the
American press is this endless, endless attempt to label the guy as some
kind of kook.

HAYES: Versus Lindsey Graham 2016.

GRAHAM: I think he’s a kook.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.

GRAHAM: This is kook land.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I’m Chris Hayes. Right now at this
very moment, the Senate is debating the most-ambitious rewrite of the tax
code in over three decades. And nobody, and I mean nobody, knows precisely
what’s in the bill or what exactly it would do. In a word what session
that started tonight on the Senate floor, Republicans lawmakers are
scrambling to get legislation passed before it can see the light of day
before anyone can actually figure out what’s in it. Adding to the urgency
is the increasingly unhinged behavior of the President of the United
States, whose pen they still need to sign a tax bill into law. This bill
that they’re debating right now, that they plan to vote on tomorrow, is
why, for the past year and a half, Republicans have chosen to tolerate
Donald Trump’s destabilizing, dangerous conduct. Nothing he’s done has
outweighed the singular goal of getting this thing passed.

Not his bragging about committing sexual assault backed up by accusations
from over a dozen women on record, not his attacks on the U.S. intelligence
committee or his deference to Vladimir Putin or the mounting evidence his
campaign tried to collude with Russian agents. Not his repeated ethical
violations using his government role to profit his private business. Not
his anti-Muslim hate mongering which has endangered Americans around the
world and hurt relations with our closest ally. Not his defense of white
supremacists newly emboldened under his leadership and not his reckless,
belligerent posture toward North Korea which is now, according to experts,
a full-fledged nuclear power. All of that, all of it has been worth it to
them, the Republicans in Congress, to get to this moment. It’s the price
we have all paid to pass a very unpopular tax bill. Which is why
Republican Senators like Orrin Hatch are thrilled with this President’s


SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: I’ll say this for you. He’s been one of the
best Presidents I’ve served under. And the reason is, is he’s not afraid
to make decisions. He’s not afraid to take on the big-mouths around here.
And frankly, I’ve got to say if you give him a chance, he’s going to be a
great president.


HAYES: One of the best. Even outspoken critics of this President like
Jeff Flake, who wrote an entire book denouncing Trump’s politics, or Bob
Corker who publicly called the President a danger to the country, putting
us on the path to World War III, even they are widely expected to fall in
line and vote for this bill. Every Senator who does so is, of course,
complicit in the Republican devil’s bargain. For the President, this bill
is a tradeoff of a different sort. He ran as a defender of Main Street, a
brand-new breed of Republican looking out for working people and the
forgotten man.

But that’s not who this bill is designed to help, just the opposite. It is
a massive transfer of wealth from workers and the middle class to the
wealthiest people in this country. According to nonpartisan analysis,
listen to this, by 2027 people making $40,000 or $50,000 would pay a
combined $5.3 billion more in taxes while the group earning $1 million or
more would get a $5.8 billion cut. It’s actually that straightforward,
essentially a dollar to dollar transfer. The middle class pays more, the
rich pay less. The President either doesn’t understand what’s in this bill
or he’s just lying.


TRUMP: This is going to cost me a fortune, this thing, believe me.
Believe me. This is not good for me. Me, it’s not so – I have some very
wealthy friends, not so happy with me but that’s OK. The beating heart of
our plan is a tax cut for working families. That’s what it is.


HAYES: The tax bill already has support from some of the same Republican
Senators who defied their party on the health care vote like Lisa Murkowski
and John McCain, even though this bill has similar problems, for instance,
by getting rid of the individual mandate under ObamaCare, it is projected
to raise health care costs and premiums and leave millions of more people
without insurance. According to a new nonpartisan report, the bill would
also add a trillion dollars to the deficit, which used to be a deal breaker
for Republican fiscal hawks. But all those details may be beside the
point. This bill has one specific goal according to a prominent tax
expert. “It’s not aimed at growth, it’s not aimed at the middle class, it
is at every turn carefully engineered to deliver a kiss to the donor
class.” For anyone who’s been listening, that’s exactly what Republicans
already told us.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You I imagine are the point person in the White House
for big CEOs because you come from their world, they know you. What are
you hearing from them right now?

there are big CEOs, about our tax plan.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What happens politically if Republicans aren’t able to
pass a tax reform package?

GRAHAM: The party fractures. Most incumbents in 2018 will get a severe
primary challenge. A lot of them will probably lose. The base will
fracture. The financial contributions will stop.


HAYES: Senator Brian Schatz is one of the Democrats leading the fight
against this tax bill, what is the status right now where you are?

SEN. BRIAN SCHATZ (D), HAWAII: Nobody knows, really, Chris but they are
stuck. This is an unexpected turn. We did expect that you know,
Republicans do tax cuts and they have the votes, and they felt a sense of
urgency, even though this is probably the most unpopular major tax cut bill
in American history. We figured they would have the votes but they got
stuck tonight. And I think the precipitating moment was when they got that
score back from the Joint Committee on Taxation which showed a trillion-
dollar deficit as a result of this bill. Weirdly they were surprised at
that. And that has caused a lot of conversation. There was a moment on
the floor when it actually looked like we might even win unexpectedly
around 5:00 p.m. tonight. We’re not done yet, but they’re not done yet.
So they’re stalled and they’re going to reconvene tomorrow and see whether
they can put together a bill. But your point is a really important one.
We haven’t seen legislative text.

HAYES: You know, I just want to be clear here. This is – this is what I
call the heist model of legislating which they tried with the ACA, which is
like you sort of plotted out and then you kind of wait until the guards
have turned their heads and you get everybody in the car and you try to get
in there and pass a vote and get out. They’re doing that again. You’re
saying that you don’t know what legislation is, you do not know what the
bill is?

SCHATZ: No, I mean, we have the broad contours but right now because there
are so many individuals who have problems, for instance, with the deficits
that are going to be run, very obviously. And other people have other
things that they want in the bill. The parliamentarian is now saying
certain things aren’t compliant with our rules. And so all of those things
have to get fixed if you will. And as a result, they’re going to be
feverishly writing a bill overnight, mistakes will be made. This is a
multi-trillion dollar piece of legislation. Whether or not you like it or
you don’t, it seems to me to be the kind of thing that you ought to take
your time with. But they’re going to try to jam us.

HAYES: I wanted to bring your attention to this because tax law is an area
where if you make a slight drafting mistake there is an industry of people
very well compensated to take advantage of that. This is a University of
Chicago professor who says, is there a trillion-dollar hole in the Senate
tax plan?

SCHATZ: Right.

HAYES: You’re not reading that incorrectly. He argues, based on sloppy
drafting, that there’s literally a trillion-dollar hole in the thing. Can
you be confident they’re not going to pass something that has some massive,
massive error at the heart of it?

SCHATZ: No, I think that’s exactly right. And after all of their
criticism of you know, read the bill, which by the way I think is always a
legitimate thing to ask of your legislator. did you read the bill? And it
is true that you’ve got to work with staff for them to help you interpret
certain aspects of the bill. Sometimes they’re referring to a different
part of the U.S. code. So I get that it’s technical and sometimes it’s a
gotcha question. But let’s be clear. There literally is no bill text.
This isn’t just a matter of the individual member not poring over 500
pages. Staff hasn’t seen it. It’s not available because it isn’t written

So the one thing I wanted to add is that it is a miracle that Democrats and
the resistance across the country have been able to make this so close. A
lot of people I think had a rough week emotionally when it came to what was
all the ups and downs in the country for the republic. There was a lot of
anxiety out there. And one bright spot here, and I don’t know if we’re
going to win or not, is that we’re making this very, very close. It is not
over and I certainly encourage everybody to keep burning up the phone

HAYES: All right, Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, thanks for making time
tonight. I appreciate it.

SCHATZ: Thank you.

HAYES: Patricia Cohen covers Economics for the New York Times, just
published a masterly analysis of how the tax bill could change American
life. Norm Ornstein is a Contributing Editor for the Atlantic and Co-
Author of the new book, One Nation After Trump. Patricia, you and your co-
author in a piece did I thought, a remarkable job in communicating the
scope. How big is this bill, how ambitious is it?

difficult sometimes to talk about the tax bill because it’s so complicated
and there’s so many different pieces to understand. So what we try to do
is just – is to say, you know, a tax bill is always a political document.
For any – you know, whether it’s the Democrats or the Republicans who are
in control. But what this bill does, it does more than you know,
ostensibly just either raise or lower taxes or spur growth, do things to
the economy. There are big social changes, ramifications, that are
embedded in the bill that will affect decisions people make about health
care, education, and all sorts of things –

HAYES: Abortion, the way that churches communicate in the public sphere
based on politics and their tax-exempt status. I mean, there – it is a
broad-reaching piece of legislation.

COHEN: Right. And in a lot of ways, it’s – there’s – all of these –
it’s like what they say, it’s a Christmas tree bill. You want to get a lot
of different constituencies behind you. So everybody wants their little
piece. Some of it are economic but some of it are not. And that we’ve
seen that with drilling in the Arctic wildlife refuge.

HAYES: That’s a great example.

COHEN: You know, or with as we were talking about before, allowing
religious groups to do political lobbying which they have not been allowed
to do since 1954.

HAYES: A huge, huge change. Norm, you’ve been writing about – your
earlier book is called Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American
Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. You’ve
– I mean, you wrote that with Thomas Mann. You’ve been writing for a long
time about sort of the ways in which the Republican Party has changed over
the years and become more extreme. What does this moment mean in terms of
the development of the party?

from bad to worse to even worse than that. You know, I’ve thought for a
long time, a lot of these Senators are friends of mine, Bob Corker, John
McCain, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake. And to watch people cave on something
like this, not only not knowing what’s in it, but for John McCain, who had
said passionately about a return to a regular way of legislating the
regular order, saying he’s going to vote for this, it really suggests a
party that has gone completely rogue. And I’d make another point, Chris.
In almost 50 years of being around the legislative process, I’ve never seen
a bill handled in this fashion.

Not only without any significant hearings, having it on the floor without
even having a document, but the complete detachment from representatives
from their own voters. We’ve been moving in that direction for a while.
But the fact, you go past the electoral college, gerrymandering, a Senate
where 40 percent of the population controls the super majority or close to
it of the Senate. The fact that you have such opposition to this from
every expert group, from large numbers of people, and they don’t care
anymore, all they care about is the large donors and an ideology that
ignores facts. It’s just appalling.

HAYES: One of the things that has happened with this bill, it’s been very
hard to get independent analysis. They’ve been rushing it so quickly. And
one of the things that was reported today is the Treasury usually issues –
I mean, the Treasury is the Treasury, right? So the Treasury is ultimately
the people that take in the receipts. They want to know how a tax bill’s
going to do.

COHEN: Well, and not only that, they write the rules. It’s the Treasury
that is really going to be writing the language –

HAYES: Implementing.

COHEN: – and how this happens, exactly.

HAYES: And Treasury has just simply refused to offer analysis of what the
bill would do.

COHEN: Well, it could potentially be even worse than that which is that
the Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, claimed that he had (INAUDIBLE) and
now we’re going back months. The Treasury Department to do an analysis to
show that these tax cuts would spur incredible economic growth. And of
course what we’ve seen is not only from a joint taxation committee, which
is Congress’ own committee, saying that you know, it’s going to cost over
$1 trillion. It turns out it looks like they were never even asked to do
an analysis. So it’s not that we haven’t seen it, it’s that we don’t think
it exists.

HAYES: That they didn’t actually want to find out?

COHEN: Right, I mean –

HAYES: Or that’s the implication?

COHEN: Or you know, if you’re going to make the claim that you know, the
facts are on your side, well, present the evidence. But apparently, they
didn’t even attempt to look for the evidence.

HAYES: What do you think, Norm about the idea that essentially this is the
devil’s bargain for members of Congress, that with the President, like
yesterday, say tweets out essentially racist and fascist propaganda that
earns a rebuke from our closest ally. That you just have to countenance
that if he casually libels someone, accuses them of murder. If he –
whatever he does, you look the other way because this is the reward. Is
that – is that the deal?

ORNSTEIN: Oh, it absolutely is the deal. And I think, you know, you’ve
got people nervous because they have not done a single significant thing in
this Congress. And they need to have some kind of a record, they control
everything. They need the money from their donors and they’ve been flat-
out saying that. And let’s face it, another part of this which a couple of
people have talked about, Marco Rubio very frankly just the other day is
this is the old Republican approach of starving the beast and getting at a
goal that they’ve sought for a long time, which is to reduce and privatize
Medicare and Social Security. Remember, we have a Pago element that is
going to hit this bill, that with the deficits as they grow, they’ll take a
huge chunk out of Medicare automatically along with a whole series of other
important programs.

HAYES: Yes, this is the first step, and Marco Rubio has been very clear
about this. Pat Toomey was just sort of caught on the floor by Bernie
Sanders essentially, tacitly admitting that the next step is to go after
Medicare and Social Security. Patricia Cohen and Norm Ornstein, thank you,

COHEN: Thank you.

HAYES: OK, don’t go away. My next guest says he plans to force a House
vote – force a House vote on impeachment next week. Why he says it’s time
in two minutes.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He’s brought us to the brink of nuclear war, obstructed
justice at the FBI, and in direct violation of the constitution, he’s taken
money from foreign governments and threatened to shut down news
organizations that report the truth. If that isn’t a case for impeaching
and removing a dangerous president, then what does our government become?


HAYES: You’ve probably seen those ads on this network and elsewhere
calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. After billionaire
Tom Steyer first launched that ad campaign on October, a lot of people
criticized him for promoting an idea that was well, at the very least
impracticable. But as the President’s behavior grows increasingly erratic,
his rhetoric ever more destructive, the idea of impeachment grows as a real
and concrete possibility. Today Ezra Klein of argued at length
that the time has come. We’ve grown too afraid of the consequences of
impeachment, he writes, and too complacent about the consequences of
leaving an unfit president in office. If the worst happens and Trump’s
presidency results in calamity, we will have no excuse to make, no answer
to give. This is an emergency. We should break the glass. Impeachment,
of course, requires a Congressional decision. And today, one lawmaker,
member of Congress, said he is bringing that option to the House floor.


REP. AL GREEN (D), TEXAS: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what the vote will be
but I do know this. Next week, there will be a vote to impeach.


HAYES: Congressman Al Green of Texas joins me now. You’re in the
minority, of course, sir. How do you make that happen?

GREEN: Well, thank you for having me on, Chris. If I may say this, I love
my country. And this is being done out of love for the country. It will
happen because each member of Congress has the right to bring a privileged
resolution before the House and it will be acted upon. It can be tabled,
it can be voted up or down, or it can be sent to committee. It is my hope
that we will have an opportunity to vote it up or down. But I will vote to
impeach, which means that I will not vote to table. I will not vote to
send to committee. I will vote to impeach Donald Trump if given the
opportunity to by way of an impeachment vote. Either way, it will come
before the House and there will be a vote next week.

HAYES: How many votes – my sense is – you and I have talked about this
before. There’s been some back and forth. Leadership doesn’t like this
idea for whatever reason. I think they think the politics of it are
disadvantageous. How many votes are there for impeachment from the
Democratic Caucus right now?

GREEN: I don’t know because I haven’t whipped, I haven’t polled. What
I’ve done is what I believe is best for my country. I believe that this is
not about the Democratic leadership or the Republican leadership. I’ve
said before that it’s about democracy. It’s about our government. It’s
about the opportunity to salvage the republic. It’s about a president who
is unmindful of the high duties of his high office, to the extent that he
has brought disrepute and shame upon the presidency to the manifest injury
of the American people. When this happens, impeachment is an option. It
is an option that was contemplated by the framers of the constitution.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 speaks of this. And it doesn’t have to
be a crime. And I think that we finally got that message out to the
American public, that a president doesn’t have to commit a crime to be

As a matter of fact, Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for a high
misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is a misdeed. I believe that this President
has committed misdeeds that would require someone to take a stand. My
constituents and the people I represent, they expect me to eliminate the
hate that he perpetrates. He is consistently doing things that are harmful
to the vibrant fabric of this country. With his latest tweets and those
three videos and most of the information being inaccurate. Not any
remorse, doesn’t say “I made a mistake.” And remember this now, Chris,
this is the president who has the greatest access to intelligence of any
person on the planet. He doesn’t vet these things before he does them. He
simply chooses to do things that are harmful to this country, and now to
the world, because other countries are seeing it as well. So we’re going
to take up the hate agenda. I think a President can be impeached for
perpetrating hate.

HAYES: What I hear from you, which is a fascinating idea, is basically
impeachment doesn’t have to be a sort of criminal conviction on a crime,
but is a political remedy for offense and for deep unfitness. And that’s -
- the argument that Ezra Klein makes in this Vox piece is exactly this. I
want to read this quote to you and see if you agree with him. He says, “It
is a principle that sounds radical until you say it at which point it
sounds obvious. Being extremely bad at the job of President of the United
States should be enough to get you fired.” Is that your theory of

GREEN: Well, being extremely bad at the job to the extent that you create
harm to the American society. Yes, that would be it. If you create harm
such that the society that we live in is going to have what I will call
close to irreparable injury, if not irreparable injury. Then, of course,
you can impeach a president. And this was contemplated. This is –
impeachment was designed for a time such as this and a president such as

HAYES: Congressman Al Green, thanks for your time.

GREEN: Thank you.

HAYES: Next, one of the key questions in the Trump-Russia story was just
how the campaign was connected to WikiLeaks. Well, we now have an answer.
The missing link after this quick break.


HAYES: One of the mysteries of the Russia story has now been solved. Who
is Roger Stone’s link to WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange? Now,
remember back in early August 2016, it was after WikiLeaks released stolen
e-mails from the DNC that Stone seemingly out of nowhere boasted about his
connection to Assange.


ROGER STONE, POLITICAL CONSULTANT: I actually have communicated with
Assange. I believe the next crunch of his documents pertains to the
Clinton Foundation. But there’s no telling what the October surprise may


HAYES: The October surprise. Interesting he was talking about that. Then
a few weeks later, Stone famously tweeted that it was soon going to be
Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta’s time in the barrel. And then that
happened. In early October, when WikiLeaks released the most damaging
cache of hacked Podesta e-mails. After that release in October, Stone
again spoke about his connection to Assange. “I do have a back channel
communication with Assange because we have a good mutual friend. That
friend travels back and forth from the United States to London and we
talk.” But Stone has always refused to say who was that go-between? Who
was his link to Julian Assange?

Well, now we know. And that person has been subpoenaed by the House Intel
Committee. It’s this guy, Randy Credico, who is, let’s say, an unusual
personality. A comedian, radio host, occasional political candidate, sort
of a lefty, and who is friends with Stone and shares some of Stone’s views
like legalizing marijuana. Credico is part of the United States Cannabis
Coalition that stone founded. And Credico recently posted his
Congressional subpoena commanding him to appear on December 15th before the
House Intel Committee investigating possible collusion between the Trump
campaign and Russia. And now after all this, Roger Stone has finally
admitted that yes indeed, it was Credico that was his back channel to
Julian Assange and WikiLeaks though he claims it’s no big deal.

In a Facebook post writing in part “I want to reiterate there is nothing
illegal or improper in communicating with Julian Assange or WikiLeaks.”
How close was Credico to Assange? Look at this photo. Here’s Randy
Credico in what we might call the smoking selfie, emerging from the
Ecuadoran Embassy in London where Assange has been living of course since
been granted asylum there. Credico tweeting, “Leaving Ecuador, Embassy
London, past scary Brit agent.” That post – that post was just two days
before the Podesta e-mails were published by WikiLeaks. The most
consequential day in the 2016 presidential campaign and the link to Randy
Credico, Roger Stone, and the Russia investigation next.


HAYES: So there’s a very suggestive timeline on the events leading up to
the release of John
Podesta’s hacked emails. And it goes like this: on August 21st, 2016,
Roger Stone tweeted this, “trust me, it will soon be Podesta’s time in the
barrel. #crookedhillary.”

Which got a lot of people’s attention at the time, because how can Stone
possibly know that? What did he mean? And then on October 5th, Stone’s
now-identified back channel to WikiLeaks, Randy Credico, posted this selfie
after meeting with Julian Assange in the Ecuadoran embassy in London. One
day later, after that, on October 6th, Roger Stone tweeted, quote, “Julian
Assange will
deliver a devastating expose on Hillary at a time of his choosing. I stand
by my prediction. #handcuffsforhillary.” That’s cute.

And then one day after that, the single most consequential day of the
entire 2016 campaign, the “Access Hollywood” tape came out. It’s a tape of
Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault, threatening to sink Trump’s
already faltering campaign. But within hours, WikiLeaks posts John
Podesta’s stolen emails.

Nick Ackerman is a former assistant special Watergate prosecutor, and Anne
Milgram, former New Jersey attorney general, professor and distinguished
scholar in residence at NYU school of law.

I thought of you immediately when we found this out, because you’ve been
obsessed with Roger Stone and the nexus between Stone and WikiLeaks as the
place that all this touches.

And it spreads out from there. But you have to back up even a little bit
more to June 3 when
Ron Goldstone emails Don Jr. and says they’ve got all of this highly
sensitive information that they want to turn over to the Trump campaign.

First., they wanted to turn it over to Donald Sr.’s secretary, but then he
says it’s too sensitive, and I have to bring it to you personally.

So we know at least in April of that year through Papadopoulos, that the
Russians were bragging that they had over thousands of emails that were
taken from Hillary Clinton and the DNC.

So I think what happens here was that these emails…

HAYES: This is your theory. I just want to be clear.

ACKERMAN: This is my theory.

HAYES: This is not confirmed, this is the Ackerman theory.

ACKERMAN: This is the Ackerman theory, but I think it’s pretty much spot
on, because what you have are these emails I am convinced were brought to
the Clinton campaign. Donald Senior on June 7 says he’s going to have a
press conference next week and he’s going to tell everybody about

HAYES: The crimes of Hillary Clinton.

ACKERMAN: Right, the crimes of Hillary Clinton, all the horrible things
that they have both done. He doesn’t do it. And I think what happened was
that they realized that this stuff was too hot to handle. And Donald
Senior called up Roger Stone and says, how do we get it out there? How do
people learn about this so that we have plausible deniability?

And the key was Roger Stone contacting, one, Gucifer 2.0 who put it out two
times within a couple of weeks after that June 3, June 9…

HAYES: Right, the DNC stuff.

ACKERMAN: Right. And then a week later, bingo, it shows up in WikiLeaks,
and June 20, right before the Democratic National Convention, it’s all over
the place.

HAYES: The October 7 moment to me seems key, right? Because you’ve got
The Washington Post publishes this story that’s widely considered
devastating for the Trump campaign. And then four hours later WikiLeaks
publishes the first tranche of Podesta emails.

And from an investigative standpoint I would imagine you’d want to know
about what kind of phone conversations or email traffic there was on that

investigation standpoint if you think about either Mueller’s team or the
House intelligence committee, 100 percent what they’re going to try to
understand is we have evidence from the U.S. intelligence agencies that the
Russian government was involved in the computer hack.

Then, the question is what do the Russian do with that information? And is
the campaign working in any way, shape or form with the Russian government
in how these emails get released?

And so, you know, this question of is there a federal crime committed
involving computer hacking, this question of who, what, where, who was
involved, all those would be questions for any of these investigators.

HAYES: OK, but here’s a fascinating legal question. Let us say that
through a back channel, Roger Stone – we know Roger Stone’s in touch with
the president of the United States, with the candidate, Donald Trump. He
said that. That’s on the record. We know Roger Stone has a back channel.
We now know he is, this guy Randy Credico of WikiLeaks.

Is there a crime committed if on the day that the Access Hollywood tape
comes out, Roger
Stone sends a message to Assange being like could you publish those emails

ACKERMAN: There’s a couple crimes.

HAYES: You think so?

ACKERMAN: Oh, yeah, absolutely. First of all, the possession of emails is
a felony in New
York state.

MILGRAM: The hack and possession.

ACKERMAN: The hack, of course, is a felony…

HAYES: But that’s not Roger Stone’s crime. I mean, my point is if you
tell someone who’s a publisher, which is what Julian Assange calls himself,
hey, today would be a great day to publish what you have. Why are you in
any trouble?

ACKERMAN: He’s facilitating it. He’s using Julian Assange to provide help
to the Trump campaign. I mean, what they are doing is what…

HAYES: You’re saying, you think there’s criminal exposure on that?

ACKERMAN: Oh, absolutely. What they’re doing is the traditional idea of a
boiler room in a presidential campaign, except it’s the Russians running
the boiler room.

MILGRAM: So, remember that there’s sort of a number of different crimes we
look at here. One is the computer hack and how that evidence comes out…

HAYES: The intrusion is clearly a crime yeah.

MILGRAM: But the other – and it could be a crime by the campaign if the
campaign is involved in releasing those emails.

HAYES: After the fact.

MILGRAM: Exactly. So, that’s I think potential one area.

The other area are these election laws that basically say a foreign
government cannot be involved in a U.S. election. So, if there’s any
indication that the Trump campaign was working with a foreign government
like Russia and it could be through Assange, it could be through Roger – I
mean, you would try to find that link, then that is also a potential crime.

HAYES: But that strikes me as the key question here, right, because now
you’ve got this sort of – you’ve got the links in the chain. You’ve got
the campaign talks to Roger Stone, Roger Stone talks
to Credico, Credico talks to Julian Assange, like that’s lined up. We know
that they’re talking to each other. He said it, Roger Stone said it
multiple times.

ACKERMAN: And you’ve got more than that, though, you’ve also got Don Jr.
talking to WikiLeaks.

HAYES: Right. But I’m talking about this specific alliance of interests.
If that itself is – if there’s a way that everyone in that chain can claim
plausible deniability.

MILGRAM: Right. So, I think the question you’re asking is really what was
said, what happened…

HAYES: Right, exactly. The actual details of what went down there.

MILGRAM: They matter.

HAYES: They matter for the criminal question.

MILGRAM: Because Assange has already announced in late June, I have these
emails, right. We know there’s a hack. Assange announces I have them. We
don’t know how they got from the Russians to Assange yet, right.

Then we have the Assange piece, and the question is this the link with the
campaign? Was there – what were those conversations?

HAYES: I mean, this is why – Credico, who has emerged now as a figure in
this drama, and there are many and it’s hard to keep track of, it really
matters what he did and said. I mean, him going before the House
Intelligence Committee is a very, very big deal.

Nick Ackerman and Anne Milgram, thank you both.

Still to come, the depths of James O’Keefe and his team at Project Veritas,
the lengths they went to to attempt to discredit The Washington Post. It
goes farther back than anyone knew. The details of that story ahead.

And Senator Lindsey Graham takes the words right out of his own mouth.
Tonight’s Thing One, Thing Two next.


HAYES: Thing One tonight, when it comes to questions about President
Trump’s mental fitness for office, Senator Lindsey Graham has had just
about enough.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: You know what concerns me about
the American press is this endless, endless attempt to label the guy as
some kind of kook, not fit to be president.


HAYES: Now I haven’t heard anyone in the media specifically call President
Trump a, quote, “kook, not fit to be president.” But we did find someone
who has made that exact claim about President Trump. A senator, in fact.
That’s Thing Two in 60 seconds.




GRAHAM: You know what concerns me about the American press is this
endless, endless attempt to label the guy as some kind of kook, not fit to
be president.


HAYES: Senator Lindsey Graham can’t stand people calling Donald Trump a
kook who is not fit to be president, but that phrase sure does sound


GRAHAM: I’m not going to try to get into the mind of Donald Trump, because
I don’t think there’s a whole lot of space there. I think he’s a kook.


HAYES: OK, now – he said he was a kook, but that’s a short clip. I think
we need more context. He didn’t actually say he’s unfit for office, did


GRAHAM: I think he’s a kook. I think he’s crazy. I think he’s unfit for


HAYES: OK, all right. So he said he’s a kook. He’s unfit for office.
That was one time. It would only reach the height of hypocrisy if Lindsey
Graham engaged in endless, endless attempt to label Trump as someone who is
not fit to be president.


GRAHAM: I don’t think he has the temperament or judgment to be commander-

I don’t think he has the temperament or judgment to be commander-in-chief.

He’s not fit to be president of the United States.

He’s a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.

Opportunistic, race-bating, religious bigot, xenophobia.

He doesn’t have the temperament or judgment to control himself.

He’s a jackass. And he shouldn’t be commander-in-chief.

We think he’s unfit for office, that he would be a terrible commander-in-
chief. He doesn’t
have the temperament or judgment.

At the end of the day I think his temperament or judgment is not sound.

You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to



HAYES: Democratic Lawmaker John Conyers has been accused of sexual
misconduct by multiple former staffers, including Marion Brown one received
a $27,000 settlement back in 2015 after claiming she had been fired for
refusing Conyers’ advances.

This morning, Brown told her story on the Today Show.


MARION BROWN, JOHN CONYERS ACCUSER: It was sexual harassment, violating.
Violating my body, propositioning me, inviting me to hotels with the guise
of discussing business and then propositioning me to – you know, for sex.
And he is just violated my body.


HAYES: Now top Democrats defended Conyers after allegations against him
first surfaced, but today the entire House Democratic leadership called for
the 26-term lawmaker to step down.


SEN. NANCY PELOSI, (D) CALIFORNIA: The brave women who came forward are
owed justice. I pray for Congressman Conyers and his family and wish them
well. However, Congressman Conyers should resign.

REP. JAMES CLYBURN, (D) SOUTH CAROLINA: I talked with him in person. And
told him then I thought it was in his best interests to step away from this
body, that he’d given us over 50 years of great service, but this was not
going to get any better. In fact, I could see it getting worse.


HAYES: Conyers denies acting inappropriately and is vowing to serve out
the rest of his term, according to a spokesperson for his family. The 88-
year-old was hospitalized last night for a stress-related illness.


not what it should be. And a lot of that is directly attributable to this
media assault.


HAYES: The accusations against Conyers come of course amid a string of
high-profile allegations of sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, including
some very stark ones against the now-fired Today show host Matt Lauer, as
well as less-serious ones against Democratic Senator Al Franken, though
there are now numerous people who have accused him.

Alabama GOP Senate nominee Roy Moore, who is credibly accused of molesting
a 14-year-old girl and sexually assaulting a 16-year-old among other
allegations, says the claims against him are part of a vast conspiracy.
And last night he identified the alleged conspiracists.


bisexual, transgenders who want to change our culture. They’re socialists
who want to change our way of life.


HAYES: Roy Moore is right about one thing, there is a conspiracy, but it’s
not against him, it’s against his accusers. And it goes far deeper than
anyone realized. The disturbing details next.


HAYES: Self-styled gorilla journalist, James O’Keefe, strikes many people
as well, an embarrassing doofis. There was this sad attempt to film hiss
attempted abduction of the CNN corespondent, his botched break in to a
Democratic senator’s office. He got probation, community service and a fine
for that stunt. And this week The Washington Post exposed one of his
who was trying to discredit Roy Moore’s accusers.


JAMES O’KEEFE, JOURNALIST: Does Jamie Phillips work for Project Veritas?
Are you going to answer that question?

AARON DAVIS, REPORTER: I’m have a few things to say.

O’KEEFE: Second question, are you working with Roy Moore?

DAVIS: Okay.

O’KEEFE: Are you working with Steve Bannon?

DAVIS: I’m going to ask –

O’KEEFE: Are you working with the Republican party of Alabama? are you
working with the
Republican party of Alabama.


HAYES: Despite all the failure, the repeated, systemic, embarrassing
failure, James O’Keefe isn’t going anywhere. He does occasionally hit his
target, as with his misleadingly headed videos. And that’s enough. He just
has to get it right one out of 20 times. That’s enough for wealthy donors
who are literally invested in discredited and destroying institutions like
journalism. They include the President
of the United State Donald Trump, whose foundation donated to O’Keefe’s
organization twice in 2015, and Buzzfeed reports, the secretive Mercer
family, the powerful Trump and Breitbart aligned billionaire donors. And
there is donor trust, a dark money charity that doesn’t reveal its
founders, which has given O’Keefe’s nonprofit more than four million
dollars. That money pays for some truly truly behavior.

We now know the woman who attempted to discredit Roy Moore’s accusers,
Jamie Phillips, was part of a month’s long campaign to infiltrate The Post
and other media outlets. It included befriending journalist under false
pretenses at professional networking events, congratulation send offs for

Phillips spent five weeks texting with a Post employee who she repeatedly
pressed to go out to
dinner despite the employee informing her of a family tragedy. She even
rented a basement apartment
under a assumed name in a capitol hill home of Brad Woodhouse, the former
communications director for the DNC.

It’s pretty morally bankrupt and shameful stuff. The perpetrators have made
it clear they view their cause as righteous, a war in which there are no

Joining me now, Joy Reid, host of A.M. Joy on MSNBC, and Hendrick Hertzberg
or Rick, senior editor and staff writer for The New Yorker, editorial
director at The Nation Institute.

There is something just to a human level like looking at the text exchanges
that is upsetting
because you have to be in such a head space to get yourself to do something
like that. It really makes you wonder what is going on over there.

JOY REID, MSNBC: What is going on over there are two things. One, they are
making money. Among the donors, in addition to the billionaires who are
giving money to this guy who couldn’t get
hired at a college newspaper for free let alone at a normal news
organization, are the marks in his e-mail list. Project Veritas is
constantly fund-raising and including using Amazon Smile to get ordinary
people who are charitably minded to give when they buy Christmas gifts to
give them money. He’s managed to rack up a six-figure salary for himself
doing that.

So, one motivation is he’s a drifter. And the second motivation is he
usually pedals his wears to He did that with the videos
where they took down a 40-year-old organization that registered black
people and poor people to vote just because they hated them and hated
Barack Obama.
So, their other thing is they are just at ideological war. They are Steve
Bannon turned into a scam.

HAYES: There is is something just from a journalistic perspective, I think
that journalist who have been in the game for a long time are just
unprepared – when I saw the text messages, what is
amazing about the messages is the reporter on the other side is just being
so game and nice to this random person because there is no reason to be
suspicious. You don’t think like – but they are – journalists are viewed
as the enemy in this terrain.

HENDRIK HERTZBERG, THE NEW YORKER: In a weird way, it reminds me of the
very worst of the 1960s left, you know, it’s sort of –

HAYES: That’s a great analogy.

HERTZBERG: The hatred of all the institutions, the idea – the picture of
themselves as being
pranksters, when they get caught they say we’re just – we’re just messing
around. Doesn’t anybody have a sense of humor around here? They are – you
have to figure there is something other than just pure evil involved here.
And I think it’s a certain type of personality that doesn’t always get to
express itself. That’s what these –

HAYES: There is a certain brainwashing, too, when you talk about the ’60s
left. Anything done is in service of the cause. You’re seeing this play out
in the Roy Moore situation with the people rushing to defend him there
where you have this – yeah, this sense that whatever transgressions we
make, the
transgressions are in the service of something great.

REID: Yeah, I talked to long-time political Republican in Alabama
yesterday trying to get to the bottom of what is behind the Roy Moore
support and on thing that struck me was the people voting for Roy Moore by
and large don’t believe the stories, even with all of these accusers, and
what James O’Keefe are doing, is they’re trying to burn down the concept
that journalism is trustworthy. If you can kill the concept that there is
any such thing that anything is journalism, my blog is journalism, my e-
mail chain is journalism. It’s whatever I want and what makes me –
reinforces what I want to believe.

HAYES: Well also you can discredit again in this cult-like fashion where
you cut off people’s ties to the various things in reality, if you can say
anything comes from your account in The Washington Post is not true, you
can get people to believe anything.

HERTZBERG: Yeah, it’s on to logical warfare. It’s a crusade against
reality, and it’s really unprecedented in that sense. They’re trying to
shake your sense of reality, and they have – and their – a lot of it is
related to the collapse of the authority of the institutions that you’ve
written about, too.

HAYES: Right. And this is part of sort of fomenting that along. There is
something creepy about the President of the United States being aligned
with them. Sarah Sanders has toted Project Veritas videos from the stand
and it’s one thing when they are working in opposition of Barack Obama.
There is something that strikes me as creepily authoritarian when people
who lie with the president are
renting your air b and b to spy on you.

REID: But in a lot of the – in a sense, Donald Trump isn’t their
Mussolini, he’s their customer.
I think what is scarier is that Donald Trump is a consumer of this stuff.
He’s actually consuming the
world in a daily – he’s consuming the info wars, the Breitbart. He’s not
voicing the information to increase his power. He is as duped by it as
their average person on the e-mail list who is sending them $25 out of
their Amazon Smile account. Donald Trump is purchasing this stuff and
that’s scary because
nobody around him with reacquaint him with reality, either.

HAYES: That’s a great point, Joy Reid.

HERTZBERG: He’s a pathological liar, too. He believes – he seems to
believe this stuff.

REID: Yeah.

HERTZBERG: When Nixon lied, I think we all knew he knew he was lying, but
we are not so sure about Trump.

REID: Yeah.

HAYES: Joy Reid and Rick Hertzberg, thank you both for being here.

That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts 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 content.