Amazon stock tumbles after Trump’s attacks. TRANSCRIPT: 04/02/2018. All In with Chris Hayes

Amy Siskind, Josh Barro, Christina Greer, Jonathan Chait, Bob Bauer, Natasha Bertrand, Dave Jamieson, Pedro Noguera, Dina Goldstein

Date: April 2, 2018
Guest: Amy Siskind, Josh Barro, Christina Greer, Jonathan Chait, Bob Bauer, Natasha Bertrand, Dave Jamieson, Pedro Noguera, Dina Goldstein


We call it sometimes tippy-top shape.

HAYES: The President attacks a company because he doesn’t like its owner,
and stocks plummet. Tonight the endemic corruption in the Trump
administration, and why it could be his downfall.

Plus, getting Roger Stone.

communicated with Assange.

No, I have not spoken to Mr. Assange.

HAYES: New reporting on exactly what Mueller has on Trump’s long-time

And then thousands of teachers walk off the job in some of the red estates
in the union. And Trump T.V. across America.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The sharing of bias and false news has become all too
common on social media.

HAYES: The insidious propaganda on local T.V. news thanks to Sinclair

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I’m Chris Hayes. Today one of the
biggest companies in the country lost more than $36 billion in market value
thanks in part to a sustained attack from the President of the United
States. stock falling more than five percent today after Donald
Trump renewed once again his Twitter campaign against the company over the
Easter weekend. Amazon, of course is owned by Jeff Bezos, who also happens
to own The Washington Post. Amazon itself we should be clear has no stake
in the post. That does not seem to matter to Trump who either doesn’t know
or simply doesn’t care. To the President, it’s all just,
“#amazonwashingtonpost.” You see he’s just conflating them all together.
And trump, well, Trump doesn’t like The Washington Post. It isn’t always
nice to him. So he is engaging in what certainly appears to be a kind of
proxy war designed to make Jeff Bezos pay no matter the consequences.

Vanity Fair’s Gabe Sherman reports tonight Trump is obsessed with Bezos.
Trump has told advisers he believes Bezos uses the paper as a political
weapon. A sources saying that he gets obsessed with something and now he
is obsessed with Bezos. Trump is how can I F with him. It’s the kind of
impropriety, the kind of extension of roles that modern American presidents
just didn’t engage in until now. But that very lack of boundaries when it
comes to what’s improper, that has become the signature characteristic of
the Trump presidency. He unleashed his assault on Amazon from Mar-a-Lago
where he spent the Easter weekend, much of it on the golf course. The
press is not allowed to film Trump inside the property so here’s a picture
of Trump’s motorcade on the way to Mar-a-Lago passing beneath a billboard
that reads impeachment now. Now the initiation fee to become a member at
Mar-a-Lago us $200,000, Trump doubled it after he won the presidency. But
there are perks. You get to mingle with the sitting President of the
United States, just like – and that is a real name, I’m not making this up
– Princess Camilla of Bourbon Two Sicilies, Duchess of Castro who posted
this picture of her and her family enjoying quality time with Trump at Mar-

Now, for some people, Mar-a-Lago membership is actually a pretty good deal.
Just a few $100,000 and you can personally lobby the President on whatever
you want. When it comes down to the de facto bribery palace he likes to
call the Winter White House. And there’s other ways to buy your way into
the President’s good grace as well. You can hold an event at well, the
Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. just a stone’s throw from the
White House which the President still owns and which has become a magnet
for foreign officials looking to curry favor or perhaps buy a place of
Trump Tower Manila which featured this 2013 video on its Web site even
after Trump took office.


TRUMP: Trump Tower Manila is going to be something special. There won’t
be anything like it in the Philippines and actually even going beyond the
Philippines. Everything involved is going to be first rate. We really
look forward to it.


HAYES: And it’s the fundamentally scammy nature of this presidency,
Trump’s willingness to leverage the highest office in the land to enrich
himself his family, his allies. My next guest says it’s what Democrats was
focused on as they try to stop him. Joining me now, New York Magazine
Columnist Jonathan Chait who’s cover story this week was entitled – nice
image – entitled Corruption Not Russia is Trump’s Greatest Political
Liability. Why do you say that, Jonathan?

number one, that encompasses a lot of what is going on in this
administration. Not only the scandals, but also the policy. The idea of
they’re trying to get themselves rich, not you. And I think number two,
what a lot of people forget is how central that promise really was to the
Trump candidacy. He said I’m this rich guy. You’ve seen how rich and
famous I am but I’m going to put all that aside and I’m going to work to
get you rich and I’m not going care about getting me rich. So he had these
two ideas in opposition, and he knew they were in opposition in people’s
heads. So they thought that he would stop trying to get himself rich and
really care about the American public. But I think it’s very easy to show
that he has continued to try to get himself rich, as you just demonstrated
a few of the points. The people around him have done the same. And you
didn’t even get into all the petty corruption that this cabinet has been
engaging in and their policy agenda has also been about just enriching
people like Donald Trump, including Donald Trump himself.

HAYES: You know, as I was reading your piece, I was reminded of the 2006
midterms which I covered very closely and there was two big issue there.
That was the Iraq war I think was one of the biggest. But there was also
just the manifest corruption in that Republican Congress. You had all the
(INAUDIBLE) scandals. You had the all the sense of self-dealing and that
really sort of reached a crescendo that year and had an electoral effect.

CHAIT: Yes, you know, sometimes, Chris, I feel like you and I are the only
two people who remember the Bush administration and ever reference it and
talk about it but the same thing that happened that brought down the
Republicans has been much, much worse. They didn’t clean up their act.
They went through this whole tea party phase where they were pretending to
clean up their act but they’ve really just come back you know, greedier
than ever and less reformed than ever and it’s a really potent issue.

HAYES: You know, part of the problem though is – Mar-a-Lago is a perfect
example where again, I hate – you know, this word normalize, but the
existence of Mar-a-Lago itself is a scandal. It should not be the case
that private citizens can pay several $100,000 to personally lobby the
President. I mean, how many times has someone walked up to him and be
like, you know, Mr. President, I got this liquid natural gas facility we’re
looking to build in Maryland are really good. I mean, it must be happen
all the time. You’re seeing these Instagram photos and yet that just sort
of theirs kind of background noise. I think there’s a real question of
like how does that the basic ambient corruption at even just these sort of
background issues become more acute?

CHAIT: Right. I mean, the issue is there are so many things going on,
it’s really hard to focus on any of them. And all these scandals and all
these issues tend to just knock each other out of the news because every
day there is a new development that makes you forget about the old
development. It’s almost better for Trump to have 14 terrible things going
on than having one terrible thing going on. But the Mar-a-Lago is of a
piece of this general corruption. As you say, that’s literally just going
on an on-going basis all over the world, not only just in the United

HAYES: Why do you think this is more resonant, though? You’re sure making
a political argument in the piece, right, in terms of where this sort of
hits home with voters. Why do you think is more resonant than things like
the on-going Russia investigation, Russia scandal, which also has its own
kind of, I think kind of corruption aspect, right? When you think about
whether people are doing things nor the right reasons or wrong reasons,
which is a big part of corruption. But why do you think this more than
that, or Stormy Daniels or other things?

CHAIT: I think that Russia is complicated. I think Stormy Daniels is a
case where I think people probably knew that he was not the most faithful

HAYES: That’s fair.

CHAIT: But that was never really part of what he was selling. You know,
his racism and his sexism I think are also baked into the cake and I think
the people who voted for him were mostly OK with. They – you know, maybe
some of them liked it. Some of them didn’t like it but were willing to
tolerate it but they all knew about it. I think what they didn’t know is
that he as President he would not release his tax returns, he would
continue to get rich, and the people around him would continue to get rich
in office and they would pass a bunch of policies to help them get even
richer. None of those things are what he was promising during the
campaign. I think that’s what gives it the power.

HAYES: You’re saying in this, there’s the biggest gap between what was
promised and what’s been delivered because – I mean, it is true that all
the drain the swamp stuff which again because it had come out of a punch
line, but so much of the campaign was basically the Clintons were enmeshed
in this-this sort of corrupt croniest network of self-dealing which is just
remarkable to look back at as you look at what they’re doing now.

CHAIT: Yes. And Trump gave speeches during the campaign promising reforms
to clean up the swamp. It wasn’t just a slogan. He had specific reforms.
One of them, among several, was that no one would be able to go lobby for a
foreign government after they left the government. You couldn’t leave the
White House and then go lobby for a foreign government. Now you’ve got
people who are lobbying for foreign governments while they’re in the Trump
administration. It’s a million times worse.

HAYES: All right, Jonathan Chait, thanks for being with me.

CHAIT: Yes, thanks.

HAYES: With me now Bob Bauer, former White House Counsel of President
Barack Obama and MSNBC Political Analyst and Republican Strategist Steve
Schmidt. And Bob, the thing that unites all that to me, both the sort of
Amazon attacks this morning and the stuff we’re talking about vis-a-vis
Mar-a-Lago, is how unlawyered this whole universe seems to be to me, that
it’s like no one’s ever checking with the lawyers. The President is not
checking with the lawyers. Is this OK? Is it appropriate? Does this
expose us to some sort of legal risk?

sure it’s not being checked with lawyers, I’m just not certain that he is
listening to what his lawyers have to say. And they may have given up
giving advice that he’s not going to heed. He’s taking I think an
understanding of his role and his understanding of his relationship to
lawyers out of one world that he’s known for almost what, you know, five,
six decades of adult life and he is bringing it into a world in which it
does not apply. He’s basically bringing a certain kind of business ethic
that he’s developed and it worked for him. He’s transposing it into the
White House and he’s obviously dealing with lawyers who have to either fend
for that and fend with that or fight that off, probably unsuccessfully, or
he is cherry picking the lawyers who will give him the answer that he

HAYES: It’s almost like a social psychology experiment because you can
observe the way it has an effect on the way other people conduct
themselves, right? So it’s not just that Donald Trump acts this way, it’s
that the fish rotting from the head down that it seems like everyone in the
administration is viewing it as essentially a kind of smash and grab.

STEVE SCHMIDT, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, look, we’re in unchartered
territory here. And I don’t think that we really have pondered it as
deeply as we need to, the level of corruption. This is – this is
unprecedented in the modern history of the country. You have General Flynn
on the inaugural platform, the National Security Council. 11 minutes into
his speech is on a cell phone trying to do a nuclear deal with Russian

HAYES: I completely forgot that detail.

SCHMIDT: You have – you have Jared Kushner, the Head of Citi and Apollo
group coming into the West Wing of the White House and then loaning outside
of their normal processes and outside of their normal loan arrangements.
$500 million? This is the type of stuff that guess on in banana republics,
not in a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law. We’ve seen a
total collapse of oversight on the part of the Republican majority in the
House and Senate. Everywhere you look in this cabinet, you see
malfeasance, you see corruption, big corruption, little corruption, petty
criminals next to the major grifters and the real criminals in all of this.
And I think that when we look back on this era ten years from now, we will
see fundamental changes to so many aspects of campaign finance reform to
disclosure so this can never, ever happen again. But this season of
corruption that we’re in the middle of is real. It’s not normal. It’s
completely unprecedented, and it’s getting worse.

HAYES: You know, it reminds – what you said about reminds me of what
happens post-Watergate, right? Because what happens is Watergate is a very
specific set of crimes that are committed. But then there is this
incredible push for we basically inaugurate modern campaign finance, all
these sport of ethics reforms precisely to change the rules so that things
that may not have been outside the rules now will be outside the rules.

BAUER: Yes, that could definitely happen. But I do want to disagree with
one of Jonathan Chait’s premise.

HAYES: Please.

BAUER: And I think you sort of touched on this. I don’t agree that this
is going to wind up being more important than the Russia investigation. I
think that as you pointed out, the Russia investigation if it establishes
what many people are concerned that it might is going to uncover a form of
corruption after all that is dealing with a foreign power for personal
political gain and putting the country’s security at risk and undermining
our democratic institutions. And I don’t think that’s going to go over
terribly well if indeed that’s the case that Bob Mueller makes.

HAYES: That’s a great point and it also is part of a broader scenario,
right? We talk about Russia but to your point, right, I mean, we know that
Flynn was an unregistered foreign agent of Turkey. We have credible
accounts that the Kushner family tried to get a loan from the Qataris, and
then when they were turned down for said loan, it’s possible that Jared
Kushner advised the U.S. government to essentially apply the force of the
American state against the Qataris as a kind of punishment. This is like -
- this is corruption, not just sort of, you know, I’m on getting a condo
deal. This is essentially losing sight of what American interests are on
behalf of whatever, whoever is paying your paycheck.

SCHMIDT: Yes. People will die because of it 100 percent. It’s corruption
on an epic scale. And the scenario you just outlined with the Qataris and
Jared Kushner seems highly likely circumstantially in fact that that’s
exactly what happened. What we do know for sure as we sit here and we see
all of these revelations over the course of the last year and a half, we
know more than we used to but we don’t know very much compared to what
Robert Mueller knows. And so the notion that the Russia story, the
interference, the active measures in the election process are somehow
unrelated. They’re inexorably tied to this rotten administration and the
corruption that you see everywhere. You look at the EPA administrator
running around with a 30-person security detail, which I suspect is larger
than former President Obama’s and Bush’s. But by any clinical definition
of the word, Scott Pruitt is corrupt. This before now would not have been
tolerated in this country by a member of either a Republican or a
Democratic administration. It’s corruption.

HAYES: Just on that point, Scott Pruitt, The New York Times sort of
running down what business was before the EPA from the lobbyist couple that
was loaning – that was renting him the $50 a night condo that he didn’t
have to pay for the night he was there, which nice perk. And It turns out
the EPA approved a lot of their projects. Now, you don’t know if there is
a quid pro quo, but is precisely that’s the reason that you don’t have this

BAUER: Well, if you have the president having organizing his business
interests the way he did, then you covered that in your opening, right?
The operation of his business interest and the fairly flagrant way with
which he has maintained the total lack of transparency into how he is
running those businesses, then, of course, he sends a signal out to the
rest of the administration that the deep state is sort of an available to
have its pockets picked.

HAYES: Right. Bob Bauer and Steve Schmidt, it’s great to have you both
here in New York City. Come by any time. Next, Roger Stone claims he was
just joking when he wrote an e-mail during the campaign saying he met with
WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange. Well, Robert Mueller has some questions
about that. New details on the Mueller probe in two minutes.



STONE: I actually have communicated with Assange.

No, I have not spoken to Mr. Assange. I have not met with Mr. Assange and
I never said I had.


HAYES: Roger Stone has frequently claimed some kind of contact with
WikiLeaks or Assange only to backpedal under scrutiny and deny, deny, deny.
And now the Mueller probe is investigating. The Wall Street Journal
reporting today the Special Counsel is looking at a Roger Stone e-mail from
2016 claiming he had dinner with WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange. Stone
told the Journal the e-mail to former protege Sam Nunberg was “a joke”
which must have been absolutely hilarious because he claimed to use the
same joke to Nunberg on the phone as well.


STONE: I got him off the phone when he said do you have plans for the
weekend and I said yes, I think I’ll fly to London and have dinner with
Julian Assange. It was a joke.


HAYES: I’m clear if he was wearing the beret in the fictional dinner.
Here to help put his latest Mueller development and full contexts to the
investigation, Natasha Bertrand of the Atlantic. This has now been a
repeated shtick of Roger Stone. I’m in contact with WikiLeaks, I’ve met
with Julian Assange, oh no, I haven’t. It’s a joke. What do you make of
the latest twist in this?

he was writing in an e-mail to Sam Nunberg who was are a very close friend
of his in August 2016 that he had dinner with Julian Assange on August 3rd
when no one really knows where he was on August 3rd. He says that he was
in L.A. He sent this screenshot of a Delta flight to The Wall Street
Journal reporters claiming that that was some kind of you know, a
vindication but of course, the screenshot just said Roger and Delta
wouldn’t confirm he that he was actually on the flight. So we actually
don’t know where he was.

HAYES: Wait, you don’t book your flights with just a first name? Really?

BERTRAND: You know, it’s not a practice that I – that I adhere to but on
August 8th, then, you know, five days later, we see him speaking, kind of
bragging to this group of Florida Republicans about having communicated
with Julian Assange. So in the span of about five or six days, he has
presumably had dinner with Julian Assange. Whether or not he actually flew
to the embassy, or maybe it was some kind of Skype date, I really don’t
know. But he indicated for all intents and purposes that he had been in
touch with Assange. And of course, this was when Assange had already begun
teasing some kind of October surprise.

HAYES: Yes, just to put that timeline back up, I mean, on the fourth e-
mails, I dined with Julian Assange last night. The next day he tweets
Hillary lies about Russia involvement on DNC hack, Julian Assange is a
hero. And then three days later that quote there, I actually have
communicated with Assange and then it’s two weeks later, trust me, it will
soon be Podesta’s time in the barrel. Like it does seem – he keeps – he
keeps saying you know, oh, I have this back channel to WikiLeaks. Oh, no,
I don’t. And I think fundamentally we got to imagine that this is
something Mueller is interested why?

BERTRAND: Well, right, because this would show that there was some kind of
coordination between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks and the Trump
campaign therefore and Russia because of course, we have – the Washington
Post has the source that said that Roger Stone actually knew as early as
the spring of 2016 that WikiLeaks had these e-mails, that they had the John
Podesta e-mail, and they had the hacked DNC e-mails. Whether or not
WikiLeaks knew who their source was, whether or not they knew they got from
Russia and whether or not they told Roger Stone that the source was
Russian, that we don’t know. But of course, that’s something that Roger –
that Mueller wants to get to the bottom of this. How much did Roger Stone
know as early as the spring of 2016, and did he tell Trump or anyone on the
campaign about it.

HAYES: What I find fascinating about this is that you go back to that
Trump Tower meeting, right? And that was a revealed. We didn’t know about
it. You think, oh my goodness, did they do something there? But when you
look at the sort of slow motion of like Roger Stone coming from here and
Julian Assange coming here and the possibility of them communicating, it
almost in a weird way kind of happened nearly out in the open. And it
seems like that could just be the bridge maybe in the end that we all sort
of saw happen in real time.

BERTRAND: Right, it really fits. And of course, Roger Stone was never shy
about this. He said that Julian Assange was his hero and of course his
defense is that he believes that Assange is not a Russian agent, he is
actually a journalist.

HAYES: Right.

BERTRAND: And so he believes that that kind of exonerates him from many
wrongdoings. But of course Julian Assange had obtained e-mails that were
stolen by Russia and the Trump campaign, Donald Trump himself was briefed
by intelligence agencies in August about the fact that these e-mails came
what were hacked by the Russians and WikiLeaks was essentially an arm of
the Russian government at that point.

HAYES: So you follow this stuff incredibly closely. You report on it day
in and day out. I want to get your reaction to this one weird story which
is sort of associated which is George Papadopoulos shows up with his
fiancee at a Chicago nightclub called hydrate, which is always good advice
and a guy sidles up to him and recognizes him and they have a conversation,
which Papadopoulos tells this dude, who is at the – at the nightclub with
him, that Sessions was encouraging him the whole time when the Russians
were dangling the hacked e-mail.

BERTRAND: It’s interesting because of course Reuters has reported there
were – there are three witnesses who were at that meeting with Sessions
and Papadopoulos that said no, Sessions actually did not push back when
Papadopoulos suggested a meeting between Trump and Russian representatives.
Then again, it is very, very difficult to believe that Papadopoulos would
have kind of run his mouth to a complete stranger at a bar. I mean,
there’s the London meeting, of course as kind of a precedent to that but
that was with an Australian diplomat.

HAYES: Right, I just want to be clear that like this entire investigation
gets started because Papadopoulos drunk and he runs his mouth to an
Australian diplomat who ends up learning American intelligence.

BERTRAND: Right, it would be really stupid of him, that’s all I’ll say to
run his mouth about this to a total stranger in a bar. And of course his
wife now Simona Mangiante was very adamant about this being a complete lie
so we’ll just have to see where that goes.

HAYES: All right, Natasha Bertrand, thank you very much.

BERTRAND: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Next, thousands of teachers refused to enter their classrooms today
instead turning out a massive protest against – across Oklahoma and
Kentucky. Those remarkable scenes, right after this.


HAYES: Every public school in Kentucky was closed today as teachers
marched on the state capitol to protest proposed pension cuts. And this,
this was the scene at the state capitol in Oklahoma where thousands of
teachers and students and their allies demonstrated today for more school
funding and for better pay. Inspired by the successful strike last month
in West Virginia, teachers in red states are organizing themselves in
social media, walking off the job to protest what they say are poor
conditions in the classrooms, where textbooks are falling apart, and wages,
that according to one teacher forced her to go to a food pantry just to get


JENNIFER THORNTON, TEACHER: When I drove in to park, I drove past my own
students at the after-school program on their playground and they waved all
smiling at me and I thought I can’t – I’m so embarrassed. I’m so
embarrassed. I should not have to do this. I have two degrees. I have
student loans and bachelor’s degrees and 14 years’ experience. I should
not have to come ask for food.


HAYES: Dina Goldstein is National Correspondent for The New York Times,
author of The Teacher Wars: A History of America’s Most Embattled
Profession which is a fantastic book, I have to say. Pedro Noguera is
Professor of Education, Director at the Center for Transformation at
Schools at UCLA, and Dave Jamieson is a Labor Reporter for HuffPost. And
Dave, you have been covering these strikes, talking to teachers. What is
going on?

DAVE JAMIESON, LABOR REPORTER, HUFFPOST: Well, you know, this is really
about a lack of investment in public schools from the teachers’ standpoint.
In a lot of the states, the math is actually pretty simple. You know,
everybody had to rein in school spending during the great recession but in
the states where we’re now seeing these revolts, you look at West Virginia,
Oklahoma, Arizona, these are states that actually during our recovery went
on to cut taxes as well. So you’ve had this falling revenue, and now
there’s no money to give teachers. And so you have educators who have gone
four years, six years, ten years without a meaningful raise and they’re
pretty tired of it. So the pay is just one part of it. I mean, you talk
to these folks, the first thing they bring up is how their textbooks are
falling apart, how they can’t keep teachers in their schools, how teachers
are leaving for other states that pay better and they really see it as a

HAYES: You know, the austerity, Dina, is so severe. This stat is the one
that blows my mind. 20 percent of Oklahoma schools have four-day weeks.
That’s like forget labor conditions and whether teachers are being paid,
like that is just not sufficient to educate a populace.

shocking. And imagine the bind that puts parents in to find child care on
that fifth day of the week. It is – it is a truly radical situation
because of the austerity budgeting, there is no textbooks. I visited
schools in Tulsa that are rationing paper for teachers and students. So
this is something that parents and kids are feeling. It’s not just about
the teacher’s salary.

HAYES: And do you get the sense there was – I mean, one of the things we
saw in West Virginia which was really interesting was you know, West
Virginia is a state that’s got a very you know, storied labor history. But
it’s also a very conservative state. You saw a lot of support for the
teachers there from students and parents. Did you get the same sense when
you were in Oklahoma?

GOLDSTEIN: So this walkout will not work without parent and community
support. And I think what teachers are worried about in Oklahoma is that
the legislature did vote last week and the governor signed a bill that
would supposedly give them a $6,000 raise. And some folks are saying hey,
isn’t that enough for you? Why you asking for more. Now, teachers are
saying we want more for the kids. We want more money for textbooks, to
have those five-day school weeks so they’re still on strike.

HAYES: An insane extravagance. Pedro, you know, there’s a huge
conversation constantly about teachers unions. It’s been sort of the
center of the conversation. These states you’ve got the sort of
educational associations, but largely these are places that don’t have
collective bargaining where this is done as a kind of grassroots organizing

PEDRO NOGUERA, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION: I think that’s what makes this so
impressive. And it’s likely that we’ll see this happen in other states as
well, because throughout the south and other right-to-work states, places
like Kansas, there have been cuts in education, and teachers have been
barely scraping by. And I think they’ve seen from the success in West
Virginia that collective action does make a difference, even in the right
so-called right-to-work states.

HAYES: You know, this idea of austerity is really central here to what
Jamieson – David Jamison was saying, Dana, that the idea that we’re still
living with the great recession, that stuff got cut to the bone, and then
when the recovery comes back, the state houses get to choose what they’re
doing with that budget surplus. A lot of places still working off the
2010, 2011 template.

GOLDSTEIN: Oklahoma has a really historically low income taxes, very, very
low production taxes on oil
and gas. You know, they’re beginning to say, hey, let’s raise those
production taxes a little bit, but it’s still much lower than some other
states with an energy sector.

So yeah, this is a state that has really had a tax cut orthodoxy. And now
the public and teachers
are saying hold on a second, maybe we went too far with it.

HAYES: David, what are the politics of this like? You know, these are
states where public teachers are in these states are – I don’t know if you
polled them, but are probably maybe a majority of Republicans, or certainly
something like 50-50, a lot of Trump voters. This is not like a bastion of
lefty activism. What are the politics around this like?

JAMIESON: Yeah, it’s very interesting. As you said, it is definitely a
mix. I’ve talked to people who stand on both sides of the aisle when they
vote here, but I think there is a broad agreement that the funding has been
really lacking. And there is tremendous anger directed at – and these
we’re generally talking all Republican-controlled, each branch of
government here.

And so it’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out in November.
You know, talking with teachers in West Virginia, I talked to some who
really until now had never been politically active. And they were saying
afterwards after their victory, they were saying we’re really going to hold
people’s feet to if fire come November.

So, any – you look at Arizona where there is going to be an open Senate
seat. I think there really could be broad political ramifications from

HAYES: Do you agree with that, Pedro?

NOGUERA: I do. I do. I think that teachers as an organized force, their
ability to influence politics at the state level, at the local level, is
going to be very significant in the next election. And as we said, we’ve
seen these cuts, but we’ve also seen attacks on teachers. For the last
several years in
the name of reform, teachers and unions have been blamed for the state of
public education. And what we’ve completely ignored is that the conditions
in our schools have been allowed to deteriorate, and we put our kids in
very substandard conditions. And teachers are speaking out about that as

It’s ironic at a time when they want to arm teachers, they don’t want to
pay them salaries that they are clearly deserving of.

HAYES: You know, there is a really interesting gender dynamic here as
well. It’s something that you write about in Teacher Wars, which is a
phenomenal book about the sort of gendered nature of the labor of teaching
for years. And when you look at those pictures and when you think about
the sort of core political resistance in this era and a lot of political
activation, it is a lot of women who are sort of driving this political
militancy we’ve seen.

GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, this profession is three quarters female. And as I talk
to teachers across the country that are participating in these protests,
they’re saying they are inspired by #metoo. They’re inspired by Black
Lives Matter. They’re inspired by all sorts of resistance movements that
really sprung up since President Trump was elected.

You know, we pay teachers so little historically because we assume they
have a spouse that
makes more money, but when I’m talking to teachers in Oklahoma, that’s not
true. Someone’s teacher might be a house painter, a firefighter. They’re
not making a ton more money than a teacher or they may be making less.

So the teacher’s wage should be a living wage and it needs to be a living
wage. That’s the message I’m hearing.

HAYES: All right, Dana Goldstein, Pedro Nogueira, and Dave Jamieson,
thanks for joining me.

GOLDSTEIN: Thank you.

HAYES: Still to come, the propaganda machine earning a personal shout-out
from the president himself. Plus, tonight’s Thing One, Thing Two starts


HAYES: Thing One tonight, is the Department of the Interior under Trump’s
Secretary Ryan Zinke editing scientific studies to remove mention of human
activity of climate change? Hawaii’s Senator Mazie Hirono asked Secretary
Zinke last month, referring specifically to reports the Interior Department
removed climate change language from a news release.


SEN. MAZIE HIRONO, (D) HAWAII: Your department released the press release
on this report, but it excluded the reference to global climate change
drives sea level rise. This is why I ask the question, that reports that
use the terms climate change, do you edit those out? Do you censor?

report itself you’re speaking was edited at all. The press release could
have been interpreted, because it is a
press release and not the report. But any – any – any – any reference,
any allegation that one of the reports…

HIRONO: Excuse me, I have to correct you, Mr. Secretary, because the
paper’s abstract did
have that sentence, which you did, you excluded from your press release.

ZINKE: There is no incident, no incident at all that I know that we ever
changed a comma on a document itself. Now we may have on a press release,
this is how we announce it. But I don’t know of any document we have
changed. And I challenge you, any member, to find a document that we’ve
actually changed on a report.


HAYES: You hear that? Secretary Zinke’s indignant challenge to find
evidence of the Interior Department deleting climate change references from
a specific scientific report.

Well, that evidence is Thing Two in 60 seconds.


HAYES: So, today the nonprofit investigative journalist organization
Reveal came out with a stunning report that officials at the National Park
Service, an agency within the Interior Department deleted every mention of
human’s roles in causing climate change in drafts of a long-awaited report
on sea level rise and storm surge. And they have the receipts. The drafts
they reviewed included tracked changes, like on February 6 of this year the
phrase “due to anthropogenic climate change, meaning human impact on the
climate was deleted entirely from the executive summary.

Suddenly, the report’s first sentence simply says sea level rise presents
challenges and no
longer identifies human activity as the cause. And that’s just one of
eight changes in the report. At one point, several sentences are deleted
that outline human activities that are impacting climate change.

The Interior Department told Reveal that no one was available to comment,
but Secretary Zinke
must be shocked to learn this, because those edits were made just one month
before he was on Capitol Hill testifying under oath.


ZINKE: I don’t know of any document we have changed, and I challenge you,
any member, to find a document that we’ve actually changed on a report.



HAYES: Good news and bad news today for the residents of Mayflower,

That was April 1, 2013, the debut edition of All In” with Chris Hayes on
MSNBC. And tonight, five years, one day, maybe a few pounds later,
frankly, no one is more surprised than I am that we’re still here, that I’m
still here talking to you through this camera. It has been quite a ride,
one that has taken us all across the country, reporting from no less than
28 states. We brought you the site of the
biggest breaking news stories from Ferguson to Baltimore to Paris, France.
The show won an Emmy award and has been nominated five times. Our Back to
Baltimore special was selected as a Peabody Award finalist. And then we’ve
done a bunch of stuff that really should have won awards, like that time
the new Star Wars trailer came out and we watched it Mystery Science
Theater 3,000 style, or our hard-hitting series Bizarro Congress hosted by
me in a fake mustache.

We had a Fourth of July cookout show on the roof of 30 Rock. And of course
the All In 2016 Fantasy Candidate Draft, which predicted exactly nothing
about this current state of our government.

It’s fair the say the show has evolved a bit since we launched into a
period in 2013 when frankly interest in news and national politics had
absolutely nose-dived. Barack Obama had just been reelected. Washington
was deadlocked and stagnant. And the national politics were frankly kind
of dull.

Everything has changed in the last five years, except us. We’re still
here, and that is thanks to my amazing team behind the scenes, and it’s
thanks to you at home. We quite literally would not be
here without you, the most loyal viewers in cable news.

Thank you and happy anniversary.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The sharing of biased and false news has become all too
common on social media. More alarming, some media outlets publish these
same fake stories without checking
facts first.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The sharing of biased…

CROWD: …false news is all too common on social media.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.


HAYES: Local news anchors across the country read the same promo last
month on the dangers of bias and fake news. The script, supplied by
Sinclair Broadcast Group, the largest owner, or operator of local TV
stations in the country. Over 190 of them, 22 of which are NBC affiliates,
Sinclair is in the middle of a deal that would land them even more TV
stations, reaching more than 70 percent of American households.

The media company has long pursued a strongly conservative editorial line.
Jared Kushner once boasted the Trump campaign struck a deal with Sinclair
for better coverage, which helps explain why the president defended
Sinclair media today, even while attacking Amazon, whose CEO Jeff Bezos
owns The Washington Post.

MSNBc contributor Josh Barro, senior editor at Business Insider, Amy
Siskind is author of The List, a week by week reckoning of Trump’s first
year, and Christina Greer is a professor of political science and fellow at
NYU’s McSilver Institute.

All right, you’ve got two tweets from the president today. He’s like
attacking Amazon, clearly because of The Washington Post. In fact, I’m not
impugning that he says #amazonwashingtonpost. It’s very clear.

And then you’ve got him praising Sinclair. And I can sort of go two ways,
like, presidents, political figures always praise media they like and
castigate ones they don’t. Or there’s something really creepy about this,

AMY SISKIND, AUTHOR, THE LIST: He’s extreme. I mean, since week one of my
list when he’s been attacking The New York Times and SNL and the cast of
Hamilton. He has a pattern of silencing dissent. And also we have seen
the landscape of media change since he’s taken over. Time Inc is now owned
by the Koch Brothers. He’s blocking the merger of AT&T and Time Warner to
get back at CNN, and by the way Rupert Murdoch wants to buy them. We’ve
had conservative media buy – conservative billionaires buy local media in
New York and L.A. and shut it down.

So, pretty quickly in the weeks that I’ve been tracking him, he’s changed
the landscape of the media and he’s trying to silence the voices that are

HAYES: Although, does it silence it, or does it give him more oxygen?

JOSH BARRO, HOST, MAJORITY REPORT: The president has a track record of
complaining about this. I don’t think that he has a track record of
silencing dissent. I mean, it is a great time right now for The New York
Times with subscribership up and you’re seeing viewership up on this
and many other networks.

So, I think, you know, the president complains. The question is what is he
doing policy-wise that is different or more nefarious than we’ve seen in
the past? You know, these FCC changes, regarding Sinclair, look very
similar to the policy agenda from the Bush administration and people
have differing opinions about the way broadcast television should be
regulated, but you know, I look
at Sinclair in 70 percent or so of American households, NBC News reaches
100 percent of American households. This network reaches about 85 percent
of American households.

So, I don’t – I think that that’s – there is a zone for reasonable
disagreement there rather than that being, you know, necessarily some
conspiracy. And the AT&T/Timewarner merger, I think there are really good
arguments you mostly hear from the left about why the market power that’s
created when you let companies own the cable wires and the cable networks
be the same companies. So, I think you know you have to look at these on a
case by case basis and the Justice Department advanced that rather than the
White House because they felt they had a good substantive argument that
they could make in the courts about it.

CHRISTINA GREER, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: So, this is incredibly dangerous for
our democracy. I mean, it is. Because the thing is we also know that this
is the most emotional president we have ever seen, and so a lot of these
decisions are based on personal reasons. These aren’t substantive reasons
where he thinks that this is a long-term viable solution for American
democracy. He fundamentally doesn’t care about that.

So, when we read the First Amendment of the Constitution, we know that we
should have a free media, and the fact this president consistently tweets
about people he likes versus people he doesn’t like, ultimately it does go
into policy and ultimately I think he does sort of change the narrative and
sort of us going forward or lack thereof.

HAYES: To Josh’s point, I thought today with the Amazon stuff, it was like
a speech act. Like the – him tweeting was the action. Like that does –
that is intimidation. It just frankly is. It is like we will come at you.
We are going to come at you. We don’t like what your newspaper does. You
don’t have to do anything. They don’t have to like have any policy things.
They don’t have to reinstate the
sales tax or whatever it is, for that not to have an effect. Like that is
intimidation, I think, frankly.

GREER: It definitely is. I mean, look at the stock market ,right. I
mean, and granted it might just be a blip, but this president knows that
his words or his tweets can move the stock market. He knows that pretty
soon he’ll be able to move ships, right, with just random tweets about Iran
and North
Korea, which is much more dangerous.

But I think also, no, he doesn’t like Bezos because of The Washington Post,
but we also know that this is such a fragile, fragile man. That we know
that part of that is also Bezos has more money than he does. And this is a
long-standing beef.

SISKIND: And he’s been going after companies – it’s basically people have
been shorting their stock ahead of him attacking companies. So, that’s

But the AT&T merger is really an unusual thing, and actually AT&T going
after the DOJ and accusing Trump of being – having his hands in it is
really unusual, as is, you know, he is literally now – you know, any bit
of dissent against him he does try to silence. And there are voices
speaking up, but
it’s a shrinking pool. We have to remember time…

HAYES: Is it a shrinking pool?

SISKIND: It is a shrinking pool.

BARRO: No. It is a growing…

SISKIND: His Gothamness is gone. His D.A. info is gone. Those are bought
conservative billionaires and shut down, two of the biggest websites in New
York, the second largest newspaper in L.A. bought by conservative
billionaires and shut down.

BARRO: The idea that you can’t hear people objecting to and complaining
about Donald Trump is just ludicrous. I mean, look at the media
environment right now, it is extremely robust. And then you see people out
on the streets. And then you see…

HAYES: I disagree about extremely robust.

BARRO: At the national level it’s extremely robust. I think there are big
issues with local news…

SISKIND: 73 percent of households. But for many (inaudible) because most
of the people get their news from the local media.

GREER: And when we see this happening, when we see the local media being
agents of propaganda and the vast majority of Americans…


BARRO: But when you have – when the reason that people are bothered by
Sinclair is that they don’t like the content on the Sinclair stations, and
then you have a national policy that’s aimed at addressing that, that is
fundamentally a content-based policy…

HAYES: Here’s is my thing about Sinclair. I find this sort of cryptoness
of it creeping, like, right, if you say, hey, we’re – this is who we are.
We are essentially a conservative broadcaster. You know, there is
something to me bad faith and disingenuous about of like – also, a, and b,
it’s also the lack of branding, that I also think it’s weird. It’s like
I’m watching Como News, that’s my local Seattle station, or I’m watching
Madison and all of a sudden there is this remote person with an agenda
saying you must run this piece. You have to run this Boris Epstein (ph)
commentary that is fundamentally has a kind of disingenuous to it that I
think is…

BARRO: And I don’t think that’s going to work in the long run, because I
think people are on to it. I mean, I think there’s also…

HAYES: Well, that’s a question.

SISKIND: It’s been working. It’s out there.

BARRO: Which is it’s very low quality. It’s very low quality, like Boris
Epstein is supposed to be…

HAYES: But they are expanding like crazy.

SISKIND: It’s past from the 1970s he turned it over, that was one of the
first things the FCC chair did was take back a law from the 1970s that
capped ownership, so Sinclair could expand to 72 percent.

The second thing he did was repeal net neutrality. So, if you don’t think
there is an effort to silence dissent, you’re not following the news.

HAYES: Well, let me say on the first thing, though, to Josh’s point, those
kind of caps, right, are a long-standing conservative Republican
deregulatory agenda. And Colin Powell’s son, Michael Powell, when he was
the FCC basically did the same thing, right. So, it’s like, it’s a little
hard sometimes to disentangle he’s acting like some authoritarian. He’s
trying to quash debate from, yes, Republicans and conservatives believe in
media concentration.

GREER: This is fundamentally different, because we know this particular
administration, this president never had a board of advisers. He’s never
answered to anyone. And he doesn’t believe that he has to answer to the
American public. So, that’s why it’s a little different this time around.
And the fact that people don’t know that this is sort of some long-handed
agenda that’s coming into their living rooms where they just think that
it’s, you know, their local friend saying these things where it’s part of a
much larger, deeper – and this is..

HAYES: That I totally agree with.

GREER: …conspiracy here. This is a much deeper agenda to move the
country to think a certain way about the media. And that is the most
damaging thing that the Trump administration has been able to do is to call
into question truth and facts from people who deliver the news.

BARRO: I think the most damaging thing for Sinclair is going to be this
thing where the idea that somebody in Maryland is telling your local news
anchor what to say. If I were running a competing station to Sinclair in
these markets, and they can own two of the top four, they can’t own four of
the top four, I would be saying our station is local, that station is being
run by some guy in

SISKIND: It’s been happening for a year.

BARRO: I don’t think – I don’t think people necessarily know which of the
affiliates in their markets are owned by Sinclair.

HAYES: They don’t. No one knows.

BARRO: But I will say people are likely to know that…

HAYES: I will say one…

GREER: For an entire year.

HAYES: One of the affiliates in Madison I think is the only affiliate who
said they’re not running it and they sort of made this big stand today.

The question about whether those are functioning competitive markets is a
whole other questionable, which I’m a little skeptical of.

Amy Siskind, Josh Barro, and Christina Greer, thank you all.

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


Copy: Content and programming copyright 2018 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2018 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