Comey memo: Trump lied about 2013 Moscow trip. TRANSCRIPT: 04/20/2018. All In with Chris Hayes

Guests:
Julia Ioffe, Michael Isikoff, Tom Perez, Bernie Sanders
Transcript:

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
Date: April 20, 2018
Guest: Julia Ioffe, Michael Isikoff, Tom Perez, Bernie Sanders

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on ALL IN

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Getting along with Russia is
a good thing, not a bad thing.

HAYES: New revelations about Trump`s curious relationship to Vladimir
Putin.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: He told you that he had a personal conversation
with President Putin about hookers?

JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, FBI: Yes.

HAYES: Tonight, why Trump changed his story about his Moscow trip and a
bombshell about Michael Flynn.

MICHAEL FLYNN, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Yes, that`s right! Lock
her up!

HAYES: Then the Democratic Party files a federal lawsuit against Russia,
WikiLeaks, and the Trump campaign.

TRUMP: Russia, if you`re listening

HAYES: The head of the DNC, Tom Perez, joins me exclusively tonight.
Plus, did the FBI leak information to Rudy Giuliani?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s got a surprise or two that you`re going to hear
about in the next few days.

HAYES: James Comey confirms he was investigating.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: America!

HAYES: And a check in on the President`s work day.

TRUMP: Golf, golf, golf, golf, more, more.

HAYES: When “ALL IN” starts right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. Vladimir Putin was
the first world leader to call Donald Trump after he was sworn in as it
will 45th President of the United States. And the President was incensed
that staff did not tell him right away, forcing him to delay returning
Putin`s call. That is just one of the revelations in the Comey memos, the
Former FBI Director`s contemporaneous accounts of his conversations with
the President, which have now been made public, thanks to Republican
efforts to shake the mount of the Justice Department. Now, presumably, it
was an effort, they hoped, would vindicate the President and discredit
Comey.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREGG JARRETT, HOST, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK: There was absolutely no
evidence here of any obstruction of justice. There`s nothing else in
there, no red flags, no smoking gun that would incriminate the President.
And so as Trey Gowdy, who had seen this several months ago said it`s the
best Exhibit A defense of President Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Not sure about that because like the Nunez memo of this latest
gambit by the President`s allies has backfired in a spectacular fashion.
The memos, if anything, bolster the credibility of Comey`s account, showing
that his story about his interactions with the President has been
remarkably consistent. The demand for loyalty, the urging to let Michael
Flynn go, the pressure on Comey to publicly clear the President in the
Russia probe. The memos also provide a new window on the President`s
bizarre and perplexing relationship to Vladimir Putin. And on his utter
fixation with the most salacious claim in the Steele Dossier, you know the
one I`m talking about. According to Comey recounting his private dinner
with the President on January 27th, 2017, the President said Flynn had just
informed him about the call from Putin while British Prime Minister Theresa
May was visiting earlier that same day. Now, Putin`s name is redacted in
the memo, but multiple reports have confirmed he was the leader in
question. “It was then the President learned of blank`s call and he
confronted Flynn about it. Flynn said the return call was scheduled for
Saturday, which prompted a heated reply from the President that six days
was not appropriate period of time to return a call from the blank of the
country like blank.” The delay in getting back to Putin which clearly got
the President quite upset prompted the President to suspect that Flynn had,
“judgment issues,” according to Comey`s memo. Comey also recounts that the
President kept bringing up what he called, “the golden showers” thing,
insisting that it could not have been true, because you know what, he
didn`t even stay the night in Moscow. “He said he had spoken to people who
had been on the Miss Universe trip with him and that they had reminded him,
he didn`t stay overnight in Russia for that. He said he arrived in the
morning, did events, and then showered and dressed at the pageant hotel, he
didn`t say the hotel name and left for the pageant. Afterwards, he
returned only to get his things because they departed for New York by plane
that same night, very detailed story. Now, the President told Comey that
story about not staying overnight in Moscow, hence, not being able to
participate in the golden showers thing. He told him that story at least
twice. Didn`t stay overnight, nothing could have happened. But here`s the
thing, we know that`s not true. He stayed at least one night in Moscow and
we know it from news accounts and social media postings and because an NBC
News crew was there with MSNBC`s Thomas Roberts, who co-hosted the pageant.
This is a photo that Thomas` producer posted in Instagram November 8th,
2013, and there`s Donald Trump on the right. It wasn`t until the following
day which, of course, would be November 9th, that Trump sat down to tape an
interview with Thomas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THOMAS ROBERTS, MSNBC HOST: Do you have a relationship with Vladimir
Putin, a conversational relationship or anything that you feel you have
sway or influence over his government?

TRUMP: I do have a relationship and I can tell you that he`s very
interested in what we`re doing here today. He`s probably very interested
in what you and I are saying today and I`m sure he`s going to be seeing it
in some form, but I do have a relationship with him.

HAYES: Julia Ioffe Contributing Writer for The Atlantic and Evelyn Farkas
former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, now an MSNBC National
Security Analyst. Julia, what is up with this relationship?

JULIA IOFFE, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Well, you know, Donald
Trump did say he showered in Moscow, right, so.

HAYES: Oh, come on!

IOFFE: OK. You know, I think it`s interesting and what – you know, when
I read these memos, I was looking at it from the Russian point of view and
you know Vladimir Putin is good. This is – this is a daft move on his
part. He`s done it before, you know, being the first guy in the door to
congratulate. He did this to George W. Bush. He was the first foreign
leader to call George W. Bush on 9/11, something that Putin make assure to
point out. He wants to be the first one in the door, greasing up his
subject.

HAYES: Yes, that`s interesting. So this – what you`re saying –it`s a
move and also not necessarily indicative of anything else. Evelyn, but
what there is, is it`s clear that Trump is furious that Flynn doesn`t let
him know.

EVELYN FARKAS, MSNBC NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Right. I mean, actually,
there, Chris, I kind of sympathize with the President that –

HAYES: Agreed.

FARKAS: – six days is a long time. And if I were his boss, I`d be
annoyed. Why is he – why is he withholding that? So it does – it does -
- there is merit to that point. And I also agree with Julia, you know,
this is a vintage Putin move. You know he did it with George W. Bush and
really did butter up George W. Bush, you know at that time. That was right
before George W. Bush then met with Putin said, I looked in his eyes and
you know I saw his soul and of course, later, John McCain said, there`s no
soul. So you know he`s a KGB agent and he knows his audience but Donald
Trump also, again, in that interview with Thomas, he`s showing how
sensitive he is to what Putin thinks of him which, again, is sort of odd.

HAYES: Yes, that is the sort of through-line here. We also have this
reporting, Julia, from Reuters, that says, the Russians are saying the
President invited Putin to the White House multiple times during that
famous do not congratulate call. U.S. President Donald Trump invited
Vladimir Putin to the U.S. during the phone call. He said he will be glad
to see Putin in the White House. The news agency quoted Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov saying Trump returned to the subject of an invitation a
couple of times during the call last month that Russia was now expecting
Trump to formalize the invitation. What do you make of that?

IOFFE: Well again this is a classic Russian move that these details come
not from the American press, not from the White House, but from the Russian
press. They troll so hard and they`re trying to show, look – I mean no
there – I`m serious. They`re trying to show, well, you know anytime
they`re in the doghouse, they`re like, well, your President likes us. Your
President invited us, you know there`s so many things we found out from the
Russian side about what our President has said to them and not from the
A1merican side and the Russians know that, and they`re doing it on purpose
to highlight, again, to kind of highlight and attenuate these tensions in
our society.

HAYES: That`s interesting. Evelyn, I want to ask you about the Syria
strikes and the fallout from that. Senator Menendez said something to me
the other night that sort of struck me and I`ve been kind of puzzling over
it. I want to play that and get your reaction, take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ, (D), NEW JERSEY: I don`t know if this was carefully
choreographed, because you have a strike against three facilities, the
Russians don`t activate their defense missiles against us. The Syrians
shoot their missiles after our missiles land and you wonder, wait a minute,
was this is a choreograph Kabuki show?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Now Sky news reports Russia says that they were told the U.S. where
they could bomb in Syria, which there`s some level in which that seems like
a natural way of avoiding some massive escalation, but what do you think of
that?

FARKAS: I think it`s something a little short of that. So they have this
joint coordination mechanism, the militaries do, where they talk to one
another, so we`re not inadvertently shooting at one another, although I
should know that on the night of February 7th to the 8th, there was
shooting between Russians and Americans, where Russians died. But, you
know, generally speaking, we try to avoid this. And you know, unless we`re
attacked, which is what happened with the Russians. So I think that we
gave enough information that the Russians felt, you know, secure enough to
decide not to use their defenses because they have their air defenses, they
could have employed against us. And they didn`t. That would have been
escalatory from our perspective.

HAYES: Julia?

IOFFE: That said, this is very different than what the U.S. did around
this time last year. If you recall, they gave – you know, they didn`t
give the Russians or the Syrians much warning at all. This time, Trump
tweeting back and forth, will he, won`t he, I will, I won`t. The Syrians
and Russians had plenty of time to move everything out of the way and to
make the strike look even more kind of ceremonial and performative than it
would have been otherwise.

HAYES: All right, Julia Ioffe, and Evelyn Farkas. Thanks to you both.

FARKAS: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Michael Isikoff, Chief Investigative Correspondent for Yahoo! News
and Co-Author of Russian Roulette, The Inside Story of Putin`s War in
America and the Election of Donald Trump, NBC News National Security
Contributor Frank Figliuzzi, was the Assist Director of Counter
Intelligence of FBI. Frank let me start with you. One of the things that
comes out in the Comey memo is Reince Priebus directly asking James Comey
if there`s a FISA warrant on Michael Flynn. This is when Reince Priebus is
the Chief of Staff of the President of the United States, Michael Flynn is
the National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, asking
the FBI Director, basically, are you tapping the phones of our National
Security Adviser and Comey basically appears to say yes. What do you think
of that?

FRANK FIGLIUZZI, NBC NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: Well, first, I
can almost feel the cringe that Comey must have experienced because that –
what we`re seeing throughout these memos, Chris, is just a rookie White
House that doesn`t know the ground rules. So coming right out and asking,
hey, have you got a secret, clandestine wiretap on our guy, not a good move
but Comey tries to explain it. But you can see inherent in this is a
concern about Flynn that they`ve got a bad guy in their midst. That is he
a liability? Do we need to jettison him now? How bad is this? So the
wheels are turning and spinning and we`re seeing evidence of that in the
Comey memos.

HAYES: You know, Michael, I can`t – tell me if I`m wrong. Is it news
that to have it confirmed that there was a FISA warrant and a tap on
Michael Flynn?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT, YAHOO! NEWS: I don`t
think we knew that there was a FISA warrant on Michael Flynn. In fact, I`m
not sure there was. We know that he was interviewed by the FBI very
shortly after he became National Security Adviser and they had concerns
about his – there were issues about how truthful he was in the FBI
interview, but I`m not sure there would have been grounds at that point for
a FISA warrant. Maybe Frank has other ideas on that, but nothing on the
public record.

HAYES: I guess my question, one of the things that came through from this,
to Frank`s point, do we – do you feel like we have a clear and full
understanding of what it was that was making people worried about Michael
Flynn in the national security apparatus of the United States government?
Michael?

ISIKOFF: Yes, I think if you go back and look at the criminal charges that
were filed against Flynn, there were activities during the transition where
he was talking to Ambassador Kislyak of Russia about Russia sanctions and
suggesting that they would take a new look at them. But also, the
activities at the U.N. about the resolution condemning Israel about
settlements in which the United States – the Obama administration had
decided was beginning to abstain. And the Flynn and other Trump transition
officials were actively calling ambassadors from the U.N. Security Council,
telling them not to vote for that and telling them that the Trump
Administration would have a very different policy. Flynn was part of that.
That really was interfering in U.S. foreign policy during a time that Trump
was not yet president. So, you know, there were Logan Act-like concerns
about that activity. And I think that more than anything drove the inquiry
into Flynn.

HAYES: Frank, how – I mean, I guess, how common would it be that someone
that close to the President would be the subject of this concern?

FIGLIUZZI: Well, if, indeed, it`s true, and we can`t erase that redaction,
black marker, and figure out what`s under it. But if Comey said yes –

HAYES: Well, some of them you can, apparently, actually, after yesterday.
But that one we can`t.

FIGLIUZZI: Yes. But if, indeed, they had a FISA on the National Security
Adviser, unprecedented, as is most of what we`re talking about here. But
there`s something we also need to remember. We do know, and there`s been
reporting that the FBI was providing defensive briefings, as early as
during the campaign, to senior campaign officials in the Trump camp. And
so what we don`t know in terms of timeline is whether they had already had
defensive briefings that may have even hinted that Flynn was a problem. My
guess is that they did. And my guess is that very senior officials, likely
the Assistant Director of Counterintelligence at the Bureau, likely told
senior campaign officials if not Trump himself, you`ve got some issues,
you`ve got people in your camp meeting with some real persons of interest
and you need to watch it.

HAYES: That`s really interesting. Michael Isikoff and Frank Figliuzzi,
thanks for joining me.

FIGLIUZZI: You`re welcome.

HAYES: Coming up, the Democratic Party just filed a sweeping lawsuit
against Russia, WikiLeaks, and the Trump campaign accusing them of hacking
the DNC and a conspiracy to influence the election. My exclusive interview
with the head of the DNC, Tom Perez, you won`t see this anywhere else and
that`s after just two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Surprising everyone today, the Democratic National Committee filed
a huge far-reaching lawsuit against the Trump campaign, Russian officials
and WikiLeaks accusing them of interfering with the 2016 Presidential
Election. The 66-page complaint alleges that “the conspiracy constituted
an act of previously unimaginable treachery, the campaign of a presidential
nominee of a major party in legal with a hostile foreign power. Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
weren`t alerted about the lawsuit until the DNC was about to file. Tom
Perez, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and he joins me
now. Chairman, why now?

TOM PEREZ, CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Why now? Three
reasons, Chris. Number one, we don`t know how long the criminal
proceedings will take and nor do we want to rush that. And so, we have to
file in order to preserve our rights under the civil justice system,
statute of limitations, things of that nature. So we have that legal
imperative. Number two, over the course of the last year, I`ve done my
homework. A year ago, it was clear to me that the Russians had hacked the
DNC and they did it with the purpose of helping the Donald Trump and
hurting the Democrats but we didn`t have the evidence a year ago connecting
the Russians and the Trump campaign. We have that evidence now and that`s
why we`ve moved forward. And thirdly, Chris, I`m worried about the 2018
elections. There is no accountability for what the Russians did. And when
they do things with impunity, because this administration won`t hold them
accountable, we`ve got to hold them accountable. That`s what the civil
justice system is about. It`s about accountability. It`s about
deterrence. Our democracy is on fire and we have to preserve our
democracy. We`ve got to preserve full and fair elections and that`s a big
part of what this is about.

HAYES: But the enemies aren`t going to be held accountable before the 2018
midterms, right? I mean, I`ve been around civil litigation a little bit,
and boy does that take a while?

PEREZ: Well, absolutely, we won`t finish the case before now. But we want
to send a very, very clear signal. If you want to mess with elections
here, they are going to be consequences. We are raising the cost of your
interference. We know that this administration is Putin`s poodle. And so
they`re not going to do anything. So we will continue to act. If you want
to do that, if you`re going to punch us, quite frankly, Chris, we`re going
to punch back. And that`s what this lawsuit is about. We are protecting
our democracy. When you do after the right to vote, when you go after the
institution of elections, that is the essence of our democracy. So this
wasn`t simply an attack on the DNC. This was an attack on our democracy.

HAYES: Just a few of the reactions from some of the people that are named
here. Roger Stone says it`s bogus, it`s meritless, it`s baseless, based on
conjecture, speculation, and supposition. Some lawyers will have to be
sanctioned for wasting the court`s time. The Trump Campaign says the Trump
Campaign will be prepared to leverage the discovery process, explore the
DNC`s now-secret records about the actual corruption they perpetrated, and
of course, the President tweeting that – it`s good news that it will now
counter for the DNC server that they refuse to give to the FBI. And then
he said, the Wendy Wasserman Schultz server. I think he then later
corrected to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a document held by the Pakistani
mystery man in Clinton e-mails. The people you`ve sued have gotten your
attention, I guess.

PEREZ: Well, I mean, I saw that response, and it was kind of a greatest
hits of all of their wild conspiracy theories. And here`s the thing for
me, Chris. I spent 12 years or so at the Justice Department. They were
some of the best years of my professional life. I worked as a career
prosecutor under Republican and Democratic administrations. I believe in
the civil justice system. This case now goes before an Article 3 Judge.
It`s not trial by Twitter, it`s trial in a court of law, where fake news
and the things that they`re talking about, that are just so – you know,
unfactual –

HAYES: But what they`re saying – wait a second. What they`re saying and
I want you to be clear on this. What they`re saying is this is
fundamentally a political messaging document. It is not a serious lawsuit.

PEREZ: Well, I`ll tell you, Chris, this is not about partnership, it`s
about patriotism. And I`ll tell you one other thing. When the lawsuit was
filed by the DNC against the Nixon campaign, that was the exact response of
the Nixon campaign and John Mitchell and other folks who later became
convicted felons. And we saw what happened in Watergate and we will see
what will happen here.

HAYES: That`s true. 1972, shortly after the break, the DNC filed a
lawsuit settlement on the day that Nixon leaves office if I`m not mistaken.
Finally, Senator Claire McCaskill, who`s in one of the most contested races
in the entire country, in Missouri, of course. She called this lawsuit a
silly distraction. And I wonder if you – your response to that.

PEREZ: Well, we can walk and chew gum. I love Senator McCaskill. We`ve
invested in her race. We`re going to continue to invest in her race
because she`s a great Senator. But I`ll tell you, I disagree for the
simple reason that our democracy is at risk here. We have to make sure
that the elections coming up in November are fair. And they invaded us the
last time. They hacked the DNC. They tried to influence the outcome of
the election. There`s no accountability in the White House and why
wouldn`t they do it again? And we can walk and chew gum at the DNC.

HAYES: All right, DNC Chairman, Tom Perez, thank you very much.

PEREZ: Thank you.

HAYES: After the break, Senator Bernie Sanders is here on set to discuss a
bunch of topics, including why he and Chuck Schumer are pushing to
decriminalize pot, that`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: I`ll be introducing
legislation to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level from one end of
the country to another. The legislation is long overdue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The Democratic Party is starting to catch up to the nation when it
comes to the issue of marijuana. Polls show that nearly two in three
Americans including a majority of Republicans support legalization and
recreational or medicinal use is now allowed in 29 states. My next guest
has Co-Sponsored the bill to decriminalize the drug and require federal
courts to expunge prior marijuana convictions. Joining me now, Senator
Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, good to have you here. You and
Cory Booker, I think, are on that – on that piece of legislation together.
It seems like there`s a breakthrough now with the Democratic Party on this
issue.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Well, you know, during my campaign, I
talked about it. I was one of the many issues that was just too radical.
But you know what, prohibition doesn`t work. Studies show that over half
the American people smoke marijuana. It is insane to be arresting some
600,000 people a year for possession of marijuana. States are moving
forward with decriminalization, legalization. Vermont moved forward with
decriminalization. So the time is now to say that we are not going to
punish people for smoking marijuana. States want to go forward and
legalize it. That is their right.

HAYES: If prohibition doesn`t work though, doesn`t the logic that extend
past marijuana?

SANDERS: To –

HAYES: Crack cocaine, heroin, ecstasy. I mean, if the issue is
prohibition, they`re all prohibited substances.

SANDERS: In Portugal, I think, has moved in that direction.

HAYES: They have.

SANDERS: You know, let`s take one thing at a time. This is a major step
forward. Look, the issue that really hits me here is that you have
thousands and thousands of people whose lives have been wrecked because of
being arrested for possession of marijuana. They got a criminal record.
You`re a young kid, you`re going out to get a job. Boss says you have a
record. Well, I do. You can`t get a job. So this is a step forward and
I`m proud to support it.

HAYES: Now, you`re also introducing legislation or you have legislation
that would allow for criminal penalties or liability for opioid
manufacturers, drug companies, correct?

SANDERS: If, if – this is the story.

HAYES: It seems like there`s a little tension there.

SANDERS: No. Here`s the story. We have, as everybody recognizes, an
opioid epidemic in this country. We lose over 60,000 people a year from
overdoses, hundreds of thousands of people are suffering from addiction.
Here`s the question. The question is, when did the opioid manufacturers
know that the product that they were selling to doctors was addictive?
There is evidence out there to suggest that in fact, they knew, and they
were pushing a product that they knew would cause addiction, suffering, and
death. States are suing all over the country on this. The federal
government has been way, way, way behind where the states are. You`ll
recall that in the 1990s, Congress brought the tobacco manufacturers in
front of them and asked them the hard questions. What did you know? When
did you know it? We have got to do that with the opioid manufacturers.
And if, but I`m not passing a judgment now, but if it is true that these
guys were producing and selling a product that they knew was killing
people, they have got to be held accountable. Right now, we`re spending as
a nation about $70 billion a year to treat the opioid crisis. Those guys
are going to – should not be making billions of dollars here. They have
got to help us solve the problem.

HAYES: Does that same logic of where the fault lies in the liability apply
to gun manufacturers?

SANDERS: It does. If we know that a gun manufacturer, for example, is
loading a whole lot of weapons into a town far more than you would expect,
and we know through a straw man process that those guns are going out into
the community, into criminals, should they be held liable if we can prove
that they knew it, absolutely.

HAYES: Didn`t you support legislation in the other direction?

SANDERS: I am a sponsor and co-sponsor of a bill that deals with that
issue. The issue is not should a gun manufacturer be held liable because
you make a gun that does what it`s supposed to do. No.

HAYES: That`s the distinction you`re making?

SANDERS: Right. Should a gun – if they`re dumping guns into an area in a
volume that no one thinks what the local population…

HAYES: I see.

SANDERS: Yeah, that`s the issue.

HAYES: I`m wanting to talk to you about trade, because, you know, you have
been a critic of the kind of trade consensus in this country for a long
time.

SANDERS: Yes.

HAYES: And there`s a number of other people, Sherrod Brown is one of those
folks. He wrote a book about trade when he was – and I think it`s fair to
say that in some key ways Donald Trump has departed from some of that
consensus – pulled out of the TPP, renegotiating NAFTA. We`ve seen these
tariffs…

SANDERS: Although he`s claiming he wants to rethink that. I don`t know
where he is today.

HAYES: Well, who knows where he is. What do you think of this trade
agenda? Is this – does this look like what you envisioned as the
alternative to the consensus you`ve decried?

SANDERS: Trump deserves credit for at least dealing with this issue.
Look, the truth is, our trade policy has been a failure. It has cost us
millions of decent-paying jobs. We have lost tens of thousands of
factories in the last 20 years.

And bottom line, there is companies that are shutting down to find cheap
labor in China and in
Mexico. Is that an issue that has to be dealt with? Absolutely.

Do we want to demonize the people in Mexico or the people in China, as
Trump often does, the answer is no. So we need comprehensive trade
policies.

HAYES: But what about – so a lot of that folks on the industrial base,
right, manufacturing.

SANDERS: Yes.

HAYES: But there`s two sides to this. And one of the things we`re seeing
now with these tariffs is, you have got a lot of farmers in America who
export grains – you`re from a rural stat You have got soybean shipments
that are being impacted. You`ve got sorghum ships that are circling around
the Pacific Ocean. Does it – I guess I wonder, does it make you think
about, OK, what does it really look like when we play this out?

SANERS; Look, trade is a very complicated issue. No one thinks there`s a
simple solution. Bottom line is, overall – and there are exceptions.
There are the agricultural sectors, which have done well under various
trade policies. By and large, in my view, trade policies have been bad for
the middle class and working families of this country and that`s got to
change.

You`re never going to come up with a process that works for 100 percent of
the people. You`ve got to do the best that you can.

HAYES: Meaning that there`s going to be trade-offs, right?

SANDERS: Absolutely.

HAYES: Even when you start getting in there and messing…

SANDERS: Absolutely. Absolutely.

But right now, by and large, we have been losing – the American people,
working people, have been losing.

Here`s the issue when you talk about trade. Trade is a good thing. You
want to trade with me? What have you got? I`ll buy it, if it`s a fair
praise. No, that`s what trade is.

HAYES: I got a pen and a few papers.

SANDERS: All right.

HAYES: But what is not fair, ultimately, is American workers having to
compete against people in Vietnam where the minimum wage is something like
70 cents an hour. That`s just not fair.

So I want to see fair trade, not unfettered free trade.

HAYES: All right, Senator Bernie Sanders who is here in New York City,
which is a treat. It`s great to have you here.

SANDERS: Good to be with you, Chris.

HAYES: Still ahead, the investigation into whether certain members of the
FBI leaked information during the campaign to the president`s brand-new
lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. But first, the latest installment of what the
president does with his time. Thing One, Thing Two is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Thing One tonight, take a look at the president`s public schedule
on this lovely spring
Friday. A little sparse, huh. Just one item, a roundtable with RNC
supporters starting at 5:20 p.m. We know President Trump gets up early.
He was tweeting at 6:34 this morning. So, he had to find something to do
to fill the time.

And since he`s in sunny 80-degree Mar-a-Lago, why not use all that free
time for a round of golf. According to the travel pool, the president
arrived at his own Trump International Golf Club at
9:20 this morning, left nearly five hours later at 2:00 p.m., on a weekday.

Now, we unfortunately don`t have any images to show you from today because
the White House
never lets reporters get anywhere near the president while he`s golfing.
We do have these photos taken by the Japanese ministry of foreign affairs
on Wednesday when Trump played 18 holes on that same course with the prime
minister of Japan.

If this sounds to you like a lot of golfing for the leader of the free
world, you`re not alone. That`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: The president spent nearly five hours at the Trump International
Golf Club in West
Palm Beach, Florida, today, a Friday, when most people, including yours
truly, are working. It marked his 108th day at one of his own golf
properties since taking office. I know somebody who would find that
disgraceful.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I love golf. But if I were in the White House, I don`t think I
would ever see Turnberry again. I don`t think I would ever see Doral
again. I own Doral in Miami. I`d just want to stay in the White House and
work my ass off, make great deals, right? Who`s going to leave?

I`m not going to play much golf, because there`s a lot of work to be done.
You need leadership.
you can`t fly to Hawaii to play golf.

Obama, it was reported today, played 250 rounds of golf.

Obama went golfing every day.

Golf, golf, golf, golf. More, more, learning how to chip, learning how to
hit the drive, learning how to putt. Oh, I want more!

If you become president and you go to the White House, why would you want
to leave the White House? When you`re in the White House, who the hell
wants to play golf?

If I get elected president, I`m going to be in the White House a lot. I`m
not leaving.

I`m going to be working for you, I`m not going to have time to go play
golf.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: So, whatever happened to the internal FBI investigation surrounding
the man who just
joined Donald Trump`s legal team? We`ll look at what Rudy Giuliani is up
to, ahead.

But first, among the stories that went under the radar this week was the
Senate confirmation of
Oklahoma Republican, Jim Bridenstein to lead NASA. Bridenstein, who has no
background in science, just squeaked by the Senate on a party line vote,
and now a Republican congressman who says he`s not sure humans are the
primary drivers of climate change will lead the $20 billion bureaucracy
charged with studying the man-made effects of climate change.

One of the NASA programs is called Operation Ice Bridge, which tracks how
climate change
is affecting the Earth`s all-important polar regions.

MSNBC`s Jacob Soboroff went to Greenland to see how NASA collects this
crucial information.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NATHAN KURTZ, LEAD PROJECT SCIENTIST NASA OPERATION ICE BRIDGE: The Arctic
sea ice has been changing dramatically in the last several decades.
Looking at the data in a scientific sense, I`ve seen changes in the
thickness, in the extent of the ice. And all that`s pointing to thinning
ice, shrinking ice cover.

JACOB SOBOROFF, MSNBC: And that leads to climate change?

KURTZ: Yes.

SOBOROFF: This year, during the coldest part of the year, the Arctic
experienced its warmest levels ever recorded, and the second lowest sea ice
levels.

Greenland is ground zero for these radical changes. And that is why NASA`s
Operation Ice Bridge is up here. Its mission is to map Earth`s polar ice
and understand its connection to the global climate.

Cruising altitude on Operation Ice Bridge is 1,500 feet, perfect for an
extraordinary view of our climate`s changing in real-time.

JOE MACGREGOR, DEPUTY PROJECT SCIENTIST NASA OPERATION ICE BRIDGE: On
average, we now know that the Greenland ice sheet is losing nearly 300
gigatons of ice per year. And that works out to thousands of tons of ice
being lost from this ice sheet per second.

SOBOROFF: Wait a minute, you just said thousands of tons of ice are lost
per second.

MACGREGOR: Exactly. So, that works out to a new subdivision worth of
homes of ice being lost every second.

SOBOROFF: Joe MacGregor is the mission`s deputy project scientist. To
collect this data and compare it to previous years, he and the other
sciences rely on radar, lasers, and a camera that shoots
thousands of photos in flight.

What do we have got here?

MACGREGOR: So, we have multiple instruments onboard, all with the goal of
measuring what is going on with the ice beneath us, how it`s changing, what
its properties are.

SOBOROFF: Our destination for the day was Peterman Glacier, set in a
canyon 15-and-a-half miles wide, its walls taller than our plane, which
made for a pretty bumpy flight.

This glacier is one of the glaciers left in Greenland that still has an ice
shelf at the end of it. In other words, floating ice that is attached to
the original glacier.

Hang tight! Hold on, guys.

And that glacier is changing significantly. It`s capped some really large
icebergs these last few years.

SOBOROFF: And it`s not just here, the country`s massive sheet of ice is
melting faster than at
any time on record, losing on average nearly 300 billion tons of ice per
year. If that rate keeps up, it will mean a 3-inch increase in sea levels
by the end of the century.

How does what`s going on out here affect us at home?

MACGREGOR: When more mass is lost from the ice sheet in a year than is
gained via snowfall, the ice sheet is losing mass overall, that goes into
the oceans and sea levels rise as a result.

SOBOROFF: And so that`s what we see in Miami, the Gulf Coast, New York
City. I mean, that`s directly connected to here.

MACGREGOR: Exactly. So even though many of us may not get to see these
areas in
person, their future affects our future, because so many of us live along
the coast.

SOBOROFF: Nathan Kurtz is the lead scientist of NASA`s Operation Ice
Bridge. His team`s mission will last for six weeks.

KURTZ: In order to look at long-term changes, we need a long-term record
that goes year-to-year. We need to put all of the pieces together to
really find out what`s causing changes.

SOBOROFF: The data and images collected over the course of the spring will
be taken back to
NASA to be analyzed, and its findings made public later this year.

When you hear politicians back in Washington, D.C. say, you know, the
science is inconclusive about climate change, you`re actually creating the
science in real-time. What do you think?

KURTZ: I think that the data that we are collecting is valuable, it`s
real, it`s showing changes that are happening, and regardless of what some
people might believe, the facts are the facts. They speak for themselves.

SOBOROFF: Climate change is real.

KURTZ: Climate change is real.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HAYES: Jacob Soboroff is back in L.A., joins me now.

Jacob, Trump`s nominee was just confirmed to lead NASA. It was a really
narrow vote. What could he do to the agency`s climate change programs like
Operation Ice Bridge?

SOBOROFF: He could, quite frankly, just slash the budget, but not if any
of these folks I met have anything to do with it, Chris. These are some of
the most passionate, dedicated, professional scientists I`ve ever met in my
life, if you think about what they do. They dedicate a huge portion of
their lives every single year, some of them the last nine years, to go to
one of the most remote places on
earth to ensure that all of us have a sustainable future on this planet.
So when things happen like the Trump administration proposing a complete
cut to five NASA Earth science programs like they did
in their budget proposal earlier this year, congress, of course, restored
those.

You know, this is just another adding insult to injury, to have a NASA
administrator who is a politician, candidly, and not a scientist. It
could be catastrophic. But for now, congress has restored these budgets
and Operation Ice Bridge will proceed as planned.

HAYES: All right. MSNBC`s Jacob Soboroff, great reporting. Thanks for
joining me.

SOBOROFF: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Still ahead, one of the president`s other best people, his new
lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and the FBI investigation into whether he was
getting leaked information during the election. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Did Rudy Giuliani and, therefore, the Trump campaign
have advance notice from inside the FBI that this announcement from you was
coming?

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Not that I know of, but I saw that same
publicity. And so I commissioned an investigation to see if we could
understand whether people were
disclosing information out of the New York office or any other place that
resulted in Rudy`s report on Fox News and other leaks that we were seeing
in the media.

I don`t know what the result of that was, I got fired before it got
finished, but I know I asked that it be investigated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Last night in this very building, fired FBI Director James Comey
confirmed he looked
into leaks from the FBI during the election, in part because Rudy Giuliani
kept dropping massive hints.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Mayor, we got 14 days. This bill – does Donald
Trump plan anything except for a series of inspiring rallies?

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What?

GIULIANI: You will see.

He has a surprise or two that you are going to hear about in the next few
days. I mean, I`m talking about some pretty big surprise.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I heard you say that this morning. What do you mean?

GIULIANI: You will see.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That`s weird. Philippe Reines is adviser to Hillary Clinton; Elie
Mystal is the editor of the Above the Law blog.

Philippe, your reaction to the fact that Comey apparently initiated an
investigation into that stuff.

PHILIPPE REINES, ADVISER TO HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I guess my question is,
he was there six months after the election. I`m not sure what would take
so long for the – either the FBI or the Department of Justice or the
inspector general to look into the matter. He seemed rather nonchalant
about it.

I guess the question is now, what is its status? Who is conducting it? Is
the FBI office looking at itself? And I think there`s another data point
beyond Rudy sitting there looking like a peacock. Laura Trump was on TV,
on Fox, of course, two days earlier than Rudy, on October 24. And she said
they had a trick up their sleeve.

So, I can imagine Rudy walking around saying, I`ve got a secret, I`ve got a
secret. And it shouldn`t be too hard to figure out for an administration
that calls for everyone who has leaked to go to jail, they seem to be
rather not caring about this one.

HAYES: You know, there`s some evidence to support the idea that there were
folks that were sort of opposed to Hillary Clinton in the New York field
office who were sort of leaking to Rudy Giuliani. The Guardian ran a story
in which there`s a quote saying the FBI is Trump land, anti-Clinton
atmosphere spurred leaking, sources say. Wayne Barrett, the legendary
Wayne Barrett, who has since departed, had a story saying that – talking
about the sort of ex-FBI Trump fan who was using it.

So, there was stuff to make you think there might have been a pipeline
there.

ELIE MYSTAL, ABOVE THE LAW: It`s like Trump thinks the job of his lawyer
is to become the subject of the investigation, to like to take the heat off
of him, right, like to actually take the bullet.

Look, you interviewed very well Tom Perez earlier today. He was talking
about the RICO lawsuit. It`s important to remember that the very first
application of the RICO lawsuit in a federal case was by Rudolph Giuliani
in 1985. And I bring that up to point out that Rudy Giuliani has not been
a good lawyer since the `80s, all right.

It would be – Trump calling him in right now would be like the Mets
calling Keith Hernandez down from the booth to play first base, all right.
He is way past his prime.

I think that the reason why he is here, aside from just he`s part of the
family and Trump knows him. He`s one of the only lawyers left that will
take Trump`s call. I think one of the reasons why he is
here is – not because of the Mueller investigation, but because of the
southern district of New York SDNY investigation into Michael Cohen.

It s worth remembering that the current head of the SDNY, Jeffery – or
George Berman, who replaced Preet Bharara, Berman is buddies – is a former
law partner of Rudolph Giuliani.

HAYES: Right.

MYSTAL: And that`s the…

HAYES: So, you think that`s what it – you think it`s about that
relationship?

MYSTAL: Even though Berman has recused himself from the Cohen stuff, I
think it`s about that cozy relationship that Giuliani has with the SDNY,
because we`ve got to remember the thing that Trump is most concerned about
is what Michael Cohen is going to say.

HAYEs: Do you agree with that, Philippe?

REINES: Absolutely. I mean, Rudy`s claim to fame is his America`s mayor,
being there for
eight years. He clearly thinks he has the place wired. And by all
indications, he does have it wired.

And this, I think, Chris, is an important point that this isn`t just a
matter of setting the record
straight. Rudy Giuliani is now becoming the president`s lawyer. Why he`s
not going on the White
House staff, he will require security clearance to look at the material
that are relevant to defending his client. If there`s an ongoing
investigation into his work, into his background, into his leaks, that is
extremely relevant. At the very least, the Department of Justice or the
FBI should confirm to us that
there is either an ongoing investigation, or it has been closed, otherwise
it`s just yet another person walking around the White House without a
clearance.

MYSTAL: But I hope he gets the job, actually. Because I think people need
to remember – again, he is not a very good lawyer anymore. Let`s
remember, Rudy Giuliani is the principal author of the first Muslim ban, of
the first travel ban, a document so legally farcical that it basically got
thrown out of court on its ear. If this is the level of legal work that
Trump wants to bring in to the process, I say go for it, man.

HAYES: Philippe, I have got to get your reaction to this news today in The
Wall Street Journal about the Comey memos, in which the Justice Department
IG is now probing the Comey memos because apparently there are people who
say that some of the information contained in two of them were classified.
And I could not help but notice, this is precisely what happened to Hillary
Clinton and what initiated, of course, the chain of events we`re all
familiar with.

REINES: Yeah. I mean, I can name at least one other person that couldn`t
help but notice that, too. I mean, this is their playbook. They have
this…

HAYES: Who the is they? Who is the they?

REINES: My erstwhile boss, the – should-be president of the United States
right now. There is a hypocrisy and an irony to it that they are going
after these documents, they`re going after Comey on the basis of being
classified.

And by the way, Comey didn`t release these documents, the Department of
Justice did, presumably. They scrubbed them and redacted them beforehand.

But they`re running the same play they ran with Devin Nunes, which is
alluding to something that just by the sheer fact of not being able to
have, therefore is nefarious. But just like the Devin Nunes memo, it
backfired on them. The content of the memo completely confirmed and really
basically told us that what we had thought about the whole thing is right.
The Comey memos – again, the Comey memos reinforce everything we believe.
I mean, it`s clear that if you are going to obstruct justice, don`t do it
with the FBI director. These guys are lawyers. They take notes. They
write everything down.

HAYES: Final question here. There`s this idea that like Giuliani is being
brought in to negotiate an end to the probe. I don`t know what to make of
that.

MYSTAL: Look, the legend of Rudy Giuliani has always far outstripped the
ability of Rudy
Giuliani. So, it`s not surprising that he comes in and being like I`m
going to end this in two weeks. And we`re just going to make a deal.

He is transactional in the same way that Trump is transactional. I think
that`s one of the reasons why they are friends.

But again, I don`t think Giuliani is going to have anything – he is not
going to have any power with the Mueller investigation. Robert Mueller is
not scared of Rudy Giuliani, right. So, I really do think this is more
focused on Cohen, the SDNY, and like how that whole ball of wax is going to
go down.

REINES: And remember the baggage that comes with Rudy Giuliani. I mean he
again, he is a peacock. What is clear from President Trump`s behavior is
that he doesn`t like anyone getting the limelight. And maybe they told
Rudy you are doing this little slice of the pie. I`m not sure Rudy
Giuliani is going to get that message.

HAYES: Yeah, he`s going to be on TV a lot.

Philippe Reines and Elie Mystal, thanks for joining me.

That is ALL IN for this evening. THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts right now.
Good evening, Rachel.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

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
content.>