FBI could conclude Kavanaugh probe tonight. TRANSCRIPT: 10/2/2018, All In w Chris Hayes

Nancy Gertner, Bernie Sanders, Rebecca Traister, Jelani Cobb, Michelle Goldberg, Josh Barro, Jesse Eisenger

Date: October 2, 2018
Guest: Nancy Gertner, Bernie Sanders, Rebecca Traister, Jelani Cobb,
Michelle Goldberg, Josh Barro, Jesse Eisenger

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: – in the first place and got him this far.
You know who they are. That`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.
“ALL IN” with Chris Hayes starts right now.



on Judge Kavanaugh here on this floor this week.

HAYES: Republicans push to end the Kavanaugh investigation.

to Congress.

HAYES: As Christine Blasey Ford says the FBI has yet to interview her.

TRUMP: To me that would not be acceptable.

HAYES: Tonight, the new push for a fast boat and the latest on the
Kavanaugh probe. Plus –

TRUMP: Well, I`d say that it`s a very scary time for young men in America
when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of.

TRUMP: Rebecca Traister on the anger about the anger over Kavanaugh and
her new book Good And Mad. And bombshell reporting from the New York
Times –

TRUMP: It`s not been easy for me. It has not been easy for me.

HAYES: Alleging outright tax fraud by the President and his family.

TRUMP: They borrowed very little money from my father.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York I`m Chris Hayes. We begin with breaking
news on the investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against
Brett Kavanaugh. Two sources familiar with the matter telling NBC News the
FBI could wrap up its probe as early as tonight, more than two days before
the Friday deadline. This as new evidence continues to come out refuting
Kavanaugh sworn testimony. A letter written by Kavanaugh in 1983 published
tonight by New York Times planning debauched Beach week vacation with his
high school friends.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are running what amounts to a confidence game
on their own members in a last-ditch ploy to drag Kavanaugh`s Supreme Court
nomination over the finish line. Mitch McConnell threatening to hold a
vote this week regardless of what the FBI`s investigation turns up and
forced the remaining holdouts in his own caucus to go on the record with a
final decision then face the consequences.


MCCONNELL: Here`s what they know Madam President, one thing for sure. The
Senate will vote on Judge Kavanaugh here on this floor this week. Here on
this floor this week.


HAYES: But McConnell it seems is bluffing. Right now he does not appear
to have the votes to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Under Senate rules for the
Senate to vote on Friday, Kavanaugh`s nomination would have to clear
procedural vote two days earlier and that would be tomorrow. And as of
tonight, some of the key undecided senators still have concerns and are
still looking for answers from the investigation.


SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R), ALASKA: I have had a conversation with Mr. McGahn
about the extent of what the FBI is doing. What I think we all need to do
now is to wait and see exactly what comes back up. I don`t know what it`s
going to be in it. I don`t know that anybody knows what`s going to be in
it so I`m not going to speculate. I`m going to wait.

SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R), ARIZONA: I was very troubled by the tone of the – of
the remarks. The interaction with the members was sharp and partisan and
that concerns me. And I tell myself you`d give a little leeway because of
what he`s been through. But on the other hand, we can`t have this on the
court. We simply can`t.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If it turns out that Kavanaugh was lying about any –

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D), WEST VIRGINIA: That finishes everything.


MANCHIN: If they can corroborate that he`s lying, I think everyone should,
Democrats, Republicans, even the President.


HAYES: Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley told reporters today the
FBI`s findings won`t be released to the public consistent with standard
background check policy. They will be shared with the White House and all
100 members of the U.S. Senate. Sources tell NBC News the FBI currently
has no plans to interview Dr. Christine Blasey Ford who last week described
under oath her harrowing memories of being sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh
in high school. He strongly denies her claim.

The Bureau has already completed interviews with three witnesses who
allegedly either aided the attack or attended the party where it`s said to
have taken place as well as a second woman Deborah Ramirez accusing
Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. Lawyers for Ramirez say they gave the FBI
names and contact info for more than 20 witnesses who may have
corroborating information but the lawyers aren`t aware of the FBI
contacting any of them.

Now, we don`t know whether the Bureau has pursued any of those leads. We
also don`t know if they`re examining whether Kavanaugh may have perjured
himself in his testimony last week with false accounts of his drinking
habits or the lewd references on his yearbook page. Now we learned the FBI
may not even be using all of its allotted time to investigate. NBC News
reporting the inquiry could conclude as soon as tonight and according to
McConnell Senators won`t be given much time to consider the findings.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How much time do you plan to give senators to read
and digest the FBI findings before you hold a vote?

MCCONNELL: It shouldn`t take long. As interesting as this all is, I can`t
imagine that any members who want to read it will not go over there and
read it immediately.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So you`re talking hours? A day?

MCCONNELL: They`ll read it as quickly as they can and but – that`ll not
be used as another reason for delay, I can tell you that.


HAYES: That may not sit well with lawmakers like Lisa Murkowski and Susan
Collins who bumped into an A.P. reporter today on Capitol Hill. “Murkowski
appears in no hurry even as McConnell pledges to move forward with
Kavanaugh vote this week. He talked about a vote last week too, she told
A.P. Collins riding with Murkowski on a set of Subway smiled and told
Murkowski good answer.

For more on the FBI investigation and what happens next, I`m joined by
MSNBC Contributor Joyce Vance, former U.S. Attorney for the Northern
District of Alabama and Nancy Gertner former Federal Judge on the District
Court of Massachusetts. And Nancy, let me start with you since you did
serve as a federal judge. There`s two issues here. There`s the
allegations of – the allegation of sexual assault and of exposing himself
to Deborah Ramirez. Now there`s the question of truthfulness more broadly.
It seems that lots of things he said in that hearing room are simply not
true and there`s more evidence coming out that that`s the case. How
important is that for someone who`s going to – who is a federal judge and
wants to be in the Supreme Court?

Actually I think that there are three things one is the underlying acts,
the second thing is representations about misrepresentations that he may
have made during his testimony, but the third thing is something that I`ve
written about and press a tribe wrote about the New York Times today which
is his asset. I – literally when I heard Judge Kavanaugh, I thought that
I was – I thought I was – just listening on the radio and I thought he
was – he sounded like a talk-show host. He sounded so – it was a screed.

I mean, it was so inappropriate for a judge. And I think that that raises
questions about whether not just the actual partiality which we care about
in a judge, but issues like the appearance of partiality. What`s it going
to be like when Democrats, Clinton, you know, where any of the other people
he attacked appear before him. So it`s really – it`s not just the acts
and the misrepresentation but also his affect and what he said. I`d never
heard a judge speak like that before.

HAYES: Joyce, there`s some questions as well about the comprehensiveness
of the FBI investigation right now. There`s this letter from Dr. Christine
Blasey Ford`s lawyers to the FBI which I want to read you a portion and get
your reaction. We sent you a series of e-mails and letters in which we
identify witnesses and evidence that would likely assist the FBI in its
investigation into Mr. Kavanaugh`s sexual assault of Dr. Ford and asked you
to forward them to the Supervisory agent. Despite these efforts, we have
received no response from anyone involved in this investigation and no
response to our offer for Dr. Ford to be interviewed. What does that say
if they haven`t actually talked to Dr. Ford?

JOYCE VANCE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: You know, Senator McConnell likes to talk
a lot about Democrats wanting to move the goalposts backwards, in essence,
making it more difficult for Judge Kavanaugh. But what`s really happened
here is the White House has kept the goal posts in the same place but moved
the football a lot closer to them making it so very easy for Judge
Kavanaugh to clear.

The reality is that the FBI works here for their client, the White House.
The White House is constraining the FBI`s ability to do a background
investigation and to follow up on natural leads in an unprecedented way and
there won`t be any confidence in the integrity of this result when it comes
forward not because the Bureau isn`t doing a good job but because they
aren`t able to do things like re-interview Dr. Blasey Ford, re-interview
Judge Kavanaugh. The process is not designed to produce confidence in the

HAYES: Nancy, there`s this letter that the New York Times published
tonight, this 1983 letter in which young Brett Kavanaugh is organizing the
logistics for the notorious beach week a high school bacchanal in Ocean
City, Maryland on the beach. He says – he signs it off as Bart
O`Kavanaugh which seems a reference to a nickname for himself that appears
in Mark Judge`s book and about what she was asked under oath. He says at
one point it would probably be a good idea on Saturday 18th to warn the
neighbors were loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us.

The argument being made by conservatives and supporters of Kavanaugh is
this is ridiculous. This is absurd. The New York Times and the liberal
media and the opponents of Kavanaugh are just trying to shame him over high
school hijinks. And as a former federal judge who had to go through
confirmation, what do you think of that argument?

GERTNER: Well, I mean, I think initially I was troubled by the notion that
you know, things that happen to you in high school or college wouldn`t
matter then. I thought back to the confirmation process that I went
through. And we had to list every single person that we had ever lived
with from the time we left our home, any illegal drugs that we`d ever
experimented with, so there clearly was a sense that they were
disqualifying answers and went all the way back, that this was a process
like none other. Not like a you know, the ordinary job interview, not like
a criminal case, not like all the other analogies that people are drawing,
but there`s just another thing here which is the notion of timing.

We`re under a constraint of time. The FBI is, the Senate is, that was
manufactured by Senator McConnell. When you think about the year in which
Merrick Garland`s nomination didn`t even get a hearing, this is an
artificial – I mean this is really an artificial timing more – that I`ve
never seen before. I mean, I was – my nomination took ten months. That`s
about normal.

HAYES: Ten months?

GERTNER: This is – ten months. That`s right. A Supreme Court nomination
here that is essentially what was proposed in August and now they`re voting
on it you know, after two months. This is extraordinary and suggests that
it`s really a hollow exercise.

HAYES: Yes, do you feel that way about the timing as well, Joyce?

VANCE: I do. I think it`s just you know, completely artificial and
manufactured. I had wondered this afternoon whether the FBI is sending
either deliberately or perhaps just because of how little the White House
has permitted them to do a message of their own with these stories that
we`re hearing that they may complete their investigation as early as
tonight rather than taking the full time until Friday further highlighting
how artificial everything that we`re seeing is.

HAYES: All right, Joyce Vance and Nancy Gertner, great to have your
insights. For more on the looming Kavanaugh vote, I`m joined by Senator
Bernie Sanders, Independent from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats.
Your reaction to the news the FBI may be wrapping up as early as tonight or
tomorrow and Mitch McConnell`s going to make you vote this week.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Well, I agree with your guests you just
had on. I think it`s an outrage. Mitch McConnell had no problem keeping a
seat vacant for ten months, and now he`s telling us that we need to shorten
a thorough FBI investigation, not only regarding sexual assault issues but
regarding the veracity, the honesty of Judge Kavanaugh and his testimony
before Congress now and in years past.

I think what is very troubling is in years past when he was up for his
judgeship, he said among other things that he never had access to
information that was stolen by Republicans staffers from the Democratic
staff of the Judiciary Committee. Recent e-mails suggest the very
opposite. He suggests that he was not active as a member of the Bush
administration in guiding through certain judges. It turns out that
perhaps that is not the case. He suggests he really was not involved in
discussing torture in the Bush Administration. It turns out that may not
have been the case.

Then more recently he tells us that his drinking problem was not all that
serious. He never blacked out. He was not a very heavy drinker. There is
testimony that suggests that may not be as a case. So I think what we have
got to do is let the FBI do its job. And I don`t know that they could do
with that job in in in a week or in five days. And that McConnell wants to
rush this thing through has everything to do with politics and very little
to do with gaining the truth of the matter.

HAYES: The politics of this it seems to me and I`m curious to hear your
thoughts is it seems to me he`s trying to call his own caucus on the carpet
if there`s any quivering her or ambivalence he basically wants to make it
as hard as possible and put as much pressure as possible on those wavering

SANDERS: Look, what are you saying to you know, Collins, and Murkowski,
and Flake, it`s OK. You wanted this FBI investigation, here it is and now
vote with us, end of discussion. And I think that is – that is really an
outrageous way to run the Senate and I think the American people no matter
how they may feel about Kavanaugh want to get at the truth of the matter.
You know, Dr. Ford and the other women who came forward a great personal
risk to themselves. Their lives have been changed and altered in a way
that will never be the same. And they came forward as credible people and
they deserve a thorough investigation as to the allegations that they are

HAYES: What about that final point about temperament or partisanship that
Nancy Gertner, former federal judge just made?

SANDERS: Well, you know, to be – sad to say and I`m not a historian of
the Supreme Court. That bothered me less. I knew from the very beginning
and the reason why a day after Trump nominated Kavanaugh, I said I`m not
going to vote for this guy because I know he is a right wing operative.
He`s going to vote against the woman`s right to choose and overturn Roe
versus Wade. He`s going to make it easier for billionaires to buy
elections. He is going to be sympathetic the Republicans trying to
suppress the vote making and harder for poor people or people of color to
vote. He`s going to be supporting the Trump agenda on climate change and
the wishes of the fossil fuel industry.

So the fact that he said hey, I`m a right-wing extremist, I`m for Trump,
what`s your problem? That bothered be less because I kind of assumed that
was the case. By the way, there was another issue that came out today,
Chris, that I hope we can discuss today of some significance. And that is
that Amazon announced that they were going to pay a $15.00 on minimum wage
for 350,000 of their employees and I just want to congratulate the fight
for 15 people, the hundreds of workers at Amazon who came forward and
talked about how it is absurd that the richest person in the history of the
world Jeff Bezos, was paying with people wages so low, they were really
having a hard time getting by and many of them were forced to go on food
stamps or other federal programs.

I just want to salute you congratulate the workers at Amazon for standing
up, for fighting back and I want to applaud Jeff Bezos for doing the right
thing and that is making sure that every worker there earns at least 15
bucks an hour. We`re going to take a hard look now at Walmart, at the fast
food industry, McDonald`s, at the whole – at the at the airline industry.
We have a major crisis in this country that tens of millions of workers are
working at wages you cannot live on. And Bezos did the right thing and I
hope other corporations start following what he brought forth.

HAYES: That would be very interesting to see if they do. Senator Bernie
Sanders, thank you so much for your time tonight.

SANDERS: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: Ahead, incredible new reporting from the New York Times for what
they say as the outright fraud Donald Trump used to amass his fortune. And
next, the fierce organizing power of women challenging Brett Kavanaugh`s
nomination. I`ll talk to Rebecca Traister on Trump, Kavanaugh and her new
book detailing the political power of women`s anger. Trust me, you do not
want to miss that interview in just two minutes.




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. Thank you.

FORD: OK. Is this good? I am here because I believe it is my civic duty
to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high
school. At this point, I will do my best to answer your questions and
request some caffeine.

has become a national disgrace. This whole two-week effort has been a
calculated and orchestrated political hit. This is a circus. What goes
around comes around. \


HAYES: We got a start lesson last week on how gender roles and stereotypes
play out in the country in a very high-profile situation. Well, Christine
Blasey Ford tried to be accommodating laying out the painstaking details of
her alleged sexual assault before an all-male Republican panel. Judge
Kavanaugh was angry, confrontational, and openly defiant. The hearing
became a kind of case study in who gets to be angry in our society and who
doesn`t. In an incredible new book out today called Good And Mad, the
revolutionary power of women`s anger, Writer Rebecca Traister has a lot to
say about this very topic.

And joining me now is Rebecca Traister. Congratulations on the book. It
is phenomenal. I love it and I felt very lucky to have read it before that
hearing on Thursday which was just an object lesson in everything you write
about in the book.

REBECCA TRAISTER, AUTHOR, GOOD AND MAD: Well, it`s funny that you said –
I`m glad that you say that. And it`s also – I, of course, could never in
a million years have predicted that this is where we`re going to be the
week before this book got published, you know. I couldn`t have predicted
that this is where we were going to be a month ago as far as the actual
material reality at the cabinet hearings.

But one of the things I wanted to do with this book, I actually wanted it
to be a tool because I think that there`s so much that we don`t – that
happens unconsciously in terms of how we hear women`s anger, how we – how
women modulate their own anger, how they temper it, how they – how they
change, how they speak or express themselves in order to fall into a very
narrow window of acceptability. And I thought that especially with so much
mass anger happening, you know, the anger of protesters, the anger of
candidates, the anger of teacher strikers, the anger of McDonald`s workers
who went on strike last week in response to sexual harassment. I think
that there`s so much that we need to really think about the political
consequence of women`s anger in a way that we`re not trained to.

And one of the reasons, one of the things I sought to do with this book was
to sort of outline what some of these systems and ways of hearing and ways
of expressing and ways of dismissing women`s anger are to help us be able
to make better sense of the world. And so I would hope that that`s part of
what it did in changing the way perhaps that you heard the hearings last

HAYES: Well, and partly because it was such an amazing counterpoint
between the way that she was talking to the committee and Diane you know,
trying to be helpful and accommodating and sort of quivering voice, and his
rage, his rage on display. And I feel like you know, there`s two halves
here. There`s the way that women`s anger is suppressed by the society as
the book talks about the way it can be marshaled collectively for political
action, but there`s also the role that male rage what is – and that which
we are getting the full display of last week.

TRAISTER: Right. Well the rage of the powerful whose power is being
challenged or questioned in part by you know, a dissent to whether it`s
voiced with anger or whether it stems from an angry movement like me to
that give – lays the groundwork for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford to be able
to come forward with the story to begin with. To have that power question,
I mean, that was the openly admitted source of the rage.

HAYES: How dare you.

TRAISTER: I mean, Orrin Hatch said in two instances over the past few
weeks, first when it was just the protestors about abortion and health
care, when there were the women in the hearing in the original hearing
rooms, and Orrin Hatch said we shouldn`t have to put up with this. And
then he used that exact same language this week with regard to the accusers
of Brett Kavanaugh. It`s the powerful men saying we shouldn`t have to put
up with this. We shouldn`t have to you know, listen to, absorb it in any
way have our power diminished by – or ascent impeded by the angry dissent
of these people who have less power than we do. That is very openly what
they`re angry about.

HAYES: And there`s now – you know I want to play what the President said
today because the other half of this too is it like there`s a kind of
backlash – do backlash, would that make sense?

TRAISTER: The swirling backlash.

HAYES: Or the Ford – the Ford lash I guess, of sort of threatened or
challenged male power which we totally on display now and this is what the
President had to say this morning about it being a scary type for men.
Take a listen.


TRUMP: Well, I`d say that it`s a very scary time for young men in America
when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of. This is
a very, very – it`s a very difficult time. What`s happening here has much
more to do than even the appointment of a Supreme Court justice. It really
does. You could be somebody that was perfect your entire life and somebody
could accuse you of something. It doesn`t necessarily have to be a woman
as everybody say, but somebody could accuse you of something and you`re
automatically guilty. But in this realm, you are truly guilty until proven
innocent. That`s one of the very, very bad things that`s taking place
right now.


HAYES: Ms. Traister, you`re response.

TRAISTER: Wow, he`s saying the quiet part loud.

HAYES: Yes, he did not leave the subtext meat on the bone for you.

TRAISTER: No. There we go. I think President Trump has really summed it
up. The fear –

HAYES: (INAUDIBLE) about the book.

TRAISTER: I think that the idea that women might find curious voices that
would challenge powerful men and the systems that have oppressed or
subjugated them is very scary for powerful men. He said it. That`s what
he`s saying.

HAYES: But they think – what`s interesting to me too is they think
there`s political upside, that powerful man is a subcategory of men and
there`s a certain way in which the picture gives all men that kind of


HAYES: They think that`s a politically winning argument. That`s not just
the way he feels which it is. They think that`s a politically winning
argument more broadly.

TRAISTER: But it has depending on how you view. For example the 2016
election, there is a very valid argument that it is a political argument.
I mean, this is – make America great again is a version of what he just
said, right? The callbacks to the good old days, I mean, if you`ve watched
you know, the clips of him talking about protesters being taken out and
beaten. The idea that any kind of angry protest could be quashed with
actual violence and you know –

HAYES: And now we can`t do that.

TRAISTER: And now we`re not allowed to do that anymore. It`s a very scary
time for men. We`re not allowed to just do what we want to do and quash
the complainants and have go away and proceed with our power. This is very
scary for us. This is the message and it is being sent beyond the realms
of the most powerful. It`s being sent to men. It`s being sent to white
Americans. And this is – and this is –

HAYES: And conservative women, I should say by the millions.

TRAISTER: It`s 53 percent of white women who voted for Donald Trump and
who are very much at stake in some of this, right? Like pull it – push,
pull, which side are you going to be on. This is – Donald Trump`s
political career is rooted in birtherism which is in itself a sort of we
have to delegitimize the president who came and took away a piece of power
that had previously been reserved for white men. I mean, this is – this
is the roots of this and his compelling narrative for the nation. And it`s
– you know, right now it`s sort of circling on gender. He said, it`s not
just women. Now, it`s not just women.

HAYES: Right. That`s right.

TRAISTER: Right. It`s anybody who hasn`t previously had a claim on the
kinds of political economic, public power that powerful white men have with
women, of white capitalist patriarchy.

HAYES: All those worthless shrubs that you can get $400 million from dad.
Rebecca Traister, what a great pleasure to have you here. The book again,
there are lots of books I will recommend. This is at the top of this list
right now. It`s called Good And Mad. It`s out today. You absolutely want
to read this book. And if you want to hear more from Rebecca, great news.
She is the guest on the latest episode of our podcast Why Is This
Happening. We get into a whole long discussion about this, about the book,
about women`s anger, it`s really good. You can download it wherever you
get your podcast. Thank you.

TRAISTER: Thank you so much.

HAYES: Still ahead, new reporting for The New York Times on the financial
building blocks of Donald Trump`s fortune and the “outright fraud” they say
is the heart of it. That story next.



TRUMP: It`s not been easy for me. It has not been easy for me. And, you
know, I started off in
Brooklyn. My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars. I came
into Manhattan and I had to pay him back and I had to pay him back with


HAYES: Small loan, small loan of a million dollars. Who`s not gotten

Donald Trump has often bragged about being a self-made man. But a new
blockbuster New York Times story today chock full of never before seen
reporting proves that is not true at all. In fact, the story accuses
President Donald Trump and his family, including his father Fred Trump and
his siblings, of decades long machinations to hide or disguise money from
the government using schemes the paper describes as everything from legal
loopholes to, quote, “outright fraud.”

The exhaustive New York Times investigation is based on interviews and more
than 100,000 pages of documents describing the Trump empire, reaching the
conclusion the president, far from merely receiving a small loan of a
million dollars “received the equivalent today,” get this, “of at least
$413 million from his father`s real estate empire starting when he was a
toddler continuing to this day.”

Not only does the piece put the line to the myth of Trump as a
bootstrapping developer, it outlines a number of strategies, some of which
the paper says appear to be illegal, used to reduce the family`s tax bills
over the years, quote “the president`s parents, Fred and Mary Trump,
transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which could
have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55 percent tax
rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances. The Trump`s paid a total of
$52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax records show” that`s a difference,
just to be clear, of almost $500 million, half a billion dollars, money
that should have belonged to the American people and the American public,
but instead went to line the pockets of the Trump family and the Trump
children, including the president.

Joining me now, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Jessie Eisenger. He`s a
senior writer at ProPublica, had a great piece on the IRS just yesterday in
the New York Times.

It`s a hell of a story.

JESSE EISENGER, PROPUBLICA: It`s an amazing piece of reporting,

HAYES: I mean, they have him dead to rights, that`s the thing. I mean,
the thing that struck me is The New York Times does not say outright fraud
without layers and layers of lawyers going through and green lighting that

EISENGER: Absolutely. I don`t think I`ve never gotten to.

HAYES: No, you never get to say outright fraud.

EISENGER: Yeah, why don`t I get the toys?

And it`s a very muscularly written piece. They call it outright fraud.
They call lies, lies, which you don`t see in The New York Times. They call
Donald Trump a con man. It is a piece that they felt very confident in
writing and really sort of carried through with the muscular.

HAYES: And they have the documents. I mean, they have the documents that
show how the family – they`ve got the subsidiaries. They`ve got the

EISENGER: And they`ve got tax returns.

HAYES: They`ve got tax returns.

EISENGER: Now, to be clear, it`s Fred Trump`s tax returns, it`s not the
golden brass ring of Donald Trump`s return, which we would love to see and
which he never disclosed. But it`s Donald Trump – I mean, it`s Fred
Trump`s business and Fred Trump`s tax returns and then all the business
relationships that they – that we`ve never seen, the subsidiaries they had
that they built to hide what they were doing.

HAYES: And some pretty blatant stuff – I mean, just ways of essentially
moving money from parents to children that you would have to declare as
income that they hide from the IRS and rip the government off.

EISENGER: Yeah, I talked to a tax lawyer tonight who said that he was a
little bit shocked at how crude all these machinations were. And he said,
you know, maybe they couldn`t hire – or maybe they were too cheap to hire
good tax lawyers. But, you know, they just did very blatant stuff.

The main technique is – which the IRS really should catch and the state
tax authorities should
catch is just lying about the value of the assets. And then when you`re
transferring them, if you say they`re worth a lot less then you pay much
lower taxes on it. That`s a kind of blatant, obvious fraud
that really should be caught.

HAYES: By the way, this is lying on the underlying assets is a recurring
theme in the Michael
Cohen – in some of the Michael Cohen charges, in the Paul Manafort charges
and here. It`s a thing that never occurred to me that that`s a way to
commit crime…

EISENGER: Well, where`s your imagination?

HAYES: Exactly. If you lie about the value of things, you can move things
between different parties, you can get loans and all this. But it is fraud

EISENGER: Yes, and it`s a classic thing that auditors should look at, the
prosecutors should look at, that agents – yes. But FBI should look at.

And now with real estate it`s not that hard. It`s not a stock where you
get the value every day. But real estate buildings in Brooklyn, condos,
are being sold every day. So you can get the valuations there, and you
can approximate them. The IRS really should be able to – beyond that.

HAYES: One of the things here is that it`s a family affair. It was a
family affair back then. This is a guy who came up learning at the knee
how to evade taxes, who`s got kids now who, lord knows what they`re doing,
but also that The New York Times got these documents and sat with them for
18 months. It makes you wonder what it would look like if the president`s
tax returns were in the hands of reporters.

EISENGER: It would be spectacular. I mean, we already know pieces of it.
We know a lot about his business machinations that Donald Trump`s, that is,
you know, like getting the loan from daddy to bail out the business, about
misleading things they`ve said to the banks.

And, you know, he`s kept in the family, we broke a story, ProPublica, broke
a story a year ago
that he transferred apartments to his sons at artificially low prices.

HAYES: Which, again, the artificially low price keeps rearing its head and
head. I should say that Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Fred Trump has been
gone for nearly years. It`s sad to witness this misleading attack against
the Trump family by the, of course, failing New York Times. Jesse
Eisenger, thank you.

EISENGER: Thanks for having me.

HAYES: Still ahead, 35 days left to the midterms and Republicans are
turning to some tried and true messages to try to hold onto power. We`ll
talk about some of the worst political ads we`ve seen
coming up.

Plus, the president gets demoted in tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two next.


HAYES: Thing One tonight, do you remember John Barron or John Miller, the
Trump spokesman who would call up reporters and leak braggadocios
information about The Donald in the 80s, but obviously were just Donald
Trump himself pretending to be someone else.


TRUMP: He gets calling by everybody in the book in terms of women..


TRUMP: Well, he gets called by a lot of people. They just call. they
just call. Actresses, people that you write about just call to see if they
can go out with him.


HAYES: They just call. In 1984, Trump pretending to be John Barron,
called up a reporter
for Forbes magazine who was working on the magazine`s third annual ranking
of America`s richest people. John Barron just wanted to share some really
favorable information about Donald Trump`s financial situation.


JONATHAN GREENBERG, : I just thought that perhaps your tax papers says
it`s been – (inaudible) to Donald Trump?

TRUMP: Correct, correct, that`s correct.

GREENBERG: OK. And when you say, you know, in excess of 90 percent of the

TRUMP: I`d say in excess of 90. In fact, well, it`s really closer to even
the ultimate, but in excess of 90 percent yes.


HAYES: Not only was that not John Barron, what he`s saying was not true,
it was Trump lying to Forbes pretending to be someone else to get Donald
Trump on the Forbes 400 list.

Now, Trump really cares about that list, which is why tomorrow could be a
tough day for him. And that`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.


HAYES: Donald Trump clearly had ambitions to leave the White House more
rich than when he got there. There`s, of course, the Trump International
Hotel in Washington that opened his first
year in office where Trump can make money off of anyone who comes to town
and wants to please him. The president has also reportedly charged the
government millions of dollars to rent office space
in Trump Tower for the purpose of protecting him and more than $300,000 for
golf cart rentals, which he charges the Secret Service when he goes to his

But he`s going to have to start renting shoes, too, because this plan is
not working. Forbes is reporting that Donald Trump`s net worth has
actually dropped from $4.5 billion in 2015 to $3.1 billion the last two
years. 200 million of that apparently because of the effect of Trump`s
presidency on his brand. For some reason, a lot of people are turned off
by the Trump name now. I can`t imagine why.

Tomorrow, Forbes releases its latest Forbes 400 list and we don`t know
exactly where Trump is on it. But we know last year he was number 248.
Forbes says he`s dropped 138 spots this year, which, by our math, has him
barely hanging on at number 386, not that Trump cares or anything.


TRUMP: I mean, Forbes just came out and they said I`m worth $4.5 billion
or $5 billion. And they have no idea. Actually, they have no idea. It`s
much more than that, but I won`t tell them.




created this problem and congress alone can fix it. This administration
did not create a policy of separating families at the border.


HAYES: The blatant lies from the Trump administration about its child
separation policy are under a brand new spotlight tonight after the
inspector general`s truly scathing report, the report obtained by The
Washington Post portrays a policy that was flawed from the start. Quote,
“each step of this manual process is vulnerable to human error,” it says,
“in describing the ways children were separated and cared for. Border
Patrol does not provide preverbal children with wrist bracelets or
other means of identification.”

Even a claim made on June 23, three days after Trump signed an executive
order halting the separations, the DHS had created a central database, was
essentially deemed a lie by the inspector general. Quoting again, “the OIG
team asked several ICE employees if they knew of such a database, and they
did not.”

So, today, with more than 130 children out of an initial 2,500 still in
detention, still separated from their parents, it`s important to note that,
quote, “at least 860 migrant children were left in border patrol holding
cells longer than the 72-hour limit mandated by U.S. courts.” Many of
those children were put in chain link holding pens.

And back in June, under massive criticism for the separation policy, the
Trump administration stressed illegal entry into the country.


NIELSEN: If an adult enters at a port of entry and claims asylum, they
will not face prosecution for illegal entry. They have not committed a
crime by coming to the port of entry.


HAYES: At the time our reporting suggested that was not true. And the
inspector general report found, indeed, that Border Patrol, quote,
“restricted the flow of asylum seekers at legal ports of
entry” forcing people, then, to cross illegally, straight into the
administration`s horrendous policy of separating children from their

As of now, the United States Congress has had no sustained oversight
hearings or investigations into this entire abomination.


HAYES: Do you remember when Republicans were playing to run in the
midterms on tax cuts?
Let`s check in and see how that`s going.

New York Republican Chris Collins, who was indicted in August on insider
trading, charges has decided the fact that his Democratic challenger, Nate
McMurray speaks fluent Korean – McMurray`s wife is a naturalized citizen
from South Korea – justifies running this ad.


(SUBTITLES): Nate McMurray wants to be your next congressman. Worked to
send jobs to China and Korea. Helped American companies hire foreign
workers. Fewer jobs for us, more jobs for China and Korea. You can take
Nate McMurray at his word.


HAYES: Not a lot about the tax cuts there.

By the way, those words at the bottom that are made to look like subtitles
have nothing to do whatsoever with what McMurray was actually saying.

So, what about another indicted Republican? California`s Duncan Hunter Jr.
Hunter is running an ad that his Democratic opponent, Ammar Campa-Najjar, a
Christian raised in San Diego, justifiably described as racist, xenophobic
and rooted in lies.


ANNOUNCER: Ammar Campa-Najjar is working to infiltrate congress, using
three different names to hide his family`s ties to terrorism. His
grandfather masterminded the Munich Olympic massacre.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a well orchestrated plan.

ANNOUNCER: Ammar Campa-Najjar, a risk we can`t ignore.


HAYES: Yeah.

Then there is New York incumbent Republican John Faso, who has, to his
great credit, not been indicted. The NRCC is defending Faso`s seat in the
overwhelming white 19th district of New York with a spot attacking his
Rhodes Scholar opponent, Antonio Delgado, by spotlighting Delgado`s brief
career as a rapper 12 years ago.


Antonio Delgado.

I was raised to believe you`re supposed to love your neighbor.


HAYES: With me now to talk about what is going on here, Michelle Goldberg,
columnist at the New York Times, Jelani Cobb, staff writer at The New
Yorker and MSNBC contributor Josh Barro, columnist at New York Magazine.

I want to start with the Delgado one, because that – we show you one
little bit, there are five or six NRCC ads – this is not the Faso campaign
– the National Republican – they are all rapper Antonio
Delgado, big city rapper, Antonio Delgado, Antonio Delgado in a hoodie. I
don`t think it`s gotten enough attention. It is like – this is the hands
ad. This is one of the most racist, obviously racist ads I`ve seen.

JELANI COBB, NEW YORKER: Yeah, I was just going say that, but that`s in
the tradition
of the Jesse Helms hands ad.

HAYES: Which is about a – you couldn`t get the job and you see a black
man`s hands.

COBB: Right. Right. They had to give the job to an affirmative action
hire and stoking that kind of resentment.

But the curious thing about this is that people are trying to replicate the
Trump playbook so to speak, but Trump was able to get away with that
against a very well define and not very well liked – I will just say, very
much loathed Democratic opponent. And so for the people who are maybe
racist, but don`t like to think of themselves as racist, or people who will
hold their nose and vote for someone who
does something that`s borderline, this turns all those people off.

HAYES: Yeah, yeah.

COBB: And so you don`t know that you can get away with that in the absence
of someone who is as polarizing as Hillary Clinton.

HAYES: Although, I`m also amazed at the way that he has moved the window
of the acceptable such that the Delgado ads, which I should say have been
in The New York Times, are not like a big
national scandal.

JOSH BARRO, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: I think an interesting thing about this
choice the NRCC made there, is that this is the third campaign in a row in
New York`s 19th district where Republicans are able to run the play about
this candidate who is not from this district.

HAYES: Totally.

BARRO: And it`s literally true in the case of Antonio Delgado. He moved
from New Jersey not
very long ago. And the two previous candidates, who are white, they ran
sort of the normal this person is not from the district campaign. And they
decided here that this is a more effective way to do that rather than being
like, he lived in Montclair, New Jersey two years ago.

I assume generally when they put up an ad it`s because they`ve tested it
and they`ve decided this is the thing that tests. But I would note, you
know, last year the Virginia governor`s race, you had in the Pennsylvania
18th special election that the Democrats won, you had this shift where they
sort of gave up on the tax message because they decided that wasn`t working
and went with the sort of Trumpiest message possible, and still lost.

HAYES: It didn`t work.

BARRO: So, just because they think this is the thing they think that works
the best for
them, that doesn`t mean it`s a thing that works.

interesting kind of whose youthful high jinks we`ve decided matter here,
right. I mean, to run these ads while simultaneously claiming that it`s
out of line to go back and look at what Brett Kavanaugh did in college is
pretty rich.

But also, this is – in a way there is something honest about these ads in
this is what the Republican Party is running on, right? Like, this is a
battle whether America is going to be Obama`s America, a multicultural,
forward thinking, multi-ethnic democracy or whether it`s going to be this
brutally revanchist white patriarchy. That is what the midterm is about.
And I guess to their credit they
understand that.

HAYES: I`ve got say the Collins – the McMurray-Collins one – I mean,
now, Collins has his back up against the wall. Of course, it`s no excuse
at all. But he is desperate, right. But that ad is shocking also. I
mean, the guy is just speaking Korean, because his wife is Korean. And it
is literally, like, look at this menacing terrible dude who speaks a second

COBB: Well, I mean, remember John Kerry spoke that menacing language of

HAYES: That`s right. That`s right.

COBB: They got some mileage out of that. Of course it`s a very obviously
different racial overtones to what`s happening with the Collins race.

But I do think that all of this traces back to, as they say, the cliche,
the fish rots from the
head, that Trump has normalized this, and he has allowed this. And we ask
ourselves who we`ve
become as a consequence of having this person in the White House.

This is not like an abstract philosophical question that we can kind of
point by point by point look at the outrageous things that are happening
because of him that people are emulating him. And the only I guess good
point in this is people have not seemed to replicate the secret sauce on
way it has been politically profitable.

HAYES: To Josh`s point earlier, right.

BARRO: I think the thing that`s jarring about this being in TV spots,
though, is that the way Trump exploited these things focused so heavily on
sort of rumor mills and conservative media outlets of varying degrees
respectability and like Facebook memes.

HAYES: Yeah, it`s a great point.

BARRO: …which Trump, you know, understood Facebook in a way that very
few presidential
candidates have.

These candidates, though, are sort of taking that type of content and
sticking it on television in a much more traditional campaign modality.
And so it looks kind of weird to actually see the thing that feels like it
ought to be like a chain letter on somebody`s Facebook wall as an actual TV

GOLDBERG: And one of the things about Facebook is the people who these ads
are targeted to see them and nobody else does, so you kind of don`t even

HAYES: You don`t have to come out and like…

GOLDBERG: Right, so you don`t see what a disgusting campaign they`re
running necessarily, where as this – I mean, this basically shows all
these candidates, they don`t really know how far they can go, right? I
mean, Trump has opened the doors, and now everybody is kind of
experimenting and trying to figure out what the limits.

HAYES: What the line is.

GOLDBERG: If there are any.

COBB: We should be mindful here that we`re actually nostalgic for the time
when Republicans wanted plausible deniability with their racism. Like,
we`ve now gone from the well, maybe it is, maybe it isn`t.

HAYES: Right, because there is a taboo embedded in that that has been
taken away.

COBB: Right.

HAYES; And part of this, too – to me, it`s such a sort of neat little
circle, which is like the tax cuts created huge paydays for the donor class
of the Republican Party. Voters don`t care about it. So what you do is
you shake down the donor class who are feeling pretty fat from the tax cut
to help your campaign by running ads about, you know, big city rapper X.

BARRO: Yeah, I think part of it also is a theory that they need to turn
out the voter that Trump figured out how to turn out the first time.

HAYES: Right.

BARRO: You have relatively reliable Republican voters, more upscale
suburban voters, who do care about things like tax cuts, judicial
appointments. They may think that those are sorts of people who are going
to turnout anyway. They`re really nervous that the people who had been
nonvoters, who Trump managed to get out and vote, mostly non-college
educated whites, that those people are not going to show up in the
midterms. And I think part of the idea is that these are messages that are
aimed at that group.

But again you know I mean looking back at some of those special elections,
in the 2017 elections, I don`t think it`s clear that that theory is true.

HAYES: That ad, the RNCC Delgado ad, the other two are the local
campaigns. But they should pull that ad, if you`re asking me.

Michelle Goldberg, Jelani Cobb, and Josh Barro, thanks for being with me
tonight. That is All In for this evening.

The Rachel Maddow Show starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.


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