IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Michael Cohen going to prison. TRANSCRIPT: 12/12/18, All In w/ Chris Hayes

Guests: Neal Katyal, William Cohen

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST:  -- guardianship of Mecca would guarantee Israel`s possession of Jerusalem.  Here at home, it is being reported that no one will be named the President`s next chief of staff without Jared and Ivanka`s personal approval.  I have warned since the beginning that such family ownership has not been seen since the Romanovs ruled from Saint Petersburg.  And that`s HARDBALL for now.  "ALL IN" with Chris Hayes starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST:  Tonight, on ALL IN.

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER LAWYER OF DONALD TRUMP:  I`m obviously very loyal and very dedicated Mr. Trump. 

HAYES:  Donald Trump`s lawyer is going to prison. 

COHEN:  I`ll do anything to protect Mr. Trump.

HAYES:  And prosecutors say they have evidence the President is a felon.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST:  Career prosecutors here in New York City have evidence that the President of the United States committed a felony.

HAYES:  Tonight, why Michael Cohen says he covered up dirty deeds for the President.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Mr. President, your reaction to Michael Cohen`s sentencing? 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Did Michael Cohen coverup your dirty deeds?

HAYES:  Plus, new evidence from the National Enquirer that Donald Trump took part in a criminal conspiracy to get elected.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  I`ve always said why didn`t the National Enquirer get the Pulitzer Prize.

HAYES:  And what Democrats plan to do about it all with Congresswoman Maxine Waters.  All that and Paul Ryan`s unbelievable stunt to continue American support of the nightmare in Yemen. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  What does a farm bill have to do with the war in Yemen?

HAYES:  When ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES:  Good evening from New York I`m Chris Hayes.  The President`s lawyer is going to prison.  He is going to prison for crimes he committed in order to get the President elected.  Crimes he committed according to prosecutors at the President`s direction.  Here`s the ugly truth about what we now know.  The President of the United States was surrounded by criminals throughout his campaign.  His campaign chair, his fixer, his national security adviser, the list goes on, perhaps others. 

He was the beneficiary of at least two separate distinct criminal conspiracies to aid his election.  One of course was pulled off by a hostile foreign power at tremendous cost and sophistication.  And we don`t quite know yet the degree to which his campaign or even he himself collaborated in that criminal conspiracy engineered by Russia.  But on the other criminal conspiracy, there is really no longer much of a question.

It was prosecutors say, pulled off by his fixer on the President`s orders.

And as if that weren`t enough, remember this, that Trump and his criminal associates made it their number-one argument while running for President against his opponent that she was a criminal, that she was a crook, that she was going to spend the rest of her life in jail.  Michael Cohen himself in a sense deleted tweet probably good idea to delete that, wrote, Hillary Clinton, when you go to prison for defrauding America and perjury your room and board will be free.  It`s a funny one.  For Donald Trump, that was a refrain, a central part of his closing argument.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP:  Hillary has engaged in a criminal massive enterprise and cover-ups like probably nobody ever before. 

Hillary is likely to be under investigation for many years, probably concluding in a criminal trial,

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES:  Trump and his criminal associates might still be making that case had Trump not won the election.  Instead, today, Trump`s lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years behind bars for a variety of crimes including making illegal hush money payments in violation of campaign finance law to women who said they`d had affairs with Trump. 

Appearing before the judge, an emotional Cohen said he blamed himself for his crimes but he also blamed the President.  "It was my own weakness and a blind loyalty to this man that led me to choose a path of darkness over light,"  Cohen added.  "Time and time again I felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds rather than listen to my own inner voice and my moral compass.  My weakness can be characterized as a blind loyalty to Donald Trump and I was weak for not having the strength to question and to refuse his demands."

Lanny Davis who calls himself an advisor to Cohen told NBC News that Trump`s longtime lawyer feels a lot more say ending that "chapter two begins today."  At some point, probably the end of chapter two, Michael Cohen testifying publicly after Robert Mueller has completed his report in front of some Congressional committee to tell the full truth about Donald Trump.

Joining me now to break down the legal implications of today`s news, Law Professor and Supreme Court lawyer Neal Katyal, who was Acting Solicitor General under President Obama.  Neal, the legal significance, political significance, constitutional significance of the sentencing today.

NEAL KATYAL, FORMER ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL:  Well, I don`t think that there is -- it can be any doubt really that for Donald Trump today was the worst day of his presidency eclipsing even the loss in the Midterms or whatever.  And I say so for two reasons that are legal but also have political implications. 

The first is you have the President`s inner circle, someone he trusted for many, many, many years to do all of his most sensitive stuff, going to jail for three years.  That`s number one.  Number two and this is something that we started to foreshadow last Friday when the Southern District in New York, those career prosecutors said this.  They said Michael Cohen and they have other evidence that shows that Trump directed the commission of these campaign finance felonies.  And today the judge a hundred percent agreed with that. 

And also we learned today that the National Enquirer had struck a deal with the Southern District of New York.  And they also believe that the reason for -- they said that the prosecutors, the reason for -- they struck with Trump back in back in 2016, the agreement that they had was to influence the election.

So altogether, I think -- here`s the way I think of that.  When I teach criminal law, you know, I teach basically that a boss always gets a higher crime than the subordinate whom he`s directing anywhere from a 50 percent to a 3x premium.  Here we`ve got the subordinate going to prison for three years and the question Trump has to ask now is what does that mean for him and his culpability.

HAYES:  We should note that those three years are a variety of crimes some committed independently of the President, just so they were clear on that.  But the second question is I mean, we are now in a bizarre situation in which it seems clear to everyone legal scholar or not just observing citizen that were Individual One not the president of the United States, he would be under indictment now, like he would be turning himself in.

KATYAL:  Exactly.  So I mean, I think that everything taken together shows the commission of a felony.  Obviously, you know, the President is you know, beyond -- has to you know -- has beyond-a-reasonable-doubt protections and the like.  But if this were any ordinary citizen, if this were you and me, we`d be looking at jail time right now.  And you know, I don`t think that our constitutional founders would tolerate a system in which the President is above the law.

HAYES:  Well here`s the situation we find ourselves.  It`s like a some sort of weird video game that the president has like some shield power but it`s constrained, he has to stay in the White House.  So he`s like you can`t get him with the -- you can`t get him with your legal slings and arrows as long as he`s the President.  And the second he were to stop being the president, were he someone else, then he would be culpable legally and that just seems like a very strange state of affairs.

KATYAL:  Yes, totally.  I mean, right now the President`s only real defense to this at this point given what the Inquirer said and given what Cohen said is none the president.  I have a get-out-of-jail-free card under the Constitution.  And you know, the most interesting thing about that.  Let`s put that in context.  This is the first time Donald Trump has ever cared about the Constitution to say oh it protects me.  I mean this is a guy who flagrantly disregards it at every turn.  But now he finds something that he claims in the text of the Constitution, it`s actually not, that the sitting president can`t be indicted.  But he`s asserting these Constitutional protections.

And you know, I think the Justice Department has had a general policy not in campaign finance but a general policy that president -- sitting president shouldn`t be indicted.  You impeach him first, or you try them after they leave office.  But you know, I think this kind of felony which is all about how the president got there in the first place and did he cheat to become the president isn`t really governed by the DOJ memos. 

HAYES:  That`s interesting.  So you think -- I mean, I think this is a key point and it`s one that`s easily glossed over because I think people think about other actions the president have taken of sort of gray legality and you know sketched out in the New York Times piece of the family`s business history, etcetera.

In this case, we have just a concrete violation of campaign finance law having been pleaded to already, stipulated right, that was done in the last days of a campaign that he won in order to mask you know, bad information about him to help him win.  And what you`re saying is you think the commission of it in furtherance of becoming the president should be relevant to considerations of his indictability.

KATYAL:  Absolutely.  So it`s one thing if the President is alleged to commit unrelated crimes to being in office.  You know, some land deal, whatever, you name it.  Whatever it is, it doesn`t matter.  You know -- but you know here this goes to how he became president in the first place.  And I don`t think we want to turn our American political system into a kind of winner-takes-all where people cheat and lie during the campaign and they really hope if they cheat away enough then they can become president and get the get-out-of-jail-free card.  I mean, that turns our constitutional system upside down.

HAYES:  Right.  The incentives are that you can get -- that you get the shield.  The victory is that you get the shield to essentially immunize you from whatever bad acts you committed on your way to winning the presidency. 

KATYAL:  Right, exactly.  It`s a crazy constitutional argument the way that the Trump defenders are spinning it out.  It can`t possibly be the law that the president is just immune from criminal liability for all time particularly when it deals with a crime going to how it became president.

HAYES:  All right, Neal Katyal, thank you so much for making time tonight.  I really appreciate it.  I want to turn now to the former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, a Republican from Maine who has served in both the House and the Senate and has signed on to a letter this week calling on the Senate to stand in defense of democracy. 

Mr. Cohen, your reaction to the fact that the President is named as an unindicted co-conspirator, as Individual One by his own Justice Department, quite plainly believes he committed a felony.

WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:  Well, the judge cast a cloud over the presidency and over the President himself, I should say rather than the presidency when you have a lawyer for the President who does admit to having committed a crime and to have done so inference of the election of President Trump.  So I think it`s a difficult issue for him to deal with it at this point.  I think there`ll be more coming.  And I think the Congress are going to look much further, much deeper, and await the filing of the Mueller report, but then build upon whatever is in there or not in there and try to then establish just how deep the complicity goes within the realm of the Trump Organization.

HAYES:  I wanted to get your reaction to what some of the Republicans have been saying on Capitol Hill.  This is Orrin Hatch.  Orrin Hatch who`s had a long and colorful career in the United States Senate.  He`s a sort of elder statesman in many regards, at least in terms of his tenure.  And this is what he had to say today about this news.  Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Is he concerned about what the federal government is alleging here?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH:  Well, I think the Democrats will do anything to hurt this president, anything.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  But this is not the Democrats.  This is the Southern District of New York, the U.S. Attorney.  I mean that`s who`s making this allegation.

HATCH:  You think he`s a Republican, do you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Well, he`s appointed by the President.  He`s appointed by the President.

HATCH:  OK, but I don`t care.  All I can say is he`s doing a good job as president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES:  I don`t care.  What do you think of that?

W. COHEN:  Well, I think every member of the Senate, every member of the House should care.  And we`re built upon the premise of the rule of law.  It`s the rule of law that holds back the jungle.  And when you say it doesn`t matter as long as he`s doing a good job, namely the economy seemed to be well, doing better than it was last year but slowing down somewhat.  Nonetheless, it doesn`t matter whether there`s been any violation of the law.  Then I think you`re witnessing the undoing of this country.

One of the reasons why 44 Senators signed that letter and I have to give credit to Chuck Hagel and to Chris Dodd for initiating the conversation amongst all of us is that we are fearful that we are starting down the road to a non-democratic society.  Namely, if you start looking about the road to tyranny, a road -- the road to fascism as such, you have the president who`s been attacking the press. 

That is one of the first things that dictators and tyrants want to do.  To attack the intelligence community, to attack the FBI, to attacked immigrants, to set up on us against them, a confrontation, all to give power to the president who then can dictate the rules of the game as such.  And that`s something.  It`s fundamental to this country.  It`s why 44 senators said. 

And we don`t do this lightly to call upon our former colleagues and say remember what the institution about.  Remember what the Senate stands for.  Remember why you have six years instead of two.  You have six years in which to act on behalf of the country.  For them certainly as statesmen, the last two perhaps as politicians, but you`ve got a six-year term because you have a special obligation to uphold the rule of law.

HAYES:  I mean, is that because when we talk about what the actual check here, when we talk about being above the rule law, Neal Katyal was talking about the indictability, but that aside the constitutional remedy squarely, indictability aside, is impeachment, impeachment and removal proceeding from the House and then the Senate.

I mean, are you explicitly trying to send a message to the people of the United States Senate who may serve as the jury of removal that they need to be very serious and take -- and be solemn about what they are seeing what their duty is?

W. COHEN:  I think the message that I would like to send as part of that group is that the Senate is not a reality show.  This is not theatre.  This is not entertainment.  This is the real thing in terms of our responsibility to uphold the Constitution.  That is the oath to which we all swore to.  That is the oath to which they are obligated to adhere to. 

And so don`t treat it lightly.  Don`t dismiss it and say oh, it`s just politics.  I recall during the Richard Nixon impeachment.  The president called all of us down to the White House and said to a Republican base, I may be an SOB but I`m your SOB.  Well, I didn`t agree with that.  My obligation was to the Constitution, to the Office of the President and not to the president himself.  And I think that`s the message we want to say to our colleagues or -- we the former colleagues of them who are now sitting is remember the respect for the institution and why you`re there. 

Why you`re there is to uphold that rule of law.  And don`t dismiss it as just politics that being played.  That`s more than politics.

HAYES:  Yes.  And you walk the walk in that particular case voting for the impeachment of Richard Nixon at that time.  William Cohen, thank you so much for being with me tonight.  Next the publisher of the National Enquirer blows a massive hole in Donald Trump`s defense.  Why today`s surprise admission from the tabloid could be the most significant development the day in just two minutes.  Don`t go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES:  The news that his lawyer, his trusted associate is now going to prison for three years is bad for Donald Trump, obviously.  But you know what might be even worse for him?  This agreement that federal prosecutors in New York made public today.  It is an immunity deal with AMI, that`s the National Enquirer`s parent company and it describes among other things, AMI`s role in making a $150,000 payment to a woman before the 2016 presidential election.

Donald Trump keeps making the argument, you`ll remember, that the hush money payment Michael Cohen made on his behalf had nothing to do with the election.  But there are now a bunch of other people saying very definitively otherwise.  Here`s a portion from a Southern District New York statement.  I`ll read it.

"As a party agreement, AMI admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate`s presidential campaign and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election.  AMI further admitted that it`s principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman`s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

Remember, the Wall Street Journal reported this just last month.  "As a presidential candidate in August 2015, Donald Trump huddled with longtime friend, media executive David Pecker in his cluttered 26th floor Trump Tower office and made a request.  What can you do to help my campaign, he asked, according to people familiar with the meeting.

Mr. pecker chief executive of American Media Inc offered to use his National Enquirer tabloid to buy the silence of women if they tried to publicize alleged sexual encounters with Mr. Trump.  Here to explain the significance of all this Mimi Rocah, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District New York, now a Distinguished Fellow in Criminal Justice of the Pace University School of Law and Tom Winter NBC News Investigative Reporter.

All right, Mimi, you have been talking today about why this is so legally significant in terms of what it means for the president.  Why is it so significant?

MIMI ROCAH, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST:  Sure.  So I mean, it`s significant because essentially before Trump is even charged, if he`s going to get charged, they have knocked out a defense that he could raise, and he`s been raising it on Twitter.  He and Giuliani have been out there.  I mean it depends which you know, week were in.  There have been different defenses that have been raised.  First, it was just they didn`t know anything about it.  Then it was OK, yes, we knew about these payments but it was this private -- I think Giuliani even used the term settling a civil suit or something.

HAYES:  Right.

ROCAH:  So trying to make it sound like it had nothing to do with the campaign, nothing -- no big picture here.  And now you`ve got AMI saying no, in addition to Cohen.  So you have Cohen already--

HAYES:  Right.

ROCAH:  There are two different payments.  But essentially about those two payments, first you have Cohen and now you of AMI saying this was for the purpose of influencing the election which frankly I think you could have argued before that based on the recording and other thing.  And you have -- you know from that Wall Street Journal reporting that Pecker who it looks like is cooperating is good to say that they started coordinating about that in 2015.

HAYES:  Explicitly because of the election.

ROCAH:  Exactly.

TOM WINTER, NBC NEWS INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER:  Exactly right.  As a matter of fact, we talked about this non-prosecution agreement but attached to it is the statement of admitted facts.  And in line three it says, in or about August 2015, David Pecker the chairman and chief executive officer of AMI met with Michael Cohen, an attorney for a presidential candidate who`s obviously Donald Trump and at least one other member of the campaign.

So, I mean, that really stands up the Wall Street Journal`s reporting.  And it says, at the meeting, Pecker offered to help deal with negative stories about the presidential candidate`s relationships with women, plural, by among other things assisting the campaign and identifying those stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoiding. 

So this is the definition of catching kill which is a phrase we`ve been hearing about and it`s clear that they identified this as a potential issue to the -- to the Donald Trump campaign in August of 2015.  This goes back a long time.

HAYES:  You know, we`ve got this story also that they have like a safe of damaging stories.  We don`t know what else is possibly in there and who has custody at this point.  This is -- the AP reported that back in -- back in August.  But the reason this is so important, right, is because the violation here is a criminal violation of campaign finance law.  The reason these payments are illegal is because they are unjust closed secret payments made by a campaign for the purposes of the campaign which you cannot do, right?  That`s the core of the issue.

ROCAH:  It`s a corporate donation in kind, a corporate contribution in kind.  Right.  And AMI has fully admitted that.  And I think even if you --

HAYES:  Right, so the donor here --

ROCAH:  Right.

HAYES:  -- who has committed one part of the crime, they`re already on the record saying we did it. 

ROCAH:  Exactly.  I mean, so yes, Trump can still say, well, I don`t know, I wasn`t thinking about that, I was thinking about my wife finding out.  But that just -- it doesn`t make sense to begin with it but now it really wouldn`t hold water.  And I think if you look at the other important thing about the AMI piece I think, is again, one of trumps defenses on Twitter has been you know, this is a minor -- I mean, you even have the Republican senators just saying this is not a big deal.

HAYES:  Peanuts of whatever.

ROACH:  OK, this is not paper mistake, right?  You have a corporation, a big corporation collaborating a campaign to structure in this very manipulative way so that no questions are asked, right?

HAYES:  Yes, in order to evade the law, obviously.

ROCAH:  To deceive.  And I think that came out in the proceedings today.  I think people should go back to what the judge said about this crime.  It`s important.  He called it sophisticated.  He talked about deception.  These are all things you can say about Donald Trump as well.

HAYES:  You were there in that courtroom this morning when this was happened. 

WINTER:  That`s right, exactly.  I mean, you -- first off, you have real emotional moments for Michael Cohen today.  I mean, several times he broke down, particularly when he was speaking about his family.  But you had a judge today who is no-nonsense.  He was very serious about -- to Mimi`s point, to the crimes that Michael Cohen committed here and talked about how serious it is when it involves campaign finance.  That this is something that is important for the public in the public trust.

And it`s not just the lying to Congress, it`s about these campaign donations.  And so he addressed that directly today.

HAYES:  You -- I mean, part of the question here, right, for the legal liability is like it`s all there served on a platter, right?  I mean, there`s -- if there`s three people involved in the scheme, the president was the one who has the allegations against him in his running, his fixer and his buddy David Pecker who`s going to catch and kill.  Like two of the three legs of the stool are like yes, it`s him.

WINTER:  The coordinators in the checkbook.

HAYES:  Can I ask you a question here that I don`t understand?  Why is Pecker -- he was reimbursed.  Like I never quite understand where the scheme ends up.  Does the money end up in Pecker`s pocket?

ROCAH:  I believe that AMI put the money out and then Cohen reimbursed them. 

HAYES:  Reimbursed.  And that is part of the reason for the structuring is to cover it all out essentially. 

ROCAH:  And that Cohen`s reimbursement was made to look like a sort of retainer from the Trump Organization. 

HAYES:  Right.  That was the masking. 

ROCAH:  Right.  So the Trump Organization has some liability here as well which is where I think you know, the Southern District is still looking at the Trump Organization as far as I can tell.

WINTER:  I think if you`re looking at what are the next steps here, I think you look clearly AMI and it has to be David Pecker because he`s the guy in the room in -- it`s been relayed to me that he was very cooperative throughout this process, that he was very helpful to investigators when they started to say, OK, we have these documents.  We have this investigation into Michael Cohen.  We have bank transfers, etcetera. 

What are we looking at here at David Pecker?  So one, I think that`s going to be important to see where things go with that.  Two, you know, in the criminal information that Michael Cohen has already pled guilty to that we`ve talked about here on this show before, we`ve all talked about at length at this point, and also in subsequent filings, we now know that there was definitely a back-and-forth with the Trump Organization.  And that`s something that`s very much within the Southern Districts purview.  The company is based here in New York.

HAYES:  Final question --

WINTER:  It can move along with it.

HAYES:  Final question on that.  It`s like this -- I don`t know if I`m reading too much but SDNY seems to be going hard.  Like the adjectives they used in their filings, the way they talk today, this -- they`re projecting that this was serious.

ROCAH:  Right.  I mean, how everyone keeps saying, wow, Mueller takes lying to the FBI and lying Mueller very seriously.  Well, the Southern District takes --

HAYES:  Yes.

ROACH:  -- crime seriously too.  And their mission is broader than Mueller.  So remember, that`s part of what went on here with Cohn.  Mueller has a more narrow mission.  The Southern District is looking at a whole course of conduct.  And my guess is there are other crimes.  It`s not a guess -- my - - I think that other crimes can be charged out of this besides just election fraud.

HAYES:  All right, Mimi Rocah and Tom Winter, thank you both.  Just ahead, the president has been as we said implicated in a felony.  Congresswoman Maxine Waters joins me to talk about what Democrats plan to do about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES:  The President has been all but accused of committing a federal felony by the U.S. Attorney`s Office for the Southern District of New York.  That`s independent of Mueller`s findings.  And that crime according to federal prosecutors was directing his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to break campaign finance laws which he did successfully when he got elected.  Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison today and according to former FBI director James Comey Trump would be "in serious jeopardy being charged by prosecutors in New York if he were not the occupant of the White House." 

That news, however, has been taken in stride by leading Republican senators on Capital Hill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  On Monday morning, federal prosecutors implicated the president in two crimes. Do have you any concerns about that?

MCCONNELL:  I don`t have any observations to make about that.

SEN. CHUCK  GRASSLEY, (R) IOWA:  All I can tell you is we`ve had a prosecutor say things  based upon what Cohen said, but then I get back to the fact that Cohen`s a liar.

SEN. BILL CASSIDY, (R) LOUISIANA:  If you phrase it am I concerned that the president might be involved in a crime, of course.  The question is, then, whether or not this so-called hush money is a crime.

SEN. JOHN THUNE, (R) SOUTH DAKOTA:  I think what we have seen so far is an incomplete picture.  So I just think it`s -- it probably at this point better for those of us who aren`t close to it and aren`t legal analysts to take a step back and wait until we have a more complete picture.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I don`t care.  All I can say is he`s doing a good job as president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES:  Joining me now, Congresswoman Maxine Waters who recently called Trump, quote, a criminal and said he, quote, must be brought up by the congress of the United States for impeachment.

Congresswoman, you have a different view than Republican colleagues of yours over on the other side in the senate.

REP. MAXINE WATERS, (D) CALIFORNIA:  Absolutely.  As a matter of fact, just watching those members of the senate basically make excuses, say they don`t care, they don`t know what`s going on, it`s pathetic.  It`s pathetic that these men have been elected from the state in this country to represent the people, and they are basically saying they don`t care about the rule of law.  And they know that this president has committed a crime or crimes.  They know that he directed Cohen and that it`s more than simply, you know, being complicit. 

This was what he created.  He created this hush money and paying off these women, and, yes, it is a federal violation.  As a matter of fact, all of the money that we collect for any of these federal offices must be clean money.  It cannot be corporate money.  It must be disclosed.  You can`t launder the money and send it through somebody else, use corporate money, and then say, oh, it`s not a federal  crime.

Well, Trump would like to redefine the law the way that he wants to redefine it, but he`s wrong.

And, yes, I believe that he should be impeached.  I really do believe that.

HAYES:  So, you have been outspoken about that, and I think the evidence supporting that contention of yours has only grown stronger since you first said that you thought that was appropriate.

Here`s a scenario that seems likely to me in the next congress, and I`d like to get your reaction to it.  I think there are a lot of Democrats who don`t want to impeach the president, because they don`t think -- they think it is politically overstepping, it will risk backlash.  I think there`s a lot of Democrats in the Senate who don`t want to vote either way.  They don`t want to do any of that.

WATERS:  That`s true.

HAYES:  You have Rob Portman warning you that if Nancy Pelosi spends two years on investigations and possibly an impeachment proceeding, it`s going to make it very, very difficult to get  anything done.  And yet it seems to me that the gravity, the center of gravity of this may just move faster than Democrats can contain it.

WATERS:  Well, absolutely.

Let me just say this, all of the descriptions of what would happen if we move to impeach Trump are basically excuses, excuses because, you know, maybe they don`t want to fail at it, maybe they believe that Trump will cause a revolt.  You know, you talk about violence, you know, and they accuse others of violence, this president basically said if you move to impeach me, my people are going to revolt.

And maybe some of that is resonating with, you know, the senators, the members of congress, Republican or Democrat.  But they are derelict in their responsibility.  The constitution gives us the  responsibility to impeach a president and others in government if, in fact, they are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, which we define. 

I believe that this president is dangerous.  I think he has undermined our democracy.  I think he`s aligned himself with the enemy, with Putin.  He loves dictators.  He has literally undone some of  the good public policy that has been created for the safety of the citizens of this country.  And I believe that he certainly qualifies for impeachment.

We may never get it done, and maybe Democrats fear that somehow if we move to impeach him, maybe his base will grow larger. I don`t think so.  I think they`re going to shrink.  I think that base is going to shrink because they`re going to see who this president really is.

He`s talking about closing down the government.  He`s going to hurt some of the very people he claims to want to support.  Many of these people are just workers out there, people who are living on their paychecks day to day.  And I want you to know they cannot afford to have their paychecks cut off because this president is going to close down the government.  He deserves to be impeached.

HAYES:  Your view on that is going to be -- and others` views on it is going to be one of the most interesting dynamics in this new Democratic congress.  Congresswoman Maxine Waters...

WATERS:  Don`t forget, I started this a long time ago.

HAYES:  I know you did, congresswoman.

WATERS:  I warned -- I said it, and I`m sticking with it.

HAYES:  Thank you, congresswoman.  I appreciate it.

WATERS:  You`re welcome.

HAYES:  Coming up, my interview with Senator Chris Murphy on the senate finally standing up to Saudi Arabia.  His reaction to the criminality around the White House.  Plus the anatomy of a coin flip in tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES:  Thing One tonight, we ask the question again.  Why is everything with this president so weird and so awkward?  Did you see the big Army/Navy game this weekend?  Trump was there to flip the coin.  Now, flipping a coin is not some great feat of athletics like, say, throwing out the first  pitch from a Major League mound.  That is hard.  You`re talking about maybe the top 5 percentile of TV personalities can pull something like that off.

No, to flip a coin, you just have to flip the coin.  You use the thumb.  You flick it into the air, get a good rotation going, let it land on the ground, see if it`s heads or tails.

The president`s form remarkably had none of that, other than the landing on the ground part.  Instead of flipping the coin with his thumb, Trump sort of launched it softly in the air the way you might release a baby bird that had somehow become stuck in your hair.  The coin achieved zero rotation, remaining flat in the air like a big pizza pie.

Everyone watched as the coin went up, and then the coin went down, possibly, probably landing on the same side as it was in his palm.  But in case anyone lost sight of it all in the action, the president very helpfully pointed to the spot on the ground to let everyone know where it was.

Now, if you thought that Donald Trump`s awkwardness was a new thing, you would be sorely  mistaken.  It goes way back.  And that`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES:  Donald Trump was doing awkward stuff for a long time before he ever ran for  president.  We were reminded today of a moment on the old Conan O`Brien late night show on NBC where he shows a never before seen Trump outtake.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONAN O`BRIEN, TALK SHOW HOST:  I remember this, Donald Trump was here taping something called Donald Trump`s secrets for us.  And we asked him to start the bit by just pouring himself a glass of water.  That`s what we asked him to do.  And here`s what he did.

TRUMP:  You didn`t think of that, did you, huh?  All right?  Is that OK with you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Sure.

TRUMP:  Why not?  Do you like it or not?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Let`s leave it as an option.

TRUMP:  I thought that was very funny.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  It is.

O`BRIEN:  I don`t know why we didn`t use it.  Clearly it`s hilarious. 

You didn`t think of that, did you?  You wanted me to pour it in there, and I poured it over here.  That`s why I`m a billionaire.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES:  As we have reported on this show, according to the United Nations, and even the Trump-appointed head of the UN World Food Program, the war in Yemen is currently threatening starvation of 14 million people, tens of thousands of Yemenis are already dead.  You`ve seen images like these of children who are starving to death before our very eyes.  It is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world right now. 

And right now, you and I and every American is facilitating this horror.  Our government is supporting the Saudi war in Yemen, the bombardment, the killing, and the starvation of children because -- why exactly? 

What is the argument in favor of doing what we`re doing?  We haven`t heard that argument in the House of Representatives.  In fact, you won`t be hearing an argument for that in the House of Representatives, and that`s because Speaker Ryan today was too cowardly to have an actual debate and vote on this matter, too cowardly to let lawmakers stand up and in the well of the house and say, yes, I think we should keep starving these children because it`s so important that we support the same government that just butchered journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Now, of course, there probably aren`t too many lawmakers willing to stand up and say that since there is no domestic political constituency to continue starving the children of Yemen.  So instead, the cowardly but perfectly in character action, of Speaker Paul Ryan on his way out the door was to use the rules committee to stick a rule -- attach it to the farm bill, a rule to strip out any debate and consideration of the war powers resolution, which would have given lawmakers the opportunity to call for the end of the U.S. support of the Saudi war in Yemen.  That rule passed narrowly, 206-203 with 18 Republicans voting against the bogus rule. 

Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky calling Speaker Ryan`s tactic despicable.  Five Democrats provided the majority voting for the rule, again, a rule to prevent debate on U.S. support of Saudi Arabia`s war in Yemen.

Here are the five democrats who helped attach this monstrous rule to a farm bill.  They apparently think it`s all right to use the farm bill to help continue starving the children of Yemen, and you have to ask again why?  Why do they think that?  We don`t know since they wouldn`t actually debate it.

Are there constituents who get up in the town halls of these five Democrats and say, what I need from you, congressman, is to continue bombing and starving the children of Yemen into death and submission?  I highly doubt it.

So why I ask, again, are we doing this?  In the Senate, at least, there`s a real debate going on about this and a real effort to vote against the U.S. support of the Saudi War in Yemen.  And we`re going to talk to someone who has led that fight.  Senator Chris Murphy joins me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY, (D) CONNECTICUT:  Saudi Arabia can push us around like they have over the course of the last several years, and in particular, the last several months and it sends signals to other countries that they can do the same thing, that they can murder U.S. residents and suffer almost no consequences, that they can bomb civilians with our munitions and suffer no consequences.

We`re the major partner in this relationship, and it`s time that we start acting like it.  And if this administration isn`t going to act like it, then this congress has to act like it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES:  The Senate right now is on track to pass a historic resolution that would not only end the U.S. military involvement in Saudi Arabia`s ongoing war in Yemen, but serve as an unprecedented rebuke to the both current Saudi regime and the Trump administration.

Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat from Connecticut, and one of the original co-sponsors of the resolution, told me earlier tonight just what`s at stake.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MURPHY:  So we get 60 votes to proceed to debate, that`s a pretty significant number, that`s a lot of Republicans, and now we`ll have a handful of amendments and we`ll have a final vote sometime tomorrow.  That vote likely will be overwhelmingly and bipartisan as well.

This will be the first time since the adoption of the War Powers Act in 1973 that congress has voted to pull us out of hostilities abroad.  And it is a clear indication that if this administration doesn`t reorient policy towards Saudi Arabia, draw a line in the sand telling the Saudis where we`re willing to go and where we`re not willing to go, that congress is going to do it for them. 

So, we`re -- you know, maybe hours away from passing this resolution.

HAYES:  What do you make of the maneuver in the House today to essentially cut off the Senate at the knees through a rules committee vote, and then a rule vote, and putting that to the farm bill to essentially neuter whatever comes out of your efforts?

MURPHY:  Well, all it does is postpone the inevitable.  It`s one final parting gift from Paul Ryan to Donald Trump.

But the Democratic congress is going to change that rule back.  They are going to take this resolution up early in 2019, and because we got 60 votes, even though we lose a couple of Democrats, we will have enough votes in the senate to pass it again, as well.

So early in 2019, this resolution is going to be on President Trump`s desk.  There`s no way for Paul Ryan to stop that from happening. 

HAYES:  You what I find striking about this particular conflict, aside from the shocking humanitarian toll happening in Yemen with our facilitation is, it`s very hard to find someone to argue on the other side.  I mean, there`s lots -- you know, we have people on that too talk about health care or we have them to talk about taxes and things like that, and you can find people to make arguments, as far as I can tell I can`t even find the people, whether they`re voters, whether they`re groups, whether they`re members of congress being like, yes, we need to be helping Yemen with this war.

MURPHY:  Yeah, when you explain this to people, right, you say 85,000 kids have died of starvation or disease, the worst cholera epidemic in the history of the recorded world, and it`s that the the U.S. is watching it, it`s that we`re doing it.  It`s U.S. bombs, it`s U.S. refueling planes, it`s U.S. targeting assistance.  There`s nobody who is for that. 

Now, there`s this vague notion in foreign policy circles that you always have to support Saudi Arabia because they`re always fighting Iran.  But in this conflict, the longer it goes on, actually the further we drag Iran in.  Iran and the Houthis, who are the folks fighting in Yemen, weren`t that close in the beginning of the engagement.  Well, they`re close now, because the longer the civil war goes on, the tighter those two become.

So even if you care just about Iran staying in this war, is empowering them, not diminishing their authority.

HAYES:  The other -- I mean, aside from this vote, what`s going to happen, there`s going to be some question whether a shutdown will or will not happen.  What is your read post the bizarre spectacle with Chuck and Nancy yesterday about where that stands?

MURPHY:  I mean, listen, if the president had any negotiating leverage, it`s all gone now, if this actually does go into shutdown.  Everyone understands who did it.  And of course that shutdown would only be temporary, because as soon as the new congress got sworn in in the House of Representatives, they would send a funding bill to the Senate that the Senate couldn`t ignore.  So all of this falls on his lap.

And I think we`re just waiting for the moment which Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan scoop up their stuff, march over to the White House and explain to the president what he`s got to agree to in order to avoid this.  I think they would love for him to come to that conclusion on his own, but they`re probably going to have to administer that news to him some time late next week as we are on the verge of a moment that would be really bad for the country and politically very terrible for the president and his party.

HAYES:  You know, it`s interesting.  I`ve heard from you now.  You`re a member of the U.S. Senate, who is about to see the Republican Party`s margin be padded in the new congress, but I`ve heard from you two things in the first two topics we`ve discussed, which is some kind of hopefulness  about what having that Democratic House means for you in the Senate.

MURPHY:  Yeah, listen, I think there`s also a broader phenomena that`s playing out here.  I think even though Republicans gained seats in the Senate, they understand that this was a repudiation of the president.  They understand that they`re probably not well served by sticking as close to him in next two years as they did in the last two years, because they`re not going to have the same favorable senate map in 2020.

S,  you saw actually a couple of instances this week where in the Senate a bunch of Republicans broke with the president.  They broke with him on Yemen.  We actually overturned a campaign finance law that the Trump administration was using to help the big secret donors this week.  I think you`re going to see more of that, because even the Republicans in the Senate, who did OK in this last election, know that they`ve got to chart a little bit different path if they want to survive in 2020.

HAYES:  So, you just mentioned that campaign finance vote, which -- it has to do with an IRS rule about dark money groups going back to a sort of status quo before, where the IRS can sort of peer into their donor list, if I`ve got that correctly.

There`s another big campaign finance story in the news today, which is the president`s lawyer is going to go to prison for violating the law and a criminal conspiracy to subvert American campaign finance law that he says the president directed.  How significant is that?

MURPHY:  Listen, I mean, Mueller is starting to show his cards, and they`re significant cards.  The president was involved in at least two felonies.  He`s an unindicted co-conspirator.  This is serious.  This certainly goes beyond the set of facts that led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

I think, though, it`s important for congress to see the underlying evidence at some point, right.  I`m more willing to trust Mueller than my Republican colleagues are.  But even I want to see what he  has, whether it`s from Cohen or from the National Enquirer, that leads him to be so sure about his findings.

HAYES:  but part of the problem with that, respectfully, is that`s all true of the Mueller investigation and the black box, but the Southern District of New York and the U.S. Department of Justice is now on the record saying the president directed a felony to be committed that was material to his own election.  And there`s a guy who said it, and now there`s a news organization that says they helped him do it, that`s the prima faciaevidence of illegality?

MURPHY:  Yeah, and of course you haven`t yet actually put the president`s name on the block yet, and there`s a question as to whether you can do that or not.

I think all of this is happening in coordination with Mueller`s investigation, and I get it.  That`s unsatisfactory to people.  But I do think having empowered Mueller, having spent two years saying that we want him to get to the truth, I think it`s appropriate for us to ask him to give us all that he knows and  all he knows through his coordination with these other investigations.

And by the way, Chris, as I said to you before, Chris, as I said to you before, he`s got to do this pretty soon.  I mean, he`s got to give us at least the cards that he has sometime early next year so we can make some decisions.

HAYES:  That`s very interesting.  Senator Chris Murphy, thank you for joining me.

MURPHY:  Thanks.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

 

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