Trump’s sister retires as federal judge. TRANSCRIPT: 4/11/19, All In w/ Chris Hayes.

Mark Everson, McKay Coppins, Elizabeth Warren, Chris Murphy, Christina Greer, Waleed Shahid, Rachel Timoner

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST:  He just won reelection.  Trump`s opponents

should pay attention.  You can bet he has.  That`s HARDBALL for now. 

Thanks for being with us.  “ALL IN” with Chris Hayes starts right now.







businessman, I want to pay as little tax as possible.


HAYES:  The Trump family tax shenanigans.


TRUMP:  I have no obligation to do that while I`m under audit.  There`s no

law whatsoever.


HAYES:  Why at least one Trump is out of a job tonight and why House

Democrats aren`t giving up on getting the President`s returns.


TRUMP:  I fight like hell to pay as little as possible.  Can I say that? 

I`m not a politician.


HAYES:  An a new push to get big companies to pay their taxes.



want the giant corporations to do it as well.


HAYES:  Elizabeth Warren joins me tonight with her plan to raise $1

trillion.  Then –


TRUMP:  WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks.


HAYES:  Julian Assange pulled from his bunker to be extradited to the U.S. 

Plus, the right-wing attack machine out in force.


REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY):  We are getting to a level where this

is an incitement of violence against progressive women of color.


HAYES:  Congresswoman Ilhan Omar under fire and fighting back.


REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN):  I am as American as everyone else is.


HAYES:  When ALL IN starts right now.




HAYES:  Good evening from New York I`m Chris Hayes.  At least one Trump is

now out of a job in the midst of an investigation into the family`s taxes. 

Reporters just noticed last night that Maryanne Trump Barry, the

president`s sister have retired as a Federal Appellate Judge in

Philadelphia after a judicial ethics panel began to review her finances.


The review stem from a blockbuster New York Times investigation published

last fall documenting questionable tax schemes by the Trump family

throughout the 1990s.  According to The Times which examined more than

100,000 pages of documents, those schemes included and I`m quoting The

Times here, instances of outright fraud.  And the allowed the Trump family

to pocket roughly half a billion dollars that should have gone to the



The president and his lawyers deny The Times reporting but about two months

ago February 1st, individuals who filed complaints against the President`s

sister were notified that the Judicial Ethics Board was indeed taking up

the case according to The Times.  Just ten days later Maryanne Trump Barry

reportedly filed her retirement papers.  Because she was no longer a judge,

the investigation was dropped.


In completely unrelated news, the president is States is now going to

battle against House Democrats to stop them from getting his tax returns. 

Last night, his administration declined a request from the Democratic Chair

of the House Ways and Means Committee made under a part of the law giving

the committee access to any tax filers information.


According to a letter from Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, the

committee`s request raises serious issues concerning the constitutional

scope of congressional investigative authority, the legitimacy of the

asserted legislative purpose and the constitutional rights of American



Now, Mnuchin`s letter did not include any mention of an audit which

continues to be the President`s main rhetorical excuse for withholding his

tax returns.  He also seems to claim that the law explicitly giving

Congress access to citizen`s tax information does not actually exist.




TRUMP:  There is no law.  As you know I got elected last time with the same

issue.  And while I`m under audit, I won`t do it.  If I`m not under audit I

would do it.  I had no problem with it.  But while I`m under audit, I would

not give my taxes.  There`s no law whatsoever.




HAYES:  There is a law.  There`s – 100 percent there`s a law.  We`ve been

reading from it every night on the show.  Less than 24 hours before the

President made those claims, the IRS Commissioner that he himself nominated

testified that actually there`s nothing to prevent taxes under audit from

being released.




REP. SANFORD BISHOP (D-GA):  If anybody`s tax return is under audit, is

there a rule that would prohibit that taxpayer from releasing it?


CHARLES RETTIG, COMMISSIONER, IRS:  I think I`ve answered that question,





HAYES:  No, no.  OK.  Now, House Democrats are questioning why it was

Mnuchin who responded to their request which was not directed to Mnuchin,

it had been addressed directly to the IRS Commissioner, and they`re

threatening to hold the Treasury Secretary in contempt of Congress.  My

next guest served as IRS Commissioner for several years under President

George W. Bush Mark Everson, now Chairman of Alliantgroup a tax consulting

services firm.


Mr. Everson, maybe you can just start with as someone with some expertise

here, your understanding of the law in terms of this request.


MARK EVERSON, FORMER COMMISSIONER, IRS:  Sure.  I think that the law is

clear here, Chris.  It says that if the Chairman of Ways and Means ask for

a return, he or she gets it.  It`s that simple.


HAYES:  Now, what about Mnuchin`s role here?  I mean, the IRS Commissioner

is one of these roles in government that strikes me a little like the

census, someone like DOJ where there`s a certain amount of independence you

want built into the agency because of how sensitive it is and how much you

want it to be protected from political pressures.


What do you make of how Mnuchin has acted to sort of go over the head of

the IRS Commissioner here?


EVERSON:  I`m not really troubled by that.  The Treasury Secretary

supervises the IRS and they talk.  What I don`t like is when the White

House Chief of Staff weighs in on this and says that the Democrats will

never get the returns.  That`s improper.  The White House has to stay away

from this and let Treasury work it out.


And as the Secretary is doing, he`s referred it over to Justice because

there are important questions here.  Although I think that they`re going to

end up having to produce a return.


HAYES:  But having your produced a return because Justice says they do or

because they end up going to court?


EVERSON:  Well, we`ll see.  I think the law is clear but I`m not calling

the shots on this.


HAYES:  What do you think about the argument when he says that there`s

important constitutional questions about the fact of how it affect the U.S.

taxpayers and citizens.  What do you – what do you think about that



EVERSON:  I don`t like the way the Chairman – and I have the highest

regard for the Chairman about it – I do not like the way that they crafted

the request.  They said we`re going to try and find out how is the IRS

doing in its audit of the President.  Well, they didn`t – nobody has asked

that question about the audit of Barack Obama or George W Bush.


I think they should have just said look, we are – we want to understand

any entanglements or conflicts of interest.  After all, Chris, this law as

I understand the history, came into effect in the 20s when the Congress was

concerned about Teapot Dome and the actions of the executive.


So I think they have a right to ask for this information.  It`s got to be

protected.  It`s got to be kept private and that`s why they say only the

Chairman could ask for that information.


HAYES:  Oh, that`s interesting.  So you think that the sort of the

protective layer here and the concerns about it being leaked or public is

that written into the law, the Chairman could request and the Chairman is

the one given it not Congress in general.


EVERSON:  Well, that`s exactly right.  The President is right here.  He has

under no obligation to make his returns public.  Now, I believe he should

make them public so as a matter of seeking the office or holding the

office, but until he has compelled through a different statute to make it

public, he doesn`t have to do that.


HAYES:  All right, Mark Everson who was as you see there IRS Tax

Commissioner, thank you very much.


EVERSON:  Thank you.


HAYES:  For more on the high-stakes battle over the President`s taxes, I`m

joined by Joy Reid, Host of “AM JOY” right here MSNBC and McKay Coppins,

Staff Writer for The Atlantic.  Joy, I want to come back to the President`s

sister which again, maybe I just want to be clear, total – could be total

coincidence timing.  She was a relatively (INAUDIBLE).  She`s taken senior

status already.  But the timing makes you wonder about that and about the

fact that what we already know from New York Times itself is somewhat



JOY REID, MSNBC HOST:  Yes.  Rereading that story today is kind of

breathtaking.  I had forgotten how coextensive it was and it described Fred

Trump, the father of both the judge and Donald Trump just really catch me

if you can attitude is was described in The Times, of brazenly refusing to

pay taxes even though you got federal subsidies to build his real-estate

empire and then parceling out everything to his children in terms of loans,

in terms of buying their cars, in terms of buying stocks, and doing

everything he could to transfer this empire into the hands of his children

including the judge.


And so if you`re seeing a renewed look at not just Donald Trump but you

have the state – and not just Donald Trump at the federal level but the

State of New York also saying you know, we`d be interested in seeing what

their taxes were evaded here.


You know, one might see why Maryanne Trump might say, you know, if they`re

going to start looking at overvaluing of our properties and under payment

of taxes that maybe it would be good time to retire.


HAYES:  You know, McKay, I think it`s sort of interesting you know, the way

they`ve done the Mueller report is oh sure, you`ll get it, you`ll get it,

you`ll get it.  Well, yes, it should all come out and then this sort of

slow walking.  They`ve been a bit more upfront about the taxes.  I mean,

Everson – Mr. Everson just referenced Mick Mulvaney`s comments were trying

to play which I thought was sort of at least refreshingly clear about where

they are on this.  Take a listen.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  To be clear, you believe Democrats will never see the

President`s tax returns.



should they.  Keep in mind that that`s an issue that was already litigated

during the election.  Voters knew the president could have given his tax

returns.  They knew that he didn`t and they elected him anyway which of

course is what drives the Democrats crazy.




HAYES:  They are going to do everything they can aren`t they?



they`ve made no effort to conceal what their strategy is here.  I still am

taken aback rereading The New York Times investigation by just the extent

to which this Trump family fortune and Empire was clearly built in a way

that was never intended to withstand the kind of scrutiny that it – that

these taxes would now – that these financial records would now for

somebody to become president, right.


And of course, President Trump himself has been extensive reporting

including by myself that he never thought that he would actually become

president at least for most of the campaign.  And so you have to wonder you

know, just exactly why they`re being so adamant about concealing them.


There – you know, I remember during the campaign there was a lot of talk

about what the bad politics would be, what it would reveal, maybe would

show that he`s not as rich as he – as he claims he is.  I have to believe

that it`s something more serious than just kind of personal humiliation

that given that we`ve reached the point that we have.


HAYES:  Yes.  Although there`s also the fact that they just reflexively

deny, stonewall, deceive, spin and lie about everything whether they`re

guilty or not and the underlying issue, honestly.


REID:  I think one of the things that came through to me reading the 2018

article is just the amount of brazen lawlessness and the attitude among –

and I`m sure it`s not just them.  Let`s not just not pretend it`s the

Trumps of a certain you know, class of wealth that says, I made this money

how I made it, even if I made it through the help from the taxpayer and you

will not tax me.


I don`t care if the law says you can tax me.  I don`t care as a law says my

children have to pay taxes when I – when they inherit my money.  They

aren`t going to pay taxes.  We aren`t going to pay taxes and try and stop



Donald Trump`s try and stop me attitude is probably not unique to him but

because he`s invested with the powers of the presidency, it inserts a

certain amount of lawlessness and contempt for the law that we aren`t

typically – we`re not used to seeing the president.


HAYES:  To me what elevates this and what I find remarkable about the

situation is it`s one thing when he didn`t do it in the campaign.


REID:  Right.




REID:  Yes.


HAYES:  Which – and he says well, this is litigate.  He`s the president

now.  There`s a whole set of other issues, McKay, that are much more

pressing than how you were in the past, what was your past performance,

what sort of things did you do.  There`s the question of what you are doing

in the White House now which is why this talk about what the legislative

purpose or the justification for the committee`s request seems

preposterous.  Of course, it`s a legitimate request.


COPPINS:  It is, of course, a legitimate request.  It`s also legitimate I

think that you know, that the public wants to see these records and they

should.  I understand the argument that they`re making and they`ve been

making it forever that the voters already decided on this.


But I mean look, the reason that Trump has gotten away with this so far is

because nobody has forced his hand yet, right.  Republicans controlled the

House and the Senate for the first two years of his presidency.  There has

now been a big court battle over this, and frankly, there`s been so much

else to cover in the Trump administration that this a beneficiation of the

press or the media either.


I think until it reaches either a fever pitch of public pressure or he`s

basically forced to by the Justice Department or by the judiciary, I don`t

– I think he`s going to continue to stonewall and it`s just a matter of

whether he`s forced to.


HAYES:  100 percent.


REID:  And can we just say that this idea that the voters decided is a bit

of a crock as well since more than four million – like 3-4 million more

people said no we don`t want Donald Trump to be President.  The Electoral

College may have decided because they were partisan Republican.


HAYES:  Well, the other thing I would say is that the you know, the law is

the law no matter who is elected president, the Internal Revenue Code

Section 6103 says you shall sureness – furnish the tax returns.  It does

not say if you want you don`t have to.  Joy Reid and McKay Coppins, great

to have you both.


Speaking of not paying their taxes, corporations have been avoiding them

for years.  Now Elizabeth Warren has a new plan to make them pay their fair

share.  She will be my guest here in just two minutes.




HAYES:  In 2018, Amazon reported more than $11 billion in taxable income

and paid zero dollars in federal taxes and it`s even worse than that. 

Amazon is actually getting a federal tax refund of $120 million this year.


Now, does that seem wrong to you?  It seems wrong to the Democratic Senator

and 2020 Presidential Candidate Elizabeth Warren who has a new plan to

impose a seven percent tax on reported corporate profits over $100 million. 

The plan would affect about 1,200 companies including Amazon which would

have paid nearly $700 million more in taxes just this year.


As to economists estimate, Warren`s plan would raise more than $1 trillion

over a decade.  And joining me now to tell us more, Massachusetts Senator

and Democratic Presidential Candidate Elizabeth Warren.  All right,

Senator, obviously there is already a corporate tax and corporate tax rate,

it was massively slashed by the Republicans recently, how is this interact

with that tax rate?  What does this do?


WARREN:  So we`ve got a corporate tax rate, but as you know the thing has

just been lobby to death, it`s full of loopholes and breaks and special

deals so that a company like Amazon makes $10 billion dollars in profits,

can walk away paying nothing in taxes.  That`s just not fair.  Think of all

the people out there today who are paying their taxes, families that are

doing it, small businesses that are doing it if they can`t take advantage

of those loopholes the way that Amazon can.


So what I say is when you`re getting out and reporting to your investors,

reporting to the public, setting your CEO compensation based on what you

say is your after-tax profit, then I think you ought to pay a tax on that. 

That means separate from all the loopholes, separate from everything else

that happens.


The biggest corporations in our country should pay a tax.  You shouldn`t be

able to make more than $100 million in profits and pay nothing.


HAYES:  OK.  So the idea here is that you`re taking advantage of the fact

that it is advantageous for corporations to report lots of profits when

talking to investors and very little profit when talking to the government

about their tax and tax liabilities –


WARREN:  That`s right.


HAYES:  – and basically saying –


WARREN:  (INAUDIBLE) two ways.


HAYES:  Well, of course.  It`s like you know, it`s like Hollywood Studios

who talk about how big a movie opened and then when it`s time to pay off

people who have – or percentage the film made no profit.  So I guess my

question is how would – like would this avoid the same gaming problem? 

Are they good at gaming no matter what the rules are?


WARREN:  No, because that`s the special part about this proposal.  It says

when you get out – and remember, these statements that they make to the

public, these are audited, the SEC –


HAYES:  Right, yes.


WARREN:  Yes, yes, yes.  When you make that statement, the trick is you

don`t get to turn around and say to the IRS oh, but not really.  We only

these corporations want to take advantage of every loophole and say no, no,

no, that their taxable income is very tiny.


If this is their public statement about how well they are doing, then you

know, good for you.  I`m glad you`re doing well.  But it means that you

need to pay something so everybody else gets a chance to make some

investments and do well too.


HAYES:  Well, and there`s – right now, I mean this is – there`s reporting

that says that now twice as many corporations are paying zero taxes under

the Republican and Trump tax plan.  Obviously, corporate tax rates have

gone down. they were already fairly low in terms of the actual effect of

the collected rate, but they were slashed even further.  Would you like to

see them go up more broadly?


WARREN:  So look, I`m opposed to the Trump tax giveaway.  I think what the

Republicans did is terrible.  I think we ought to roll that back.  I think

we ought to clean up our tax code.  I think we ought to close a lot of the

loopholes.  But I also think that just saying for the biggest companies.


Everybody that makes – remember this, $100 million or more in after-tax

income in their publicly reported statements make a contribution, make a

payment, make a tax payment so that we can make those investments in the

rest of the country.


You know, here`s how I look at this.  I`m happy for the corporations that

make money, but let`s keep in mind they hired employees, the rest of us

helped pay to educate, they got their goods to market on roads and bridges

the rest of us helped pay to build.  They were protected by police and

firefighters the rest of us also helped to pay for.


So what this is about is to say if you have this corporation that is making

that much in after-tax profits, put a portion of that back in so that we

can rebuild our infrastructure, so that we can invest in universal child

care, so that we can reduce the student loan burden, so we can do the

things that give the rest of America a chance to really grow and build a

prosperous future.


HAYES:  You know, you have proposed this, you`ve also proposed a wealth tax

which you are on a program to discuss which is very interesting, a novel in

many respects.  Two questions, one on a policy one on politics.


On policy, at some point do you worry about over taxation right, there`s

some threshold at which you start to create perverse incentives or poor

incentives depending on where the tax level is relative to current status

quo, so do you worry about that?  And politically do you worry that you

become too associated with taxes which is not maybe a word that lots of

people like?


WARREN:  So let me do both halves of this.  The first one is to remember

both of these proposals, the wealth tax and the real corporate profits tax

both have no exceptions, no loopholes, no lobbying into it.  They`re modest

fees but they`re across the board.


HAYES:  Right.


WARREN:  Two percent on the wealth tax, seven percent of the income tax,

just as there it is.  So don`t get fancy, it doesn`t make any difference.


HAYES:  Interesting.


WARREN:  I`m not trying to twist this part or turn that.  These are very –

you know, that`s just it.  That`s how much you`re going to have to pay if

that`s the position you`re in.  And the second, you know, you want to talk

politics, understand we`ve already tested of lots of folks.  They`ve

already run polls on how do Americans look at the wealth tax.  And the

answer is Democrats strongly support it Independents strongly support it,

and a majority of Republicans support it.


You know, not the Republicans in Washington who are in Congress but

Republicans across this country because Americans whether they`re

Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, Americans know that the game is

rigged and that the big guys are not paying a fair share.  And not just

that they`re not paying a fair share, that their failure to do that.  It

means everybody else has to pay more and that there`s no money to do the

things we need to do in this country, the things we need to do to build a

real future in the 21st century.


HAYES:  All right, Senator Elizabeth Warren who`s a Massachusetts Senator

and running for President at the Democratic nomination.  Thank you so much

for joining us tonight.


WARREN:  Thank you.


HAYES:  After seven years holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London,

Julian Assange is arrested.  But why now and why not on charges related in

the 2016 election?  Senator Chris Murphy joins me on that next.




HAYES:  After seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London originally

hiding out from rape sexual assault charges in Sweden, Julian Assange was

kicked out by the Ecuadorian government today and swiftly apprehended by

the British police for extradition to the U.S. where he has been charged

with computer hacking conspiracy in an unsealed indictment.


The indictment which was unsealed today was filed over a year ago eight

years after the alleged crime.  The Obama administration declined to charge

Assange.  They made the decision in the Department of Justice.  It would be

too dangerous to press freedoms to do so.


Even now the DOJ did refrain from bringing the more controversial espionage

charges, but the indictments still raises all sorts of questions.  Why was

he kicked out now?  Why was he indicted a year ago eight years after the

alleged crime?  We know that WikiLeaks features prominently in the special

council indictments against Russian hackers and against Trump associate

Roger Stone.  Is it possible there are more charges to come on that front?


Here to help me dive into those questions, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy

of Connecticut.  Senator, I was happy that you were able to talk tonight

about this because I think it`s a complicated case because people have very

strong and often negative feelings about Julian Assange.  But it also

strikes me that the Obama – the Department of Justice decision was an

important one and I wonder what your reaction is.


SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT:  Well, Julian Assange is some strange

amalgamation of a journalist and a political actor and I don`t think any of

us really understand where that line begins and ends.  No one should be

prosecuted for disclosing secrets that about a government that they were

given if they had no role in procuring those secrets illegally.


But Assange is being charged with a crime of actually coordinating with one

of the actors who stole classified information and that clearly appears as

if it crosses a line.  He also seems to have been an active political

participant in the Russian efforts to try to manipulate our elections.  It

didn`t seem like a coincidence that he was dropping information into the

middle of the 2016 election at times that were especially advantageous for

the aims of the Russian government.


Now, I`m not privy to any of the information or the signal intelligence

that the Justice Department has, but this has been a tough case from the

beginning because he treads this line that most journalists don`t tread.


HAYES:  I think here`s the concern that I – that I have on this case which

is that they decided that this Trump administration with its views about

the press and this DOJ with – under Jeff Sessions and his views in the

press chose to make this indictment a year ago eight years after the

infraction when the Obama Department decided that however they could charge

him would perhaps create precedents that are dangerous to the press and as

a member of the press myself as a believer in the First Amendment.  And you

know, do we trust the Trump administration in the delicacy necessary here?


MURPHY:  No, we don`t trust the Trump administration but let`s also be

clear that Trump has shown a lot of affection for Julian Assange very

openly.  But listen, I don`t know what evidence they have that underlies

this claim, but what they`re claiming is that he was an active participant

along with Chelsea Manning in trying to procure this classified



And if that is the case, if he was working to try to steal classified

information, and that clearly seems like it crosses a line.  And I`m you

know, frankly glad that they didn`t level charges that would have been in a

much clearer gray zone.  So let`s see what the underlying evidence is.  But

if he didn`t help steal classified information, if you as a participant in

that effort, you know that that seems like that should be inside the

criminal justice system.


HAYES:  I have you here and I want to ask you a question about the war

powers resolution that you have been very instrumental on.  We have, I

think, since the first time the War Powers Act in the wake of Richard

Nixon, an actual resolution passed by both houses of congress, going to the

president`s desk.  Is that correct, it`s never happened before?


MURPHY:  It never happened before, passed in the early 70s, there`s a

provision that allows for congress to take a majority vote to direct the

president, to pull the United States out of hostilities if it has not been

authorized by congress.  And this is the first time that the House and the

Senate have successfully passed this resolution to pull the United States

in this case out of Yemen.  And it is sitting on the president`s desk. 

Curiously, it`s been sitting on his desk for almost a week now, and he has

yet to veto it.


HAYES:  Have they issued any statement from the White House about what the

position of the government is – the White House is?


MURPHY:  Well, the position of the administration prior to its passage was

that they were going to veto it.  He has not done that yet.  Obviously, it

would be curious for the president to sign a resolution demanding that he

pull out of a war that he could do on his own. 


But, you know, again, you know what we are seeing is that, you know,

they`re are starting, once again, to be movement on the ground inside the

Middle East, inside Yemen, to try to get a tentative peace agreement and

ceasefire made real. 


Every single time that congress acts, regardless of what the president

does, it puts more pressure on the players in the region to come to the

table and try to achieve a settlement.  And I`ve heard just in the last 24

to 48 hours that there`s been some movement between the Houthis and the

Saudi-led coalition that maybe positive.


HAYES:  All right, Senator Chris Murphy, thank you very much as always.


MURPHY:  Thank you.


HAYES:  Still ahead, the vicious and unfounded attack against the freshman

congresswoman that speaks volumes about the motives of her detractors,

that`s coming up.  First, a trip through the garbage stream that is the

president`s Twitter feed in tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two next.




HAYES:  Thing One tonight, the Twitter feed of the president of the United

States is, well, a garbage dump, full of bizarre ramblings, lies, weird

retweets and lots of clips from Trump TV.  But lately, he has actually run

afoul of the rules and regulations. 


The other day, he posted this video made by some random guy on Reddit.  It

didn`t have much of a plot, but the theme seemed to be Donald Trump`s legs



He does a lot of powerful striding, which I think might be sped up.  Set to

dramatic music, which happened to be from the score of Batman: The Dark

Knight Rises.  And that is why the tweet, after just a few hours, looked

like this: removed.  It turns out that even for the president, copyright

laws do apply.


But what about fake news?  Doesn`t Twitter have some rules and regulations

about that?  That`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.




HAYES:  So, you are probably aware of the cable TV network known as the

Trump TV Business Channel.  They cover business news for a smaller, more

targeted audience.  To get an idea

of how just targeted, the Thing One, Thing Two data vis team worked up this

graphic in which the total audience of the channel is represented by the

blue circle here.


Now, inside that blue circle, you see there is an orange dot.  And that dot

represents just one

viewer, one very powerful viewer.  Because that one orange dot has himself

a giant orange audience of his own, the nearly 60 million Twitter followers

of Donald Trump.


Now, yesterday everyone in that small blue circle saw the following untrue





LOU DOBBS, FOX NEWS:  According to a Georgetown University poll, the

president`s overall

approval is now 55 percent.  Let`s hear that, 55 percent.  And the approval

rating for the president`s handling of the economy, a robust 58 percent.


55 percent is pretty robust, too, don`t you think?




HAYES:  I think it is very robust, Lou.


The orange dot viewer in the circle saw clearly saw that untrue thing, and

then proceeded to

share it with his huge orange circle tweeting, quote, “great news, #maga.”


Ah, but it wasn`t great news, it was fake news, according to director of

poll and question who himself replied to the tweet, the 55 percent number

is the president`s unfavorable rating.  His favorable was only 40 percent.


So, the president does not have a 55 percent approval rating.  He has had

40 percent approval rating, like he always has, 40 percent like 55 percent

do not like.


To their credit, the Trump TV business channel acknowledged the mistake

this morning, broadcasting this to everybody in their small blue circle.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  It`s been a quiet start to the day for President Trump,

though he did send out a tweet this morning from the the Lou Dobbs Show

last night on Fox Business.  That tweet featured a poll that was not

entirely accurate, which Fox Business would like to correct.




HAYES:  Not entirely, but apparently the little orange dot was not watching

because the incorrect poll is still sitting there in his Twitter feed for

his big orange audience.




TRUMP:  I`m talking about the fake news, and you know it better than 

anybody.  You have news out there that is so fake.


I`m talking about the fake news, and it is fake.






HAYES:  Last week, 55-year-old Patrick Carlineo Jr. of Addison, New York

was arrested by federal authorities and charged with threatening to kill

freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.  The charge stems from a

call that Carlineo made to her office in which he asked a staffer, quote,

do you work for the Muslim Brotherhood?  Why are you working for her?  She

is an f`ing terrorist.  I will put a bullet in her f`ing skull.


Now, that arrest comes less than  two months after Omar`s name was found on

the apparent hit list of Coast Guard Lieutenant Christopher Paul Hasson who

had amassed a stockpile of weapons and over 1,000 rounds of ammo.


And both of those instants are pretty important context for understanding

just how despicable the cover of the New York Post is today, which shows a

picture of the Twin Towers being hit on 9/11 with a headline featuring a

quote from Omar.  It reads 9/11 was, quote, “some people did something”

below the picture the towers – of the towers it says, “here`s your



Omar`s punitive infraction on which the cover is based comes from a short

clip of the congresswoman taken abusively out of context from the speech

she gave in California last month.  The 15-second video being circulated of

her speech has been viewed over two million times.




REP. ILHAN OMAR, (D) MINNESOTA:  CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they

recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting

to lose access to our civil liberties.




HAYES:  CAIR is an organization that advocates for the civil rights of

American Muslims.


Now, the right has seized on the line, some people did something, in

reference to 9/11 to insinuate the congresswoman is somehow sympathetic to



The point she was actually making in the speech was that the acts of the 19

men who committed the atrocities on 9/11 should not be held against the

billion Muslims who live around the world.  It is a concept that has

escaped many in the Republican Party, the conservative media, and certainly

the president who called for every last Muslim on the planet to be banned

from entering the country writ large.


But this latest round of attacks on Omar are clarifying, because they show

what the issue really is.  The congresswoman has now gone through several

rounds of news cycles around controversial things she said or tweeted, some

of them have resulted from statements she made that genuinely made people

upset in good faith, for example, her since deleted tweet about the

Benjamins that glibly flirted with anti-Semitic notions about Jewish people

and money.  And a speech in which she said, quote, “I want to talk about

the political influences in this country that says it is OK for people to

push for allegiance to a foreign country.  Omar apologized unequivocally. 


But that has not stopped her critics from continuing to target her with

unrelenting bile.  This week, she called Stephen Miller, one of the

president`s advisers, a white nationalist.  A lot of people agree with

that,but Republican Congressman Lee Zeldin responded with something of a

non sequitor saying, “during my time in congress before Ilhan Omar got

here, I didn`t once witness another member target Jewish people like this

with name calling and other personal attacks.”


Throughout these controversies, one always had the sense that those leading

the charge against

Ilhan Omar were less upset about what she said than about who she is.  For

example, Janine Pirro, who had this to say.




JANINE PIRRO, FOX NEWS:  Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Koran

33:59 tells women to cover so they won`t get molested.  Is her adherence to

this Islamic doctrine indicative of her

adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United

States Constitution?




HAYES:  And now here`s the latest round from Fox and Friends.




OMAR:  CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people

did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil



UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Some people did something, like an unprovoked attack

killing people in the Pentagon – thousands in the Pentagon and Flight 93

as well as in the World Trade Center?  Really?  Some few people did



You have to wonder if she`s an American first.




HAYES:  You have to wonder if she`s American first.


Now, if nothing else, it is usefully clarifying when the bigots who hate

Ilhan Omar because she`s a Muslim woman in congress wearing a hijab, out

themselves as they have.


What they`ve shown us about themselves is next.






REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, (D) NEW YORK:  To illicit such an image for

such a transparently and politically motivated attack on Ilhan Omar, this

is – we are getting to a level where this is an incitement of violence

against progressive women of color.  And if they can`t figure out how to

get it back to policy, we need to call it out for what it is, because this

is not normal.  And this is not a normal level of political debate or

rhetoric as wild.  As it can get sometimes, this is something beyond what

is normal.




HAYES:  Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defending her fellow

freshman congresswoman Ilhan Omar today.


Joining me now are Rabbi Rachel Timoner, a senior rabbi at congregation

Beth Elohim in Brooklyn, New York; Waleed Shahid, who is the spokesperson

for Justice Democrats; and Christiana

Greer, associate professor of political science at Fordham University.


Rabbi, I`ll start with you.  There`s been a lot of obviously conversation

around Omar, some

of it tense, some of quite angry, some of it quite I think interesting in

terms of the direction it`s gone.


The cover of the paper in your hometown today, what do you make of it?



New York, I don`t want to see September 11 being used for political

purposes.   That`s painful for New Yorkers, and that`s wrong.   It

shouldn`t happen.


HAYES:  The thing that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said is that

there is a real threat here of danger to Congresswoman Omar, like that is

just a fact.   We just watched someone go into a mosque in New Zealand.  We

had someone shoot up a synagogue based on a right-wing conspiracy theory. 

We had the president`s super fan try to assassinate two dozen of the most

prominent of his critics, lieutenant colonel in the Coast Guard who got

caught with a stockpile of weapons and Ilhan Omar`s name, like there`s a

serious concern here.


CHRISTINA GREER, FORDHAM UNIVERSITY:  Or three churches in Louisiana that

were just burned down to the ground, or the Highlander Center in Tennessee

that was also burned down to the ground.


So there are a few things going on.   One, we know that women of color are

disproportionately attacked, whether they are pundits on television or

whether or not they`re elected officials, and so we`re seeing that.


HAYES:  You mean in like a public, social media criticism.


GREER:  In a public way.  There`s the gender piece, there`s race piece, and

there`s intersectionality where there`s lots of sort of sort of white

supremacists and also just good old-fashioned racists who feel the need to

attack women of color, especially in positions where they`re speaking out.


Second piece is, you know, taking a snippet of what someone says is – and

grossly mischaracterizing it, you know, when Ilhan Omar is someone who has

fought for the Victims Compensation Act for victims of 9/11, something that

Republicans have not tried to do, right, and they want to keep all the

money to themselves and sort of perform that they care about New York and

9/11 survivors, but when it comes time to put up the money, they haven`t

done that.


And then I think the third piece, which is really important is, we have to

remember what Colin

Powell said about Barack Obama when Donald Trump was saying all this during

the 2008 election – you know, he`s a Muslim, can we trust him?  And Colin

Powell said as a Republican, OK, so what if he is  Muslim?  What`s wrong

with being Muslim?  We have had 400 years of Muslims being in this country,

working and praying and serving this nation, what`s wrong with being a



And one of the first thing that President Trump does is the Muslim ban.


So I mean, many Republicans and Republican pundits are following the orders

of the executive and that is what`s really dangerous and it`s highly

problematic and she`s clearly a symbol for so much

hate and attack especially from certain networks.


HAYES:  Yeah, I should note that in 2008 I don`t think it was Trump saying

that Obama was a Muslim back then it was…


GREER:  Oh, sorry.  I`m sorry, it was 2009 he decided that he`s…


HAYES:  The birther controversy.


There`s also just the fact that I think there`s a degree to which they`re

showing themselves on

this, because the previous rounds of comments, both the sort of all about

the Benjamins  tweet and other stuff, like I had people in my life and

people that I respect and people I view as good faith interlocutors who had

beef with that and this – this seems like just a bad faith out of context

hit job to me.


WALEED SHAHID, JUSTICE DEMOCRATS:  There`s a 200-miles-per-hour ideological

right wing war machine coming after Ilhan Omar, and also Rashida Tlaib and

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  My question is where is the Democratic Party

leadership on this?  You didn`t see that many comments from candidates

running for president in 2020, you didn`t see that many comments from Nancy

Pelosi or Steny Hoyer, Chuck Schumer for that matter.   Instead, what we`ve

seen is a pattern from the Democratic Party leadership that tries to

distance themselves away from these three women, instead of seeing these

women as the rising leaders in the party who they have to fight for.


When you are faced with this war machine, you`ve got to fight back, and

you`ve got to defend people in your party.  And just last week, Nancy

Pelosi said something like, you know, the women with the large amounts of

Twitter followers are not necessarily representative of the Democratic



And I think we need a Democratic Party that actually fights for Alexandria

Ocasio-Cortez, for

Ilhan Omar, for Rashida Tlaib against these attacks, because they can`t

keep running away from it and, you know, make fun of them at AIPAC, like

Schumer and Hoyer did, or pile on the attacks.


So, I was actually pretty saddened to see there weren`t – it was just

these women sticking up for each other, the three women who I have

mentioned, and Ayanna Pressley, but not much from the leadership.


TIMONER:  I would love to say something about that.   Look, Representative

Omar has

said some things that have used anti-Semitic tropes, and it`s legitimate to

call that out.   It`s important to call that out.  When anti-Semitism

appears on the right or on the left, it`s a growing problem in our country

and we need to name it.  We need to understand it better.  We need to call

it out, but we, the Jewish people and anti-Semitism are being used as a

weapon by the right, by the Republican Party and the president has no

standing to do that after Charlottesville, after Sebastian Gorka, but they

are doing that, and they`re using us. 


And we don`t want to be used that way, especially as a cover for racism or

Islamophobia.   Instead, the Republican Party should stop using us in that

way, because it`s actually harming us because

it`s making it as if anti-Semitism is just – the claim of anti-Semitism is

just a tool or just a game, and it`s not a game.  It`s real.


HAYES:  I mean, the point to me here is that like people`s faiths are bound

together, right?  I mean, ultimately – and that`s really what this comes

down to.  


I mean, I have to say, what you said about the war machine, like it`s crazy

to watch the war machine go to war.   Sometimes it goes after an adjunct

professor at NYU out of nowhere who they just decide we`re going to take

this person, put them on TV and blow up their lives.   In this case, it`s a

public figure, that`s legitimate.  You can go after a public figure.  A

member of congress is a public figure. 


But to me that cover is just an escalation, right, like they have her in

their sights.  They are going to go – like…


GREER:  Well, because she is everything that they hate, right.  She`s a

woman.  She`s a person of color.  She`s black.  She`s a refugee.  She`s a

former immigrant.  She`s a Muslim.  She`s petite.  And she is very smart.


HAYES:  I don`t know, do they hate petit people?


GREER:  And we can add all of these things up, right, and she`s not afraid

of them.  And she comes with a band of three sisters, which is very

intimidating for them, and it makes them furious  because she does

represent America and that`s not the that America they see.


HAYES:  The not being afraid I think is a key part here.  I want to play

this part of the speech, because I think it shows kind of where she`s

coming from in all of this.  Take a listen to what she had to say – longer

part of that speech that`s been taken out of context.  Take a listen.




OMAR:  Muslims for a really long time in this country have been told that

there is a privilege,

that there`s a privilege that we are given and it might be taken away.   We

are told that we should be  appropriate.  We should go to school, get an

education, raise our children and not bother anyone, not make any kind of

noise.  Don`t make any one uncomfortable.  Be a good Muslim.


But no matter how much we have tried to be the best neighbor, people have

always worked on  finding a way to not allow for every single civil liberty

to be extended to us.




HAYES:  I mean, part of that Waleed to me, is like when you talk about the

Democratic leadership, Democratic leadership doesn`t want a bunch of

controversy every week, right.  Like, from their perspective, it`s like,

Ilhan Omar does not care that they`re coming after her, clearly.  She`s not

going to be cowed.  I think that`s also true of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

It`s true of Rashida Tlaib.  And the Democrat – the sort of posture and

politics of the Democratic leadership is like, we don`t want to be on Fox

News every night.  And we don`t want to be fighting these defensive fights.


SHAHID:  We`re in a battle globally of the fate for multi-racial liberal

democracy, so they don`t really have a choice.   Like Ilhan Omar represent

multi-racial liberal democracy, just like Alexandria does – Alexandria

Ocasio-Cortez does, or Rashida Tlaib, that is the fight that we`re having

all over the world from America to New Zealand and we really have – the

Democratic Party needs to be the fight –

the party of multi-racial liberalism.


Conservatives are going to war for conservatism, liberals should go to war

for liberalism.


HAYES:  Well, war in a rhetorical sense, just to be clear.  Rabbi  Rachel

Timoner, Waleed Shahid, Christina Greer, thank you all for joining me.


That is ALL IN this evening.  “THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” starts right now. 

Good evening, Rachel.







Copyright 2019 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