Jeffrey Epstein charged with sex trafficking . TRANSCRIPT: 7/8/19, All In w/ Chris Hayes.

Guests:
Mindy Marquez Gonzalez, Carol Lam, Tim Kaine, Erin Banco, Vanita Gupta, Tyson Slocum, Emily Atkin
Transcript:

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC ANCHOR:  I`m Ali Velshi.  Chris Matthews will be back

tomorrow night.  But for now, that`s it.  “ALL IN” with Chris Hayes starts

now.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST:  Tonight on ALL IN.

 

GEOFFREY BERMAN, U.S. ATTORNEY, SDNY:  There`s been a lot of speculation in

the media about individuals affiliated or associated with defendant Jeffrey

Epstein –

 

HAYES:  The man Trump once called a terrific guy back behind bars.

 

WILLIAM SWEENEY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FBI NEW YORK OFFICE:  He`s alleged to

have sexually exploited and abused dozens of minor girls at his homes in

New York City and in Palm Beach Florida.

 

HAYES:  Tonight, new charges against wealthy sex predator Jeffrey Epstein.

 

BERMAN:  The alleged behavior shocks the conscience.

 

HAYES:  And new calls for the resignation of Trump`s Labor Secretary who

gave Epstein a plea deal in Florida.

 

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  That seems like a long time

ago but I know he`s been a fantastic labor secretary.

 

HAYES:  Senator Tim Kaine joins me on that.  And –

 

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES:  It does provide a pathway

for getting the question on the census.

 

HAYES:  How the administration plans to ram a citizenship question back

onto the Census.

 

TRUMP:  We`re working on a lot of things including an executive order.

 

HAYES:  Plus, new lies about the state of the migrant camps on the border.

 

TRUMP:  I`ve seen some of those places and they are run beautifully.

 

HAYES:  And how a tremendous victory for Team USA became a rallying cry

against the president.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Now, we need to win in 2020.

 

HAYES:  When ALL IN starts right now.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Good evening from New York I`m Chris Hayes.  A notorious convicted

sex offender and friend of Donald Trump, a man whose escaped serious

accountability for years seemingly thanks to it as enormous wealth and

social connections is now behind bars.  The news is sending shockwaves

through the corridors of power as his many prominent associates are left to

wonder what 66-year-old financier Jeffrey Epstein knows and what he might

tell prosecutors.

 

Epstein is connected to some of the most powerful people in America in the

world including Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and yes

President Donald Trump about which more in a bit.  He is also according to

federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York a repeat abuser of

young girls.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

BERMAN:  Epstein is charged in a two-count indictment.  First conspiracy to

commit sex trafficking and second the substance crime of sex trafficking of

underage girls.  Beginning at least 2002 and continued until 2005, Epstein

is alleged to have abused thousands of victims by causing them to engage in

sex acts with him at his mansion in New York and at his estate in Palm

Beach Florida.

 

The victims were all underage girls at the time alleged conduct, we`re

given hundreds of dollars in cash after each encounter either by Epstein or

by one of Epstein`s employees.  The underage girls were initially recruited

to provide Epstein with massages and often did so new or partially new

these massages became increasingly sexual in nature and we typically

include one or more sex acts as specified in the indictment.

 

As alleged, Epstein also paid certain victims to recruit additional girls

to be similarly abused.  This allowed Epstein to create an ever-expanding

web of new victims.  Misconduct as alleged went on for years and it

involved dozens of young girls, some as young as 14 years old at the time

that they were allegedly abused.

 

As alleged, Epstein was well aware that many of the victims were minors and

not surprisingly many of the underage girls that Epstein allegedly

victimized were particularly vulnerable to exploitation.  The alleged

behavior shocks the conscience.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Epstein now faces up to 45 years in prison.  He pled not guilty

today in federal court.  Prosecutors are seeking to hold him without bail

citing his financial – enormous financial resources and potential to flee

prosecution.  A bail hearing is set for Monday.

 

Prosecutors told the court today that additional alleged victims had

contacted them since Epstein`s arrest and they along with the FBI

encouraged any others to come forward.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SWEENEY:  The number to call is 1-800-call FBI.  I`d like to take a moment

to speak directly to the victims who will call that number.  When you call

that number, you receive a series of props.  You`ll be asked if this

representing a major case in the country.  The answer is yes.  It`s number

four.  You will then be driven to the top of the list and the Jeffrey

Epstein matter is number one on the major case listed in the country when

you call that 1-800-call FBI number.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Epstein was arrested over the weekend by the FBI NYPD Crimes

Against Children task force when he arrived in New Jersey at a private

airport on his private jet from Paris where he owns a home.  Among his

other properties is a lavish $56 million mansion on the upper east side of

New York City which is one of the largest private homes in all of Manhattan

and which prosecutors say they want to seize.

 

Investigators entered that mansion where they say Epstein abused girls in

conjunction with his arrest.  They reported finding what they described as

a “vast trove of lewd photographs of young-looking women or girls,

including some who appeared underage.”

 

“Some of the photographs referenced herein were discovered in a locked safe

in which law-enforcement officers also found compact discs with handwritten

labels including the following young, name, and name, miscellaneous news

one, and girl pics nude.”

 

Back in 2005, the parents of a 14-year-old girl went to the authorities

telling police in Florida that Epstein have molested their daughter. 

Police then eventually identified three dozen potential victims and

prosecutors crafted a 53-page indictment.

 

But under then US Attorney Alex Acosta who is now Donald Trump`s Secretary

of Labor, prosecutors struck a non-prosecution deal with Epstein`s lawyer

that allowed him to completely avoid any federal charges.

 

Epstein potentially faced life in prison but instead, he pled guilty to

state charges of soliciting a minor for prostitution and only served 13

months.  It worked release privileges six days a week with a private driver

to transport him and the deal which came back into the spotlight early this

year thanks to some dogged reporting from the Miami Herald was viewed by

many as almost unfathomable.

 

One human rights attorney telling the Herald it`s just outrageous how he

minimized his crimes and devalued his victims by calling them prostitutes. 

At his confirmation hearing to be Labor Secretary, Acosta defended that

deal as the most they could get based on the evidence they had.  But

earlier this year, a judge ruled the prosecutors flat-out broke the law

where they concealed the agreement from more than 30 alleged victims.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Mr. President, do you have any concerns about the

Labor Secretary`s handling of Jeffrey Epstein`s case?

 

TRUMP:  I really don`t know too much about it.  I know he`s done a great

job as labor secretary and that seems like a long time ago, but I know he`s

been a fantastic labor secretary.  That`s all I can really tell you about. 

That`s all I know about it.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Certainly not Donald Trump knows about Jeffrey Epstein.  The two

men are long-time friends.  You can see them hanging out there.  Back in

2002, Trump told New York Magazine and I`m quoting here and I`ve read this

quote about 100 times today.

 

“I`ve known Jeff for 15 years, terrific guy, he`s a lot of fun to be with. 

It has even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do and many of

them are on the younger side.  No doubt about it, Jeffery enjoys a social

life.”

 

Miami Herald Reporter Julie Brown further characterized the relationship

between the two men on MSNBC this weekend.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

JULIE BROWN REPORTER, MIAMI HERALD:  They went to dinner parties at each

other`s house.  Trump was also on his plane probably not as much as you

know, a lot of other people because you know, Trump had his own plane.  But

they were – they had – they had a lot of social relationships with the

other.

 

And then the other interesting is you know, Trump had a modeling agency an

Epstein also had a stake in a modeling agency which they suspect he used to

bring in underage girls from overseas.  And you know, there is a comment in

one of the court files where Epstein is quoted as saying I want to set up

my modeling agency the same way Trump set up his modeling agency.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Joining me now Carol Lam former U.S. attorney for the Southern

District of California and Mindy Marquez Gonzalez was a Publisher and

Executive Editor of the Miami Herald.  Mindy, let me start with you.

 

This was a story that got a fair a lot of amount of ink at the time and

then it kind of settled and Jeffrey Epstein sort of returned to polite

society and hobnob with all the people he was hobnobbing with.  And then

your paper has undertaken an incredible investigation over the past year

that seems to be related to this point.

 

What did – what did your reporters discover and how does it relate to what

happened in the last 48 hours?

 

MINDY MARQUEZ GONZALEZ, PUBLISHER AND EXECUTIVE EDITOR, MIAMI HERALD: 

Thank you.  You know, first of all, I think it has everything to – it has

a lot to do with the work that Julie Brown has done over the past year.  It

started quite frankly as she got interested in human trafficking after

doing a story about the Florida prison system particularly women`s – the

women`s prison system.

 

As she started to do some background checking on human trafficking, Jeffrey

Epstein`s name kept coming up.  And then Alexander Acosta was nominated to

be in the Trump`s cabinet and quite frankly when Julie saw the kid-glove

treatment that he got during that process, we decided that you know, she

needed to take a closer look at that case.

 

HAYES:  You were a U.S. attorney.  There are non-prosecution agreements

that happen that come and go.  This one has gotten a lot of criticism. 

Fair?

 

CAROL LAM, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY:  Absolutely fair.  Fair, that it`s gotten

a lot of criticism and fair that it should have gotten a lot of criticism.

 

HAYES:  Why?

 

LAM:  Because when a non-prosecution agreement is entered, it`s because

alternative remedies are viewed to be sufficient it`s because you know, in

the case of a monetary crime, sufficient money has been paid.  In the case

of deferring to another authority to take action, that`s an authority

that`s really getting sufficient justice.

 

What everybody feels in this case, Chris, is that sufficient justice was

not obtained back when the – when the Florida State charges were entered

into.

 

HAYES:  And there`s also the fact that you have many – the – many victims

themselves coming forward in a lawsuit right, is part of the timing here,

basically saying that they were – that their rights were violated by the

agreement itself and by subsequent actions.

 

GONZALEZ:  The victims really are the heroes and they`re – I mean of this

whole case.  They`re – it`s their day.  What Julia uncovered in her

reporting was really potentially up to 80 victims of Jeffrey Epstein and

she was able to track that down through dog of reporting following

breadcrumbs and eventually getting four to talk on the record to us.

 

And you know, who knows what has transpired in the ten years where

basically after this sweetheart deal took place and now.

 

HAYES:  The memo that`s described in the four on the record conversations

that happened, Julie Brown and folks can look at that at the Miami Herald

fit squarely with the pattern that is established here.  What does it say

to you the DOJ is now doing – taking another run at this?

 

LAM:  Well, what`s happened here is DOJ and all the attention that this

case has gotten in the past few years and credit definitely goes to the

press, credit goes to the victims, credit goes to the victim`s lawyers for

keeping this alive.

 

I think when Judge Mara came down with that decision in February and said

the Miami U.S. Attorney`s Office violated the law and did not give the

victims the sufficient notice that they are required by law to give them

about this non-prosecution agreement, I think that really sort of blew the

doors open at DOJ in terms of some other part of the Department of Justice,

in this case, it was the Southern District of New York because of the

locale of Jeffrey Epstein`s home and where these activities seems to have

taken place.

 

That said, we really have to take a closer look at what happened with this

non-prosecution agreement.

 

HAYES:  Mindy, there`s lots of talk about the very sort of who`s who list

of associates of Jeffrey Epstein.  Bill Clinton has a statement out today

saying that he was only on a limited number of trips that had to do with

the international fundraising.  Alan Dershowitz who has been locked in a

court battle over accusations that have been leveled at him and he has

helped advise Jeffrey Epstein.

 

And of course, the president of the United States whose quote I read to you

before, it does seem to me that likely we`re going to hear more about that. 

What do you think?

 

GONZALEZ:  I think we`re all waiting to say that so many – these victims

were just abandoned by so many layers of institutions and people and we

really are waiting to see what – who else was involved, who else was

complicit, who else facilitated this, and who else needs to be held

accountable.

 

HAYES:  That is the question that`s sort of hanging over these entire

proceedings today.  Mindy Marquez Gonzalez and Carol Lam, thank you both. 

And joining me now for more on Acosta`s connection to all this, Senator Tim

Kaine Democrat of Virginia.

 

Senator, what`s your reaction to the story today about Jeffrey Epstein?

 

SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA):  Well, I am glad that it looks like Epstein might

finally get justice for his victimization of so many young girls because

the sweetheart deal that Secretary Acosta cut for him when he was U.S.

Attorney in Miami really allowed him to evade justice.

 

So it looks like somebody`s finally taken this case seriously.  I am on the

committee that interviewed at the hearing Secretary Acosta for his

position.  His answers about this deal did not add up then.  I voted

against him for that reason.

 

And subsequent events both the federal court ruling in Miami in February

and the indictment today show that Epstein is a predator and Acosta cut a

secret, illegal, sweetheart, outrageous deal he shouldn`t hold the job that

he currently holds.  He needs to go as Secretary of Labor.

 

HAYES:  I want to play just the exchange you had with him about the case. 

You asked him about it when he was nominated for the position.  Take a

listen to that exchange.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

KAINE:  You are aware that Mr. Epstein served at 13 months, he was allowed

out during the day and he had to sleep at a County Jail but he was

basically allowed to move and go around the community and do whatever he

wants and then that became a subject of significant criticism.

 

ALEX ACOSTA, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES:  And I am on record

condemning that and I think that was awful.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Is it your understanding that he was somehow duped in this?  Like

what is your understanding of the role that Secretary Acosta played in this

actual deal and do you feel like you know the full story of it?

 

KAINE:  Well, I`m not sure I know the full story, Chris, but it was clear

to me at the time he was trying to downplay his responsibility for this

deal and it just didn`t add up.  He was the U.S. Attorney who was the key

guy behind the non-prosecution agreement that led Epstein off in such an

egregious way.

 

And you know, the thing about this case that is so outrageous – I mean,

first it was illegal to not tell the victims about the deal.  The federal

court in Miami subsequently has found – they took affirmative steps to

hide the deal from the victims.  It was outrageously light in terms of a

sentence.

 

But the thing that makes me the maddest is Acosta allowed Epstein to plead

guilty to prostitution, state prostitution charges.  These were not

prostitutes.  They were teenage sex trafficking victims that Epstein`s sex

trafficked, may be assaulted, possibly raped, and yet what Acosta did was

revitalized these youngsters by allowing a prostitution charge to suggest

that they were prostitutes.  It`s outrageous.

 

Now, you got to note, Acosta is currently the Secretary of Labor who has

enforcement responsibilities.  In his past activities, he showed he would

side with the powerful and throw the vulnerable under the bus.  That`s the

last kind of person that you need as an enforcer of the labor laws of this

country.

 

HAYES:  You know, it seems to me after that federal judge ruled the plea

deal is functionally illegal right.  I mean, basically, we had a non-

prosecution agreement.  I think there`s a Department of Justice

investigation but it does seem to me and I`d like to hear your thoughts on

this, there`s a lot more that needs to be filled in.

 

Like I don`t – I don`t think I understand exactly blow-by-blow how this

deal came to be and Mr. Acosta is responsibility for it.

 

KAINE:  Well, and I think there are more – there`s more there.  One thing

we do know is that some of Secretary Acosta`s prosecutors in his office

prepared a massive federal indictment, a 50-plus page indictment in Miami

against Mr. Epstein and they had that there and for some reason the

decision-makers in the office just shelved that and went with this state

law charge.

 

What does that matter?  Well, when they – when he agreed to plead guilty

to these state charges, they filed the plea in a – in a County Court where

the victims wouldn`t know to look for it.  And then he got this cushy

sentence in a County Jail where he`s out during the day going back to work.

 

So there was just – there are more facts to get at but what I think is now

undeniable is that the deal was illegal, it was kept hidden from these

victims, it was outrageously light, and Secretary Acosta re-victimized

these young ladies by allowing it to be a prostitution charge which is so

insulting to label these teenage kids.

 

These – some of these kids were middle schoolers, Chris.  To label these

kids who were trafficked by Epstein as prostitutes, what an outrage.

 

HAYES:  Finally, do you anticipate – I mean, this is something he had to

lightly address in his confirmation hearings.  He was confirmed 52

Republicans and eight Democrats voting for him.  You were not among them. 

Do you anticipate this is something that he is going to have to account for

in some public setting whether before the House or the Senate in the near

future?

 

KAINE:  There is no way that Secretary Acosta could ever come before either

the House or the Senate without having to answer more questions about this. 

At the hearing in question, I might have been – I think it was just

Senators Murray and I that asked him about this.

 

We were deeply troubled by it as were most of the Democrats.  But there is

no way he can come back before this body, Congress, without having to ask

answer a lot more tough questions about this.

 

HAYES:  All right, Senator Tim Kaine, thank you for your time.

 

KAINE:  Absolutely.

 

HAYES:  Next, we are not done because there`s yet another investigation

into the man in charge of President Trump`s inauguration.  A federal grand

jury is looking into disgraced former RNC Deputy Finance Chair Elliott

Broidy in two minutes.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

HAYES:  Jeffrey Epstein is not the only person connected to President Trump

under federal law enforcement scrutiny today.  Remember this guy?  His name

is Elliott Broidy.  He is the big RNC fundraiser who like Donald Trump also

reportedly had an affair of the Playboy model to cover it up.  He also

reportedly used the President`s longtime fixer Michael Cohen to arrange a

hush-money payment to said Playboy model.

 

And according to a lawsuit filed against him, he reportedly coerced that

woman into having an abortion after getting her pregnant.  You know, RNC

dude.  That guy Elliott Broidy was also once the deputy finance chair of

the Republican National Committee.

 

Now his co-deputy finance chair was the one and only Michael Cohen who

arranged the hush money payment and now sits in federal prison.  And both

of them reported to then RNC Finance Chair Steve Wynn, the now-disgraced

casino magnate accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment who was

forced to leave the RNC because of those lurid misconduct allegations but

that has not stopped him from continuing to donate tons of money to the

RNC.

 

Well, Elliott Broidy now appears to be the subject of another investigation

in relation to his role as the vice-chair of President Trump`s inaugural

committee.  Associated Press exclusive reporting that the federal grand

jury in New York is looking into whether he used his position as vice-chair

of the president`s inaugural committee to drum up foreign business deals

which is illegal.  I should note that Elliott Broidy denies the

allegations.

 

Joining me now, Erin Banco, National Security Reporter for the Daily Beast. 

She`s been reporting on the ongoing federal scrutiny of Mr. Broidy.  Erin,

what do we know about the latest case broken by the A.P. out of Brooklyn`s

U.S. Attorney`s Office?

 

ERIN BANCO, NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER, DAILY BEAST:  Yes.  So it`s a

really interesting story out today.  The Daily Beast has been looking into

Mr. Broidy for quite some time now.  And what we learned today from The

Associated Press, according to that news outlet, that a grand jury is

investigating Elliott Broidy. 

 

Now, we don`t know a lot about exactly what they`re investigating, only

that according to the A.P. they`re looking into whether or not he used his

position on the inaugural committee to benefit himself financially.

 

HAYES:  And there`s – looking at the huge amounts of contracts that he was

able to score right, with foreign countries?

 

BANCO:  That`s exactly right.  But I think the bigger question here is the

scope of this grand jury.  We don`t know much about when this grand jury

formed, who`s involved in it.  We`ve talked to sources today who say that

the scope of this grand jury is actually larger than Elliott Broidy

himself, that it`s more sweeping, that it might include other individuals

who have been involved in the inaugural committee.

 

And he – I think the big question now is whether or not this grand jury is

looking at Elliott exclusively or whether or not they`re looking at other

individuals in the inaugural committee.  Now we also know that DOJ in D.C.

has been interviewing individuals connected to Elliott Broidy`s businesses.

 

We reported exclusively a few months ago in The Daily Beast that at least

one of his business associates had been interviewed in D.C. and that

appears to be a different unit than with the unit in New York.  But there

does seem to be some level of coordination between DOJ in D.C. and DOJ in

New York.

 

So I think there`s still a lot of unknowns here, and actually, the scope of

this could be quite larger.

 

HAYES:  That`s – so that – we just showed that article that you

published, the story you brought back in April.  That`s the FBI in D.C.

interviewing a business partner with Elliott Broidy.  We`ve got now a

Brooklyn U.S. Attorney`s Office and then we know that SDNY which has been

confirmed I think by multiple outlets is running their own inaugural

committee investigation, correct?

 

BANCO:  There seems to be two inaugural committee investigations and I

think some of the details haven`t really been worked out.  There seems to

be one in EDNY and there seems to be one in SDNY in the Southern District

of New York.

 

Now it`s a little unclear exactly how the two jurisdictions have broken up

the components of the inaugural committee probe.  However, we do know that

there have been individuals questioned – individuals connected to this

committee questioned by both jurisdictions and also in D.C.

 

HAYES:  So what role did Broidy play?  How close was he did the President

and the President`s allies and associates?

 

BANCO:  I think there were a lot of people at the time that claimed to be

very close to the President or to have a foot in the door.  Obviously, Mr.

Broidy was connected to the inaugural committee and to the financing of

that committee in a big way.  I think there were several other individuals

who were also involved in the financing and the financials of this

committee.

 

But I think that Mr. Broidy played a big part in this sort of world, Trump

land at the time because he was connected to a lot of other individuals who

were sort of more deeply connected to President Trump.  You know,

obviously, Michael Cohen was also involved sort of laterally from him,

Steve Wynn who you mentioned earlier.  So I think it`s hard to gauge

exactly how much foothold he had with Trump himself but he was definitely

in the Trump orbit.

 

HAYES:  We were going to be following this case very closely.  It seems

like there`s a lot piled up on the man`s plate legally.  Erin Banco, thanks

so much.  Coming up, the White House revamp its efforts to rig this census

and the President himself can`t keep the cover story straight again.  What

we`re learning about the administration`s constant lies on this topic after

this.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

HAYES:  It is now July 8, just over a week after the hard deadline for

printing the United States 2020 census form.  Now, I didn`t come up with

that deadline, that deadline is the one that the Trump department – Trump

Department of Justice said could not be blown through, could not be

violated, and they said that to numerous courts in numerous court filings

in statements before judges.

 

Now they are trying to come up with a way to blow through it. 

 

Last week, you`ll recall, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump

administration, finding

that they had been effectively lying about their own motives in adding a

citizenship question to the census.  The clear reason to add that question

would be to spook respondents, to reduce responses

in immigrant communities, which would massively shift congressional

representation, electoral college votes, billions of dollars in federal

revenue and state legislative power, all away from areas with large

immigrant communities, areas and states that just happen to be most often

represented by Democrats.

 

But after being caught in a lie that even Supreme Court Chief Justice John

Roberts wouldn`t

swallow, it seemed like the Trump administration was declaring defeat.  The

administration agreed they

would print a census without the controversial citizenship question.  That

is until the president threw a tantrum on Twitter, which led to an

absolutely insane status conference in which a career lawyer with the DOJ

told a federal judge that, and I quote him here, “I am doing my absolute

best to figure out what`s going on.”

 

As of today, we still basically have no idea what`s going on except –

except today Attorney General William Barr said he thinks they may have

found a path forward to get that question on the census.

 

What we do know is that quite tellingly and really ominously the legal team

at DOJ that has  been representing this case has been completely replaced

with a brand-new team.  Many observers think that is because the new case

will require directly contradicting what the old case, the old team 

already stated.

 

Having lost multiple times for lying to the court, it now sure looks like

they`re about to take

another run at it by lying to the court.

 

I want to bring in Vanita Gupta, former head of the Justice Department

civil rights division, now president and CEO of the Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights.

 

Let`s start with just the matter of the deadline, Vanita.  I mean, you can

cite chapter and verse, as plaintiffs have, of the times the solicitor

general of the United States, the Department of Justice lawyers, have

signed documents saying June 30 is the hard deadline.  We can`t go past it. 

And now what are we going to do?

 

VANITA GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND CEO LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN

RIGHTS:  Well, I mean, this is the thing, you can`t make this stuff up.  I

mean, they have repeatedly made representations to the court that June 30th

was the deadline, so much so that they convinced the Supreme Court under

that representation to do something pretty extraordinary, which is to

bypass the court of appeals and to just take the case directly from the

district court in order to meet this June 30th deadline.

 

And so now, after the president throws this tantrum and DOJ is suddenly

scrambling to reverse  course, what are they going to say?  Are they going

to say that they lied about the June 30th deadline?  Are they going to say

that somehow magically they found the extraordinary set of resources that

it will take to correct forms that are, by the way, being printed as we

speak.

 

HAYES:  Yes.

 

GUPTA:  They were started to be printed as of July 1st last week.

 

And so, you know, it boggles the mind.  But, I mean, also let`s get to what

you were talking about, which is they`re going to have to come up with now

an entirely new rationale to pass constitutional muster and pass federal

law.  And for the last 18 months they have been unsuccessfully telling

three federal courts and the United States Supreme Court about a different

lie, which is that all of this was needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

 

So I just – I don`t see how they don`t meet a dead end whichever way they

turn.  But they sure are trying.  And they`re doing it apparently with the

attorney general`s imprimatur, which is a real disappointment, I think, for

the career men and women who try to serve with integrity in the Justice

Department.

 

HAYES:  Let me ask you about that.  Noelle Francisco (ph) is a solicitor

general of the United States, who, if he happens to be watching, should

know that his reputation is on the line here.  I mean, he is the person

that, you know, asserted to the court – his name is on these court filings

saying the Census Bureau must finalize the census forms by the end of June

2019 to print them on time for the 2020 decennial census, that`s you Noelle

Francisco (ph), that`s your name, that`s your integrity before the nation

and before the court certifying that.

 

Like, are you going to let Donald Trump march you back into that court –

the Supreme Court and be like I lied to all of you?

 

GUPTA:  I mean, you know, even the reversal in the last week is really

quite shocking when you  – when you think about it.  And Noelle Fransicsco

(ph) he is a repeat player in the United States Supreme Court.  This isn`t

just about their integrity vis-a-vis the census/citizenship question, this

whole endeavor in the events of the last obviously several months, but

certainly in the last week, I think go to the core of the integrity of the

Justice Department and the willingness of this administration to flaunt the

law, and an attorney general who is basically just acting at Trump`s

beckoning, ignoring  that we have a Supreme Court decision that has said

what they had been doing was unlawful.  And the attorney general doesn`t

get the flaunt the law.  This was not an advisory opinion. 

 

And so , you know, now they`re scrambling to find an entirely new rationale

so they can wipe the slate clean but they can`t.

 

HAYES:  Well, that`s the question.  Quickly on this, you know, there is

this idea that the executive order – that there is the un-ring the bell

problem, right?  Which is like we need to “Men in Black” your memory and

everyone in the Supreme Court and everyone in the public who knows this was

pretextual, who knows they were lying, and now woof, that never happened. 

Now here is an executive order.

 

Like, can they do that?

 

GUPTA;  Look, last I checked, we still had separation of powers in this

country.  And the president doesn`t get to override the Supreme Court

through an executive order.  The census is in the power of congress,

Article I of the constitution says that the congress has control over the

census.  It`s a power that`s delegated to the executive branch, but there

are huge constraints on it, including, you know, black and white letter

federal law that Justice Roberts relied on in issuing the majority opinion

of

the Supreme Court.

 

You know, they will try.  I think they will meet a dead end, whichever way

they go.   But meanwhile there is a really important thing at stake where

health care, hospitals, policing, political  representation are all at

stake with this very serious democratic institution.

 

HAYES:  All right.  Vanita Gupta, thank you for joining us.

 

Ahead, the big political problem looming for the Trump White House in 2020. 

How they`re trying to dodge it today. 

 

Plus, tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two starts next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

HAYES:  Thing One tonight, we know that Donald Trump likes to watch a lot

of TV, especially cable news.  People close to the president told The New

York Times he spends at least four hours a

day, sometimes as much as twice that, in front of a television, and even on

a just glorious holiday weekend, the president apparently found the time to

watch his favorite network, Trump TV.

 

But whatever he saw yesterday did not sit well.  The president took to

Twitter to unleash a torrent of displeasure, criticizing the weekend team

and calling the anchors terrible.  It`s unclear exactly what triggered that

outburst.  It could have been any number of things.

 

(BEIGN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Guess what?  History has just been made.  We are here

in a sports…

 

CROWD:  (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump.  (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  That`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

HAYES:  The U.S. women`s soccer team are World Cup champions once again,

taking the trophy for the second time in a row after crushing the

Netherlands 2-0 yesterday.

 

The dominating team capturing hearts all across the country, but maybe not

the one in the Oval Office.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Are you excited about going to the White House?

 

MEGAN RAPINOE, U.S. SOCCER PLAYER:  I`m not going to the (EXPLETIVE

DELETED) White House.  No, I`m not going to the White House.  We`re not

going to be invited.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  You`re not going to be invited?

 

RAPINOE:  I doubt it.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

TRUMP:  The president responded to those comments last month from team

captain Megan Rapinoe, tweeting that “Megan should win first before she

talks,” but insisting he`d be “inviting the team to the White House win or

lose.”

 

Well, now the Megan has won.  And the president is backtracking.

 

(BEIGN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Will you invite the women`s team to the White House,

the soccer team?

 

TRUMP:  We haven`t really thought about it.  We will look at that.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Well, at least the women`s team knows that the fans have got their

backs.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  We are here in a sports bar in Lyon, France.

 

CROWD:  (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump.  (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Listen to what…

 

CROWD:  (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  So did you have any doubt they were going to lose?

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  No.   None.  None whatsoever.  Now we need to win in

2020.

 

CROWD:  Democrats!  Democrats!

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  USA Democrats!

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Get that racist out of the White House.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

HAYES:  We have yet more reporting this weekend on the human rights

disaster that is the Customs and Border Protection immigration detention

facilities.

 

New York Times, in partnership with the El Paso Times, reporting on the

horrific conditions inside one detention center in Clint, Texas, quote,

“outbreaks of scabies, shingles and chickenpox were spreading among

hundreds of children who were being held in cramped cells, agents said. 

The stench of the children`s dirty clothing was so strong it spread to

agents own clothing – people in town would scrunch their noses when they

left work.” 

 

At this point, we have accounts from reporters and lawyers who have

actually witnessed the

conditions inside the facilities, along with members of congress and

doctors who have also been inside and the department`s own inspector

general.  All of those people have been consistent on the major details of

just how terrible the conditions are.

 

But, of course, when faced with an uncomfortable and damning truth, we know

what the Trump

administration does, they lie and deny.  They did so this week – they did

this for weeks to the public and before congress under oath about their

child separation policy, which was so monstrous they could marshal no

defense other than to deny it was happening or wrongly say it had been the

policy of the Obama administration.

 

Now now they`re doing it once again with the indefensible conditions in the

Trump migrant detention camps.

 

The acting head of the Department of Homeland Security was sent out this

weekend to do what the former head of homeland security, Kirstjen Nielsen,

had done before him: gaslight the public and deny reality.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC NEWS ANCHOR:  Why did you call these allegations

unsubstantiated?

 

KEVIN MCALEENAN, ACTING DHS SECRETARY:  Because there is adequate food and

water, because the facility is cleaned every day, because I know what our

standards are and I know they`re being followed because we have tremendous

levels of oversight.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  The IG said the standards weren`t being followed, that`s the

oversight you`re referring to.  And we should note that adequate food and

water isn`t exactly a denial of the reporting we`ve been hearing. 

 

But if there is any silver lining here, and it can be hard to find given

the sheer awfulness, it`s that the Trump administration understands that

they cannot actually defend what they`re doing.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

TRUMP:  We have among the cleanest and sharpest – crystal clean, you`ve

heard me say it – I want crystal clean – air and water anywhere on earth.

 

You know, we have the cleanest air in the world in the United States, and

it has got better since I`m president.  We have the cleanest water.  It`s

crystal clean.

 

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  America has the cleanest

air and water in the world.  We continue to use…

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  That`s not true.  We don`t have the cleanest air and

water in the world.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Have you noticed this weird thing that Trump and members of the

administration do whenever they are confronted with their abysmal climate

policy that is actively making the world hotter and more dangerous, they

are pivot very hard to a very demonstrable lie that under their tenure, the

air and water in this country is the cleanest, in fact the sharpest.

 

First of all, it`s not true, and second of all it`s kind of a non sequitur.

 

And today, they were at it again against a backdrop of truly biblical

flooding in Washington,

D.C.  The president gathered up some cabinet secretaries and tried to tout

his administration`s environmental record.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

TRUMP:  We want the cleanest air.  We want crystal clean water.  And that`s

what we are doing, and that`s what we are working on so hard.

 

RICK PERRY, ENERGY SECRETARY:  I think the world needs to look at your

leadership, look at what you`ve done. 

 

ANDREW WHEELER, EPA ADMINISTRATOR:  Today we have the cleanest air on

record.  and we are a global leader for access to clean drinking water.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Of all this clean air and water talk and performative environmental

concern is arousing your suspicions that it`s just an attempt by the Trump

administration to shore up what is a genuine political liability, you are

correct.

 

The New York Times reporting the idea for today`s speech, quote, “started

with consultants on his reelection campaign who have discovered that his

environmental record is a definite turnoff for two key demographics –

millennial and suburban women,” which is to say the public is actually on

to the Trump administration.  People do care about the climate crisis.  And

they know the Trump administration doesn`t.

 

And so unremarkably the Trump White House understands that it`s a political

problem as we head into 2020.

 

But if only the public knew just how bad the record really is.  Here to

talk about the administration`s actual record on the environment as opposed

to their record Emily Atkin, staff writer at The New Republic who reports

on science and environmental politics, and Tyson Slocum, the energy program

director at the advocacy group Public Citizen.

 

Emily, let me start with you, because you`ve written about Andrew Wheeler,

who is the man who  replace the almost comically corrupt Scott Pruitt, who

made for excellent copy because he was such a ridiculous figure, and he had

his security detail drive him around to different hotels whose soaps and

lotions he liked.  What is Wheeler`s actual record at EPA been?

 

EMILY ATKIN, THE NEW REPUBLIC:  I mean, for Andrew Wheeler and Trump to say

that they are leaders in protecting the environment it`s sort of like the

cookie monster saying that he is the leader in vegetables.  It`s like, you

know, you know they`ll say they are, but they`re not.  And Wheeler and

Trump will say that they are protecting the environment, but they`re not. 

 

Under Andrew Wheeler and Trump I believe it`s 83 regulations that are in

the process of being rolled back, 49 of which have been completed.  Those

are all environment-climate-related.  They span the gamut of drinking

water, air protections, chemical protections.

 

And Andrew Wheeler himself is a coal lobbyist.  That was one of the other

funny things about today`s speech was that Trump brought up his secretary

of the Department of the Interior, David Bernhardt, who is a former oil

lobbyist, and he brought up Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist.  These

are the two people who are involved of repealing and creating new

regulations that are supposed to protect our environment, when in reality

what they are putting in are new regulations that are exactly what these

industries want, that send – that sort of allow them to operate in the

most polluting way possible while still under the guise that they are being

regulated.

 

HAYES:  Tyson, as Emily refers to it, you know, the regulatory state, the

modern regulatory state, has a fair amount of power when it comes to things

like clean water and clean air and regulating  chemicals.  There`s – on

the question of climate, how much power does the executive have?  And how

has this administration used or not used that power?

 

TYSON SLOCUM, DIRECTOR, ENERGY P ROGRAM, PUBLIC CITIZEN:  The

administration has enormous unilateral power.  Remember it was the Obama

administration that unilaterally negotiated the Paris Climate Accord and

got the rest of the world in line for a climate agreement that then Trump

unilaterally dismantled.

 

And you have to remember that one of the individuals that pushed hard to

dismantle the climate agreement was Bob Murray who was absent from today`s

event, but Bob Murray, the coal magnate who runs Murray Energy, which is

the largest privately held coal company, which used to hire Andrew Wheeler

to set up meetings for Bob Murray when he was meeting with President Trump,

Murray Energy delivered this 16-point action plan of which repealing and

getting out of the Paris Climate

Accord was the number one priority.

 

And you have to remember that the Paris Climate Accord, Obama made a ton of

concessions on

that.  He conceded to Republicans that it wouldn`t be binding, that

developing countries, along with

developed countries, would be on it, and also that it would have fairly

modest climate reduction goals.

 

But the radicalness and the absurdness of the Trump administration is even

dismantling something like the Paris Climate Accord.

 

HAYES:  Emily, having covered the Trump administration, do you agree the –

I am struck that he made the speech at all, and I am struck that they have

consultants telling them this is actually a  political liability for the

president.

 

ATKIN:  I think that the rhetoric that he used actually could work with a

lot of Americans, and that`s why I think they did it.  Having covered

Trump, in general, and Republicans and climate change, their rhetoric has

shifted a lot in the last just five years.  I mean, you remember five years

ago it was there is no climate change.  It`s a hoax.  And then it was,

well, there is climate change, but it`s natural-caused, humans didn`t cause

it.

 

Now Republicans and Trump, they are confronted with the fact that the

majority of the public

realizes there is a climate crisis and kind of wants them to do something

about it.  So, almost the genius of this speech was that Trump took that

and he was like – he didn`t even say this, but the administration does as

a whole, they say, OK, there is a climate crisis, and humans might be

responsible, but American humans are doing a really good job confronting

it, you know.

 

He said at one point - - Trump didn`t say the words climate change in his

speech once, but he did actually say – he referenced carbon emissions.  He

said the U.S. has declined its emissions.,  They have been down since 2000. 

It`s strategic because we had – our carbon emissions were awful in 2000,

so obviously they have declined.

 

But he`s sort of saying – the message that he and the administration are

saying that we`re doing great.  This climate crisis thing, that`s up to the

more polluting countries. 

 

HAYES:  Is it progress, Tyson, at some levels for them to have to deal with

it, for them even to make the point, as fallacious as it is, about carbon

emissions?

 

ATKIN:  Absolutely not.

 

SLOCUM:  I think it shows how incredibly important clean air, clean water

and addressing climate change are to a large majority of American voters,

which is why it is so distressing that this administration is doing so much

aggressive lasting damage on these critically important areas, and placing

former corporate lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry in charge of the

regulatory apparatus.  It has to end.

 

HAYES:  I think he has handed the Democratic nominee an enormous weapon in

2020.  We will say if they use it.  Emily Atkin and  Tyson Slocum, thank

you both.

 

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

with Joy Reid in for Rachel.  Good evening, Joy.

 

 

 

 

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

BE UPDATED.

END   

 

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

content.>