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

All In With Chris Hayes, Transcript 4/11/2016

Guests: Rick Wilson, Jane Sanders, Joan Walsh, Charlie Pierce, Raj Chetty

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: April 11, 2016 Guest: Rick Wilson, Jane Sanders, Joan Walsh, Charlie Pierce, Raj Chetty


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN --

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The system is corrupt and worse on the Republican side.

HAYES: Quote, "Great anger from team front-runner" as Ted Cruz sweeps Colorado.

PAUL MANAFORT, DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN: You go to these county conventions, and you see the tactics, Gestapo tactics.

HAYES: Tonight, why Donald Trump`s children cannot vote for their dad.

TRUMP: They feel very guilty, but it`s fine.

HAYES: Why a contested convention looks more likely than ever.

And latest reporting that Paul Ryan is waiting in the wings.

Then, Hillary Clinton stays on offense.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Senator Sanders has had trouble answering questions.

HAYES: As the Sanders campaign starts talking about a contested Democratic convention. Jane Sanders will join me live.

All that plus what`s missing from Donald Trump`s charitable giving.

TRUMP: I give money to charity, a lot of money to charity.

HAYES: And why the Tour de Trump bike race never had a chance.

TRUMP: I would like to make this the equivalent of the Tour de France.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


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

After being MIA from the campaign trail, even skipping his regular phone calls to the Sunday shows for the first time in five months, Donald Trump is back on the road in Upstate New York with a rally in Rochester last night and Albany tonight. And following a total and complete shutout in Colorado`s delegate elections over the weekend, worsened by some embarrassing missteps on the part of his campaign, Trump is pinning the blame on the entire Republican nominating process.


TRUMP: The system, folks, is rigged. It`s a rigged, disgusting dirty system. It`s a dirty system.

You saw what`s happened in Colorado. It`s one of the big things. It`s a fix because we thought we were having an election, and a number of months ago they decided to do it by, you know what, right? Right?

They said, we`ll do it by delegate. You know, we think about democracy and we think about our country -- let me tell you a little secret as far as our country is concerned. We have a democracy, but we`ve got to keep our democracy. And we`re going to do that.


HAYES: Colorado is one of just a few states that doesn`t hold the Republican primary or caucus. Instead, the state party elects three delegates from each of Colorado`s seven congressional districts and picks another 13 delegates at a statewide convention, which took place over the past weekend.

Now, the three remaining delegates slots to go to officials.

On Saturday, Ted Cruz completed a clean sweep of Colorado`s 34 available delegates. The result of a well-organized grassroots effort in the state. Trump`s campaign, on the other hand, was almost totally absent.


PATRICK DAVIS, POLITICAL CONSULTANT: I`m currently the state delegate director.

REPORTER: OK. When did you start in that role?

DAVIS: I started in that role on Wednesday. Our expectations are very low. We don`t expect even one delegate. If we get one, that`s a win for Trump in Colorado.


HAYES: I mean, real low. I mean, we barely expect just to live for the next 48 hours.

Trump`s people did show up at the convention to pass out flyers for the campaign`s official slate of delegate candidates and the three-digit number showing where to find them on the crowded 600-person ballot. But seven of the names directed people to the wrong number and one delegate`s name was misspelled. In one case, an erroneous corresponded with a Cruz supporter. In the end, the Trump`s camp expectations lowering proved to be prophetic.

But it wasn`t just Colorado. A number of states that held primaries had events this weekend to pick individual delegates, the people that go into a convention in Cleveland, and in Iowa, in South Carolina, in North Carolina and Virginia, Trump supporters lost out to delegates loyal to Ted Cruz, compounding the impression the Trump`s campaign doesn`t quite know what it`s doing.

The candidate himself admitted that two of his own children, including Ivanka missed last month`s registration deadline for New York`s closed primary next week.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ivanka and Eric Trump unable to register because of the rules. Are the rules in New York unfair as well?

TRUMP: No, they had a long time to register and unaware of the rules. They didn`t register. So, they feel very, very guilty.


HAYES: Trump is now blaming his delegate losses in Colorado and elsewhere on the nature of the nomination process, a process he seemed to have grasped recently, if at all.

He`s making common cause of Democratic candidate, Bernie Sanders.


TRUMP: You have in Colorado where they, frankly -- they, you know, just get all of these delegates and it`s not a system. There was no voting. I didn`t go out there to make a speech or anything. There`s no voting.

And, you know, I heard Pete said, well, that`s the way it is. Well, that really shouldn`t be the way it is. This was changed in the summer to help a guy like Cruz.

I`m an outsider and I came into the system and I`m winning the votes by millions of votes. But the system is rigged. It`s crooked.

When you look even at Bernie, I`m not a fan of Bernie. But every time I turn on the show, Bernie wins, Bernie wins, Bernie wins, and yet, Bernie is not winning.


HAYES: There`s actually something pretty shrewd about Trump`s argument that regular people aren`t getting a voice in their party`s nomination. As Trump tweeted last night, quote, "how is it possible that the people of the great state of Colorado never got to vote in the Republican primary. Great anger. Totally unfair."

The more he paints this race as a contest between GOP elites and the will of the people, the harder he makes it for party officials to, quote, "steal" the nomination at a contested convention where Trump is all but certain to have the most votes and the most delegates. If even he falls short of the magic number, 1,237 to clinch the nomination in the first ballot, Republicans may have a legitimacy problem on their hands.

By the same token, Trump`s new convention manager, Paul Manafort, is now chipping away at the legitimacy of Ted Cruz` delegate gains with some pretty wild accusations.


MANAFORT: They have taken an approach to some of the county conventions where they don`t care about the party. If they don`t get what they want, they blow it up. You go to these county conventions and you see the tactic -- the Gestapo tactics, the scorched earth tactics --

CHUCK TODD, MEET THE PRESS: Gestapo tactics, that`s a strong word.

MANAFORT: Well, you look at -- we`re going to be filing several protests because reality is, they are not playing by the rules.

HAYES: Today, Trump made a not so veiled threat to the party itself, tweeting a video f a disgruntled Colorado supporter burning his Republican voter registration.


UNIDENTIFEID MALE: Republican Party, take note. I think you`ll see a whole lot more of these. I`ve been a Republican all my life. I will they ever be a Republican again.


HAYES: Joining me now, MSNBC political analyst and former RNC chair, Michael Steele, and Republican media strategist, Rick Wilson, one of the co-founders of the never Trump movement, to the extent it`s a movement.

Michael Steele, let me start with you.

My sense from you is that you think it is the case that there will be a genuine legitimacy problem. Whatever you think of Donald Trump as a person, his politics, whatever, if he`s got the most delegates and you go into Cleveland and he`s not the nominee, that`s going to be real problem.

MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST/FORMER RNC CHAIR: It is. It`s largely because of the narrative that`s built up around this election so far and how right now we see Donald Trump, again, reshaping and reframing the narrative around the process.

People don`t like to talk about process. They don`t want to get into the weeds. And he is explaining the process in a very direct, succinct way that people go, yes, that makes sense. That`s not fair. What`s the problem?

So, I think, yes, there`s going to set up this legitimacy question if they`re not clean hand here. Clean hands. If you don`t have clean hands as the national party, state party in Colorado made the mistake of having this tweet go out afterwards that basically said, yes, we got it done. Hashtag, #neverTrump.

That again feeds the narrative that this process is rigged and Donald Trump is going to take advantage of that.

HAYES: And, Rick, it`s not even -- to me, it`s not even rigged. I mean, what I think is so fascinating, grimly compelling about what we are watching unfold is that it`s just the rules are what they are. But no one thinks of the rules as being the most important thing. What they think of the rules as essentially creating the condition under which the person runs can get the most votes will be the nominee.

Now, they`re going to find out that`s not the way the rules work. Isn`t that a problem?

RICK WILSON, GOP MEDIA STRATEGIST: Well, Chris, look, I can`t be responsible for America`s lack of civics education, but the party rules are what they are. The only thing that matters and we repeated this, you`ve said this and everyone else has too, the only thing that matters is 1,237. If you`re not there, it`s nothing. If you`re there, it`s something.

It doesn`t matter if he got more votes or a plurality or whatever. If he doesn`t get a majority, it`s not real. It doesn`t matter.

HAYES: That maybe --

WILSON: I know that Donald Trump loves to --

HAYES: Yes, continue.

WILSON: Donald Trump loves to whine about the process. He loves to complain about the process.

These rules are explicable. They are complicated but they`re not hard. And these rules are understandable.

And Donald Trump, this allegedly brilliant businessman with this team around him, they can`t seem to manage their way through an Arby`s training manual, much less the party rules. I`m sorry for them. I feel bad for them that Donald Trump lacks the intellectual bandwidth to find out what he`s doing here.

But the fact that Ted Cruz is skunking him by following the rules and by engaging in legitimate political discourse with people like at the Colorado convention, which is a legitimate modality by which we select delegates to the national convention, I`m sorry if Donald Trump is not smart enough to handle that, but he`s obviously, you know, going to complain about it like a champ, even if he can`t go out and actually win the delegates.

HAYES: I think, look, let me just say, you`re right on one level, right? This was not invented out of nowhere. The rules were there.

STEELE: Right.

HAYES: They could have done better at this. They`re doing a terrible job at what is their job, and the CEO running that enterprise is doing a poor job of managing that job. Let`s stipulate all that.

It`s still the case, though, Rick, that people in the modern primary system really is not thought of as a kind of representative election. You`re not electing a member of Congress who are going to vote on bills. You`re voting for the person. People think of it as a preference primary. We haven`t had a contested convention in 40 years, right?

I mean, it -- you can make the arguments you make but the people are not going to be happy.

WILSON: Listen, the people that aren`t happy about it because they don`t understand it, I feel for them. But this is the Republican Party`s nominating process. It is not a democracy. This is the Republican Party selecting its nominee.

And if Donald Trump didn`t understand the rules and he wants to whine about it like a child, then that`s what he`s going to do. And I know there will be people who will be disgruntled and unhappy about it, but they have the option, like that guy that burned his voter card -- here`s a thing -- he could have followed the rules and participated appropriately but he didn`t.

HAYES: Michael --

WILSON: He didn`t sign up appropriately to go and do it. So, I`m sorry if they can`t figure out the rules, but the rules are what they are. I feel bad for people that don`t get involved in it. It`s not something for everybody.

HAYES: Michael, what do you think of that argument?

WILSON: Yes, Chris, I agree. I agree absolutely with Rick. The rules are the rules. It`s very clear. You need 1,237. OK, period.

But here`s the problem. We saw in 2012, what the establishment will do when the rules don`t go the way they want them to go. Ron Paul wanted to get a nomination from the floor. They changed the rules from requiring five states with plurality to eight states with majority.

That`s the part I`m talking about with clean hands. You cannot go into this process, given the way people feel about this and just say, the rules are the rules, when everybody knows you can change the rules. So, that`s the rub here. That`s the opening that Donald Trump has.

It`s also the problem that others have within the party with the clean hands narrative when it looks like they are trying to change the rules. And that`s what concern people have right now.

HAYES: Rick, let me get your feedback. This is a moment that happened at the Albany rally. This is something we have seen quite a bit at Trump rallies. This is a protester. It appears to me like the gentleman in the hoodie is a protester. He`s yelling boo, boo.

There`s some Trump supporters, he`s yelling boo, boo, and then this guy comes and smacks him in the face.

How concerned are you about escalation in Cleveland?

WILSON: Well, look, Roger Stone and others have made a bunch of very vaguely veiled threats about that sort of thing. And I think that`s par for the course for the Trump team and the Trump organization. You`ve got Corey Lewandowski who will do anything to beat a woman, you know, when it comes to this thing. You`ve got Donald Trump who encourages this from the podium.

You know, I don`t get my -- I don`t get it -- I don`t get all hyped up about them making threats like this, except in so far as the fact that, you know, when Roger Stone says we`re going to find their hotel rooms and send protesters to threaten people, you know, that`s going to be the point where I hope they have lawyers and health insurance wired up before they do that for folks.

HAYES: Gestapo tactics, a term used by Manafort, of course, a reference to a criticism of Mayor Richard Daley in `68, Gestapo tactics of the police department on the street at that point.

Michael Steele and Rick Wilson -- thank you both, gentlemen.

STEELE: All right, Chris.

Still to come, Speaker Paul Ryan insists he has no intention of becoming the Republican nominee. So, why is he building a national operation to counter Trump`s message? We`ll look at Ryan`s plan for Cleveland.

Plus, as a contested convention becomes more of a reality for Republicans, is it possible Democrats might need to start planning for one as well? Jane Sanders will join me in studio right here.

We`ll be back in two minutes with that interview. Do not go anywhere.


HAYES: For months now, even talking about the idea of a contested convention on the GOP side. Now, Bernie Sanders campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, is saying there could be one on the Democratic side as well.


HOST: Are we really talking about an open, contested convention in Philadelphia?

JEFF WEAVER, BERNIE SANDERS CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Absolutely, absolutely. The way the math is right now it`s very, very unlikely that either candidate will arrive at the convention with enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. And so, when we arrive in Philadelphia this summer, we`re going to arrive with two candidates, neither of which have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright.

So, there will certainly be an open convention on the Democratic side.


HAYES: Now, to become the Democratic nominee, a candidate needs the support of 2,383 delegates. Jeff Weaver is suggesting that neither Sanders nor Clinton will win enough of the remaining pledged delegates up for grabs to get to that number, to clinch the nomination before the convention in July. The Clinton campaign is saying differently. Despite Sanders winning the Wyoming caucuses on Saturday, his eighth win in the last nine contests, Sanders split Wyoming`s pledged delegates, 14 of them, with Hillary at seven apiece.

Meaning although she lost, Clinton added to her lead among pledged delegates or at least maintained even. In fact, her campaign was quick to point out in a statement Saturday night, "We congratulate Sanders on a spirited campaign in Wyoming, outperforming expectations. Hillary Clinton tied in pledged delegates today and now leads Senator Sanders by approximately 220 pledged delegates nationwide."

But here`s the thing: Team Sanders seem to be counting on the super delegates, right? Those are not the pledged delegates but they may need them or they will need them for a contested convention. Since they are not pledged to either candidate, they are free to support the presidential candidate of their choice at the convention.

Clinton isn`t worried about a scenario where the majority of super delegates abandoned her for Sanders. She has a huge super delegate lead in their express preference right now, 460 to 38.


CLINTON: Right now, I`m leading him with about two and a half million votes in the popular vote. I`m leading him in pledged delegates with a larger margin than then-Senator Obama ever had over me. I feel good about the upcoming contests, and I expect to be the nominee. And I will hope to have a unified Democratic Party.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Are you preparing for the scenario where you -- where neither of you enter the convention with the exact number of pledged delegates you need and there might be something of a floor fight or a contested convention? Are you getting ready for that just in case?

CLINTON: No. I intend to have the number of delegates required to be nominated.


HAYES: Joining me now, Jane Sanders, spouse of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

It`s wonderful to have you here in New York.


HAYES: All right. So, the rules are the rules. As we were just saying in the previous segment, right? There`s super delegates and there`s pledged delegates.

But I got to say, for months, I was hearing from Sanders supporters, people with Sanders campaign, the super delegates aren`t anti-democratic institution fundamentally, right? The will of the voters is one way. The super delegates are there as a sort of thumb on the scale.

How could it be possible for the Sanders campaign to go turn around, win fewer pledged delegates and try to get the super delegates to push them over the edge?

SANDERS: Well, we don`t know we`re going to win fewer pledged delegates and we don`t know whether either candidate will get the required number of delegates. And then, if they don`t, it is an open convention.

HAYES: But you got to make an argument, right, about democratic legitimacy at some level, right?

SANDERS: We don`t like the super delegate rules. It`s ridiculous. Thirty percent of the votes that somebody needs to get the nomination are individuals.

HAYES: That`s right.

SANDERS: I mean, one super delegates equals 1,000 people in Wisconsin, for instance. That`s crazy. That doesn`t seem democratic to us, but that`s the rule -- those are the rules of the game. We have to figure out to deal with them. When he`s president, maybe we`ll just go back to one vote, one person.

HAYES: Well, so that sounds totally sensible to me. But isn`t that the case the Clinton folks make the same argument on campaign finance where they basically, look, we don`t like the way the system works. This is the way the system works. We want to change it when we get it, but right now, this is the way the system works. You deal with the way the system is --

SANDERS: Except, except, Bernie said no. I`m not going to just say I don`t like the campaign finance system, I`m going to do it differently.

And they -- everybody said, it couldn`t be done. Couldn`t be done. Unrealistic.

He did it. He`s got over six million contributions for an average of $27 a piece. So, in that system -- I mean, the candidate makes the rules for themselves. Secretary Clinton says I will take money from Wall Street, fossil fuel, pharmaceutical companies.

HAYES: Well, but part of the reason is or part of the logic, they`ll say, is -- and this gets to something a Clinton person telling our own Kristen Welker that they`re planning on focusing on Bernie Sanders as untested, as they criticized him in the lead up to this primary here in New York.

The argument isn`t just about the primary, right? There`s going to be half a billion dollars in the general.


HAYES: And the question is, well, can you raise that much money in a general, right? Maybe you need to start taking some money from big interests because that`s just the way the state of American politics today.

SANDERS: Nope. I think the reason Bernie is doing well is he`s doing it his way. He`s doing it the way most people think democracy should be carried out and we will continue to do that.

When you say he`s untested, he`s been tested many times. He`s run and every single time he ran, they didn`t think he could win.

They didn`t think he could win as mayor. He won by ten votes. Last time he was elected as mayor, he won by over 70 percent.

He ran against the richest man in Vermont, not -- it couldn`t possibly happen. Well, in his last election -- I mean, we won that by a pretty good margin. In his last election, he won the Democrats, the independents and 25 percent of the Republican vote.

HAYES: All right.

SANDERS: We`re in great position.

HAYES: Let me concede to you. Let me say that he is clearly a very gifted politician in many ways and has been --

SANDERS: A public servant.

HAYES: A public servant, but also a politician. I mean, look, he does politics and he`s been discounted and undercounted many times, and won races that no one people said he couldn`t win.

SANDERS: That`s right.

HAYES: That said, the scale that we`re talking about in a general election should he be the nominee, half a billion dollars in advertising dropped on him -- all of the kind of plutocratic interests he himself talks about, right?

SANDERS: Uh-huh.

HAYES: I mean, he has never been faced that level of sustained attack on the national stage.

SANDERS: But he`s never -- he`s never not succeeded in what he set out to do. He`s not just a gifted politician. He`s a legislator. He is a politician where he`s able to say, how do I get from here to there?

HAYES: But you`re confident. I mean, this is someone who had a public access show for years. He`s on the record for 30, 40 years. I mean, there are people in the Clinton world, off the record who will say this and there are Republicans who say it`s on the record -- which is give us Bernie Sanders and we`ll make him look like Chairman Mao after we spend four months in his, you know, archives of whatever he was saying as the Burlington mayor in 1980.

SANDERS: No, no. I don`t think so. I think they`ll be hard pressed because Bernie has been consistent throughout his life. And we can defend almost -- I think anything that he`s done.

I think that the Clintons have tried to -- the Clinton campaign have tried to misrepresent and distort his record. They haven`t been successful.

And you know why? And it`s been kind of a two edge sword. He announced in May of 2015 and the media just didn`t take him seriously. Neither did the Clintons. But now they do.

Over that time, he was able to present himself and define himself to the American people.

HAYES: It`s true he was able to define himself --

SANDERS: And if you look at who -- he got 86 percent of the vote in Vermont, the people who know him best. In Maine, in New Hampshire, that he got more votes than anybody in history of either party.

HAYES: Right.

SANDERS: So, the people who know him best trust him the most.

HAYES: Yes. The big -- the outstanding question, right, is in an election of 110 million people --

SANDERS: How do you get --

HAYES: -- how do you get to know him? And when that dark money starts flowing it, it gets pretty gnarly.

Jane Sanders, great pleasure to have you here. Thank you.

SANDERS: Nice to be here.

HAYES: Coming up, Donald Trump prides himself on his predictions coming true. Just look at his Twitter feed. But there`s one thing he didn`t see coming. What that was is next.



TRUMP: There`s the water company. And we sell water.

Trump steaks. Where are the steaks? Do we have steaks? We have Trump steaks.

We have Trump magazine. Let me see -- and, by the way, the winery, you see the wine.


HAYES: A typically surreal press conference in Florida last month. Donald Trump set up a table to show off a number of Trump branded products, which it turned out were largely not actually still available to the public.

There`s one defunct branded product he might recall as he visits Albany tonight, and once again, it sounds like the plot from a bad sitcom about an egotistical rich guy named Trump.

But no, in 1989, Trump really did start a great American bicycle race, a race to rival the Tour de France, 837 miles from Albany, New York, to Atlantic City, New Jersey, and, of course, he called it the Tour de Trump.


TRUMP: I really look to the future -- I always do -- with investments, with deals, with events, with anything. And I think this is an event that can be tremendous in the future. And it can really very much rival the Tour de France.

INTERVIEWER: Why not the Tour de USA, or Tour de New England? Why not drop the name Trump?

TRUMP: The problem is you wouldn`t be here doing an interview right now. That`s the problem. And we really have to have gone over it and I would almost prefer if we could have done without. But somehow, now, it`s been almost been beautifully. It`s been so successful and so nice.


HAYES: Well, it`s attracted Greg LeMond and other top riders at the time, as well as jeering protesters, holding signs that said, "Die Yuppie Scum", "Eat the Rich" and "Trump equals Anti-Christ". Strong.

It turns out Trump`s hope to rival the Tour de France didn`t quite pan out. The Tour de Trump lasted just two years with Trump withdrawing his sponsorship after the 1990 race. The race was Tour Du Pont for another six years before being shut down for good.

Now, coming up, Trump says he`s given more than $100 million to charity over the past five years. So, how much was actually his own money? I will give you this commercial break to guess.

Don`t Google. The answer is next.



TRUMP: Some are being taken care of by, as you know, their lobbyists, their special interests. Me, I`m self-funding my campaign, folks, nobody is taking funding me. Nobody is taking care of me. Nobody.


HAYES: Like so many things Donald Trump says, that claim is pretty far from being true. You might even call it false.

As this giant donation page on Trump`s campaign website makes clear, through 2015, the last period for which expenses have been filed, more than half of Trump`s total spending was covered by checks from his supporters, which include purchases of hats and t-shirts.

And while Trump has poured millions into his campaign, the vast majority of Trump`s contributions are loans rather than donations, meaning Trump can be paid back by his campaign.

Then there`s the fact that out of $12.4 million Trump`s campaign sent 2015, a whole lot went back to Trump`s own companies. About $2.7 million was paid to at least seven companies Trump owns or to people who work for his real estate and branding empire including reimbursements for flights on his own planes and office space in Trump properties.

And in addition to Trump`s dubious self-funding claim, there`s another figure he likes to tout on the trail. Trump says he`s given more than $102 million to charity over the past five years. His campaign released a 93 page list of contributions to back that up claim.

But as The Washington Post revealed not a single one of those donations was actually a personal gift of Trump`s own money, not one. In fact, many of the gifts that Trump cited to prove his generosity were actually just free rounds of golf.

Here is one portion of the Trump list marked up by The Washington Post, most of the entities listed like the Sheraton Fort Lauderdale, are not actually charities. And at least one is a big mystery, Someone name Brian, no last name, no explanation, got a cool $800.

Additionally, many of the donations listed actually came from his own charity group The Donald J. Trump Foundation.

But as The Post points out, Trump himself didn`t give any money to his own foundation from 2009 to 2014, the most recent year in which tax records were available. And the charitable donations, such as they are, weren`t being made with Trump`s own money.

Trump campaign told The Post the list it released isn`t a full accounting of Trump`s donations, with the CFO of the Trump organization saying Trump has given generously from his own pocket, but declining to provide any documentation.

Joining me now, the co-author of that report, Washington Post national politics reporter David Fahrenthold.

David, great reporting. My first question when I read it was how, if you ran this kind of audit on any random rich business person, how common would this be as the sort of philanthropic structure?

DAVID FAHRENTHOLD, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, I think I should give you a couple of examples of people who sort of are in the same asset class as Trump. If you look at the Fortune list of billionaires in the world, Trump is 324th with $4.5 billion.

Tied with him are George Lucas of Star Wars fame and Sumner Redstone, the media magnate.

If you look at what those guys give to charity, Lucas`s Foundation gave $55 million in 2014 alone, and most of that was funded with his own money. Redstone Foundation gave away $31 million that year alone. Trump`s foundation, by contrast, in the same year gave away only $591,000. So, there`s a real contrast in the giving levels of those folks who theoretically have the same amount of assets

HAYES: So, explain to me for people that have not read the article, how do you get from $100 million over however many years, how do you get from free rounds of golf to $100 million over X many years. Is it that he is donating services or stays or rounds of golf at his places. They`re valued at a certain amount and he`s counting that as a charitable contribution?

FAHRENTHOLD: Yeah, so there`s a couple of different categories of gift on there. One is the free rounds of golf. And so that is an in kind donation. Say Trump`s golf course in Los Angeles gives away a free round of golf to be auctioned off at a silent auction for a charity or something in its area. Trump decides on whatever value he places on that round of golf. It doesn`t have to be what it actually sells for and then he counts that as a gift.

So, there`s lots and lots and lots, 2,900 different rounds of golf that he gave away in that way.

And then there`s also, he counted a gift of land he gave to New York State, which is a real gift. It actually happened, but it only happened in 2006. And the list was supposed to be of the last five years.

And then the biggest item on the list is something called the conservation easement. Basically, Trump owns land. He agrees not to develop the land in some particular way and then he counts that as a gift because he`s giving away the development rights.

One example was in California, he has a plot of land. He wanted to build some houses on it. He decided not to. So, he gets the -- he can count that as a gift, because he`s giving up those development rights, but he keeps the land and he can still make money off of it. It`s a driving range. So, that`s a gift but he`s not even giving away the land.

HAYES: Yeah, we should be clear, the conservation easements, which are quite controversial in the sort of world of conservation policy, offer significant monetary benefits for developers.

I want to say two things. One, as a full disclosure, there was one entity that gave $500,000 to the Trump Foundation, that was NBC Universal, our own parent company. Due to The Apprentice, there was a business relationship between NBC and Donald Trump. I should point that out.

Second of all, there`s reports that Trump gave $100,000 to 9/11 Memorial this weekend, although the dot dot dot is we don`t know what -- how that`s constituted. And there`s reason to be a little curious given your reporting.

FAHRENTHOLD: We actually do know how it`s constituted. He gave it out of his foundation. So, again, the foundation that -- at least as far as we can tell, is mostly full of other people`s money, that`s where the donation to the 9/11 museum came from.

A lot of reporting at the time said it came from him, but it was the foundation.

HAYES: Well, that`s -- glad to have you here to give us that answer.

David Fahrenthold, thanks for your time. Appreciate it.


HAYES: Up next we don`t often play you video from the British parliament, but when we do it`s because something just amazing has happened. We`ll play right it after this break.


HAYES: This weekend, David Cameron became the first prime minister in British history to release a summary of his personal tax records going back over six years.

The unprecedented disclosure, at least for England, followed revelations from the so-called Panama Papers that the prime minister`s father had an offshore account that paid no British taxes.

Last week, David Cameron admitted he owned shares in that trust before selling them in 2010. He insisted that neither he nor his father did anything illegal. But that has done little to tamp down the growing furor over the use of offshore accounts to avoid tax liabilities.

This morning, anger at the prime minister boiled over in the British parliament. And a new nickname was born.


DENNIS SKINNER, MP BRITISH-LABOUR PARTY: I didn`t receive a proper answer then, maybe Dodgey Dave will answer it now.

And by the way, by the way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Order. Order. Order. Order. Order.

I must ask the honorable gentleman, order. I don`t require any assistance from some (inaudible), an absurd proposition. I invite order. I invite the honorable gentleman to withdraw that adjective that he used a moment ago. He`s perfectly -- order -- he`s perfectly capable of asking his question without using that word.

It is up to him, but if he doesn`t wish to withdraw it, I can`t reasonably ask the prime minister to answer the question. All he has to do is withdraw that word and think of another.


I think he knows word beginning with D and ending in Y that he inappropriately used.


HAYES: Did that MP withdraw his remarks, the one beginning with D and ending in Y? Was order restored to the floor? And why can`t British lawmakers say the word dodgy? Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion in just 60 seconds.


HAYES: Earlier today a new nickname for Prime Minister David Cameron was born on the floor of parliament: Dodgy Dave. Dennis Skinner, the legendary Labour MP who coined the phrase was asked by the speaker of the house of commons to withdraw the characterization. Why? Because, according to the rules in parliament you aren`t allowed to use, quote, unparliamentary language in the house of commons. If you do, the speaker of the house would raise an objection.

Other words that caused objection, "blackguard," "coward," "git," "guttersnipe," "hooligan," "rat swine," "stool pigeon," and "traitor."

If a member of parliament uses such unparliamentary language the speaker will for the offending word to be withdrawn. And if the member refuses to take back the word. Well, let`s watch.


UNIDENIFIED MALE: I think he knows the word beginning with D and ending in Y that he inappropriately used.



SKINNER: I know. I know (inaudible).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very simple. Withdraw.

SKINNER: This man has done more to divide this nation than anybody else. He`s looked after his own pockets. I still refer to him as Dodgy Dave.

Do what you like.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Order. Order. Order. I`m sorry, I must ask the honorable gentleman to withdraw the word.

Very well. Very well. Under the power given to me by standing order number 43, I order the honorable member to withdraw immediately from the house for the remainder of this day`s sitting.



HAYES: Income inequality, of course, has been the center of the Democratic campaign, but a new study shows just how much inequality costs in literally the most precious thing there is, that is time on this Earth.

In fact, according to the research, the richest American men live a full 15 years longer than the poorest. For women, that gap shrinks to a still enormous ten years. And in some other parts of the country adults with the lowest incomes in this country die on average as much as young people in much poorer nations like Rwanda and their life spans are getting shorter. Those revelations come from years of research conducted using tax records with the foremost expert in the field.

Joining me now to explain what`s going on, Raj Chetty, professor of economics at Stanford University, lead author of the association of income and life expectancy in the U.S., which was published today.

All right, I think we have an intuition that having more money would lead to better health outcomes, but this gap is staggeringly large. What accounts for it?

RAJ CHETTY, STANFORD UNIVERSITY: That`s right. There`s an enormous gap in life expectancy between the poor and the rich. And what we find is that gap various greatly depending upon where you live.

So, the rich have high life expectancies in America regardless of where htey live, whereas poor Americans who live, for instance, in Detroit of parts of Oklahoma, lived six years shorter lives than comparable Americans with similar incomes living in New York or San Francisco.

Now, what exactly drives these big gaps on life expectancy both across income groups and across areas? Our sense is it`s not literally the effect of having more money, being able to buy more medical care, for instance, rather it seems to be driven by differences in health behaviors. So, places like San Francisco and New York where the poor are living relatively long tend to have much lower rates of obesity, much lower rates of smoking, much higher rates of exercise, things that are correlated with higher levels of income as well.

HAYES: It`s fascinating to me that New York is one of the places where these life expectancies at the bottom of the income scale are longest. Because I literally think of it the city as literally taking years off one`s life, because it`s just a stressful place. And you found this very counterintuitive finding that that`s the opposite of true.

CHETTY: We were surprised by that as well. In addition to being quite stressful, New York you would think as one of the most unaffordable cities for the poor, yet somehow the poor in New York seem to be doing much better than poor in other less expensive parts of the country.

One thing that might be going on is places like New York and San rancisco tend to have public policies that improve the health of the entire population, not just the rich but also the poor. Think of which cities are the first to enact smoking bans or bans on transfats or most infamously the ban on sodas -- large sodas that was attempted.

These kinds of policies might be what lead to better health among New Yorkers.

HAYES: That is fascinating. Because there`s been such a controversial aspect of New York City policy, the idea that they are actually extending people`s lives is fascinating.

Raj Chetty, thank you for joining me.

HAYES: More to come. We will be right back.


HAYES: Okay. So, what is House Speaker Paul Ryan doing? What is he up to?

It`s a question bedeviling political operatives and reporters alike. And on one level, the answer is easy, Ryan is trying to fill a void for party that is currently in a sense leaderless. He is injected himself into the GOP`s brutal primary battle when the rhetoric has gotten particularly ugly and bigoted. So, instance, Ryan gave a speech before nearly 200 Capitol Hill interns last month, criticizing the tone of current political rhetoric.

But here`s the thing about that speech, two weeks later it was turned into a slick video, thanks in part to the multiple cameras that must have been there to get all those angles and reaction shots.

That video was posted on the speaker`s website, and boy it sure does look to all the world like something you do when you`re running for something.


REP. PAUL RYAN, (R) WISCONSIN: What really bothers me is most in politics these days is the notion of identity politics that we`re going to win an election by dividing people rather than inspiring people on our common humanity.


HAYES: Of course, Ryan denies that he`s angling for or interested in the GOP presidential domination.


RYAN: The Republican primary voters are going to make this decision. This is not our decision to make.

I`m not running for president. I made that decision consciously not to.

I don`t see that happening. I`m not thinking about it. I`m happy where I am, so no.

It`s not going to be me. It should be somebody running for president.


HAYES; Which sounds an awful lot like Ryan about six months ago denying he was running for or interested in the speakership.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you going to run for speaker?

RYAN: I`m not.


RYAN: Because I don`t want to be speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is it fair to say that you are reconsidering the statement you put out?

RYAN: My statement stands. I haven`t changed anything.


HAYES: It`s fair to say Paul Ryan is the most powerful Republican in America, particularly since he will also be in his capacity as the speaker the chair of the likely to be contested Republican National Convention.

Joining me now MSNBC political analyst Joan Walsh, national affairs correspondent for The Nation, who is a supporter of Hillary Clinton; and Charlie Pierce writer at large for Esquire.

OK, doth protest too much?

JOAN WALSH, THE NATION: Yes. I mean, come on. He`s such a boy scout. He`s prepared.

Chris, if you and I wanted to shoot down a rumor and say Chris Hayes is absolutely not running for president, which I know you`re not. You do not...

HAYES: Well, let that shoot out that out too much.

WALSH: I should not take your hopes away.

HAYES: Let that float out there a little bit.

WALSH: OK, we got it out. We successfully got it out there.

You do not, then, cut an ad that looks like a campaign ad talking to those fresh faced, white Capitol Hill interns. You do not go on a grand tour. You do not meet with -- he`s apparently meeting -- there are stories that he`s meeting with Todd Ricketts and other funders this week, that was in The Observer earlier today.

You do -- he`s doing the things that you do not do if you are determined to shoot down this rumor.

HAYES: That is true. Although, let me just say this, Charlie, he`s attending a secret donor meeting next week in Manhattan. They say he`s very interested in preserving that Republican majority and expanding it and raising money for it.

They released a whole memo to NBC news in response to all the speculation. Speaker Ryan not running. He`s not and won`t. It`s that simple.

OK, but do you buy it?

CHARLIE PIERCE, ESQUIRE: May I refer to the honorable gentleman as Dodgy Paul?

HAYES: I`ll allow it.

PIERCE: Because I stopped a long time ago believing Paul Ryan as far as I can throw the city of Jamesville. I think he`s as ambitious as Satan. I think he doesn`t want to go out in the country where he was already deemed not worthy of vice presidency and try to run for president.

But if they offer him the crown, he would loathe to lay his hands off it.

So, yeah, I think he`s running.

HAYES: Do you say he was ambitious as Satan?


HAYES: That`s very ambitious.

I don`t know if he`s that ambitious.

Here is the thing so intriguing about this too. We were talking about this today.

OK, conventions, in the modern era, the nomination is decided. The campaign comes in and takes over the convention. They take over the convention programming. They say Monday night the theme is women and Tuesday night it`s small business and Wednesday night it`s -- and these are the speakers and blah, blah.

Well, that`s not going to happen in Cleveland.

WALSH: Right. Who`s doing it?

HAYES: Who is doing it? Who is the chair of the conventino?

WALSH: Paul Ryan.

HAYES: Yes. So..

WALSH; So, he`s going to orchestrate this convention that culminates in exactly what? I mean -- and the thing is, the idea -- there`s so much mythology around this man. The idea that he`s a fresh face after he already ran four years ago and lost. The idea that he somehow fights the establishment when he`s a donor`s dream candidate. He has pushed the austerity budget that they want, that the Trump people are rebelling against. He is the anti-Trump. He is the worst candidate to try to foist on this particular convention.

HAYES: He is the standard bearer for Rubioism, such as it is, the thing that was so -- that was rejected by the Republican base.

But Charlie, I mean -- the idea that this guy is going to actually be holding the gavel, which in anybody, in any convening body the chair of the body has a lot of power. You know, I -- you know, you can watch people gavel closed on voice votes and say I want a voice vote and the room says no. And he says the ayes have it. I mean, he will have significant power to shape the outcome of this convention, won`t he?

PIERCE: I would assume so.

But again I think that we are assuming facts not in evidence here, which is that anybody is in control of any large gathering of Republicans right now. I don`t think anyone is. He will have the parliamentary control over the convention, whether that means anything or not is still an open question, I think. Because who knows.

Suppose Ted Cruz loads the conventions rules committee. What does Paul Ryan do? I have no idea and neither does he.

HAYES: And that`s where you get into this thicket, right, which is -- I mean, part of the reason I think the -- well, obviously the Ryan people want to knock this down, because if they`re viewed as a stocking horse...

WALSH: It`s terrible.

HAYES: It`s terrible for them whether he has interest or not.

Let`s just bracket and say the mind of Paul Ryan is unknowable, and specifically the mind of Paul Ryan three months from now is unknowable.

But obviously they want to knock it down because it looks terrible.

At the same time, though, Charlie makes a good point like he`s going to have to mediate, arbitrate, get embroiled in conflicts that are going to be very nasty.

And he`s going to make enemies. And so how do you come out of that process being the consensus candidate? You have got to be somebody that -- not all sides, but that a lot of people are going to turn to. And I just don`t see for so many reasons how it`s him.

HAYES: That quote -- it struck me that he said, in all these denials. He said the primary voters of the Republican Party are going to choose the nominee.

Well, that`s looking more and more like that might not be the case as a factual statement of the matter.

WALSH: Right.

HAYES: The question the becomes who does decide?

WALSH; And then there`s John Kasich who comes in third.

But I mean, the establish has had so many chances to take this. They failed.

HAYES: Right. I just -- we will see. But I just -- I`m skeptical of denials. Put me down as skeptical as of denials.

Charlies Pierce, Joan Walsh, Thank you.

That is All In for this evening.