Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: June 23, 2016 Guest: Thomas Saenz, Lorella Praeli, Jackie Speier, Nick Confessore, John Cassidy, Sherrilyn Ifill
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN --
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think it is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who made their lives here, who have raised families here.
HAYES: A Supreme Court split delivers a major blow to undocumented families, raising the stakes even higher for November.
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESUMPTIVE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I will build a great, great wall.
HAYES: And putting GOP obstruction into sharp relief.
OBAMA: Republicans in Congress currently are willfully preventing the Supreme Court from being fully staffed and functioning as our Founders intended.
HAYES: Then, after 25 hours, Democrats end their sit-in over gun laws.
REP. JOHN LEWIS (D), GEORGIA: The fight is not over.
HAYES: The congresswoman who brought the bullet that nearly killed her joins me tonight.
REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D), CALIFORNIA: Five bullets ripped through my body. I can`t begin to tell you what that is like.
HAYES: Plus, reaction from Baltimore as a third police officer is not convicted in the death of Freddie Gray.
And as Britain votes on leaving the E.U., Donald Trump visits his golf course in Scotland. How the leave campaign mirrors Trump`s own.
TRUMP: My inclination would be go it alone, go back to where you came from.
HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.
HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.
Today, a 4-4 deadlock on the Supreme Court brought together one of the most intensely polarizing, contested and explosive issues in this election, immigration, with the stark effects of unprecedented levels of Senate obstruction by Republicans and cast into even higher relief the stakes of who will be the next president of the United States.
U.S. Supreme Court today announced its deadlock in a case challenging President Obama`s executive action on millions of undocumented immigrants who are the parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, would have afforded those immigrants a process to apply for work permits as well as shield them from deportation.
In much the same way, President Obama`s Deferred Action for Child Arrivals did. That program called DACA was not affected by today`s decision.
The Supreme Court deadlock let stand a lower court ruling that had blocked implementation of Obama`s DAPA program, leaving those undocumented immigrants now in total legal limbo.
Today, President Obama said the decision was heartbreaking and noted the 4- 4 split pointed to the Senate Republicans` unprecedented refusal to even consider or hold hearings for his current nominee to the high court.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: This is part of the consequence of the Republican failure so far to give a fair hearing to Mr. Merrick Garland, my nominee to the Supreme Court.
So, leaving the broken system the way it is, that`s not a solution. In fact, that`s the real amnesty, pretending we can deport 11 million people or build a wall without spending tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money is abetting what is really just factually incorrect. It`s not going to work. It`s not good for this country. It`s a fantasy.
Now, we`ve got a choice about who we`re going to be as a country, what we want to teach our kids, and how we want to be represented in Congress, and in the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Only a tie-breaking vote in the Supreme Court or action by Congress will resolve this. Today`s decision immediately became a huge campaign issue. Hillary Clinton`s statement reading in part, "Today`s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable and shows us all just how high the stakes are in this election. This decision is also a stark reminder of the harm Donald Trump would do to our families, our communities and our country. Trump has pledged to appeal President Obama`s executive actions on his first day in office."
Donald Trump for his part released a statement which reads in part, "Clinton has pledged to expand Obama`s executive amnesty, hurting poor African-American and Hispanic workers by giving away their jobs and federal resources to illegal immigrant labor while making us all less safe."
In a series of tweets, Trump made similar claims about the effects of immigration to this country which are unsupported by the facts.
Today`s decision will likely sharpen divisions in a presidential campaign that as is of now shaping up to be something of a national identity crisis.
Joining me, Thomas Saenz. He`s the president, general counsel of Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, or MALDEF, who argued the case before the Supreme Court.
Thomas, I want to give the argument to the other side here, and first, before I do that I want to get your reaction to today`s decision.
THOMAS SAENZ, MALDEF/ARGUED IMMIGRATION CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT: Well, today`s inaction by the court is certainly disappointing but it does point out serious flaws in the United States Senate`s dereliction of duty by (VIDEO GAP) have been confirmed and in place to participate in the decision, but is not because the United States Senate leadership has decided it can take one year off out of every four.
HAYES: So, you hang this on the Republican Senate obstruction of the president`s nominee?
SAENZ: It`s quite clear that there are plenty to blame and to be held accountable for today`s outcome. It begins with the failure to place a ninth justice on the court and that is laid squarely at the feet of the Senate leadership, but it also includes the justices themselves, including those who voted on the side to uphold the Fifth Circuit decision, including some who have a clear record of recognizing how fatally flawed the state of Texas` argument is for standing for its injury to allow to it even be in court on this case.
HAYES: So, there`s --
SAENZ: But it also includes, of course, the Congress for failing to act on immigration reform.
HAYES: I want to -- I want to put aside the standing issue, although it`s a fascinating one and a fairly profound one in my own humble opinion, I thought you had the better of that argument.
But on this case of sort of the limbs, fundamentally, of what this sort of discretionary power is, I mean, isn`t it the case the president himself, in repeated speeches after DACA, basically said, I can`t do any more, in fact, I believe there`s a Department of Justice memo indicating the kind of actions that ended up being instantiated in DAPA would actually extend past the power inherent to the executive to have discretion over who is and who is not prioritized for deportation.
SAENZ: Well, those preliminary conclusions by the president and his lawyers were plainly wrong. What the president did in his announcement in November 2014 of a DAPA initiative was to act in the footsteps of his predecessors, including most notably Ronald Reagan, who previously through a family fairness program provided relief, or could have, would have provided relief to 40 percent of the undocumented population at the time. A smaller proportion than the DAPA initiative would have covered if implemented.
Those preliminary conclusions were just that, they were preliminary. Ultimately, the president and his legal advisers concluded that he could act, and indeed needed to act, to ensure uniform application of enforcement priorities nationwide by announcing the DAPA initiative.
HAYES: It strikes me that today a broken system got more broken in the sense that the legal limbo has now intensified. I mean, what is the resolution now?
SAENZ: Well, the resolution clearly lies with Congress to act on immigration reform, but in the meantime, there are still steps that can be taken by the president, by his administration, to ensure greater uniform nationwide application of enforcement priorities. But it is also certainly true that there will be action in the courts. This was a decision about a preliminary injunction. It is an ongoing case. And we in the United States government expect to continue in the courts to work to vindicate the president`s authority to act consistent with what his predecessors have done previously.
HAYES: All right. Thomas Saenz, thank you very much.
Joining me now, Lorella Praeli, she`s the national Latino vote director for Hillary for America.
Lorella, your reaction. This is an issue you`ve worked on before you enter this campaign as an activist. You have family members I know have been subject to various executive actions.
What`s your reaction to today?
LORELLA PRAELI, NATL. LATINO VOTE DIR., HILLARY FOR AMERICA: Well, Chris, I am sad today, I am angry, and I`m optimistic. You know, I think that today reminds me of a very similar feeling at the end of 2010 in December when we were in D.C. and DREAMers sort of flooded Congress and we watched them vote in the House, went to the Senate and lost.
I think we were all overwhelmed with emotion and thought, you know, for a second, that this was a step back, then realized that this makes our community stronger, that it`s certainly devastating for the families today but that if there`s one thing I know is that our community`s resilient and we`re going to wake up tomorrow and know we got to fight, we got to keep going on. So, I`m also optimistic.
HAYES: What does that mean? I mean, fight and go on, it seems to me that you`ve got two avenues here. There is the fact that there is a nominee for the Supreme Court that is unconfirmed, and there is an election. And the starkness of the election on one hand, Hillary Clinton who said she would expand DAPA which now seems like it`s not going to happen, at least at this current deadlock, supports comprehensive immigration, whereas Donald Trump promises to build a wall and talks about deportation for 11 million undocumented immigrants.
PRAELI: Yes, I think I`m guided by two things that I know very clearly today, Chris. One is that the movement is going to continue. That people are continuing to organize, that people are going to show and up vote in November. And they`re going to continue to press this case to share their stories and to do what they`ve been doing, which has been leading the way in this immigration fight, whether it`s executive action or comprehensive immigration reform or both.
And then I also know that Hillary Clinton has committed herself and made a commitment to the community to do CIR, to introduce it in the first 100 days, to continue to defend and implement DACA and DAPA. I don`t think the life of DAPA is over today. I, in fact, think we will continue to go on.
And so, that`s really what`s motivating us today.
HAYES: Sorry. Is this election fundamentally a referendum on immigration in some profound sense?
PRAELI: Well, I mean, I think that it`s very clear. I`ve heard people say the stakes could not be higher because of today. I think that the stakes were always going to be high, and today`s a reminder of that.
But if the Supreme Court had come out and ruled in favor of DAPA, we have a candidate on the other side that has promised to end it in his first 100 days. He`s promised to roll back DACA, to deport 11 million people via deportation force.
And so, yes, I think that Donald Trump -- I said this to you last time, has launched a war on Latino and immigrant communities across the America and we will do everything we have to do as a campaign and Secretary Clinton has been doing that since the primary, to engage the Hispanic community across the country, to make sure there isn`t a voter who`s eligible who is left unregistered in this election and that they turn out this November.
HAYES: Do you think that the sense of the stakes and the possibility of what it will look like, were Trump to be elected, is that a palpable, shared feeling among Latino voters that you`re interacting with?
PRAELI: Yes, it`s not just on immigration, Chris, right? I think we feel that -- I feel that sense of urgency every day when I wake up, that we have to do our absolute best because the stakes could not be higher, and not just for the immigrant community.
I think when you have a candidate that`s speaking about a judge because he`s Hispanic-American in the way that Donald Trump has, it reminds us that really, the message he`s sending every day is that we`re less than because of our heritage, because of where we come from, because of what we look like in America. And that`s not the country that we are.
I stand with Hillary Clinton and we`re going to continue to do everything that we can to bring our country together, because that`s what makes us strong. And we`re going to fight back and push back on this rhetoric that Donald Trump is continuing to use.
HAYES: All right. Lorella Praeli, thank you very much for your time.
PRAELI: Thank you, Chris.
HAYES: All right. Still to come, on a huge news day, Brexit, the movement that`s happening in England and the votes that are being tallied. We are watching results right now. How that push to get England out of the European union sounds a lot like Donald Trump`s campaign to make America great again.
But, first, after Democrats end their powerful 25-hour sit-in, did anything change in the fight over gun regulation? I`ll talk with the congresswoman who was there and told her story of the five bullets that nearly killed her right after this two-minute break.
Don`t go anywhere.
HAYES: I`m going to bring you that interview with the congresswoman in just a moment. We`re having a little bit of a technical difficulty.
But in the meantime, it has become something of a tradition for presidential candidates to travel abroad during the campaign. President Obama did in 2008, addressing a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin and making stops in the Middle East, France, and Britain. Mitt Romney tried something similar in 2012 but the trip was overshadowed by his chilly reception in London after ill-considered remarks about the Olympics that city was about to host.
Now, Donald Trump is about to embark on an international trip of his own but instead of meeting with world leaders or brushing up on foreign policy, he is traveling to Scotland to check on his golf resorts there. On the agenda, a helicopter landing at one resort, Trump Turnberry, followed by a ceremonial ribbon cutting for a brand new course and a press conference at the ninth hole.
This comes as Trump is trying to turn the page on a disastrous couple of weeks for his campaign, and some of his fellow Republicans are questioning both the purpose and timing of the trip. Senator John Thune, the number three Senate Republican, told "Morning Consul," this sounds like more of a trip to associate with business interests, noting he hopes Trump will get back on the campaign trail.
Political strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Congress, the business- oriented lobbying group, told "The New York Times," quote, "Everyone knows this is the wrong thing for the nominee to be doing now, it is amazing this can`t be stopped."
But Trump make at direct connection between his Scottish ventures which faced years of opposition from neighbors and his presidential bet. Writing in a column for a local Scottish paper, Scotland has left hand been won, so will the United States. Quote, "When I make an analogy of my work in Scotland, to my pursuit in the United States, there are several parallels that are very clear to me. Passion, giving back, dedication, results!"
The results at his Scottish resorts have fallen well short of Trump`s big promises however. While he claimed in 2008 the Trump international golf links in Aberdeen would employ 1,200 people, according "The Guardian." It currently employs just 95, many of whom are seasonal. "Washington Post" puts that number at 150, still far below Trump`s projection.
Though Trump reported $4.2 million in income from the Aberdeen course in a financial disclosure form last year, according to "The Post", reports filed with the British government show the resort has lost $6.9 million since opening in 2012.
Neighbors of the resort recently hoisted a Mexican flag right next to the golf course to show Trump how much they dearly appreciate him.
The GOP`s presumptive nominee will arrive the U.K. tomorrow morning just as Brits are waking up to the results of today`s absolutely historic and possibly earth-shattering referendum on whether England will leave the E.U. What Donald Trump had to say about the Brexit vote, just ahead.
HAYES: House Democrats` remarkable and a raucous sit-in, demanding a vote on gun safety legislation, ended this afternoon after 25 hours. Democrats leaving the House chamber promising to continue the fight when the House returns to regular order on July 5th.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOHN LEWIS (D), GEORGIA: We`re going to continue to push, to pull, to stand up, and if necessary, to sit down, sit down. So don`t give up! Don`t give in! Keep the faith! And keep your eyes on the prize!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Democrats spoke through the night last night broadcasting speeches on social media because the official house cameras were shut down, also dealing with occasional interruptions from irate Republicans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Radical Islam! Radical Islam killed these people!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why do you want to let terrorists buy a gun?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Around 3:00 a.m. Republicans held unrelated votes then declared a long recess and left town.
Iowa Congressman Steve King tweeting, "I`ve had it with the gun-grabbing Democrats and their sit-in anti-Second Amendment jihad, I`m going to go home and buy a new gun."
In the Senate today, there was a test vote on a compromise gun bill from Maine Republican Susan Collins. And while majority supported Collins bill, it did not get the 60 votes that would be needed to overcome a Republican filibuster, giving Republican leader Mitch McConnell cover not to hold another vote on yet another popular piece of legislation opposed by the NRA.
On the House side, Speaker Paul Ryan appears determined not to hold the gun safety vote. He casts the sit-in as a cynical political move.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WI), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: If this is not a political stunt, then why are they trying to raise money off of this? Off of a tragedy. We watched a publicity stunt, a fund-raising stunt, descend an institution that many of us care a great deal about. So, yes, I think it sets a very dangerous precedent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Since the Orlando massacre we`ve seen a shift in the gun debate from the focus on the rights of gun owners to the experiences and rights of people victimized by guns, some of whom are also members of Congress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D), MICHIGAN: I lived in a house with a man that should not have had access to a gun. I know what it`s like to see a gun pointed at you. And wonder if you were going to live. And I know what it`s like to hide in a closet and pray to God, do not let anything happen to me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Michigan Democrat Debbie Dingell who is discussing is not the only member to speak about her personal experience with gun violence during the sit-in. Representative Jackie Speier of California brought to the floor one of the bullets that nearly killed her in 1978 when she was shot five times during a trip to Guyana to investigate abuses at Jones Town.
And joining me now is Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Democrat of California.
Congresswoman, I was affected quite a bit by what you had to say on the House floor last night. Just about sort of centering the discussion on what a gun does to a person.
REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D), CALIFORNIA: What a gun does to a person who survives is devastating as well. Whether it`s the surgeries, I had over ten, the years of physical therapy, the emotional and physical scars that you endure and have to come to grips with the fact that you are different.
And it is traumatic on every level. And every American has the right to feel safe in their schools, in their churches, in their movie theaters, and in their nightclubs. That`s all we`re trying to get to.
HAYES: The scene last night in the House was remarkable. I think unprecedented in its own way. There have been other sort of instances in which minority parties have tried to force votes through different kinds of political protesters theater. But I never really had seen anything like last night.
What -- where does this go now? It happened. Now it`s done, people go to recess. Are we just going to be talking about other stuff six weeks from now?
SPEIER: Not as far as the Democrats are concerned. I mean, this is a tipping point. The largest mass murder in the history of our country, 49 people dead in Orlando, that`s not a publicity stunt, those are deaths, families who are distraught, broken, who will never be the same again.
So we`re not letting go of this. This is an issue that deserves our attention and every member of this house should be in a position to vote. Vote however you want, but give the American people the opportunity to know where you stand.
That`s what`s wrong with our system in the House now. Nothing of any importance comes before the House, whether it`s the authorization of use of military force, immigration reform, or gun safety measures.
HAYES: What do you say to Speaker Ryan? You mentioned his comments I think in response to him about a publicity stunt. He had some strong words about the fact that there was a fund-raising e-mail that was sent out about what Democrats were doing.
Do you -- his argument is that this was essentially a gimmick to get publicity and raise money. What do you say to that?
SPEIER: Well, it wasn`t at all. And I can`t speak for the DCCC, but I would venture to say not one member on that House floor was fund-raising off of that activity.
And more importantly, we recognize that this is a travesty where we have so many people, so many mass murders a month going on. And yet nothing is done about it.
Imagine if there was that many deaths associated with a particular automobile. The National Traffic Highway Safety Administration would be called upon to fix what`s wrong. Yet we haven`t been able to do any of that.
HAYES: What happened last night I think there`s an argument to be made it set some kind of precedent. What kind of precedent did it set and have you opened a door that Democrats are going to regret opening should they be in the majority someday or even in the near future?
SPEIER: I think what`s really important to underscore here is that you cannot muscle the minority. You can`t shackle them. That`s frankly what`s happened over the last six years with the Republicans.
Bills just get bottlenecked in committee and are never heard from again. So, social media was really the savior for all of us last night because even though they shut us down, even though they turned everything off, we were able to use an app that allowed us to communicate with the rest of the country. And so many outlets covered it.
HAYES: All right. Congresswoman Jackie Speier, thanks for your time, appreciate it.
SPEIER: Thank you for the opportunity.
HAYES: Up next, Donald Trump explains why he believes Britain should, quote, "go it alone". That`s after this break.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: My inclination would be to get out, because, you know, just go it alone. It`s a mess. It`s such a mess over -- when you look at what`s happened with the, as an example, the migration. When you look at the things that are going on over there, my inclination would be go it alone, and go back to where you came from, because that`s, you know, just my feeling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: There`s a lot in common between the Trump phenomenon and the campaign for Britain to exit the European Union, known as Brexit, which has culminated in a referendum held today across the UK.
At this hour, the polls are closed, the votes are being tallied, and the results are extremely close and could determine the future not just of Great Britain, but of the entire European project at-large and the world economy.
Like Trump`s presidential bid, the Brexit campaign has been driven largely by fears of cultural penetration, immigrant invasion, and the genuine crisis of Middle East refugees dying to get into Europe, all channeled into a kind of inward-turning form of ethno-nationalism.
The slogan for it might as well be make Britain great again.
And joining me now from London for the latest on the Brexit vote, NBC News correspondent Kelly Cobiella. And Kelly, we are seeing the early returns indicate perhaps a momentum for leave and certainly an extremely tight race?
KELLY COBIELLA, NBC NEWS: Yes, that`s what we can read from those early results, Chris. Just to be fair, 13 districts of 382 reporting so far. So we`re really just getting a trickle of results at this point. But there were a couple of surprises in these early results, two very working-class, northeastern areas reporting early and showing a much heavier vote on the leave side than expected. One of them was clearly expected to vote to leave; however, the margins were much wider than most people predicted.
So, that is showing quite a bit of momentum right now for the leave side.
But we also have to note that first of all these early results are just that, early results. They`re all from a specific part of the country. Not a single district in London has reported so far. Of course London the population center in this country also expected to very heavily vote in favor to remain.
Now, we should get an idea of where London stands and what the turnout is in London over the next couple of hours, that also, Chris, will be crucial. Right now we`re seeing turnout numbers, figures in the 70 percent range for some of these northeastern districts already reporting also places in Scotland and some of the outlying islands. If those numbers hold, for example, for London, then you could see this number narrowing quite significantly.
But what we can take from these initial results, Chris, is as you said, this is going to be very close, very tight. We could be watching these results into the early, early morning hours, Chris.
HAYES: All right, NBC`s Kelly Cobiella from London, thank you very much.
Joining me now, New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy who has a personal stake in this, and has been writing on this.
So, you`ve written about sort of comparisons, right, between UKIP, which is the Independence Party that`s sort of been driving this, and Trump. What are -- what politics are driving this? What`s going on here?
JOHN CASSIDY, NEW YORKER: Well, I think there`s a couple of things. One is immigration. They`ve made it a huge issue in the UK. Two types of immigration, a, sort of economic immigration from Eastern Europe -- Poles, Slovenians, Romanians. A lot of resentment in white working-class areas about that. And, b, refugees. Actually there hasn`t been much of a refugee flow into the UK, but there`s a big fear of it.
And the last few weeks the leave campaign pivoted away from the economy, they said, OK, we`re losing that argument, let`s make it all about immigration. And it seems to be working for them.
HAYES: Because, meaning they were making an argument this would be good for the British economy, and that was a hard argument to make.
HAYES: Because it does seem net, net, integration with Europe has been good economically at the very least.
CASSIDY: Right, and they had basically every economist, every reputable economist in the country, the Bank of England, the IMF, the Treasury, all the economic authorities said it`s a bad idea to leave. So they thought, that`s not a good -- we`re losing this one. Let`s pivot away from it.
HAYES: And then you had this just horrifying act of political violence.
HAYES: Where a labor MP who was incredibly sort of concerned with social justice, and empathy and compassion for refugees, was murdered it appears by essentially a right-wing assassin.
CASSIDY: No. It was a terrible, terrible murder in Birstall outside Leeds where I`m actually from. I mean, that`s an area that`s never seen anything like that I can say from my personal experience. It was a real shock. And it actually stopped the campaign for two or three days.
Cynically, a lot of analysts thought that would actually help the remain side, because leave definitely had the momentum last week. But the campaign basically stopped after the murder and it was a feeling maybe there will be a sympathy vote, maybe more remain people will turn out and the leave side will be dampened a bit.
But the early returns don`t indicate any of that.
HAYES: So, you`ve got this sort of interesting coalition, right, because you have David Cameron, the prime minister, who is on the remain side. His party is split. You`ve got the UKIP folks who want to leave. You`ve got the left who have their own issues with the EU, but are firmly in leave.
It`s one of these sort of interesting kind of -- like the elites and the left party verses this kind of populist right.
CASSIDY: I mean, it`s very similar to Trump here. You`ve basically got both party establishments completely against this saying, leave will be a disaster, it will ruin Britain`s economy, it will leave us without any allies, and it will reverse 50 years of history of Britain slowly going into Europe.
But the populists, or a large part of the populists, have never been very enthusiastic about the EU. They associate it with bureaucracy, they associate it with immigration, and even the remain side didn`t really make a positive argument. They relied on trying to frighten people saying, if we leave it`s going to be bad for the economy.
HAYES: And this ends up being, I think -- that gets to the center of the crisis the European project is facing here, which is that it is far easier in some senses to make the argument for the EU in theory than it is in practice.
I mean, go ask Greece, go ask Ireland and Portugal.
CASSIDY: Nobody loves Brussels, let`s be honest. You know, people like London, they love the parliament, et. cetera. Nobody`s saying, let`s get more Brussels involved in our lives. So, it is a difficult argument to make. And you`re seeing it not just in Britain, actually. No, Nigel Farage, the leader of the UKIP tonight was boasting that there`s 50 percent in favor of leaving the EU in places like Italy and France.
Now, he`s probably exaggerating a bit, but if there is a leave vote here it really does raise the whole future of the European Union, put it in question.
HAYES: And we could see -- I mean, Europe is under tremendous strain right now. I mean, Greece has seen 40 years of human progress erased in terms of a standard of living, mortality.
You have huge numbers of refugees coming in. You`ve had stagnation since 2007. I mean, this seems like a really freighted and in some ways terrifying moment for Europe.
CASSIDY: It it. I mean, it`s the biggest crisis the EU has faced since it was found back in the `60s, since the treaty in the early `90s, which really founded the modern EU.
I mean, the great irony here, of course, is that the British economy is doing relatively well compared to Europe, because Britain recess not part of the European monetary system. They don`t have the euro, they have the pound.
But a lot of what`s gone wrong in Britain is there`s been there`s austerity policies imposed by British government, but people seem to be blaming that on the EU.
HAYES: See, that is a fascinating point. I would just say as a final thing to just -- everyone should always keep in mind with the EU that that continent was the site of the most intense barbaric, horrifying violence ever created in a concentrated square mileage in the history of human beings on this planet, and in some ways it is a miracle that after World War II there has not been anything like it since.
CASSIDY: That`s one of the problems, people take it for granted now. But we all know Europe is a potentially dangerous place.
HAYES: John Cassidy, thank you very much.
Still to come, we`ll discuss the verdict in the third trial related to the death of Freddie Gray and the reaction of Baltimore.
And later, how Donald Trump is trying to ease the fears of his donors by fulfilling a multi-million dollar pledge. That story just ahead.
HAYES: There was so much going on in the news yesterday. We had to cut this unbelievable picture out of last night`s show which I still want to show you.
Cleveland, masses of people packing the streets to celebrate the Cavalier`s ` championship, hoping to catch a glimpse of the team, the first title in 50-plus years. And some fans went to extreme lengths to do just that, which lead to this picture, look at that. These people have quite precariously wedged themselves into the exterior of a parking garage just to get a good view.
Now, if you think that`s crazy, we`ve got to show you video from the Euro 2016 championship happening in France. I`ll just say this, usually when you hear a news person begin a story about roving bands of soccer fans, you don`t expect to hear "they were serenading a baby."
That video and even more in just 60 seconds.
HAYES: OK, so there`s a massive soccer tournament happening in France -- Euro 2016, maybe you`ve been following it. There`s this strange phenomenon coming out of the tournament, these videos that keeping popping up of Irish soccer fans doing just the greatest things, like this where they serenade this baby on a tram, train, in Bourdeaux.
HAYES: All right, that`s on the border of charming and creepy. But admittedly they weren`t all so well behaved. At one point an Irish fan climbed on a car putting a massive dent in the roof, but then immediately after that, this is what happened.
OK, drunkenly singing "fixing cars for the boys in green" while banging the dent out of the roof, sticking money in the door, so the owner`s returning to a perfectly fine car, maybe a little beer-soaked car with mysterious cash in the door.
Our favorite of all this was when they gathered in this tunnel much to the dismay of the French police.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please, you can`t stay here!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Police did seem amused while trying to get the group to leave.
HAYES: Today a Baltimore judge acquitted police officer Caesar Goodson of all charges in the death of Freddie Gray. It`s a crushing defeat for the prosecution, which now for the third time in a row has failed to secure a conviction. First, there was Officer William Porter, whose trial back in December was declared a mistrial. His retrial slated for September.
Then, last month Officer Edward Nero was acquitted of all four charges against him. And now the case that most legal observers considered the biggest of them all, Caesar Goodson, the only officer to be charged with murder, he was the driver of the van in which 25-year-old Freddie Gray was placed last April, with an apparently intact spinal cord and removed less an an hour later with a spinal cord that was nearly severed. Gray was dead in a week.
In acquitting Goodson, Judge Barry Williams told the court the state failed to meet its burden, quote, "there has been no credible evidence presented at this trial the defendant intended any crime to happen. Seemingly the state wants this court to assume simply because Mr. Gray was injured the defendant intentionally gave Mr. Gray a rough ride."
Joining me now, Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director of council at NAACP legal defense and Baltimore native. Sherrilyn, what has the reaction been there to this verdict?
SHERRILYN IFILL, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE: It`s a strange combination, Chris, of resignation and anger. Obviously, we`ve been through a couple of trials and we haven`t had a conviction in either case. And anyone who`s been reading the accounts of this trial or who`s been in the courtroom as members of our staff were, could hear the skepticism of Judge Barry Williams about the story constructed by the prosecution and presented by the prosecution. And so I think many people were a little bit resigned today.
But there is anger. A young man was killed and clearly suffered, and we`re now playing a strange game, almost like an Agatha Christie novel, where each person passes off some measure of responsibility on the other and no one is responsible.
HAYES: There was a lot of criticism for the way the prosecution brought the case. There was -- in fact, it appeared that some exculpatory evidence was not turned over at a certain point in this case.
You`re obviously an extremely accomplished lawyer. What was your sense of the job that Mosby has done here?
IFILL: I hate, Chris, to quarterback a case like this, because bringing prosecutions against police officers in these kinds of cases are so difficult. They so rarely happen. And many people credited Marilyn Mosby for even bringing these charges. But they are difficult cases. And you`ve got to have a tight story. And of course, you know, prosecutors failing to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence is something we deal with a lot. It`s not to be tolerated, and Judge Williams didn`t tolerate it. In this case, he allowed the admission of some evidence in response to the failures of the prosecution.
I think the prosecution itself will be taking a look at the coming cases. There are a number of cases to come, including lieutenant Brian Rice will be his trial slated to begin on July 5th. And they have to make serious decisions about how they`re going to present these cases.
This was always an uphill battle. And they`ve got to look at this and figure out how to more tightly present a case to the court.
HAYES: What -- I mean, do you think they will go through with these? And what does it mean for Baltimore if at end of this a young man is dead who got into a police van perfectly healthy, came out with a severed spine, and no one was criminally responsible?
IFILL: You know, a 12-year-old boy was killed in Cleveland and no one was held criminally responsible. Walter Scott was shot in a park in North Charleston and we`re still waiting for the trial of Michael Slager. We don`t know what`ll happen in that case. The list goes on and on. It would mean that Baltimore is like many other places in this country.
I think people had hoped that this would be the breakthrough, that this would be a case in which there would be responsibility. And so I think it`s not just Baltimore, I think the entire country and activists around the country and African-Americans are looking for, when is it going to happen? Of course we have the case in Chicago involving dead of Laquan McDonald. And we`re waiting on that as well.
And it`s important, it`s important that there be accountability in these cases.
HAYES: All right, Sherrilyn Ifill, thanks for your time tonight, appreciate it.
Up next, Donald Trump now says he will make good on a promise he made back in mid-May. That`s right after this break.
HAYES: Donald Trump announced today he`s forgiven nearly $50 million in loans he made to fund his presidential bid, saying in a statement I have no intention of paying myself back for the nearly $50 million I`ve loaned to the campaign.
Let`s be clear her, he`s said this before telling MSNBC last month, and I quote, I have no intention of paying myself back for the nearly $50 million I loaned to the campaign. FEC filings showed he hadn`t paid it back, so why should we believe him now?
Well, I asked New York Times political reporter Nick Confessore whether there`s a good reason Trump will actually forgive this loan.
NICK CONFESSORE, NEW YORK TIMES: He had to. He only has a certain amount of time that he can pay his loan back using funds from other donors, and effectively he would have until August, roughly, to use primary funds to pay back his loan.
It would be very hard for him practically, as you`re pointing out, to raise money for the fall election while also raising money whose only purpose would be to go back into his own pocket when he said he would pay for his own campaign.
HAYES: Point being that those would actually be earmarked differently? So everyone -- it would sort of -- everyone would be watching the money flow into his account, essentially?
CONFESSORE: Yeah, if you`re a donor and you`re giving a mass contribution to his campaign and in the back of your mind you`re thinking, this is going to pay back his loan to himself. It`s not a great incentive to give if he gets the loan basically, if he converts it to a contribution, then you can give your contribution and know it will be used for the fall campaign, not to get back into his pocket.
HAYES: Now, there`s another question here which is about the sort of structure financially of the money he`s raising along with the Republican Party. And we`ve seen joint fundraising vehicles and you and I have gone through this with the Hillary Clinton campaign, and you helped me understand what I didn`t quite understand in the beginning.
Is there going to be a tug of war over that money?
CONFESSORE: Not really, except in one way -- not really in the sense that it`s very clear how it`s done. The first chunk of money up to the max you can give Donald Trump goes to Trump eventually. It`s reserved for Trump.
The next biggest chunk up to the max you can give to the party, which is a lot more, goes to the party, and the rest typically is distributed to the different state parties if there is money left over.
So one donor in theory can give one single check equaling all those checks together at the max. In fact, though, the money goes into a joint account, a joint fund-raising account. It`s not clear to me right now who controls that money. There had not been any disbursements to the Trump campaign from that joint fund as of the last filing. Now, it could just be a timing thing.
CONFESSORE: But it`s not clear to me who controls that flow of money.
HAYES: There`s also the fact that typically we just saw the Clinton campaign moved a bunch of people on the Clinton staff on to the DNC payroll, this is something that happens fairly often. Do we expect we`ll see some sort of similar synergy here with Trump and the RNC?
CONFESSORE: I`m sure. It`s totally normal for the party to operate as an appendage of the nominee. This is obviously more complicated. It was a very contested nomination, and there are still people who are talking about dumping Trump at the convention. There`s a lot of bad blood between the party officials, party elite, and Donald Trump.
But I think they`re going to battle tradition here. And frankly, Donald Trump has said openly he expects them to handle a lot of the stuff that he would normally handle as the candidate.
He -- I mean, basically I`m not that interested in doing a lot of the blocking and tackling, so if you guys could do that, that would be great. I`m going to keep my -- now one of the things he hasn`t been doing is sending out small donor solicitations, finally did that the other day. He said he`s going to match the first $2 million. They say they got a big response, they got $2 million in about 24 hours I think, another $1 million in the 24 hours after that.
It`s a little unclear if those numbers are true. We`ll find out, right.
Patrick Graffini (ph), who is a Republican operative, I thought made a great point. He said, I don`t like Trump, but speaking objectively and from experience, Trump`s low-rent demagoguery is tailor-made for fund-raising success on the Internet.
Do you think we`re going to see an explosion of small-dollar donors?
CONFESSORE: I think so. It`s not as easy as it looks, right. It requires the right candidate...
HAYES: Ask the Bernie Sanders people who are very good at what they do.
CONFESSORE: And Sanders was good at what they do. And they campaign, they had the right candidate and the message and the mechanics in place to harness it all at the same time.
If Trump`s going to have that, he has to put it in place, it`s hard to pull together. Sanders could kind of pull it off the shelf a little bit from act blue. He was able to have part of that operation already set up for him with a third party vendor.
I`m not sure Trump has the same thing or any Republican has the same ability to pull it off the shelf, but I do think that his politics are tailor-made for small-donor fund-raising.
HAYES: Yeah, I totally agree and I think it will be interesting to track how that plays out over the course of the rest of the election. Nick Confessore, always a pleasure, thank you.
HAYES: That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END