Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: June 27, 2016 Guest: Jennifer Granholm, Nancy Northup, Kendall Unruh
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN --
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Donald Trump says he`ll make America great again. It`s right there. No. It`s stamped on the front of his goofy hat.
HAYES: Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren join forces to take down Trump.
HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESUMPTIVE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: She gets under Donald Trump`s thin skin.
HAYES: And the Trump campaign comes unglued.
FORMER SEN. SCOTT BROWN (R), MASSACHUSETTS: She can take a DNA test. She can release the records herself.
HAYES: Then, fallout from today`s Supreme Court stunner.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s incredible news for the women in Texas. It`s incredible news for the women throughout this country.
HAYES: Plus, delegates revolting to stop Trump make their plans to descend on Cleveland. I`ll talk to the woman leading the charge.
And America under water.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Louisiana has lost a very large amount of land over the last century, something close to 1,900 square miles worth of land. That is equivalent today to about a football field an hour.
HAYES: Our special report on resettling America`s first climate refugees when ALL IN starts right now.
HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.
In their first appearance side by side on the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren present an energized and unified front and did what Warren seems to do better than any else, throw Donald Trump off his game. It was quite a site at their event today in Cincinnati, Ohio, two powerful women on stage together in coordinating blue, looking just like a Democratic presidential ticket.
Warren is on Clinton`s vice-presidential short list, according to reporting, but a decision, of course, has yet to be announced.
In her rousing introduction, Warren made a strong positive case for Clinton`s candidacy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WARREN: Hillary has brain, she has guts, she has thick skin and steady hands. But most of all, she has a good heart, and that`s what America needs. And that`s why I`m with her. Are you with her?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: As she has done before in other settings, Warren eviscerated Trump over his temperament and his business record.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WARREN: Donald Trump cheered on Britain`s current crisis which has sucked billions of dollars out of your retirement account because he said, hey, it might bring more rich people to his new golf course. What kind of a man roots for people to lose their jobs, to lose their homes, to lose their life savings? I`ll tell you what kind of a man, a small, insecure money- grubber who fights for no one but himself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Warren even repurposed Trump`s attempts to stick her with a demeaning nickname.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WARREN: Donald Trump says he`ll make America great begin. It`s right there. No. It`s stamped on the front of his goofy hat.
You want to see goofy? Look at him in that hat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Clinton for her part seemed to genuinely enjoy sharing the stage with the progressive icon, relishing Warren`s potent critique of her Republican opponent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I do just love to see how she gets under Donald Trump`s thin skin. She exposes him for what he is. Temperamentally unfit and totally unqualified to be president of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: The Trump campaign recently under new management trying to convince Republican elites it`s capable of competing in a general election released a relatively measured response, calling Warren a sellout, asserting that her campaigning for Clinton stands in stark contrast to the liberal ideals she once practiced. "This is a sad attempt at pandering to the Sanders wing is another example of a typical political calculation by D.C. insiders." No slurs, no personal insults, maybe the campaign is getting its act together, hiring someone other than the candidate himself to dictate press releases.
Apparently, the statement didn`t hit back hard enough for Donald J. Trump. Later on a phone call later with NBC`s Hallie Jackson, he wound up attacking Warren, quote, "I hope she`s selected as the vice-presidential running mate. I will speak very openly about her if she is. She is one of the least productive senators in the Senate. We call her Pocahontas for a reason. She used the fact that she was a Native American to advance her career. Elizabeth Warren is a total fraud. I know. She made up her heritage which I think is racist. I think she`s a racist because actually what she did was very racist."
Donald Trump, America`s top authority on racism, this line of attack on Warren dates back to her 2012 Massachusetts Senate campaign against Scott Brown when it was revealed she had listed herself as minority while teaching at the University of Pennsylvania law school and Harvard Law earlier in her career. Warren says her mother`s side of the family talked openly about the Cherokee ancestry but she`s not formally documented any native lineage. But Harvard and Penn state Warren`s background was not a factor in her hiring.
That didn`t stop scenes like this from cropping up in the campaign trail in 2012. The Scott Brown supporters publicly mocking Native American culture while claiming to defend it from Warren`s alleged misuse.
And now, Scott Brown is one of Trump`s top surrogates, on a phone call today sponsored by the RNC, he was questioned about Trump`s diatribe against Warren.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
BROWN: As we all know, she`s not Native American. She`s not 1/32. She has no Native American background, except for what her family told her. The easy answer on that, as you all know, is that Harvard and Penn can release the records. She can authorize the release of those records. She can take a DNA test. She can release the records herself. And there`s never been any effort.
What did that do? That took away somebody who truly was a Native American and gave it to -- gave that opportunity to somebody who is not. And that`s just not right. It`s reverse form of racism, quite frankly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Again, that claim belied by what Penn and Harvard have said. But also, this call for the possibility of the senator taking a DNA test was on a call hosted by the Republican National Committee.
Asked by Hallie Jackson if his comments to Warren might undermine his latest campaign makeover, Trump responded, "I don`t care, I do me. I do what I do. I`ve listened to this for a long time at the beginning of the primary, you should do this and that. I won in a long slide."
But what worked in the primaries doesn`t appear to be working in this general. In a new NBC News/"Wall Street Journal" released last night, Clinton leads Trump by five points, 46-41. And in another poll out today from ABC News and "Washington Post", Clinton leads 51 percent to 39 percent, a whopping 12-point margin.
Joining me now, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, senior advisor to the pro-Clinton super PAC Correct the Record.
Governor, I could not help but be struck today that whatever the vetting process is, the optic office that event sure did look like a ticket on stage.
JENNIFER GRANHOLM (D), FORMER MICHIGAN GOVERNOR: It was -- it was awesome. The comparison of these two strong brilliant warriors who are fighting for everyday citizens compared with Donald Trump who is a buffoon who doesn`t know anything about foreign policy and fighting only for himself, make Trump great again is what that hat should say. The contrast is perfect.
I don`t know if -- for your viewers who may not have seen for example the story in this "New York Times" this weekend and "L.A. Times" again today, these stories about Trump and how he is in it for himself, using the stories of everyday citizens, how they`ve been bilked out of their life savings, how they had to cash out their life insurance policies to pay for nothing they got back, not just Trump University but his whole branding services or this condo unit that never materialized in southern --
GRANHOLM: In Mexico. Yes in Baja, California.
It is -- we are just getting flooded by real people who have been bilked by this vulture vulture-predator on people who are vulnerable. So, the contrast with them out there talking specifically about policies that will help everyday citizens, raising incomes, et cetera, and him and what he`s done in his life, it could not be more stark.
HAYES: You know, it struck me watching the two of them. Elizabeth Warren is one of the senators strongly opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that`s a trade deal that Hillary Clinton`s State Department worked on. She has come out against it in this campaign.
Donald Trump is going to be giving a speech tomorrow on trade and, quote, "economic independence" in Pennsylvania. How important is that issue and how important it is for Hillary Clinton to be loud and proud about her opposition to TPP in a state like your state of Michigan or place like Ohio?
GRANHOLM: It is really important, Chris. It is really important that citizens in those states recognize we need a president who will fight to create jobs in America and not aid and abet the outsourcing of jobs, which is why the hypocrisy with Donald Trump and every bit of ties and suits and furniture and frames are all manufactured in other countries, all his lines are all outsourced.
So, the hypocrisy for him and her strength saying we must manufacturer in this country, when she talked today about having a strategy of manufacture in America, people need to hear that and trade is a big piece of that. I used to say when I was governor of NAFTA and CAFTA have given us the shafta, and it is true that so many people feel so deeply in their bones the impact of unfair trade. But people also recognize that 95 percent of goods go across borders and that we have to make stuff here in order to ship it over there if we can`t our economy to grow. So, having fair trade is critical.
HAYES: Well, it strikes me as a somewhat complicated trade, right? Because you have the president of the Democratic Party very popular among Democrats and very popular among Americans right now, 56 percent approval rating, I think, who is obviously, he`s pushing for this deal. And you have a situation in which the Democratic Party declined to put opposition in the platform, do you think this is going to be one of those top tier issues in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan, which were the states Donald Trump himself says he is targeting?
GRANHOLM: I do think this issue about jobs in America, especially advanced manufacturing jobs, is critical. That`s all tied up in trade. She, I think, has been very clear about not supporting trade agreements that do not create jobs here and that fighting to insure our trading partners are held to the same standards is really critical.
So, yes, I do think those issues will be important. She just needs to talk about representing Buffalo and looking in the eyes of people who have lost their jobs and how real it feels for those communities, but how she`s got a plan to address that. That`s the contrast.
He hasn`t articulated any manufacturing plan and she has a robust plan to encourage advance manufacturing and energy. You got this whole week, they`re talking about energy, Chris. She`s got the boldest plan, $60 billion clean energy challenge to create jobs in America. And that`s the difference.
HAYES: All right. Jennifer Granholm, thank you. Appreciate it.
GRANHOLM: You bet.
HAYES: Joining me now, MSNBC contributor, Sam Seder, host of "The Majority Report", Sam Seder.
I`ve got to say, I was flabbergasted a bit. RNC after this whole thing, Elizabeth Warren is out there, RNC calling a call to put on Scott Brown vanquished by Elizabeth Warren famously, to go back to the well of this somewhat I think ridiculous issue that was -- that was brought up in a patently offensive way in the campaign that Donald Trump has run with in a patently offensive way. It`s like -- what are you -- where are you? You lost the clock.
SAM SEDER, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: It`s really stunning, because if you look at the idea of Elizabeth Warren out there campaigning for Clinton, Clinton is reaching both her primary base and the general public.
HAYES: That`s right.
SEDER: And you contrast that with Trump bringing out Scott Brown, who is attacking a surrogate with a line that is literally like fever swamp stuff, right? I mean, so they`re bereft. I mean, it really is -- it is stunning in many ways.
HAYES: But it`s also, to me, it was such an interesting thing to watch this official response, which was fairly standard, then Trump, you know, fights back. And then you bring in Scott Brown and the RNC, it may end up being the case that Trump drags the RNC and party more towards him than he ever gets dragged towards being a regular candidate.
SEDER: Of course. You saw every one of those candidates who went down in flames in the primary all act like Trump before they exited. And then they later said, I`m sorry, it was out of character for me. I think we will see more of this. You know, to the extent anybody show ups at the Republican convention, they`re going to sound more like Trump than Trump is going to sound like Jeb Bush.
HAYES: You covered the primary closely. I thought one of the points key about Warren there right is her credibility on these issues, right? She`s not someone wavered or been in differed places in terms of where the party is and credibility with Bernie Sanders supporters, who I think are coalescing the polling would indicate.
But is there some party that looks at the polling and says, after all this, Donald Trump is only down by five points in the NBC poll.
SEDER: Well, I mean, yes. But I think, look, we are a very polarized country. I mean, I think there is a floor that a Republican cannot penetrate, really, because --
HAYES: Like 40 percent, literally any, will get 40 percent of the vote.
SEDER: We`re a ways off from the actual election. I think that -- I would imagine the poll that shows double digit lead is probably closer to reality. But who knows?
You know, at the end of the day, it`s very tough to say. This is very much you`re a Republican, you`re a Democrat, I don`t think that there is going to be large sways one way or another.
I mean, I think at the end of the day, I don`t know if there`s any Republican and maybe Donald Trump is proving that, that can --
HAYES: That can break below that floor.
SEDER: Below 40 percent in this day and age.
HAYES: How important do you think? I for while have been a skeptic on the Warren for V.P. for a variety of reasons. In some ways, it`s a bold and high risk proposition, first woman elected and all female ticket. There are certain political risks that might make temperamentally conservative people nervous about that, et cetera. But watching them today, I thought there is something going on in this dynamic that is palpable.
SEDER: Look, I think they`re both very smart women that both know this benefits them. They both realize, this is win-win.
HAYES: Win-win, that`s a great point.
SEDER: They both know it adds to their credibility for various constituencies. And I think Elizabeth Warren understands her power in the Senate, if she`s still in the Senate, you know, following the election, is enhanced by both campaigning for Hillary Clinton and by having Hillary Clinton as the president. Hillary Clinton understands that her advantages to having Warren out there for her early and often.
SEDER: I think they both genuinely think that Donald Trump is wrong.
HAYES: Yes, they don`t have to play act at it.
And partly, I think -- I feel like it`s Elizabeth Warren is someone that gives Hillary Clinton permission to be as forthright about the contempt.
SEDER: Of course. And it`s always easier to have someone else out there doing this.
Elizabeth Warren, it`s not like when Donald Trump engages in these type of personal attacks, it`s Donald Trump. But Elizabeth Warren, she`s a very serious person.
HAYES: Right. She breaks through in a certain way, yes.
SEDER: She has a lot of credibility.
HAYES: All right. Sam Seder, thank you very much.
SEDER: Thank you.
HAYES: What happens when Donald Trump gets to Cleveland and they try to take the nomination away from him? We`ll talk to a woman who is trying to bring that day about.
But, first, a breakdown to today`s massive decision of the Supreme Court, including the biggest victory for abortion rights in this country in over 20 years. The details of that case and the surprising wrinkle of who wrote it, right after this break.
HAYES: A huge victory for abortion rights today at the Supreme Court, in the biggest case of its kind since 1992, the court striking down a draconian Texas law that imposed tough new regulations on an abortion clinic without hard evidence of a medical necessity of those regulations. The 5-3 decision, Whole Woman`s Health v. Hellerstedt, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, considered two parts of the Texas law -- a requirement that clinics meet the same standard as called ambulatory surgical centers and another requiring that doctors performing abortions have hospital admitting privileges. In other words, that abortion clinics spread out across the state of state of Texas, essentially meet the same standards as full- fledged hospitals.
At the crux of the case was the majority`s willingness to cut through claims about the benefits of such regulations to women themselves, claims that had been taken at face value by lower courts.
Justice Breyer wrote, when directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtained better treatment, Texas admitted there was no evidence in the record of such a case.
At the same time, the majority found that as admitting privileges provision of the Texas law was enforced, the number of facilities providing abortions dropped in half from about 40 to about 20, and number of facilities would drop to seven or eight if the surgical center provision took place.
That was an undue burden, according to majority, in violation of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that upheld the seminal abortion rights case Roe v. Wade. The Whole Woman`s Health v. Hellerstedt case has implications for a dozen other states.
And to talk about those, joining me now, Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which has represented the plaintiffs in this case.
Nancy, this strikes me as a big victory for abortion rights in this country. Talk about the scope of this. What does this decision mean today?
NANCY NORTHUP, CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: Well, this was a complete and total win today. And we are just thrilled. The Supreme Court could not have been clearer that states can`t do what Texas had done, which is to use sneaky means to pass pretextual health laws that in fact were designed to shut down abortion clinics.
And so, it`s big for Texas because the clinics that are open now will stay open and the promise of more clinics being able to open. But it`s also a game changer around the country because we have been fighting these restrictions on abortion over the last five years, there`s been an avalanche of them. And court after court have blocked them but they just keep popping up again like a game of whack-a-mole.
And today`s decision is so clear that you`ve got to have medical justification if you`re going to pass these type of regulations and you cannot burden women the way these regulations have been. And it`s going to make a huge difference as we`re fighting this battle around the nation.
HAYES: You talk about medical justification, you used the word sneaky. It struck me about this case, right, when this happened in this case and Wendy Davis, the famous filibuster opposing it, everyone understood what this was about. Opponents of apportion were trying to restrict access to abortion. Everyone understood that -- people who favor abortion rights, people who oppose abortion.
And yet, what you have is the state of Texas going into court after court and saying with a straight face, talking to federal judges, no, this was not about abortion. It was just so manifestly obviously bad faith, there was something satisfying about essentially the court saying that today, we all know what this is about.
NORTHUP: Absolutely. I mean, what was satisfying about today`s opinion is that the court made clear that evidence matters and science matters and facts matters and reasoned opinions by courts matter. You know, as a lawyer, it was tremendously gratifying to see that finally, you know, reason and justice prevailed.
And that`s important. And again, because this standard is so clear that the Supreme Court set out today, we are in a moment of making a pivot and a change in what has been a fight around access. And so, we`re not going to stop, the fight continues today to make sure that all of these kind of regulations don`t stand, so that wherever you live, you can have access to your constitutional rights.
HAYES: So, you have eight justices on the court, a 5-3 majority. A lot of people watching the case or some people thought it would come down this way, a fairly good likelihood. It was interesting it was not Kennedy often the swing vote on abortion that wrote the decision but Justice Breyer. Presumably, it was Kennedy giving the opinion at Breyer.
Breyer saying abortions taking place in an abortion facility are safe and indeed safer than numerous procedures that take place outside hospitals to which Texas does not apply its surgical center requirements. Is there a significance for the future of abortion law before the court from this decision today?
NORTHUP: Well, I think what`s significant is today, the Supreme Court restored the promise of Roe versus Wade for the next generation of women. For over 40 years, the court again and again, at these crucial moments, you know, when we get to the cliff on these things, has always, yes, has always come back to say, no. Women`s ability to control their lives, to make these decisions matter. The Constitution matters and it`s going to be protected.
And to see once again, 24 years after that case and Kennedy`s decision in Casey to have that reaffirmed is hugely important. And I think what it`s time for responsible state legislatures to stop passing these laws, to respect women`s rights and to make sure that we are not continuing this game of whack-a-mole.
HAYES: Well, there`s going to be a bevy of legal challenges obviously in the wake of this and more to point to for those like yourself arguing against it.
Nancy Northup, thank you very much.
NORTHUP: Thank you.
HAYES: Coming up, the other big decisions from the Supreme Court today, including upholding the reach of a gun ban for domestic abusers.
But up next, the unbelievable scene at a neo-Nazi rally in California.
And later, the delegates trying to stop Donald Trump by staging a revolt for the Republican Convention. I`ll talk to one of the delegates leading the charge. That story coming up.
HAYES: There was an astonishing scene of chaos on the streets of Sacramento Sunday. A violent clash between white nationalist groups holding a march and a group there to counter-protest.
Here`s how it happened: several weeks ago, two white nationalist groups, the Traditionalist Worker Party and Golden State Skinheads planned a rally on the ground in the California state capitol. The Traditionalist Worker Party posted a flyer before the event, reading, you have reached the limits of our sympathy, below people holding signs saying brown and proud and make America Mexico again.
Roughly 30 people in the whole state of California showed up for the march on Sunday when about 150, five times as many counter protesters organized by the anti-fascist network arrived and violent clashes broke out almost immediately, with people wielding bats, hurling pieces of concrete. More than 100 police officers were dispatched to disperse the crowd, 10 people were hospitalized. Nine men and one woman and at least 10 people treated for stab wounds, all expected, thankfully, are expected to survive.
Police said today, no arrests have been made, but this is an active investigation. The founder of the white nationalist party who organized the rally that kicked all this off but did not attend himself is a man named Matthew Heimbach. He told "The L.A. Times", "We stood our ground. We will be back."
Heimbach is someone we`ve covered before on this show. Back in March, he confirmed to ALL IN, he attended the Trump rally in Louisville, Kentucky, and is the man seen in this video forcefully shoving a Black Lives Matter protester and shouting obscenities at her while wearing a "make America great again" hat.
Heimbach told "Reuters" back in May that his group plans to have a few dozen members in Cleveland for the Republican National Convention, raising a question of just what this convention in Cleveland is going to look like both outside the convention center and inside. And there`s a lot of news on that latter front which we will bring you, ahead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: 64 percent of Americans say they don`t think that Donald Trump is qualified to be president. Do you believe he`s qualified? And how do you convince all those voters that think he isn`t?
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R) KENTUCKY: Well, look, I think there`s no question that he`s made a number of mistakes over the last few weeks. I think they`re beginning to right the ship. It`s a long time until November.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I didn`t hear you say whether he`s qualified.
MCCONNELL: Look, that`ll be up to the American people to decide. He won the Republican nomination fair and square. He got more votes than anybody else against a whole lot of well qualified candidates. And so our primary voters have made their decision as to who they want to be the nominee. The American people will be able to make that decision in the fall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: When Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senator majority leader, will not say when given the opportunity twice whether his party`s presumptive nominee is qualified to be president, chances are Mitch McConnell won`t be a featured speaker at next month`s Republican convention.
And he might not be the only one. Politico reports that they, quote, contacted more than 50 prominent governors, senators, and House member to gauge their interest in speaking. Only a few said they were opened to it, and everyone else said that weren`t planning on it, didn`t want to, or weren`t going to Cleveland at all or simply didn`t respond.
As for how Trump sees things, he told New York Times, Republicans shouldn`t even expect to address the convention until they offer him their support, quote, "if there`s no endorsement that I would not invite them to speak.
But speaking thoughts may be the least of Trump`s worries at the convention, as there continues to be a concerted organized effort to strip the Republican presidential nomination from Donald Trump. The anti- Trumpers are pushing to allow delegates to vote for whomever they want at the convention rather than being bound by the primary results.
The New York Times reports prominent Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin had breathed new life into these efforts by saying that delegates should be free to follow their consciences instead of being committed to back a candidate.
Although Trump and the RNC are trying to head off this effort, one that basically amounts to an attempted coup at the contention, they also have to contend with a lawsuit filed last Friday by a Virginia delegate who argues that state laws requiring delegates to vote for a specific candidate are unconstitutional on the grounds they violate the first amendment`s protection of the right to assemble.
Joining me now is Kendall Unru, a delegate for Ted Cruz, a founder of a group called Free the Delegates.
Ms. Unruh, my understanding is you are trying to organize an effort to essentially unbind delegates, allow them to vote their conscience. I feel like I`ve covered now between a dozen and two dozen attempts to unseat Trump. My question is do you have people, are there enough of you, is this a big thing or is this a boutique enterprise?
KENDALL UNRUH, FOUNDER, FREE THE DELEGATES: No, it`s a big thing. We`re now mainstream. We`re not the fringe. And we have gained so much momentum, and we have money that has come on board and we`re going to have a floor plan that is actually going to able to match Donald Trump`s attempts to quash us. And I can answer what McConnell would not answer, and that is he is not qualified to be president.
And the Supreme Court ruling today, for all of those that value the sanctity of life and truly believes that life begins at conception and deserves to be protected, should be the rallying cry that we need to have a candidate coming out of this convention that can unite the party that can actually win against Hillary Clinton in this fall, and that is why we are doing this, because he is simply not someone that we want to see as the face of our party.
And we gained incredible momentum, and we have lots of members. We had started with 400 delegates and alternates that are on board, that grows every single day. We have thousands of volunteers that have signed up to be on board that have applied pressure that are using this as a lobbying attempt to influence both the rules committee members from the conscience clause as well as the delegates that are on the floor.
But let me be clear, the conscience clause that I am sponsoring, number one, we`re not changing any rules, we are drafting new rules to govern this convention, because that is our job as rules committee members.
But I`m not giving the right to unbind to the delegates, I am actually codifying what already exists, and that is their inherent constitutional right to be unbound.
HAYES: So, before we get into the rules, for a second, I understand that interpretation. We`ve had Curly Hogan (ph) on the show who says basically this -- in here is essentially to the very act of delegating, right, that you can vote your conscience.
HAYES: Before we get to that, though -- before we get to the rules, though, there seems to me a little bit of a Democratic legitimacy problem. I mean, you guys had the rules. You had a bunch of candidates, a whole bunch of them, this guy won. If you waltz into Cleveland and you say, eh, eh, eh, like I don`t know, can you really like say with a straight face that`s a "small d" democratic outcome.
UNRUH: Well, that`s a fair question. But remember we had about 11.5 million Democrats and independents vote in our primary because of the open primary and blanket primary laws, which by the way also needs to be dealt with on the rules committee. And there needs to be rules...
HAYES: You want to close those.
UNRUH: That either incentivize or penalize those states that have those primaries.
But it is now our duty and our obligation and our inherent right as delegates to act like delegates and to actually cast a vote of conscience for a candidate that we believe best reflects our party, because that is our job right now to actually fill that role of who is going to be our nominee.
So, it`s -- once again, the fact that the majority doesn`t necessarily get to dictate an outcome because it`s not a democracy, it`s a constitutional republic, it`s a representative government system.
HAYES: Right. And particularly as pertains to a party, you guys can actually sort of do whatever you want.
UNRUH: Well, the Supreme Court has ruled several times.
HAYES: I know that. But here is my question for you, is there any space - - so conventions, this is not the way conventions usually go in the modern era, right, it`s been a long time since we had anything that was near contested and generally there planned out months ahead of time and the nominee has, you know, theme night A, B and C.
Do you see places where uncertain things can happen? Like, is there even going to be the space in the schedule where you can kind of stage this sort of rebellion, or is everything going to be a fait accompli before we get to Cleveland?
UNRUH: Well, and that`s why we are going to have parliamentarians on the floor that actually can deal with house rules, because obviously, there will going to an attempt to keep it scripted. There`s going to be an attempt to make us act like the good robots and adhere to the nice script that they have all planned out to accommodate television and cable media, quite honestly.
But what they have done is they have just taken away the ability that is absolutely our right to delegate. And that is truly to choose the nominee.
HAYES: Well, those of us in cable media will be rooting for the unexpected. So, you know, good luck with that, Kendall Unruh.
UNRUH: It would be an actual convention.
HAYES: Thanks for joining us tonight. Appreciate it.
Still to come, a project we at All In have spent months working on, an in- depth look at the climate crisis happening right now in this very moment across America, Tonight, a community feeling the catastrophic impact firsthand as they watch their land disappear under water. You don`t want to miss it.
But first, what is next in the Brexit strategy? As it turns out they didn`t exactly plan this far ahead. That`s right after this break.
HAYES: Fresh stinging humiliation in England today four days after the UK unexpectedly voted to leave the European Union. They just got knocked out of the Euro 2016 soccer championship tonight, beaten by Iceland a country with a population of just 330,000 that has never competed in a major tournament before. It was just the latest in a string of post-Brexit hits.
Britain`s currency continued to crater this morning, closing in on a new 30 year low. Two ratings agencies downgraded their UK`s credit. The leader the Labour Party is facing calls to resign and a vote of no confidence, while the conservative prime minister David Cameron already said he`ll step down.
One of the front runners to replace him, former London mayor Boris Johnson, helped lead the leave campaign, a campaign that according to one of Johnson`s allies, had, well, no plan for actual victory.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This comes from a Conservative leader MP who I think will be backign Boris Johnson in the leadership contest, he told me this, he said -- I said to him, so where`s the plan? Can we see the Brexit plan now? There is no plan. The leave campaign don`t have a post-Brexit plan. And he was pointing over there to where the vote leave HQ was and he then he pointed over there and he said number 10 should have had a plan.
Now, it sounds like I`m making that up, that literally happened two hours ago.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: So, there`s no actual Brexit strategy. But that might be just fine because it`s possible Brexit will never happen anyway. You heard that right, I`ll explain in 60 seconds.
HAYES: British voters went to the polls last Thursday and voted decisively, 52 to 48, to leave the European Union, to Brexit if you will.
On the news, trillions of dollars disappeared as the markets reacted and policymakers in Britain and Europe scrambled to stabilize the general upheaval. But it turns out the Brexit that caaused all that kerfuffle, might, might not even happen.
You see there are several loopholes that pro-remain folks are hoping could play out to delay or even deny the UK an exit from Europe. The referendum vote last Thursday is not a binding vote. Parliament could just refuse to acknowledge the result, though given that Britain prides itself on being a democracy, that`s unlikely to happen.
But even if parliament chooses to honor the results of the vote, nothing can actually happen until the government formally invokes article 50 of the treaty of the European Union which lays out a two year withdrawal process.
Now, David Cameron says he won`t invoke article 50 while he`s still prime minister. And he doesn`t formally step down until September at the earliest. There`s already a petition underway calling for a second referendum before then, though, the prime minister ruled it out.
And some are floating the idea of a general election with a hope that a new party in power could block a Brexit.
There`s also wild card up north, the first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, says she is considering asking the Scottish parliament to vote down any attempt to leave the EU, which some constitutional experts could actually block a Brexit.
Although, it`s hard to consider how the majority of the country that voted for Brexit would feel about any of these measures. The brute fact is this, Britain may have voted leave, but there is no easy way out.
HAYES: There were two other big cases from the Supreme Court today aside from the abortion ruling. First, the court unanimously overturned the corruption conviction of former Virginia`s former Governor Bob McDonnell. McDonnell, as governor, along with his wife, had allegedly accepted lavish gifts, such as Rolexes and ball gown in return for promoting a donor`s dietary supplement.
The court basically, thought, accepted McDonnell`s argument the government had failed to prove a quid pro quo, that it failed to prove that McDonnell actually did some official government act in return for those gifts.
The case goes back to the lower court with instructions to either order a new trial or dismiss the charges completely.
In another case, which might apply most directly to this current political moment, the court upheld a longstanding gun restriction in a very specific and truly important application. Convicted felons are prohibited from possessing firearms and congress has written a law speciffying that people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence fall under that ban.
Now, what the Supreme Court considered today was whether reckless assault, as opposed to an intentional act of physical force, was enough to qualify for the ban. And in a 6-2 decision, written by Justice Elena Kagen, the court said, yes, the case is seen as a big victory for gun control advocates, particularly since 34 states and the District of Columbia have definitions of domestic abuse similar to the one challenged in this case.
In other words, the Supreme Court effectively took a strong stand on the kind of gun restriction that is, in their view, perfectly constitutional even under the courts broad interpretation of the Second Amendment.
HAYES: When it comes to presidential politics and the issue of climate change, one candidate believes it is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time, the other calls it a hoax and jokes it has been concocted by the Chinese.
Donald Trump`s position on climate change is increasingly disconnected not only from the scientific reality or the political center, but from the lived experiences of ordinary Americans who are already dealing with these consequences.
All this week, we will be presenting stories on how climate change is not some far off problem for future generations to deal with, but something that is happening today impacting communities across the U.S. from Alaska to Florida in remote villages and major American cities.
We will take an in depth look at how it is affecting people and what the fight over the future of our energy supply looks like.
We begin with the story of Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, and a tribal community that is losing the land they`ve called home for generations. They are among the first Americans directly impacted by climate change the federal government is helping to relocate.
CHRIS BRUNET: This island has been home to us for generations. We always talk about it, how serene it is, how good it is. Yes, it is. And it`s really a different world away from the world that which could consider, you know, the mainland.
HAYES: This is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana. People here have lived on the water and off the land for centuries, but now that land is disappearing, and the encroaching water is forcing them out, making them among what some have called the first climate refugees in America.
BRUNET: Well, this landscape has changed so much because of all the water coming in from the Gulf of Mexico.
HAYES: Home to a Native American tribal community, Isle de Jean Charles is a thin strip of land about 80 miles south of New Orleans. Once the size of the island of Manhattan, this low-lying ridge has lost 98 percent of its land over the last 60 years.
Only one road leads here. It`s a narrow two-lane highway, surrounded by water, connecting the island to the mainland. During storms, it floods, cutting off the community sometimes for years at a time.
Chris Brunet has weather storms on this island his entire lief.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was raised in the water, having to deal with the hurricanes and flooding, you know that would come into the house, it is just something you`re used to. And so the best you can hope for is to survive it.
HAYES: But the same water that can wreak havoc on the bayou communities of Louisiana also sustains them. People here depend on the surrounding waters, casting nets to catch shrimp and fish. They`ve been doing this for generations in Isle de Jean Charles. Chief Albert Naquin says this land was settled by ancestors fleeing the trail of tears.
He grew up on the island and remembers a different place than what remains.
CHIEF ALBERT NAQUIN: We had our gardens, we had our cattles, we had our chickens. So, we had all of our livestock here, we had our vegetation. So, we were good. I mean, we were self-sufficient in this little community here.
HAYES: Today, there is no more livestock and not much vegetation; most of the land is gone. So is much of the population. Only about 70 people remain. There`s little money to rebuild after each storm.
Years ago, a massive hurricane protection plan was drawn up to shield the towns and cities of southern Louisiana. Isle de Jean Charles was left on the unprotected side. Officials said it was too expensive to include it, which leaves the island even more vulnerable.
KRISTINA PETERSON, LOWLANDER CENTER: The last couple of hurricanes the gas company has cut off the gas lines to the island. And we know that probably the next hurricane there won`t be electric. And so the public services that go to the island are going to be diminished.
HAYES: Earlier this year came a lifeline from the federal government. For the first time ever, the Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded a climate resilience grant to resettle the people of Isle de Jean Charles.
Christina Peterson, who runs a local nonprofit, helped draft the grant proposal .
PETERSON: There are no experts in resettlement. Having a planned community where we can say that we are projecting that this will be resilient 100 years out is really an important step. And it`s, then, that hopefully can be applicable to other communities.
HAYES: Because it isn`t just Isle de Jean Charles that is under threat, the entire Louisiana coastline is disappearing.
ALEX KOLKER, TULANE UNIVERSITY: Louisiana has lost a very large amount of land over the last century, something close to 1,900 square miles worth of land, that is equivalent today to about a football field an hour.
HAYES: While some of that land loss occurs naturally, the oil and gas industry has also played a role.
KOLKER: There`s a lot of canals that have been cut across the Louisiana coast, some for navigation, but a lot for oil and gas, and those canals have contributed to erosion, they`ve also contributed to saltwater intrusion, and those canals have played a major role in the land loss.
CHARLIE HAMMONDS, PILOT: The average person don`t realize because they don`t fly. They don`t realize how close that water is to us.
HAYES: Charlie Hammonds of nearby Houma, Louisiana has been flying over the state`s coastline for nearly 60 years. From the air, you can see the devastating impact.
HAMMONDS: As soon as you lift off from the airport at Houma, all you see is water. And I can attest to the fact that being a pilot here all my life, I`ve watched this land disappear.
HAYES: And in the era of climate change, the effects of the land sinking are also being exacerbated by sea level rise.
KOLKER: To some extent, Louisiana is a little bit of a window to the future. This is not something limited to Louisiana, it`s something that people around the country are likely to feel in the years ahead.
HAYES: For the people of Isle de Jean Charles, there is little hope to save their island. Some say they will not leave it even after everyone else has moved on, even in the face of intense storms and rising seas.
But others are preparing to go.
BRUNET: You know can leave for a vacation and you know you`re coming back, you could evacuate for a storm and hope that you`re coming back home to a home. So to pack up and move somewhere else, that`s totally different.
HAYES: What is happening to Isle de Jean Charles is happening to communities across Louisiana. They may be among the first to receive federal money to resettle their community, but they won`t be the last.
HAYES: The $48 million grant from HUD will reunite residents of Isle de Jean Charles with other tribal members who`d already moved to the mainland. It will help build a new sustainable community designed to be resilient for future generations.
Tomorrow night, we will shift from the bayous of Louisiana to the northernmost city in the entire country Barrow, Alaska where for centuries the people there have relied on the ice and the ocean, but Alaska is warming twice as fast as the rest of the country and it is having a catastrophic effect.
Now, Barrow finds itself on the leading edge of climate change and of climate change research. We will take you there tomorrow night right here on All In.
That does it for us this evening. The Rachel Maddow 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