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

All In With Chris Hayes, Transcript, 8/9/2016

Guests: Gordon Humphrey, Jennifer Granholm, Michael Barbaro, Norm Ornstein, Nina Turner, Khizr Khan

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: August 9, 2016 Guest: Gordon Humphrey, Jennifer Granholm, Michael Barbaro, Norm Ornstein, Nina Turner, Khizr Khan


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

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment.

HAYES: Donald Trump does it again.

TRUMP: If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.

HAYES: Tonight, the Clinton camp responds to what they say is a call to violence and how the Trump campaign is defending its apparent endorsement of Second Amendment remedies.

Plus, another GOP senator jumps ship, as battleground polling go south for Republicans, the latest Trump hedge on debating Clinton, and the ongoing attacks on the Muslim father of a slain army captain.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Do you think he was purposely hiding his real views until now?

HAYES: Khizr Khan is here to respond when ALL IN starts right now.


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

The very day after his big campaign reset, Donald Trump addressed a crowd of supporters in Wilmington, North Carolina, today, and appeared to call for armed violence against his opponent, Hillary Clinton.


TRUMP: Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the second amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don`t know. But -- but I`ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.


HAYES: Now, there`s some precedent for this kind of talk from Trump`s party. Remember back in 2010, while running for Harry Reid`s Nevada Senate seat, GOP candidate Sharron Angle floated, quote, "Second Amendment remedies" to fix Congress.


SHARRON ANGLE, CHALLENGED SEN. HARRY REID IN 2010: Thomas Jefferson said it`s good for our country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that`s not where we`re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.


HAYES: Angle went on to lose that race by five percentage points.

More recently, New Hampshire State Senator Al Baldasaro who advises Trump on veterans issues called for Hillary Clinton to be summarily executed, prompting an investigation by the Secret Service.


STATE REP. AL BALDASARO (R-NH): She is a disgrace for the lies that she told those mothers about their children that got killed over there in Benghazi. Hillary Clinton should be put in the firing line and shot for treason.


HAYES: While the Trump campaign stipulated that Mr. Trump didn`t feel this way, Baldasaro stood by his statement insisting Clinton`s use of her private email server merited execution by firing squad, and the Trump campaign didn`t move to sever their ties. In fact, just this weekend, Trump gave Baldasaro a shout-out during a rally in New Hampshire.

Now, the Clinton camp responded to Trump`s comments today in a statement from campaign manager Robby Mook. "This is simple. What Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the president of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."

But according to the Trump campaign, their candidate had something totally different and totally harmless in mind. Quote, "It`s called the power of unification. Second Amendment people have an amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power."

Tonight at another campaign stop in North Carolina, Trump introducer Rudy Giuliani gave the campaign`s alternate version of Trump`s comments.


RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER NYC MAYOR: What he said very clearly was that if Hillary Clinton were elected president, she would get to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. And among the other things they would do to destroy us would be to do away with the Second Amendment and your right to bear arms.

And then he said and you have the power to do something about it. What he meant by that was, you have the power to vote against her. You have the power -- you have the power to campaign against her! You have the power to speak against her! You know why? Because you`re Americans.


HAYES: Well, that`s wonderfully patriotic, but you saw the tape and it`s pretty clear, that is not what Trump said.

And if you look at the reaction from this audience member who appears to mouth the words "whoa," it`s not what he heard either.

All this comes barely 24 hours since Trump tried to turn the page on a disastrous week for his campaign, delivering a fairly standard supply side economic speech yesterday in Detroit. But even that hasn`t been able to stem the tide of growing GOP defections. The latest from Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who have been holding out hope for Trump`s much promised general election pivot.


SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: I`ve come to the inescapable conclusion that there is no new Donald Trump, that he is incapable of change and growth. He is incapable of apologizing, of saying that he was wrong.


HAYES: Collins said she won`t vote for Hillary Clinton, but a number of former Republican officials, including a New Hampshire senator and a Michigan governor now favor Clinton over Trump. Even Newt Gingrich, an early Trump endorser and a finalist to be his running mate, had trouble assuring "The New York Times" that Trump meets the minimum requirement to be president.


NYT: Does he have the mental fitness, psychological suitability to the office of the presidency?

NEWT GINGRICH (R), FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: Um, yeah and my answer would be sure.

NYT: Sure?

GINGRICH: Sure. I mean, he is at least as reliable as Andrew Jackson.

NYT: Can you be more forceful than "sure"?

GINGRICH: Um, I think that Trump has a willingness to break up a system which is decaying.


HAYES: By the way, if you`re so moved, read a biography of Andrew Jackson to see what kind of guy he was.

Now, Trump`s blunders and the steady stream of defections are continuing to push down his poll numbers and expand Hillary Clinton`s lead in key battleground states. In a new NBC News/"Wall Street Journal"/Marist poll, Clinton is ahead by four points in Iowa, five points in Ohio, and 11 points in Pennsylvania. A new Quinnipiac poll also out today has the candidates statistically even in Florida, but Clinton again, leads by four points in Ohio, and ten points in Pennsylvania, a state that has increasingly become must-win for Trump.

Now, compare that to the last time this poll was taken almost a month ago, then, Clinton and Trump were tied in Ohio, and Trump was winning in Florida and Pennsylvania.

Joining me now, former Senator Gordon Humphrey. He`s a Republican from New Hampshire who called Trump a sociopath and plans to vote for Clinton if the race is close.

Senator Humphrey, let`s begin with the comments today about Second Amendment people. Do you see the comments? Do you have a reaction?

FORMER SEN. GORDON HUMPHREY (R), NEW HAMPSHIRE: Yes, Chris, good evening. I`ve reviewed that tape a number of times. Notwithstanding what Rudy Giuliani just said, it`s very clear what Donald Trump was implying, namely that gun people could wreak violence against Hillary Clinton. And against the history of assassinations in the United States of presidents and against the more recent history of indiscriminate gun violence and tragedy on a grand scale, it`s unthinkable that any candidate for president would make such a statement.

And it only reinforces again what so many of us have been saying, that Donald Trump is possessed of an unbalanced mind. In the common parlance, the man is a nut cake, a loony bird, and it would be the height of responsibility to elevate him to the presidency. It would be recklessness to make him commander in chief. I`ve issued a call to members of the RNC this afternoon to demand an emergency meeting of the Republican national committee to strip Donald Trump of the nomination and to replace him with someone of sound mind.

HAYES: You`re calling on the RNC to -- can they do that? Is that something the RNC could do? Would be to impanel some sort of emergency meeting to strip him of the nomination?

HUMPHREY: Well, Rule 9 of the RNC empowers the RNC to replace a candidate who dies or who refuses to run. It also -- that same language contains the word "otherwise," which is meant to be a catch-all for all other things, including presumably disability, mental or physical. Let me point out this, there`s a very strong model for that kind of action in the Constitution of the United States.

The president`s cabinet, a majority of the president`s cabinet can declare the president to be physically or mentally unfit to exercise the powers of his office, and immediately there upon those powers are transferred to the vice president. Now, the president, if he`s conscious, may appeal to the House, and that initiates another process of appeal.

But the fact is, the president`s cabinet, a majority of them, can remove the president, effectively from office, at least temporarily. And if the Constitution empowers the cabinet to do that, surely the RNC can do the same thing in a moral crisis such as this. The national interest demands it.

HAYES: So, this is very -- this is strong. I mean, I should note, you`re I believe a two-term senator from New Hampshire. You`re a Republican in good standing. You`re not someone who`s left the party and gone on to some sort of retirement years as a crypto liberal or something.


HAYES: I mean, you endorsed John Kasich. You consider yourself a member of this party in good standing. How do you feel about watching this unfold?

HUMPHREY: I need to tell you, Chris, that I`ve been on the verge of resigning from the party now for -- ever since Cleveland. But I`ve decided I can be more effective by remaining within the party and fighting for some sensible resolution to this crisis.

The RNC can solve it. The hour is late, to be sure. But there is still time to effectuate a change, to replace Donald Trump and to appoint someone of a sound mind, a sane man or woman hopefully with substantially more experience than Donald Trump and a lot more knowledge, wisdom.

There`s time to do that. There is, if you examine it in detail, there is time to do that. Some say that it`s too late to remove Donald Trump`s name from the ballot. In a number of states, that is true now, and in more states, it will be true in like two weeks.

But remember this, it`s the Electoral College that elects the president. That happens in December. If Donald Trump has been replaced as nominee by the RNC, votes cast for Donald Trump in those states where his name is on the ballot almost certainly will be allotted to the new nominee of the Republican Party. So, even that problem can be overcome.

HAYES: Senator, you have clearly given this a lot of thought. I appreciate your time tonight. Great to have you on. Thank you, sir.

HUMPHREY: Thank you so much, Chris. Good night.

HAYES: I`m joined now by Jennifer Granholm, former Democratic governor of Michigan, senior adviser to the pro-Clinton super PAC, Correct the Record.

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, FORMER DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN: I have never seen anything like this. It`s amazing.

HAYES: I want to reiterate --


HAYES: -- the gentleman you just saw, you know, he was not --

GRANHOLM: He`s legit.

HAYES: He`s also not some liberal RINO. He was a conservative Republican, northeastern New England senator for two terms. He was to the right on issues like gay rights and other stuff. You know, we`re not -- the people that are raising the kind of objections you`re hearing like the senator, these are people who have been very -- very legitimate people.

GRANHOLM: They are legitimate. They`re in good standing. Susan Collins, obviously.

I think you`re just going to see this cavalcade of Republicans who will be raising their hand. Because what`s going to happen? You know, how can Kelly Ayotte or John McCain or Senator Burr or Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, how can these senators who are running for their lives and their seats, how are they going to be able to continue to stand by this man?

And it`s not -- I mean, with -- I totally respect his creativity in trying to get the Republican Party to do something about this. Honestly, that`s not going to happen.

HAYES: They`ve shown no actual will to do that.

GRANHOLM: Right, because I mean, Chris, you started by showing his comments today. This is not new. None of this stuff about him being crazy and saying things that are unacceptable is new. I mean, I went back and looked at the stuff he has said from when -- since when he declared.

I mean, he was lamenting that this is what we should have been doing to the other side for seven years, when protesters were getting beaten up at his rallies. Or in the old days, they`d be carried off in a stretcher, he said. Or part of the problem is that no one wants to hurt anyone anymore. Or if you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, or make them haul them out on a stretcher.

It`s not like any of this is new. This is just a continuation of a pattern.

HAYES: Let me -- so let`s take a moment, I will -- I will rise to the defendant in a devil`s advocate sort of way for the Trump campaign, which says that he was talking about mobilizing, if you were inclined to be charitable towards him in the sort of Olympian kind of fashion, you could say. He was saying that even if Clinton were elected, the NRA folks are so powerful, they could block the confirmation of anti-gun justice.

GRANHOLM: OK, so what a load of garbage. And if you really did think that, why wouldn`t you come out and say, wow, I was really misinterpreted. I feel sort of like, when they say, oh, that`s not what I meant, I feel like, you know, when Melania Trump had the thing about the plagiarism and everybody who watched it knew what was going on, but they continued to deny it for days.

He can`t admit that, but he can come out and say, I am sorry, I didn`t mean to say this. And he`s not capable constitutionally of doing this.

HAYES: Jennifer, can I ask you this question? Sometimes I wonder like, in the last few weeks, it`s been a bizarre period, right? What does it mean for the meaning of this campaign if the campaign ends up being a referendum on, is this person fit to be president? Which I think it is going to be. And I don`t think that`s inappropriate.

But what it means to me is, it seems, what are the American people voting for? If they`re essentially voting that this man is unfit for the office?

GRANHOLM: I think there will be a portion of people who vote like that. And certainly the Republicans who have come on board may think that.

But Democrats want to vote for something. We want to vote for what we saw at the Democratic Convention. We want to vote for the platform that we stand and whole heartedly believe in.

HAYES: You think that`s present in the minds of voters?

GRANHOLM: Well, I do think it`s present in the minds of many Democrats. But I do think Democrats are scared out of their minds about Donald Trump potentially. So, there`s a motivation that goes as a carrot and a stick, if you will. But the carrot is really important and we can`t forget the carrot. Hillary Clinton is going to be delivering an economic speech on Thursday in Detroit.

HAYES: Very interesting.

GRANHOLM: Yes, it will be very interesting as a counterpart, and I hope that she really calls us to that higher place that Democrats were so proud of when we left the convention.

HAYES: All right. Former Governor Jennifer Granholm -- thank you very much.

GRANHOLM: You bet.

HAYES: Still to come, the continued attacks on the family of a fallen soldier. My interview with Khizr Khan ahead.

But first, Hillary Clinton makes the first move on the general election debates. Donald Trump says he wants to, but there`s one thing. We`ll talk about what he said after this two-minute break.



INTERVIEWER: You can accept the recommendations of the debate commission, three debates, one VP debate?

TRUMP: Well, I`ll tell you what I don`t like, it`s against two NFL games and I don`t think we should be against the NFL. I don`t know how the dates were picked, I don`t know why those particular --

INTERVIEWER: So you don`t like the dates that are out there?

TRUMP: Well, I don`t like dates against -- you know, Hillary Clinton wants to be against the NFL, maybe like she did with Bernie Sanders, where they were on Saturday nights when nobody`s home.


HAYES: More than a week after Donald Trump floated the possibility of maybe skipping the debates and alluding to the notion that Democrats were looking to rig the scheduling, Hillary Clinton`s campaign announced late last night, she plans to be part of all three general election debates this fall and threw down the gauntlet, challenging Trump to do the same.

In a statement, Clinton`s campaign chairperson, John Podesta wrote, the only issue now is whether Donald Trump is going to show up to the debate at the date, time and places and format set by the commission last year through a bipartisan process.

Today, in an interview with "Time Magazine", Trump said, quote, "I will absolutely do three debates. I want to debate very badly. But I have to see the conditions."

Later in the interview, Trump gave us an idea of what some of those conditions might be. "I`ll have to see who the moderators are. So I look forward to the debates. But, yes, I want to have fair moderators, I will fair moderators."

Meanwhile, all this hedging by the Trump campaign has reportedly unnerved some folks in the media as "Politico" reports today. Senior media executives and anchors in New York and Washington are casting serious doubt about whether Trump will agree to participate in the primetime events.

Joining me now to discuss, Joan Walsh, national affairs correspondent for "The Nation", also an MSNBC political analyst, and Michael Barbaro, reporter from "The New York Times" and host of "The Run-Up", "The Times" new election podcast that I got a push notification about on my phone, just now.

That`s power, dude. You launched a podcast and "The New York Times" just says to everyone that I --

MICHAEL BARBARO, THE NEW YORK TIMES: We begged and pleaded for that.

HAYES: Well, you got it.

You`ve been covering the campaign. There has been, I think from the beginning -- he skipped one debate in the primaries, famously. There`s been this sense that maybe this is going to happen. What is your read on it, having covered this campaign?

BARBARO: Oh, I think he has to do the debates. And I think he will do most of them if not all of them. I think what this reveals is the degree to which Donald Trump is anxious about being one-on-one with Hillary Clinton. And let`s discuss why that would be, right?

During the Republican primary debates, what worked about having 16 people on stage? It was the brevity and entertainment factor of the way he approached those debates. But if you only have two people, it`s much more akin to an interview. It needs to be substantive. It will become substantive.

HAYES: That`s a lot to talk about.

BARBARO: That`s problematic for him. By his own admission, he`s an amateur, when it comes to running for president. He`s new to this.

It`s going to be a relentless barrage of questions about foreign policy, international affairs. It`s going to be really counting for him -- better to negotiate terms in which there are third-party candidates, libertarian candidates on stage and he has a moderator who is going to be neutral/positive in his mind.

HAYES: Well, the fight over the moderator, I want to get to in a second, but what struck me today, this is the inversion of the iron law of political physics, which is the person behind in the polls wants more debates. The person ahead in the polls wants fewer, sometimes none.

And we saw it during the primary, right? Bernie Sanders wanted more debates when Hillary Clinton was winning. Then, Hillary Clinton saw that she was behind in New Hampshire and she was like, I want a debate in New Hampshire. And Bernie`s like, maybe we will if we get other debates. So, this is just an iron law.


HAYES: Here, we`re seeing the person who`s up by ten points.

WALSH: She`s kind of taunting him, come on, let`s get out here.

But I think -- you know, remember, he also skipped a debate, I don`t remember if it was scheduled, but with Kasich and Ted Cruz, there was one planned for the last three --

HAYES: That`s right. There was one last --

WALSH: The last three survivors and he ditched that. That would be as close --

HAYES: And then it fell apart. They were going to do it and then it fell apart.

WALSH: I think he`s genuinely afraid. He was terrible at the debates. He was able to -- he would slap, he would make a few funny or not funny remarks, and then he would fade into the background. Obviously, you can`t do that with a two-person debate.

BARBARO: And fading can be quite dangerous.

HAYES: Right, right.


BARBARO: Anything that makes you seem not presidential and when you`re watching someone carefully in high definition television for an hour, one- on-one with someone else, there`s a lot of peril.

WALSH: And she`s an amazing debater. I mean, she`s won arguably every debate --

HAYES: Well, I would not call her -- I think she`s quite a good debater. You think she`s amazing?

WALSH: I think she`s an amazing debater. Yes.

HAYES: I thought her finest moment of the campaign so far wasn`t even a debate. It was in some ways harder than a debate, which is the Benghazi hearing, which wasn`t 90 minutes. It was 11 hours, and she was not one-on- one, she was one on however many.

BARBARO: Well, she`s rehearsed.

HAYES: Exactly. That was where it was like, wow, you really know your stuff. Whatever you think about Hillary Clinton, whether she should be president or not --

WALSH: And that`s true in debates too, if you know your stuff in a debate, which he won`t and she will.

HAYES: So, the presidential commission, there`s controversies about how the commission works and whether they`ll let in Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Stein probably not because she`s not polling enough. Johnson may be in the ballpark of being allowed in.

How much leverage do campaigns have over this negotiation?

BARBARO: I mean, Donald Trump -- just because of the ratings that he can attract, I would argue has -- he has more leverage than a traditional candidate. But this is an independent group of commissioners who are going to feel tremendous pressure to not cave. But to what degree the networks will want to weigh in and the cable stations will tug at this process, that`s a bit of an unknown.

HAYES: Well, this is a good point, right, because unlike the debates in the primary, they`re hosted by a specific network, and that network gets all that ad, and you`re right, just themselves --

WALSH: And has an incentive to cave or work closely with the top person.

HAYES: That is exactly right. That`s not the case here, because this will be -- everyone will be able to carry this feed. It will be broadcast like the State of the Union, across a whole bunch of platforms. And these folks are a little more insulated.

But at the same time, I don`t think they`re used to someone playing chicken the way that he will -- he will tie his foot to the gas, and -- you know what I mean?

WALSH: I think he will. I think they`ve got to be strong and they`re known for being strong. They don`t want to be pushed around. They`re not tied to a network, they`re not tied to a party. If they cave to him, I mean, I think they give up something very significant that they`ve evolved over the years, which is a real control over the rules and how it unfolds.

BARBARO: And a system infinitely preferable to the primary, which was the whims of the networks. It was awfully driven by ratings. The other thing that`s happening here, Donald Trump is revealing the degree to which everything in his life is negotiable.

HAYES: Negotiation, exactly.

BARBARO: You are reaching a point of seriousness in the presidential campaign where some things are not supposed to be negotiable. You`re supposed to show up at the debates and you`re not really supposed to demand a moderator.

HAYES: We should say, just for historical reference here, LBJ refused to debate Barry Goldwater in 1964, which is interesting. I didn`t know that until today, a producer pointed out. And Nixon refused to debate in both `68 and `72. So scarred was he by the infamous 1968 Jack Kennedy debate where he was apparently sweating.

Joan Walsh and Michael Barbaro, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it.

BARBARO: Pleasure.

HAYES: Still ahead, I`ll speak with Khizr Khan, you don`t want to miss that.

And later, what could be Donald Trump`s most damaging conspiracy theory yet. That is ahead.


HAYES: If you are a student of Donald Trump`s Twitter feed, you`ve noticed it bounces back and forth between two rather distinct voices. For every, thank you, there`s a media going crazy, they totally distort things on purpose, Crimea, nuclear, the baby, so much more, very dishonest, exclamation point, tweet.

Now, I floated my own theory about discrepancies in the style a few weeks ago. I said you can always tell when Manafort has successfully locked Trump out of his Twitter account and then when Trump guesses the new password. Others have picked up on the same thing, attributing the difference in tone and difference in phone. Every non-hyperbolic tweet is from iPhone, his staff, every hyperbolic tweet is from Android, from him.

For example, this Trump tweet, "Good luck, Team, USA, opening ceremony, Rio 2016." Sent from an iPhone.

While this Trump tweet, "Heading to New Hampshire, will be talking about Hillary saying her brain short-circuited and other things." It was sent from an android.

It`s been reported that Trump uses a Samsung Galaxy to tweet. And so, one data scientist, David Robinson, analyzed the tweets coming from Donald Trump`s Twitter account from an android and the tweets coming from an iPhone and here`s just some of what he found. Tweets from the android happened more frequently early in the morning. Tweets in the iPhone, more likely to include a picture or a link of some sort.

And when it comes to content, Robinson also found that the Android tweets are angrier and more negative, while the iPhone tweets tend to be benign announcements and pictures. Most hashtags come from the iPhone, words like join and tomorrow. Times like 7:00 p.m. also came from the iPhone.

And a lot of emotionally charged words like badly, crazy, weak, and dumb, were overwhelmingly more common on Android.

So, looks like my password theory was close but not quite right. That said, I still think Paul Manafort would be advised to lock the Samsung Galaxy in a safe the next chance he gets.


HAYES: The Trump campaign tried to get their candidate on message yesterday with a big teleprompter speech about the economy, tried to definitively pivot away from the distasteful spectacle of his week-long feud with the family of a slain American army captain. Last night, Sean Hannity was still at it, attacking Hhizr Khan, the father of that slain soldier. And it is worth recalling the powerful moment the final night of the Democratic National Convention in which he appeared.


KHIZR KHAN, FATHER OF U.S. MARINE KILLED IN IRAQ: Donald Trump, you`re asking Americans to trust you with their future. Let me ask you have you even read the United States Constitution? I will -- I will gladly lend you my copy.

You have sacrificed nothing, and no one.


HAYES: Joining me now, Khizr Khan, father of United States army captain Humayun Khan who was killed in 2004 during the Iraq War. Mr. Khan, thank you so much.

KHAN: Hi, Chris.

HAYES: I guess I will -- I don`t want to play or introduce into the record the various smears that are being directed at you, because they are baseless. But I would like you to respond to the fact that there`s now some small group of people close to or allied with the Trump campaign trying to prosecute a case against you for divided loyalties or whatever. How do you feel about that?

KHAN: Well, I am as patriotic as anyone in this country. We stand with the United States. This is our home. We are responsible for its security, for its protection, to beautify it, to make it better, to make it safer. It`s our obligation, it`s our duty to do that. And I`ll be more than glad to specifically answer if there are any questions that are being raised about my loyalty or about any hidden agenda or anything. There is no such thing.

It`s amazing that some of these dog-whistle terms are being used without consulting me, or without asking where do I stand on those issues. That is amazing. And I`ll be more than glad to answer if there are any specific questions.

HAYES: Well, one of the things that people are constantly throwing out, and it`s not just with respect to you -- and these are people that I have to say I don`t think are engaging in good faith when it comes to Muslims, is the notion of Sharia, that there`s a secret plot among believers in Islam, to replace American secular constitutional government with, quote, Sharia law, that you are an adherent to that secret plot. What do you say to that?

KHAN: Either they do not know the constitution of United States -- and I speak about it at any occasion that I -- I wish they would have talked to me. I would show them the provisions in the United States Constitution that leaves no room for any other law to be implemented here. The things that they talk about Sharia law, these are laws of various Msuslim countries, hodgepodge of French, German, British Portuguese, that colonists left in those countries, mixed with some Islamic concept. That has become Sharia law. There`s no such thing in any country that is Sharia law.

Plus, there are provisions in constitution of United States, and I speak about it 20 million times before coming to this stage and all this, that there are precautions. The forefathers have left those safeguards in the constitution. For god sake, read it. Invite me, I`ll show you those safeguards, that no Sharia law can be implemented in the United States.

These terms are dog whistles to gather people against each other, and that is the sad part that my brothers that say this, they are wonderful people, but for god`s sake, read your own constitution, and you will come to the same conclusion that I have been for the last 10 years, 15 years, that there is no room for those hodgepodge of laws from Muslim countries.

HAYES: Mr. Khan, I want to ask you this. Your family suffered a tremendous loss, and I think that anyone who has seen your story feels deep empathy for that loss, gratitude for the sacrifice of your son. Do you think -- there`s some sense in which you and your wife and your family have become a kind of poster family for a certain kind of Muslim patriotism. And I wonder if you think -- if you want to tell people how you think that should more broadly apply to the many thousands of Muslims in this country, some of whom have not served, or who have different political views.

How you think folks should be thinking about their fellow citizens who believe in Islam and who have different stories than your family`s particularly affecting story.

KHAN: Of course.

In a democracy like United States, you have room for difference of opinion. I respect their difference of opinion and so should they accept my difference of opinion. That is what makes this country great. The tradition of the democracy is that we agree to disagree, and then we put our differences aside when the time comes to protect this country, to be patriots. We are all together in defense of this country. It doesn`t matter one wears the uniform or not. We are together, to protect, to move forward, to make this place better.

That is the American tradition. That is the founding tradition of this country, that all of us came from somewhere, and we became American citizens and we became patriots and we became both sides -- Democrats, Republicans, people that have no political affiliation. I have no political affiliation. I have voted Republican. I have voted Democrat. Lee Atwater was a close friend of mine that I was associated with.

So for the folks to come to this rhetoric without knowing, without asking the question where do you stand on these issues, simple. I concluded that it is just the dog whistle to gather people, vote pandering, and I respect their difference of opinion. I agree with them. But we are all for the safety, for the progress, for moving forward of this country.

HAYES: Mr. Khan, finally, I don`t know if you saw Trump`s comments this morning about second amendment people, some people -- many people who saw it, appeared to imply a joke or a call for violence. What was your reaction to that?

KHAN: I was saddened.

I love this country, as any other American does. There`s no room for violence. There is room -- there should be call for unity, call for patience, call for understanding.

And thad been my my concern, that I implore the people that are still continuing to think that they will vote for him, that look at the candidate. Candidate has time after time proven to be undeserving of their vote.

So please reconsider. Reconsider. Look at the record. Look at the danger that we are headed. So I would implore them, I would ask them that in the name of patriotism and the love for this country that we all have, reconsider your position like most of your leaders have already reconsidered their positions.

HAYES: Mr. Khan, it was a great honor to speak to you, sir. Thank you very much.

KHAN: Thank you.

HAYES: Still to come, while Republicans continue to stall, it`s starting to look like President Obama`s supreme court nominee might be their best case scenario. I`ll explain ahead.


HAYES: Tonight, we bring you the high stakes world of campaign swag. Those classic campaign buttons just aren`t selling like they used to, making candidates get a little more creative in their fundraising.

Take, for example, Hillary Clinton`s extensive campaign shop where they have these Chillary Clinton cozies for sale. Or maybe this Clinton-style pants suit t-shirt is more your speed.

But her most well known item is probably the official woman card which the Clinton campaign launched this spring, inspired by Dnald Trump`s attacks that Hillary Clinton plays the, quote, woman`s card in order to appeal to female voters.

Clinton`s campaign was quick to respond. For a $1 donation, you can get your own physical woman card. The campaign used that moment to talk about the wage gap and paid family leave and reproductive rights.

Now, on the other hand, Donald Trump`s campaign website has more of your standard, classic election swag. Of course, the MAGA shirts and hats, we all know. But that changes today. Donald Trump has a card for you, too, and surprise his is shiny, gold, and way more expensive.

In a fundraising email today, his campaign debuted the Donald J. Trump gold executive membership card. And for a donation of $35 it can be yours. Now, this is truly a tremendous looking card. But what does it do? Well, according to the email, anyone who carries one of these gold, executive membership cards, is recognized by our campaign, and by me as a true friend who is doing a lot to make sure we defeat Crooked Hillary.

35 bucks may sound steep for a card that doesn`t do anything. But you can always use it as a book mark for your limited edition signed copy "Art of the Deal," for just $184 more.


HAYES: Senate Republicans continue their completely unprecedented obstruction of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Now, for the 146th day, refusing to even give him a hearing. in the short-term, seems like there`s nothing the Democrats can do about it. But, here is the thing, as another poll shows Trump down by double- digits nationally, Republicans could not only be facing another Democrat in the Oval Office, but could also lose control of the senate.

Then it gets interesting, because the Senate GOP could end up with a nominee they like even less than Garland, something Republican Susan Collins suggested on this network today.


SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, (R) MAINE: That`s the very interesting scenario that I have raised with my colleagues in the senate. And that is that they may be hoisted on their own petard here. If Hillary is elected, I believe that she is much more likely to nominate someone who is to the left of Merrick Garland, because I believe that President Obama deliberately and wisely, in my view, chose someone who was a centrist.


HAYES: Joining me now, Jason Steed, an appellate attorney, who has argued before the Supreme Court, contributor at Huffington Post. And Jason, you have been tweeting about the scenarios by which this all might play out.

So, my sense always is the Republicans want two bites of the apple. Their plan is, block Merrick Garland now. If Clinton wins, rush to confirm him, because he`s the best they`ll get in the lame duck. How do you upset that?

JASON STEED, APPELLATE ATTORNEY: How do the Democrats upset that?

HAYES: Yeah, if the Democrats want to prevent that from happening?

STEED: Yeah, I think the best way to upset that is if there`s a credible threat of Garland`s nomination being withdrawn. So if the morning after the election, we have President Clinton who has been elected and a Democratic senate majority and there`s a real threat they could withdraw -- that President Obama could withdraw Garland`s nomination, then I think the Republicans are under pressure to try to confirm him before the election.

If that seems like that`s a really scenario...

HAYES: Right. So the key is that the White House or the Clinton campaign or Democrats have to be sending some sort of back-channel message publicly or privately to Republicans on the Hill, saying, you only get one bite of the apple. You don`t confirm him, we`re withdrawing him. Hillary Clinton is going will find a 25-year-old to put on the court for the next 70 years.

STEED: Right, a 25-year-old version of Pam Carlin or something like that.

HAYES: Right, right.

STEED: So, I mean, I think -- the fact that Garland`s name wasn`t mentioned at the Democratic National Convention the entire week...

HAYES: Oh, that`s a good point.

STEED: Yeah, I mean, I think that President Obama`s been pushing him a little bit, but not a lot lately. And certainly Tim Kaine left open the possibility that Hillary Clinton might not nominate him. He endorsed his nomination, but didn`t really say 100 percent that she, for sure, would renominate him, if she was elected.

So, I mean, I think the door is open. And if the threat is real and it looks like they`ll lose the Senate, really all President Obama has to say, is look, you guys wanted the voters to decide who is going to fill the seat. They`ve decided. So I`m going to let the new President Clinton control the seat.

HAYES: That`s right. They are hoisted by their own petard there, because that has been the argument, which is we need to have the people weigh in. And if they weigh in, it makes no sense to carry over to the lame duck the person the previous president -- I mean, you can`t make both arguments simultaneously in good faith.

STEED: Right. And Senator McConnell has said no doubt about it, they will not confirm President Obama`s nominee. So they`ve really sort of opened the door themselves to the possibility that he won`t be the guy.

HAYES: This is going to be fascinating. We`re going to track this as we bear down the stretch. Jason Steed, Thank you.

Coming up, how Donald Trump`s allegations of a rigged election could have impacts far beyond the general election. I`ll explain after this break.



TRUMP: And I`m afraid the election`s gonna be rigged, I have to be honest.

I`m telling you November 8, we better be careful, because that election`s going to be rigged, and I hope the Republicans are watching closely, or it`s going to be taken away from us.


HAYES: One of Donald Trump`s many conspiracy theories, is that if he loses the election, it`s because the election is rigged, not because, you know, he`s right now polling 10 points behind. And it`s not just him, surrogates like personalities like Fox News host Sean Hannity have toed the line. And polling shows supporters inclined to believe it.

According to a new poll in North Carolina, nearly 7 in 10 Trump supporters said if Clinton wins, it`s because the election was rigged.

Now, such talk is incredibly toxic. It goes well beyond opposing policies of the opposition party. And it`s reminiscent of the years` long effort to de-legitimize the entire Obama presidency.

Joining me now, resident scholar of the American Enterprise Institute Norm Ornstein, also Contributing writer for The Atlantic and co-author of "It`s Even Worse Than it Looks," and MSNBC political analyst, Nina Turner, former Ohio state senator.

Norm, let me start with you, because you wrote about this. You kind of particular toxicity of pushing this, which is now something that Donald Trump is talking about a lot.

Why do you find it so unnerving?

NORM ORNSTEIN, THE ATLANTIC: Well, first, Chris, one thing we have to keep in mind is that unlike Iraq where he was for the war before he was against it, in 2012, Trump made the same accusations on election-eve, that the election had been rigged, that Romney had won by a huge margin in popular votes, that he were a loser nation and he called for a revolution. So, this isn`t new for him.

But in the same way, if you delegitimize the entire political process, you cannot govern in this country. The founders created a system where you try to build at some broad consensus that the process is legitimate, even if you don`t get the outcomes that you want.

And if you delegitimize not just the president, as we saw with Barack Obama, but the entire political process, and people believe that the president who`s been elected is an illegitimate president, you can bring about, as we saw he did in 2012, a call for a revolution, which is another incitement, potentially to violence.

But you`re going to have no acceptance of any of the policies that emerge, and probably no ability to enact policies. It`s a terrible thing.

HAYES: Nina, I wanted to get your thoughts, because Trump likes to sort of troll the Bernie Sanders` supporters and say, you know, they rigged it against Bernie, and they tried to rig it against me. And it`s going to be rigged. And he seems to to be conflating the difference between primaries, which do have weird sets of rules created by parties as sort of internal contests and the broader rules of the American election, which are quite different. What`s your reaction to it?

NINA TURNER, FRM. OHIO STATE SENATOR: That`s right, Chris. I mean, there is a difference. I mean, it`s one thing to argue as Senator Sanders did and other pro-voter types, to say that we need open primaries, so therefore everybody gets a chance to vote and have a bite at the apple.

There`s a different thing in saying that the entire election system, the general election will be rigged.

And, Chris, quite frankly, the Republicans have been singing this same sad song for a long time. As you know, in Ohio, places like North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, those of us in the legislature have really had to endure Republicans really using public policy to take away access to the ballot box for poor people, for people of color.

And I remember in Ohio -- and the point that you made earlier about as soon as President Barack Obama was elected -- let`s just be honest, as soon as a black man was elected, all of a sudden my Republican colleagues went cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs and they could not believe that he was legitimately elected. And that was when they really started on this trail of making it harder through public policy, for African-Americans, in particular, other people of color, elders, young people, to vote.

And what we should be doing in this country is really pushing for elections to be -- to expand and protect the access to the ballot box.

So, this is not new, Chris.

HAYES: Norm, that point about the sort of -- and your point about the delegitimatization sort of existing earlier, I mean, you have polling in 2009 where the majority of Republican voters thought ACORN stole the election. You have Donald Trump now on the trail saying, people were voting15 times, which is not true. People don`t -- I mean, it`s just a myth. But this is one place where Trump seems to kind of continuity of certain seeds that have been sewn before.

ORNSTEIN: Absolutely. And I think Nina is very much on point here.

All of these efforts to restric tvoting -- and it`s not just voter ID laws, it`s cutting early voting days, it`s cutting the number of polling places and the like, are justified on the basis of voter fraud, which we know at the polls is virtually non-existent.

And if you`re arguing that there`s massive voter fraud, you`re suggesting that elections are illegitimate, or at least that a lot of voters are illegitimate. So Trump is playing right into that wheel house. And of course this is also the guy who led the birther movement, trying to delegitimize President Obama.

HAYES: Nina, there`s something profound also, it just strikes me as just how much everything is all held together by people essentially accepting legitimacy. And legitimacy is this kind of -- it`s a difficult thing to identify, but people feel it or they don`t and there are elections that happen in other places in the world that are illegitimate because people don`t trust them. And that`s really playing with fire.

TURNER: It is. And we are in a synergistic moment in our country where people, because of the suffering or the feeling that the system is not working for them, I think, are more prone to feed into what Mr. Trump is saying. So it`s quite a tragedy that he is really playing into those fears.

My grandmother used to say, that you could put truth in the river five days after a lie, but truth is going to catch up. And the truth of the matter is catching up with Mr. Trump in terms of, he is just flat out losing this election, and it`s patently unfair, undemocratic, with a small d, and unAmerican to really try to take the electoral process.

HAYES: All right, Norm Ornstein, Nina Turner, thank you both for your time.

That is All In for this evening.