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

All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 7/6/2017 Trump & The Russians

Guests: Michael McFaul, Adam Schiff, Daniel Fried

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: July 6, 2017 Guest: Michael McFaul, Adam Schiff, Daniel Fried

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: How do you think we all know about the Jim Comey is a nut job remark? Stay tuned. I`m sure Trump is. Vladimir sure is. And that`s HARDBALL for now, thanks for being with us. "ALL IN" with Chris Hayes starts right now.



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Nobody really knows, nobody really knows for sure.

HAYES: The President goes to Eastern Europe to denounce American intelligence, American media, and the last American President.

TRUMP: Why did Obama do nothing about it?

HAYES: Tonight, the President`s remarkable performance on foreign soil. His dark speech on western civilization under siege and what it all means for his meeting with Vladimir Putin. Plus,

AMERICAN CROWD: This bill is designed to kill.

HAYES: New signs that protest pressure is working to stop the Republican Health Plan and today`s big concession from Mitch McConnell. And investigating the unending cycle of gun violence in Chicago.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Around here, you aren`t nobody until you kill somebody.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from Chicago, I`m Chris Hayes and we are just 14 hours away from President Trump`s high-stakes meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 Summit. And tonight, NBC News has learned that President Trump in a break of tradition that is prompting major anxiety among U.S. officials will have just one top official by his side for that meeting. That would be Secretary of State Rex Tillerson seen here getting the Russian order of friendship from Vladimir Putin in 2013 back when Tillerson was the CEO of ExxonMobil. In Poland today, ahead of the Putin meeting, the President gave his first press conference on foreign soil where s standing next to Polish Leader Andrzej Duda, a man who`s restricted press freedoms in his own country. President Trump blasted the, refused to back the U.S. Intelligence Community conclusion of Russia interfered in the election that made him president.


HALLIE JACKSON, NBC NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Will you once and for all, yes or no, definitively say that Russia interfered in the 2016 election?

TRUMP: Well, I think it was Russia and I think it could have been other people and other countries. It could have been a lot of people interfered.

JACKSON: You seem to -

TRUMP: I`ve said it very - I said it very simply, I think it could very well have been Russia, but I think it could well have been other countries and I won`t be specific but I think a lot of people interfered. I think it`s been happening for a long time. It`s been happening for many, many years. I think it was Russia but I think it was probably other people and or countries and I see nothing wrong that statement. Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure.


Hayes: Despite saying that nobody really knows who hacked computers associated with the election, President Trump then he complained that President Obama did not punish Russia for hacking the election.


TRUMP: The thing I have to mention is that Barack Obama when he was President, found out about this - in terms of if were Russia - found out about it in August. Now the election was in November, that`s a lot of time. He did nothing about it.


TRUMP: Pressed by our own Hallie Jackson on why he won`t definitively say Russia interfered in the election, the President responded that U.S. Intelligence agencies have been wrong before.


TRUMP: I remember when I was sitting back listening about Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction, how everybody was 100 percent sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Guess what? That led to one big mess. They were wrong and it led to a mess.


HAYES: Before those remarks, President Trump spoke before an enthusiastic crowd in Warsaw which included many people who have been bused in for that event, repeatedly chanted his name, much more on that ahead. After leaving Poland, the President touched down in Hamburg, Germany, site of the G20 where the scene was chaotic and violent. Upwards of 10, 000 protesters, many wearing masks and hurling rocks, clashing with German Riot Police who wielded smoke bombs and water cannons to try to control the crowds. The President met in Hamburg with German Chancellor Angela Merkel with whom he has had a strange relationship. The two leaders discussing North Korea, Ukraine, and the Middle East ahead of the formal start of the G20 tomorrow. But next on the agenda is the Putin meeting. And in a letter today, top Senate Democrat suggested that if the President does not raise election interference with Putin tomorrow, it would be a "dereliction of duty" adding that he must make absolutely clear that Russian interference in our democracy will in no way be tolerated. In addition to a pair of translators, there will be just four people present for tomorrow`s meeting, President Trump, Secretary of State Tillerson, President Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Earlier today, Michael McFaul who was U.S. Ambassador to Russia, tweeted a picture of President Obama`s first meeting with Putin in 2009, which McFaul participated in along with two other top U.S. officials. A short time ago, I asked McFaul how that meeting came together.


MICHAEL MCFAUL, FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO RUSSIA: Well, first of all, on each side, it`s is called plus three, Chris. So there`s a big negotiation over how many people are in this meetings. We had obviously the President, and then his National Security Adviser Jim Jones, the Undersecretary of State Bill Burns was there because Secretary Clinton had just broken her arm before then so she didn`t attend and then me. That was on our side and then a matching plus three on the Russian side.

HAYES: Why is that such a subject of intense negotiations just how large the meeting is and who could be in the room?

MCFAUL: Well, Putin as I learned because I did these negotiations when I was at the White House and then as Ambassador, he always likes the meetings to be small, as small as possible. He thinks that gives him chance to really interact with the President or the Prime Minister or the Vice President that he`s meeting with. Other heads of state, by the way, have different styles. The Chinese have very big meetings, they have plus 10, plus 15, Putin always likes it small and he likes to keep the information tight, right? So that if there`s a leak when there`s just one person in the room besides the President, you can kind of figure out who that leak might be from.

HAYES: Well, that`s a real question here, right? Because we got these reports of what happened in the infamous meeting with Kislyak and Lavrov where there were other staffers. There was Dina Powell from the NSC, as well as H.R. McMaster, we did get a sense, and what we learned was both troubling and important, and there`s a worry now, A, what goes on behind- closed-door that we won`t learn about and B, what kind of things the President might say when there`s no one there kind of keeping him focus other than Tillerson.

MCFAUL: Yes, I just think it`s a tactical mistake. I think you want H.R. McMaster there. He`s your National Security Adviser. He`s the main guy working at the White House to give you advice about these kinds of meetings. And I also think he should have his Senior Director for Europe and Russia Affairs there, Fiona Hill. She`s the one person on the staff that knows Russia, that knows Putin, knows the Russian language. That`s just to his disadvantage not to have those advisers there. And now there`s another really important small detail here, but who writes the MEMCOM, right, the memorandum of the communication? So if you look at that photo Chris, I`m the guy taking notes, I wrote the MEMCOM. That was - that`s the document that travels through the U.S. government to tell other people what happens. My guess is Secretary Tillerson doesn`t write MEMCOMs. The translator most certainly doesn`t, and therefore our ability and even the Trump administration`s ability to know what happened in that meeting is going to be very constrained.

HAYES: So, you`re saying this is a - this meeting essentially is a black box, that it is being designed and executed in such a fashion so that whatever happens in that meeting stays entirely within that meeting.

MCFAUL: Well, again, the President can read it out if he chooses to do so. Most certainly President Putin can, or his staff but by having it small, that`s right. And so, the things that are said and the things that are not said, remember they don`t have to read out things that are not said like we didn`t talk about the hacking, the meddling, the intervention, the violation of sovereignty of the United States in 2016. This makes it easier to control that story after the meeting is over.

HAYES: What is the number one thing? As someone who has been throwing these meetings. I think it was three-hour meeting, that first one. A lot of issues were on the table, that point start was still being negotiated (INAUDIBLE). What`s the number one thing that you are looking for coming out of this meeting?

MCFAUL: Well, for President Trump, I just think he has to demonstrate that he`s a tough negotiator, focused on American interests. You know, he doesn`t need a good meeting. He doesn`t need anything chummy, you know, happy talk. You know, I could talk about bigger objectives but that would be unrealistic given the preparation that he`s done for this and the short amount of time. I think he wants to come out of that, communicating to Putin that he is a tough negotiator, that he knows what he did in 2016 and that he is going to make sure that that doesn`t happen again. That to me would be a great achievement.

HAYES: All right, former Russian Ambassador, Michael McFaul, thanks for making time.


HAYES: Joining me now, Representative Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee which is investigating Russian interference in the U.S. election. Congressman, you have some strong words about the President`s response to that question from Hallie Jackson, yes or no, is it definitive Russia interfered. Why were you so troubled by that response?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Well, of course, it`s another indication that the President isn`t willing to level the American people and isn`t willing to confront Vladimir Putin on what the Russians did. There`s ready no one that has any question about the Russian involvement, the hacking of our elections. And for the President to continue to propagate this idea that we really don`t know, does a tremendous disservice to the country. Imagine Vladimir Putin going into this meeting with the President, Putin ordered this intervention, he knows full well what the Russians did and he has a U.S. President who is unwilling to confront him, even under willing to acknowledge whether that was the case. And more than that is willing to disparage our own intelligence agencies. Imagine Putin questioning whether the KGB could get it right, it`s unthinkable but yet, that`s where we are with this President. It`s really not putting America first in any way, shape or form. It is putting the President`s idea of what`s in his personal best interests first and that greatly worries me because I think it`s a green light for Putin to do more of what he did but also to continue doing it in other parts of the world.

HAYES: The President floated a bunch of theories at various moments about the intrusion into the e-mail account that happened during the campaign, a 400-pound guy, China, lots of other people vaguely. I just want to be clear here as someone who gets a very top level intelligence briefings, is there any evidence whatsoever that any of this was done by anyone other than Russia?

SCHIFF: No. There isn`t. And you go ask that question of my Republican colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee or the Senate Intelligence Committee, no one has any question about that. There really is no question about that which makes it all the more remarkable. Now the President, I`m sure is doing this because he feels that the issue undermines the legitimacy of his election. But frankly the fact that he can`t acknowledge what the Russian - the Russians did is the most that anyone could do to delegitimize himself. Why can`t he speak plainly about this? You know, I think in other circumstances, a different President with the same circumstances, would have the presence and the character to say the Russians did this, we`re not going to put up with this. I may have been the beneficiary but I didn`t invite it. Although in this case, he did invite it really publicly in the comments that he made. But the - you know, the problem here is that he is going to show, if he doesn`t confront Putin, that he doesn`t have the strength to do it, that he is effectively a weak President and that - and that the Russian President can continue to walk over him when it comes to interference in democratic affairs.

HAYES: Is there something that could happen at the meeting tomorrow that would cause you your position to say, well done, Mr. President.

SCHIFF: You know, certainly, I have to say I`m concerned for the reasons that Ambassador McFaul mentioned that we may not get an accurate readout of what happened in the meeting. But if the President even left the meeting and said yes, I raised the issue of Russian hacking, I made it clear to President Putin that this needs to come to an end, that we`re going to push back forcefully. And I also told him that he needs to get out of Ukraine. That would be a dramatic accomplishment for this President, even to say it, whether it happened or not, but even to say it publicly and to confront mock that publicly, I would say, well done, Mr. President. But I have low expectations that that will be the case.

HAYES: All right, Representative Adam Schiff, thanks for being with me tonight.

SCHIFF: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Next, the President`s bleak speech to a crowd in Poland depicting a clash of civilization, the fight for western values. What his remarks say about the Trump administration after this two-minute break.



TRUMP: The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it? The West will never, ever be broken. Our values will prevail. Our people will thrive and our civilization will triumph.


HAYES: Today before a friendly crowd in Warsaw, Poland, the President delivered a speech reportedly written by Senior Adviser Stephen Miller that embodied a clash of civilizations of world view held by Chief Strategist and former Breitbart Chairman, Steve Bannon.


STEVE BANNON, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: We`re starting now in the 21st century which I believe strongly is a crisis both of our church, the crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West and of capitalism. And we`re at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict against this new barbarity that`s starting, that will completely eradicate everything that we`ve been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years


HAYES: That envisions the kind of united transatlantic front of right wing national movements which would include Poland`s ruling Law and Justice party. And the Party has controlled, Polish government has restricted press freedom, limited the independence of the judiciary and closed its borders for refugees. To make absolutely certain, Trump would receive an enthusiastic response, the law, and justice party bused in supporters from all over the country to cheer on the U.S. President speech. Someone even thought to bring a Confederate flag. I`m joined now from Warsaw by Daniel Fried who retired early this year after serving four decades as a career U.S. Diplomat including as Ambassador to Poland. And Ambassador, many people have said the speech was a kind of blood and soil conservative speech, others have defended it as a defense of liberal values. What was your response to it?

DANIEL FRIED, FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO POLAND: I`ll defend it in a limited way as a defense by the President of the West, of a United West, rooted in values, including as the President said, the rule of law and freedom of expression, freedom of speech. The President called for a strong Europe and that`s good. The President reaffirmed -no, affirmed for the first time America`s commitment to article - NATO`s Article 5, defense obligations to our NATO allies and he called out Russia`s destabilizing actions in Ukraine. So those were elements that I think were important and good to hear from the President.

HAYES: It sounds like you have a but.

FRIED: Well, I might have expressed the definition of the West somewhat differently. And I think the clash of civilization stuff suggests that somehow the west is limited to Europeans and Americans. I prefer the term free world because it includes nonwestern countries that are also Democratic like Japan and South Korea and is open to everyone. But look, what you think of the President`s speech depends on what you expected. My expectation in advance were under control, so I was pleased by it and a lot of polls I spoke to including liberal polls in the opposition like the speech very much.

HAYES: That`s an interesting note because the context here is a conservative in Poland and a variety of right wing, right-leaning governments in Eastern Europe particularly troublesome in Hungary where there has been some really worrying erosion of Democratic institutions and norms. And I wonder, what you make of the choice today to do this in Warsaw to not visit the memorials, the Jewish ghetto which was quite controversial and whether it sort of stands in the kind of tacit endorsement of the world view of the law and justice party.

FRIED: Well, there is that aspect to it. Clearly, this is a government which is right wing and therefore in some kind of harmony with the Trump administration. On the other hand, the speech was explicit about the holocaust that was important and the President got the - got the Polish history right. And I sought out a number of Polish liberal friends I have and asked them what they thought of the speech, and they liked it. They liked it because they heard the President talked about the west of values and they like the fact that he showed respect for Polish history. They also liked the fact that he called out Russian aggression. So it wasn`t just the Polish right wing that liked the speech, it was also the Polish liberals.

HAYES: Do you - what are your thoughts about what is going to happen tomorrow? There is so much kind of uneasiness among other G20 Leaders about the U.S. role at this particular moment, and of the meeting with Putin. What are you looking for tomorrow?

FRIED: Sure. Well, if President Trump`s path to recognizing and embracing U.S. leadership of the free world goes through Poland and through a kind of right-wing entry into a better world view, I`ll take it. A better listing of conservative values than no values at all, so, I`ll take this as a good step forward. I think tomorrow, there`s going to be a lot of apprehension about the President`s meeting with Putin. And I think the President is going to be pressed very hard by European and other allies at the G20 about issues like the environment and global warming. So I think the Trump people look to Poland a soft and sympathetic beginning to a trip but at least they were not confrontational toward Europe. So this is, look, I count this as progress.

HAYES: All right, Daniel Fried, thank you for joining me. I really appreciate it.

Ahead, is the protest pressure on Republicans over their health bill starting to work? What Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said today that raise questions about the fate of ObamaCare`s repeal effort, coming up.


HAYES: On January 20th, few Americans had ever heard of the Office of Governmental Ethics, a little known non-partisan governmental office that monitors conflicts of interest in the executive branch. But the Trump administration`s unprecedented conflicts of interest have elevated OGE`s Director Walter Shaub as one of the clear-eyed principal public voices of the Trump era risking his job time and time again, to tell the truth about the administration`s reluctance to play by the rules. Shaub has another six months to go in his term but he announced somewhat surprisingly today, he`s stepping down from the job. Tomorrow night, we will have an exclusive interview with Walter Schaub. I bet you, he`s got a lot to say. You don`t want to miss it.


HAYES: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is still hoping to jam his unpopular health care bill through the Senate with only 50 Republican votes under special budget rules, but today was not a good day for McConnell`s plan. The problem came from the unlikely State of Kansas where Kansas Senator Jerry Moran met his constituents at a Town Hall, one of only few Republicans to do so over the July recess and sounded a lot like a man looking for the exits.


SEN. JERRY MORAN (R), KANSAS: I believe in the legislative process that allows public debate, public discussions, testimony, amendments offered by all Senators. The Bill comes to the Senate floor for amendments offered by all Senators and figures out where there are 60 votes to pass something that is so important to so many Americans.


HAYES: 60 votes. Now that is not the McConnell plan, Moran surprised many Senate observers a few weeks ago when he came out against the Senate bill after the vote for it was canceled and remarkably, Moran was advocating the bipartisan approach today in Wilkes County where Donald Trump won 84 percent of the vote last year. Senator Moran isn`t the only Republican with doubts. Relative moderate Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, a state being ravaged by opioid addiction helps scuttle McConnell`s attempt to passing a health care last week. Today, she said, she still has concerns.


SEN. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO (R), WEST VIRGINIA: Well, I`ve been doing a lot of talking since I`ve been home with a lot of people. I`m still very concerned about the Medicaid, expanded Medicaid portion.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So it stands a chance now (INAUDIBLE)

CAPITO: As it stands now is still a serious questions.


HAYES: Even Majority Leader McConnell himself today explicitly acknowledges that Republicans might not be able to go it alone on health care.


SEN.MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: Where we end up if Republicans are not able to agree among themselves is the crisis will still be there and we`ll have to see what the way forward is at that point.


HAYES: Joining me now, Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.

First, let me start with that McConnell -- what McConnell said today about this idea we may not get there. You know, a lot of people feel like what happened in the House was that the Republicans sort of played opossum a little bit and the scrutiny went away, and then lo and behold they had a deal and they passed it.

Do you take the trouble that McConnell seems to be having at face value, or do you think something like that is happening again?

SEN. TAMMY BALDWIN, (D) WISCONSIN: You know, what I took from his words today is that there is a small opening in terms of our ability to be able to work together after this bill is defeated., but that`s the first piece of order. When you have a measure in front of the Senate that would result in 22 million Americans losing their health care, the cutting and capping of Medicaid and weakening of protections for people with preexisting conditions, the first order of business is to make sure the bill is defeated. And it sounds like Mitch McConnell is conceding that he is going to have trouble passing it with just his own Republican votes.

So, I hear him as opening a door, that the next step would have to be working together. And that`s what I`ve been pushing for all the way along, as have my Democratic colleagues. We know that there`s lots to do to bring down prices, to help provide more care to more people for less money, but we need to work together to do that.

HAYES: You use the phrase defeated there. And I wonder what the definition of that is in this context. I mean, what would it say to you -- like, what would be the mark to you that this version of the Senate health care bill, the BCRA, the Mitch McConnell drafted version was actually defeated?

BALDWIN: Well, it can happen in all sorts of forms. And frankly I`m not sure what we name it is important. What we need to do is pivot from an effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, an effort to scrap health care, rip away health care from 22 million Americans and move towards an effort to work together across the party aisle, to bring down costs, to fix what`s wrong with the Affordable Care Act, and to -- you know, expand access beyond what it is already.

And I can tell you I`m glad to hear the clips you`re playing of what my Republican colleagues are hearing across the country. I can tell you here in Wisconsin, there`s an urgency to the voices and stories that I`ve been hearing. And particularly today, I just came from Dodgeville, Wisconsin, a rural community, where I heard from (inaudible). She`s 59 years old. She`s worked hard all her life, usually at jobs with no health insurance. She has conditions that actually run in her family and she is terrified that she will lose coverage that she has gained because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

HAYES: And yet, Ron Johnson, who is the Republican Senator who also represents your state, basically is opposed to the Senate bill because he says it doesn`t go far enough, that it still has things like, for instance, some protections for folks with preexisting conditions.

How is it that this same state can produce two individuals who see this so differently?

BALDWIN: Well, the bottom line is that we`ve got to defeat this. We have got to move on from this partisan nonsense of trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act and start working together to make sure that Americans have access to affordable coverage.

And if he gets to no because he doesn`t think it`s -- goes far enough, or he doesn`t like the process -- I agree with him on process part, but at least it will be one of the no votes that allow us to pivot to working together.

And frankly I believe it can be done. You know, I`ve teamed up with John McCain to introduce a measure that would hold the drug corporations accountable for the price spikes that people are struggling with often to be able to avoid life-saving drugs. I`ve teamed up with Susan Collins on recognizing and supporting our family caregivers who play such a pivotal role in people`s health and well-being.

And we can do this. But we have got to stop with partisan nonsense first. And, boy, I can tell my constituents in Wisconsin are so eager for us to stop this partisan game, really, and start working together.

HAYES: All right, Senator Tammy Baldwin, thanks for joining me.

BALDWIN: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES; Still ahead, new in depth reporting on the cycle of gun violence in the city of Chicago. That story ahead.

And a Trump administration lesson in supply and demand in tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two next.


HAYES: Thing One tonight of one of President Trump`s more surprising choices for a cabinet secretary, Rick Perry for the Department of Energy, not just because Perry famously called for the Energy Department`s elimination, also because Candidate Trump didn`t seem all that impressed by Perry.


TRUMP: I see Rick Perry the other day. He put glasses on so people will think he`s smart.

What the hell are you wearing glasses for all of a sudden?

You know, he`s trying to show that he`s he intelligent, right?

It just doesn`t work. You know, people can see through the glasses.

Rick Perry should have to have an IQ test before getting on the debate stage.


HAYES: Now it is certainly unfair to knock someone`s intelligence based on wardrobe accessories, or glasses versus contacts, but you could argue a basic knowledge of econ 101 is handy for any government position, something Secretary Perry was eager to show off today.


RICK PERRY, SECRETARY OF ENERGY: So, here`s a little economics lesson that supply and demand.


HAYES: But after that, well, the economics lesson got a bit off track. That`s thing two in 60 seconds.


HAYES: Energy Secretary Rick Perry toured a coal-fired power plant in West Virginia today, but ran into some trouble while talking about President Trump`s increased hopes for the future of the coal industry.


UIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How does this administration hope at all to be able to control market forces? The shale gas is a third to a half...

PERRY: So, here`s a little economics lesson that supply and demand. You put the supply out there and the demand will follow that.


HAYES: That`s not how it works. That`s not how the law of supply and demand works. Supply usually rises to meet demand, not the other way around, or as Newsweek put it, even the vast majority of people who have never stepped foot inside an econ class will know that simply increasing the supply of coal will not lead to an increase in demand for it.

Not to mention analysts are already concerned about a forecasted coal market oversupply globally. Shortly after Secretary Perry`s economics lesson began, it seemed he started to realize it was time to end the lecture.


PERRY: Supply and demand. You put the supply out there and the demand will follow that. You know, the market will decide which of these -- they`re going to pick and choose. I mean, that`s really pretty simple.



HAYES: I`m coming to you live from Chicago tonight, a city that has just gone through another brutal weekend of violence. At least 102 people shot over the long Fourth of July weekend, 15 people were killed.

Now headlines about violence in this amazing wonderful American city tend to elicit presidential tweets about carnage and things being out of control and sending in the feds and a promise from the attorney general to stop the lawlessness.

While the White House deputy press secretary offered up this explanation for the violence.


SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: I think that the problem there is pretty clear that it is a crime problem. I think crime is probably driven more by morality than anything else.


HAYES: Morality.

Well, the people who are actually living through the trauma in Chicago have a pretty different view. MSNBC national reporter and Pulitzer Prize-winner Trymaine Lee headed back to Chicago to tell their story. And that report is next.


HAYES: Five months ago, we came to Chicago after the president tweeted about the, quote, carnage in this city. We held a town hall with people who actually live here to talk about what`s actually going on here in Chicago. And we knew going in, we would barely scratch the surface.

So, we returned to Chicago with MSNBC national report Trymaine Lee and met families torn apart by the near constant gun violence in certain neighborhoods in the city, found entire communities living in trauma.

And tonight, Trymaine Lee goes back to Chicago and found that in trying to understand why there are so many shootings in this city, you first have to understand how there are so many shootings.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you can walk to any one of these stores here, man, and buy a gun anywhere, any one of these little corner stores. That`s how easy you can get one.

TRYMAINE LEE, MSNBC NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, so the guns are everybody, everybody knows where to get them?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody knows where to get them at. Everybody know where to get them at. Police know where they`re at.

LEE: No one knows for sure just how many guns are on the streets of Chicago. Police can only say how many they`ve taken off the streets: 8,000 of them in 2016. But shootings were still up that year. Way up.

More than 4,000 people shot, nearly 700 dead. Someone is shot in this city almost every other hour.

Was there ever a moment where you fear for your own life?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Every day. Today. Sitting here right now.

LEE: Neil Snowden (ph) and Jamel Lloyd (ph) grew up in Englewood on the southside of Chicago, a community with an unemployment and poverty rate twice the city`s average where homicide rates doubled last year, and at least 15 people have been killed so far this year.

When was the first time you picked up a gun?

SNOWDEN: Probably like 10, trying to be like everybody else that`s got the nice -- people with the nice stuff that I see with a gun. And I saw why they needed the gun, so I felt I needed one.

LEE: And a gun is an easy way to make yourself popular?

SNOWDEN: Why not? That`s what everybody look up to, the person with the gun.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The person who can do the -- that`s a form of power.

SNOWDEN: Around here you`re ain`t nobody until you killed somebody.

LEE: Do you get the sense that growing up in this community that you were pulled into the street, called into the street?

SNOWDEN: It was like if I do it, if I go hard in the street, if I be popular, it would be less likely for my brothers to do it. I`ll do enough crime for all of us.

LEE: In neighboring Auburn Gresham, 27 people were killed last year, at least 14 this year.

Joe Washington grew up on these streets. He survived being shot six times. A former gang member and convicted flon, he`s now trying to stop kids from turning to violence.

JOE WASHINGTON: When we came along, it wasn`t like, you know, shooting from across the street. It was, you know, you get your man, you know, or whatever, you know. That`s how I came along.

LEE: Now it`s a little bit more indiscriminate.

WASHINGTON Man, you know, they`re shooting from way over there and they`re hitting innocent people, man. It`s crazy.

LEE: With thousands of guns on the streets, individual disputes turn deadly fast, leaving entire neighborhoods in Chicago trapped in a bloody cycle of retaliation.

One of these disputes started two years ago in August. A gang member was found shot in his car. Retribution came in October. A rival gang member shot in a drive by. His mother was left badly injured.

In the retaliation for that, a 19-year-old girl was killed in the crossfire. And then Tyshawn Lee.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Robin, Allison (ph), police in the community say this is a new low for the city.

WASHINGTON: Tyshawn Lee was 9 years old.

LEE: 9 years old.

WASHINGTON: 9 years old and then got caught up with his daddy`s activities, you know, in the streets. And you know, that was a new kind of killing to me, you know, as far as somebody killing a kid like that.

LEE: Tyshawn Lee was deliberately targeted. He was lured into an alleyway and executed. In retribution, his father allegedly shot three people.

How many of those do we have in the neighborhood? We have this one situation that`s a stream of six shootings, how many other streams of beef do you have?

WASHINGTON: We have, right now I can count that we do have like four that`s going on, four that we`re keeping our pulse on. There`s four situations that`s really hot that can blow up any minute.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Even if the guns are here, someone has to pull the trigger, and our job is to get them not to pick the gun up.

LEE: Autry Phillips (ph) runs target area redevelopment. Among their missions: putting former gang members in outreach programs to try to stop violence on the streets.

In this neighborhood of Engelwood and Auburn Gresham and you know spots across the city, there`s great need. These communities have been depleted for a long time, some would say starved.

What do the communities actually need?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What the community is lacking is hope. You talk about trying to instill hope into individuals who are living in a community or living in a situation where it`s hopeless, where the men in our community are unemployed, the women in our community are underemployed. We`re experiencing opportunities where there are flourishing in other parts of our city which is a great city, but my only thing is this: why can`t it be a great city across the whole city?

The violence, in my humble opinion, is all connected to the opportunity. But we don`t have as much violence in the affluent communities. Why? Because they have resources that we don`t have.

Every individual community should have one place where all of the kids could feel safe.

LEE: Do these communities have those places now?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, there are some places, but we have to understand that there are gang lines. And I`m just being honest. There are gang lines that some groups cannot go over, that`s the unfortunate reality.

LEE: So, the community center is on this side of but a whole bunch of kids are never going to have the opportunity to go over there because it`s dangerous.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s dangerous. I mean, we unfortunately we have that in our society.

LEE: but do you ever get tired or weary of the day-to-day gun violence, the bloodshed? Do you ever feel like no matter what you do, it`s not enough?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, T, on the maps in our office we have pointers where we can show you where the individuals got shot. But what we can`t show you is the changing of someone`s mind to go to school. Every now and then we get that one youth that`s going to turn his life around. That`s what keeps us going.

LEE: What`s at stake in communities like this if we don`t get it in order?

SNOWDEN: We pretty much know it`s going to be an everlasting loop of chaos. I mean, it`s up to us, as a community, as a collective to come together and show them, and mold their minds to what`s the next best thing, that I think if people had more stuff to lose, they wouldn`t be quick to retaliate.

You`d be like, OK, yeah, somebody did something to my people but I`m going to lose my job, my house, I`m going to lose my girlfriend, I`m going to lose my life if I retaliate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do we think we can get out of it? Yes. And one of the ways we can do it is not just get ourselves out of it, you hear what I`m saying? It`s also giving back.

SNOWDEN: Like we`re all trying to get each other to rise above where we come from instead of just being a product of our environment. We might get somewhere.


HAYES: All right, joining me now, MSNBC ntional reporter Trymaine Lee.

Trymaine, this is a phenomenal piece. Thank you for doing it.

And one thing I want to focus is on are these chains of causation. I think that`s such an important part of this puzzle, is that there`s these sort of repercussions. And we see this all throughout human history in a million different environments, right, when the law is not providing justice, that people take in their own hands, from Hatfield/McCoys and onward. How do you interrupt that specific part of what is happening in the city?

LEE: I`ll tell you what, Chris, it`s kind of difficult. And I`ve heard it time and time again in Chicago where they said I`d rather be carried by six -- I`d rather be judged by 12 than carried by six. So, in the communities where there are bullets flying around, where people are actually getting killed, people feel the sense that they need to protect themselves.

And what happens when your brother, your sister, or someone in your family or friend is killed, and the police aren`t there, you go defend yourself.

But I think one thing that we miss in all of this is we tend to judge people without respect to their circumstances. Look at Neil and Jamel (ph) for instance. They`re out there in the community every single day as outreach workers trying to empower people in their community about their rights. They have changed from years` past. They would be the first to tell you that you might not recognize them from back then to today. But when we don`t recognize that, how can we help them empower themselves to help their communities? And I think that`s missed in all of this.

So, you talk about that chain of causation, the flow of illegal guns, the lack of true criminal justice, police aren`t getting held accountable for shooting and killing many of the people in the communities, people in the community aren`t being held accountable, and the cycle continues on and on.

HAYES: That point you made about -- that accountability question, I mean, I was -- I still remember the moment when you and I were in that town hall and someone asked what the clearance rate was for the CPD on homicides , and everyone in the audience yelled out what the clearance rate is. I think it`s around 40 percent or 45 percent. It`s quite low. It`s below the national average.

That that was something that people are literally getting away with murder. And under the conditions in which people are literally getting away with murder, people feel no protection from the state for their friends and loved ones.

LEE: There`s the sense of that`s no protection, but there`s also the sense of who cares, right? We`ve been wrestling for the last few years about this idea of the value of black life. Do black lives actually matter. And in many communities, the most gun weary communities that seem that don`t actually matter.

You know, you say that the clearance rate of 40-some percent. Well, last year it was closer from the police standpoint 26 percent to 29 percent. So, that means between 70 percent and 80 percent of the killers are walking free. That`s troubling not just because you have people who are active shooters and killers walking around free, but again that sense that the police aren`t there to save me. No one is there to save me.

HAYES: Do you see changes in the way things are happening at the ground level. We`ve seen this trend, it`s really worrisome. It`s in Chicago and the top 50 cities of increased homicides year over year. Is there some a sense there`s a turning point here?

LEE: There isn`t. And to many people you talk to, there`s a sense of kind of resignation, there`s normalcy that this is the way it is.

And as we mentioned in our last piece about trauma and the impact of gun violence and repeated exposure to violence, it kind of replicates itself. So, in the communities people are there wanting change, wanting help. They know that there are illegal guns. They know that the police are stopping the shootings. They know -- all know where to get the guns. There`s a sense that no one cares. It`s business as usual. Even though in the community it`s not as if everyone is a criminal, right, even though so many of us criminalized these communities, they want help. They want a way out. They want peace. They want safety.

HAYES: All right, Trymaine Lee, thanks for joining us.

LEE: Thank you.

HAYES: That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.