Jane Fonda & Gloria Steinem Transcript 10/25/17 All In with Chris Hayes

Guests: Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, Elizabeth Warren, Eric Swalwell, Barbara McQuade, Nick Akerman, Eric Boehlert

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: October 25, 2017

Guest: Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, Elizabeth Warren, Eric Swalwell, Barbara McQuade, Nick Akerman, Eric Boehlert



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Russia, if you`re listening, I hope you`re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.

HAYES: Team Trump caught red-handed.

TRUMP: There is no collusion between me and my campaign and the Russians.

HAYES: WikiLeaks admits the Trump campaign solicited stolen Clinton e- mails from them.

TRUMP: I love WikiLeaks.

HAYES: Tonight, the new report and what it means for the investigation. Then --

TRUMP: I actually think that`s Watergate, modern age.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: That relates to the real Russia story.

HAYES: The conspiracy theory from an alternate universe aimed at taking down Robert Mueller.


HAYES: Plus Senator Elizabeth Warren on the Republican vote to gut consumer protections.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I`m really glad to see someone like Jeff Flake speak up, but what really matters are not words, it`s the actions.

HAYES: And in the age of Weinstein, O`Reilly, and Trump, an exclusive interview with Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem, when ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. As the White House and as allies furiously spend counter-narratives about the Russia scandal, WikiLeaks confirmed today that -- what was previously just conjecture. The Trump campaign itself was soliciting stolen Clinton e-mails. In the last few days, the President and his associates and conservative media and on Capitol Hill have finally found what they say is the real Russia story. Evidence, according to them, that Democrats and not the President are up to no good. They seized on a semi-obscure seven-year-old uranium deal with Russia that was approved by nine separate agencies of the federal government and the revelation that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid at one point for research that eventually resulted in the infamous deal dossier. The document detailing the President`s alleged Russia ties and some other stuff. And for the President who talked to reporters today outside the White House, those stories came as the ultimate vindication.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, what`s your reaction to --

TRUMP: I have to say the whole Russian thing is what it`s turned out to be. This was the Democrats coming up with an excuse for losing an election. They lost it by a lot, they didn`t know what to say, so they made up the whole Russia hoax. Now it`s turning out that the hoax is turned around and you look at what`s happened with Russia, and you look at the uranium deal and you look at the fake dossier, so that`s all turned around.


HAYES: All turned around. The tables have turned, now you`re sitting on the legs. But in order for any of that to make sense, you have to ignore the central fact at the heart of the Russia scandal. The reason it is a scandal in the first place. And this is really important. It is not that Vladimir Putin is a bad guy or that dealing with Russia is inherently suspect, it`s that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded with near absolute certainty that Russian agents conducted criminal sabotage of the American election by stealing documents from one of the two campaigns in order to have them published. Those documents were intended to damage the Clinton Campaign and it worked. I was inside the hall in Philadelphia at the start of the Democratic Convention days after the first DNC e-mails were published and I heard those Bernie supporters booing and threatening to revolt.



FRANKEN: Hillary.

SILVERMAN: The Bernie -- can I just say to the Bernie or Bust people, you`re being ridiculous.


HAYES: We all watched Trump himself exploiting the WikiLeaks releases on the campaign trail, making them a central, systematic part of his pitch.


TRUMP: Oh, this is bad one. You need to have both a public and private position on public policy, oh. In other words, we have to tell you one thing and we have to tell the bankers another thing.


HAYES: If you don`t think those hacked e-mails, those stolen e-mails, those e-mails that were the result of criminal sabotage, if you don`t think they made a difference, I suggest publishing the entirety of your own inbox to the internet in searchable forum and see how it changes your life. All along, the central question in the Russia scandal, what the Special Counsel and the Congressional Intelligence Committees are all supposedly pursuing has been what exactly Russia did and how they pulled it off and whether the campaign that benefitted from their efforts was in on it. We don`t know. Did the Trump campaign collude with the Russian sabotage operation?

It is only through that lens, with those facts in mind that the multiple undisclosed contacts between Trump associates and Russian nationals looks suspicious. We don`t particularly care that the President`s son, son-in- law, and campaign manager met with some unknown Russian lawyer. We care that they took that meeting on the promise of "information that would incriminate Hillary, part of Russia at its government`s support for Mr. Trump." We know that wasn`t the only attempt to solicit material from Russian sources because the President asked for Russia`s help in public.


TRUMP: Russia, if you`re listening, I hope you`re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.


HAYES: We now know the President wasn`t alone. Over the summer, the Wall Street Journal reported that a Republican operative who claimed ties to the Trump campaign had been trying to get ahold of Hillary Clinton`s deleted e- mails, the ones she deleted that were personal from Russian hackers. Now it remains unclear whether that was a rogue operation. Now it turns out the campaign itself was trying to get its hands on those same stolen e- mails. According to the Daily Beast, the head of Cambridge Analytica, the campaign`s data firm, owned in part by Steve Bannon and his billionaire patrons the Mercers wrote an e-mail last year, they reached out to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange about Hillary Clinton`s missing 33,000 e- mails. Assange told the Daily Beast we can confirm an approach by Cambridge Analytica and can confirm that it was rejected by WikiLeaks. Congressman Eric Swalwell was a Democrat from California, member of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, what do you make of this revelation?

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA) HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Good evening, Chris. You know, without even going into our Committee`s investigation, the revelation from Julian Assange and WikiLeaks itself proves overwhelming evidence of an eagerness to work with the Russians. You have Peter Smith who was seeking these e-mails on behalf of General Michael Flynn. You have Don Jr. taking a meeting where the subject line was Clinton, Russia, private, confidential. He was being offered information on Hillary Clinton. You have Felix Sater, who is close with Vladimir Putin telling Donald Trump`s lawyer Michael Cohen that he himself can engineer the election for the President and we can get our boy elected. You have Roger Stone working with Guccifer 2.0 and now you have Julian Assange saying that the Trump campaign had reached out seeking Hillary`s e-mails. This was a concerted effort, people inside and out who are working with the campaign to work with the Russians. We have proven at the very minimum an attempt to work with them.

HAYES: What we haven`t proven and what we don`t know is what they knew about what the Russians were up to. I mean, that to me remains a key -- a key question here.

SWALWELL: And it doesn`t seem like they cared either. You know, it seems --

HAYES: No, the public profile is they don`t care.

SWALWELL: Yes. That`s right. They were willing and eager to work with them, you know, as long as they had information that could help Donald Trump.

HAYES: Do you worry, first of all, let me read this. The Trump campaign is trying to distance itself from Cambridge Analytica and I feel duty bound to read their response. we as a campaign made the choice to rely on the voter data of the Republican National Committee to help elect President Donald J. Trump. Any claims that voter data from any other source played a key role in the victory are false. Of course, you can go online and like watch a billion documentaries and read a million articles about Cambridge Analytica and how central it was to the campaign. Does that wash to you?

SWALWELL: No, you know, and Chris, success, you know, has a thousand fathers and, you know, failure or, you know, any scandal is an orphan and now they`re trying to make an orphan out of Cambridge Analytica. But just months ago and in the past year, they had lifted this up as a reliable, you know, outmaneuvering data firm that they had used.

HAYES: What do you think of the efforts by the people on your own Committee, the House Intelligence Committee which obviously under Republican control to essentially start a kind of series of bizarre world investigations into the seven-year-old uranium deal of the Clinton campaign, et cetera.

SWALWELL: Well it was a great deal for the Russians yesterday on Capitol Hill. They scored major victories when it was announced that three new investigations would be launched to go back in time and look again at Hillary Clinton. The best thing for the Russians is they seek to undermine our elections in 2018 would be further disunity. But for us, the House Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, we`ve seen these plays run before. We`re not caught flat-footed. We`re going to county to charge ahead and do our job.

HAYES: Straight up, are they -- are they acting? Do they believe what they`re doing or are acting in bad faith?

SWALWELL: I believe they`re being obstructionists. I can`t speak to their motives. I never will, but if you just look at you know, what they`re doing, it`s an incuriosity at the very least about what Russia did and I think worse, they`re serving as accomplices to further undermining of our democracy.

HAYES: Does the revelation that it was, in fact, the Clinton campaign and the DNC that were paying for the research through GPS sort of law firm to Christopher Steele as he collected this information, does that change your assessment of either the credibility of the document and the allegations contained therein or the possibility of Trump colluding in the campaign colluding with Russia?

SWALWELL: I think it`s important to know, you know, who paid for the dossier, but I think it`s just as important and probably more important to try and ascertain whether the allegations of the dossier are true because those actually go to our national security if it is true that candidate Trump was working with the Russians as well as people on his team, you know, that`s a national security threat. And that`s a person who could be compromised by a foreign adversary. And I don`t see the same interest and understanding, the underlying allegations, I`ve just seen an interest in undermining you know, the source of the dossier and the way it was put together. I think we should look at all components of the dossier.

HAYES: All right, Congressman Eric Swalwell, always great to have you.

SWALWELL: My pleasure.

HAYES: Barbara McQuade is a former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan and Nick Akerman, a former Assistant Special Watergate Prosecutor. Barbara, let me start with you. What does it mean if you go to Julian Assange asking him for e-mails that would by definition, essentially have to have been stolen? Because if they were deleted off her server, you can`t leak them, right? So the idea that they were deleted, someone managed to hack the server and get ahold of them. What does it mean if you solicit that?

BARBARA MCQUADE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN: Well, I think it could very well be a violation of U.S. campaign finance laws. There are laws that make it a crime to solicit a thing of value in connection with election from a foreign national. Julian Assange is certainly a foreign national, so I think soliciting those things, they certainly had value could very well fall under that statute. I think the key question is what the connection between the Trump campaign and Cambridge Analytica was at that moment.

HAYES: You know, Nick, I feel like I`m losing my mind a little bit as I watch all of this happen. I feel that often, but --


HAYES: And partly it`s because of the fact pattern of what happened -- Russia is so sprawling. There`s so many characters. There`s you know, Oleg Deripaska and there`s Paul Manafort and all of these people that what I think they have sort of successfully been lost is like what was the crime and the heart of it?

AKERMAN: The crime at the heart of it was trying to help Trump get elected, exactly what Ron Goldstone said in that June 3rd e-mail, that`s what they were doing. I mean, look at that dossier. Everything in there, I mean most of it has been corroborated, what hasn`t been --

HAYES: Not -- that`s not true. I would not say most of it has been corroborated. A lot of it has been corroborated.

AKERMAN: But it certainly all rings true. I mean, if you`re looking at it from the standpoint of what I usually do when I send out investigators, I`m trying to find --

HAYES: Is that something you do?

AKERMAN: Yes, I do it all the time in litigations that I handle. And so what you want to do is you want to look the raw data that you`re getting which is what we have here. Then you want to talk to the investigator, get a feel for who it was they were talking to. They`re not going to put in writing exactly who the person was, they`re not going to tell you what the background is, what other information they`ve gotten that makes that person credible. So as a lawyer, I`m talking to the investigator and I want to know that information. And I`m sure the lawyers that commission that investigation did the exact same thing.

HAYES: So you, your assessment of the document doesn`t change based on who paid for it?

AKERMAN: I couldn`t care less. I think what really matters is are the statements in there true?

HAYES: Or can they be verified in many other way?

AKERMAN: And can it be verified and do they ring true? I mean, there is nothing in that dossier that does not ring true.

HAYES: Well, I mean, that is a subjective matter.

AKERMAN: Well, I wouldn`t say so because I think you can take other evidence that`s out in the public record and show, even on the sexual allegations that are in there, you`ve got Donald Trump, you`ve got a woman that came forward during the campaign and said that she was an actor in adult films and that Trump propositioned her, for money, to have sex. Now, how is that any different than what we`re seeing in that dossier?

HAYES: That was an allegation that was made. Barbara, the other thing to me here is motive, right? I mean, one of the thing that`s happening is people are saying Russia, Russia connections. I mean, the point is that the Russian involvement had a motive to achieve a certain end.

MCQUADE: Well, yes, I mean, it`s quite clear that Russia preferred the candidate Donald Trump to be President of the United States and took action to further his campaign. The publishing of the stolen e-mails from the DNC, it`s work through social media, the bond of advertisements, there appears to be a very strong motive by the Russian government to help the candidacy of Donald Trump. And so, you know, where does that leave our country? I think regardless of who our President is, I think all of us have an interest in making sure that it`s the American public who elects a President and not some foreign government.

HAYES: The other issue here is just the obfuscation, right? So there`s some idea that you can imagine that there is no underlying collusion. They didn`t realize. They maybe didn`t -- could care if they wanted to care, but they didn`t collude. Then there`s all of the ways in which they have lied, repeatedly, about connections with Russian nationals that we keep saying over and over again, which has this kind of building incriminatory effect.

AKERMAN: Which makes you think they did collude. Why would they lie about it unless they did have something to cover up? I mean, look, this whole business about this uranium deal, about Hillary Clinton`s e-mails, I mean, this is right out of the litigator`s handbook. The best defense is a strong offense.

HAYES: Right.

AKERMAN: The problem here is this offense isn`t worth squat. I mean, it really is the most bizarre offense.

HAYES: I mean, it literally is, no you colluded with Russia.

AKERMAN: No, it`s no you colluded and by the way, you have a quid pro quo for uranium deal that you had nothing to do with. I mean, it really doesn`t make a lot of sense.

HAYES: All right, Barbara McQuade and Nick Akerman, thank you both.

Up next from outrage cable news segment to the President`s Twitter feed to an actual Congressional investigation, when right winged media programs a Presidency in two minutes.



HANNITY: Explosive new evidence on what has becoming the biggest scandal or at least one of them in American history.

The biggest scandal ever involving Russia. The biggest national security breach and Russia`s scandal in American history.


HAYES: For the past few weeks, the conservative media, Republicans on Capitol Hill, and the White House have been working together in an assembly line fashion to build virtually for nothing what they are calling "the real Russia scandal."


GORKA: In just enormity of what we`re talking about now, this is a massive scandal.

HANNITY: I have said, and I stand by this tonight, they sold out America`s national security.



HAYES: What we are actually talking about is a seven-year-old uranium deal that nine government agencies approved with zero evidence of wrong-doing by Hillary Clinton. But if you consume conservative media as the President does apparently exclusively and millions of Republicans do, you live in an alternate universe, one in which the lying mainstream media ignores the overwhelming evidence that Hillary Clinton sold us all out. As Media Matters detailed, all this started with a Steve Bannon associate named Peter Schweizer who made the allegations in a much publicized, error-filled 2015 book attacking Clinton.


PETER SCHWEIZER, JOURNALIST: I think that deserves further scrutiny. I would question that to argue that --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Based on what, based on what?

SCHWEIZER: Well, I think based on --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened in this issue?

SCHWEIZER: No, we don`t have direct evidence.


HAYES: Seeking to distract from Trump-Russia allegations, Fox`s Sean Hannity seeds on Schweizer`s unsupported claims accusing Clinton of colluding with Russia in 25 different monologues. Trump spotlighted the allegation on the campaign trail, but it didn`t really explode until last week when a pair of conservative journalists claimed Russian nuclear officials paid off the Clintons to get their deal uranium deal approved. Now the story engaged in preposterous conspiracy mongering according to the Washington Post Erik Wemple, but it set up a conservative media feeding frenzy in a Presidential declaration.


TRUMP: If the mainstream media would cover the uranium scandal and that Russia has 20 percent of uranium for whatever reason and a lot of people understand what those reasons may be, I think that`s your Russia story. That`s your real Russia story.


HAYES: The real Russia story. Now yesterday the White House has chosen water carrier in Congress Devin Nunez announced a probe into, get this, the seven-year-old deal, which in turn set off another round of breathless coverage in conservative media and a new pronouncement by the President.


TRUMP: Well, I think the uranium sale to Russia and the way it was done, so underhanded with tremendous amounts of money being passed, I actually think that`s Watergate modern age.


HAYES: I`m joined now by a student of conservative media Eric Boehlert, Senior Writer at Shareblue. It is amazing to watch them build it in real time because it`s been so fast. Like, I`ve seen them do this before with other stuff, but it just in the last few weeks, it was like OK, this was -- this was what we`re doing.

ERIC BOEHLERT, SENIOR WRITER, SHAREBLUE: Yes, they`re setting the groundwork and then they kind of -- they got a spark and it exploded. I mean, I think, you know, Trump gave an interview to Fox today, I think that was his 19th since becoming President. So this is now, you know, people joke that Fox is in-house propaganda, this is what it is, there`s no question about it.

HAYES: Well, but it`s also input and output. That`s what`s amazing about it.

BOEHLERT: No, the important part is the Capitol Hill part, right? So they have this infrastructure on Capitol Hill to create this, not distraction, this is a cover-up. They are covering up the Trump-Russia investigation by concocting these new investigations to look seven years back. This is, you know, it`s baffling, but it`s also deeply disturbing and kind of authoritarian. They want to unleash the power of the federal government to prosecute a private citizen in Chappaqua. I mean, this -- we`ve said this a hundred times since Trump was elected, this is not how the United States functions in any sense of normalcy.

HAYES: It also -- I watched -- I watched one of the programs on Fox last night, and it was amazing to watch the beginning because it was, it was like -- it was sort of this Truman Show kind of thing where it had all the -- it was like here the Congressman coming very sternly talking about this deal and here`s the tear of the sheet, and you zoomed out, you think like, oh, Hillary Clinton`s President or what`s going on, this deal just happened, but it was -- it`s an incredibly effective alternate reality.

BOEHLERT: Well, look, if you have the Republican Party that is committed solely to protecting its President. It`s not committed to any sort of truth-seeking or anything like this so you can pull this off, but yes, if you -- if you widen the lens, she`s not President. The scary part is if she were President, we would have impeachment hearings next month base on the this scandal, no question.

HAYES: We would have already have. I mean, that`s just very clear. I mean, it also is very clear when you watch this that they wish Hillary Clinton had won.


HAYES: I mean, they really do wish she`d won.

BOEHLERT: Right, because this is -- this is the kind of the talk radio approach to governing. This is -- this is a acknowledgment they have punted on any policy, anything. They`re not interested in getting anything done. They`re going back to their villains and they`re going to bring her back again from Chappaqua and prop her up as -- this is a witch hunt, literally in the dictionary sense.

HAYES: What are the odds that she gets dragged before a Congressional Committee?

BOEHLERT: Well, I think -- I don`t know. I mean -- you know the good part is she is very powerful and has good attorneys. But again, unleashing the federal government on other people, that is a scary thing. I guarantee you the next step though is calls for Jeff Sessions to appoint a Special Prosecutor. So then they`ll have a parallel to Robert Mueller, and again, it`s not a distraction, this is part of a cover-up.

HAYES: And finally, maybe we should say, and to get rid of Mueller. They`re very clearly trying to taint Mueller.

BOEHLERT: Can you imagine that a year from now, we don`t have Mueller but we have a Special Prosecutor of Hillary Clinton.

HAYES: Hillary Clinton. That is -- you`re absolutely right. They`re going to call for that next. Eric Boehlert, thanks for your time tonight.

Ahead, Senator Elizabeth Warren slams the Vice President and Senate Republicans for giving what she calls a giant wet kiss to Wall Street. I`ll talk to her about what happened, coming up.


HAYES: The big story on Capitol Hill yesterday was dissension and in- fighting among Republicans. I mean, really remarkable stuff on the floor of the Senate. And so you might have been left asking, at the end of the day, what exactly this point unites the Republican Party. And at about 10:00 last night, we got our answer. And it is, protecting banks. That`s what unites them. Last night Republicans got 50 of their 52 members with Vice President Mike Pence casting the tie-breaking vote to override a consumer-friendly rule that gives Americans the ability to sue banks when they get screwed over either by banks or other financial institutions, think Equifax for instance.

As if to drive the point home, one of their members Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas showed up in a tuxedo to give Wall Street a little love from the Senate Floor. So after crazy day yesterday in which Senator Bob Corker and Jeff Flake took a stand against the accesses of President Trump, those same Republicans voted yes on this bill because frankly, that`s what they went to Capitol Hill to do, stuff like this. Stuff like override consumer protections, make it harder to sue banks that screw people over. But for the donors who fund the Republican Party, last night`s vote was just a down payment. Senator Elizabeth Warren has a lot to say about that and she joins me next.



SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: This bill is a giant wet kiss to Wall Street. Bank lobbyists are crawling all over this place begging congress to vote and make it easier for them to cheat their customers.


HAYES: Senator Elizabeth Warren last night just moments before a vote in which Senate Republicans stripped consumers of the right to join class action suits against banks and financial institutions. Every Democratic senator voted against the bill, and four retaining this important consumer protection. As the two Republicans, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Senator Graham opposed the bill because he wanted, he said, to protect military families from predatory banking practices.


HAYES: Joining me now, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the ranking member of the subcommittee on financial institutions and consumer protection.

Senator, the CFPB was your brain child. It issued the rule that the Republicans overrode last night. Were you surprised by the outcome of that vote? Did you think you had enough votes.

WARREN: Yeah, I actually, I thought we would have enough votes. And I`ll tell you exactly why, because consumers had weighed in. People across this country had weighed in. AARP had weighed in. And do you know who really was strong on this? The veterans groups and the active duty military groups who said we`re getting cheated by these forced arbitration causes. These predators cheat us, and then force us into arbitration where we can`t get any kind of relief. And they really came out strong.

The American Legion, representing millions of veterans were right on the front lines saying hang on to this rule. And you know, I just thought for once, that would be enough to carry the day. But instead, 50 Republicans in the Senate lined up against it and Donald Trump sent Mike Pence over and rolled the rule back.

HAYES: What do you make of -- I mean, the day starts with Bob Corker attacking the president, the president comes to Capitol Hill, then Jeff Flake announces very dramatically he won`t be seeking reelection. He then gives this very heartfelt speech about what he thinks the president is doing to the country, and then they were both yes votes at the end of the day, that sort of capped things off. What was your reaction to that?

WARREN: That`s the problem here. I`m really glad to see someone like Jeff Flake speak up. I think it`s very important, but what really matters are not words, it`s the actions, it`s whether or not you`re actually going to step up and say I`m going to do my part to make sure that Washington works for the people, not just for those who`ve got money and power and exercise it right here in the halls of congress.

HAYES: Do you think the Republican caucus right now, what is your mental model of how they are orienting themselves? Sheldon Whitehouse said something yesterday very interesting where he talked about donor maintenance was the phrase he used.


HAYES: That basically they`re right now like we need to deliver. We been doing this for nine months, and the people that fund our campaigns and fund the institutional Republican Party have basically seen nothing. Is that you`re understanding of what`s going on there right now?

WARREN: Absolutely. That is exactly my understanding, is the Republican Party and congress right now looks at this like a business. And they say gee, all these billionaires and zillionaires and giant corporations invested in us and they`re demanding a return on their investment. And we better show them some return on their investment or they won`t invest in the next election. That`s how the game is rigged in Washington.

All of those families, all those veterans, all those active duty service members who said please keep the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Rule, please hang on to that rule because that rule gives me a chance to have a day in court, that rule gives me a chance to hold some bank accountable when they cheat me.

The Republicans couldn`t even hear them, couldn`t even hear them. Instead they said man, we got a show return on investment for our donors. That`s what`s happened in Washington.

HAYES: You know, they are now walking into this tax fight. And I wonder what you make of it. I just talk about a little bit back and forth on 401(k)s. You`ve got the president who I think has good political instincts frankly saying don`t go after 401(k)s. The tax writers over in the House are like we might go after 401(k)s. Are they going to come after things like the state and local deduction, 401(k)s, these things that a lot of people use, are comfortable with, so that they can cut taxes on the corporate rate and the top?

WARREN: Well, so I`m just going to take your question and turn it exactly the other way: they start. They start by saying we`ve got to cut taxes for the richest in this country, for the biggest corporations, for the richest Americans, because that`s what our donors expect us to do, that`s what the people who fund all of these think tanks and all of these bought and paid for experts and all of these lobbyists, that whole industry wants us to deliver.

So the rest of the question then becomes, what`s it going to take to get there?

HAYES: Right.

WARREN: And notice every place they go, it`s just another punch in the gut to hard-working families. So they start out by saying, well we`re going to raise the bottom tax rate from 8 percent to 10 percent. You want to say, wait, what? You think that we ought to raise taxes on people at the bottom end who are paying so we can pay for tax cuts for those at the top?

And then they start saying how many, how many things can we just kind of peel out of this that help reduce taxes, deductions that help reduce taxes for working families, for middle class families, and they`re just trying to get these two things to line up.

HAYES: Right, but it seems to me that that`s a political advantage for you and your colleagues. They are handing you a whole bunch of political weapons to use.

I saw Chuck Schumer yesterday, I thought he did a good job of this, if they`re going to try to reverse engineer the whole thing around these tax cuts at the top, they`re going to give you some political gifts in terms of how you argue against it it.

WARREN: Chris, I don`t want political gifts. I just want them to stop banging the hell out of working families.

Look, that was the same thing on health care. Look how they came after health care for tens of millions of Americans. And boy have they now made it clear. Anyone wants to understand the difference between Democrats and Republicans, let me put it right here, one party in America thinks it`s OK to knock 25 million people off their health care coverage, and run up health insurance rates for everybody else. And one party thinks health care is a basic human right. We`re going to keep talking about that, but what I care most about is that people didn`t lose their health care coverage. And we`re going to roll into the same thing now. And that is, that one party says the most important thing about tax breaks is to cut taxes for the billionaires and the zillionaires and the multinational corporations, that`s where they want to go.

And the other party says, no, we need -- we know what happens when you do that. When you do that, that means that working families, middle class families don`t have the money, don`t have the support for their schools, for transportation, for infrastructure, for roads, for bridges, for water, for the kinds of things we build to make this country go.

What I want to see is I want to see us make the investments. And the only way we`re going to make those investments is if everybody in America pays a fair share.

So, yeah, there`s political parts to this, but what matters most is we don`t have time to play politics. We need to be getting out there and making this country work again for working people, not just for the thin slice at the top.

HAYES: All right. Senator Elizabeth Warren, thank you.

WARREN: You bet.

HAYES: Still to come, All In exclusive interview with Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem on the age of Weinstein, O`Reilly, and Trump. You do not want to miss it.

Plus, tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two starts next.


HAYES: Thing One tonight, Trump continues to build his roster of ambassadors to represent America around the world.

Behind closed doors yesterday, Calista Gingrich, wife of Newt Gingrich, was sworn in as ambassador to The Vatican.

On Monday, the new ambassador to Canada, Kelly Kraft, began her role on her very first day made some nice Canadian headlines.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you yourself believe in climate change?

KELLY KRAFT, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO CANADA: I believe there are signs -- on both sides that are accurate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You believe that there are scientists that -- science that proves that there is -- man is not causing climate change?

KRAFT: Well, I think that both sides have their own results from their studies and I appreciate and I respect both sides of the science.


HAYES: Sorry.

Sometimes it`s hard to pick a side on a tough issue like climate change, especially when, you know, your husband Joe Kraft is CEO of one of the largest coal companies in America, that would be a Alliance Resource Partners, and donated a million dollars to Trump`s inauguration.

But Ambassador Kraft isn`t the only one having trouble with foreign press. Did you know Scott Brown is an ambassador?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you under investigation by the office of inspector general?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ...for your comments in Samoa?

You`re not? There`s no investigation -- you haven`t been interviewed by investigators?

You`re not going to answer our questions?

BROWN: I have to go to a meeting. Thank you.


HAYES: That`s the ambassador. And that`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.


HAYES: Remember that time the U.S. ambassador in New Zealand started a major international incident? No, of course not. How could something like that even be possible?

Well, start by appointing male model and former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown to the position. Brown`s admitting today he was investigated over inappropriate comments he made at a Peace Corp. event in Samoa in July. The official State Department inquiry stemmed from complaints that he called certain guests beautiful, told a woman serving food and drinks she could make hundreds of dollars in America.

Today, the U.S. ambassador to New Zealand explained himself.


BROWN: When someone came over and served food. I said, you know what, you could make hundreds of dollars in the services industry, you know, waitress, bartender, sales, you guys are doing a great job. And somebody took offense to that as well.

And as a result of that, you know, I was in fact told by my people that listen, you know, you`re not Scott Brown from New Hampshire anymore, you`re an ambassador and you have to be aware of different cultures, different insensitivities, and I`m always welcoming that kind of good advice.


HAYES: Since the news broke that Harvey Weinstein is alleged to have engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment and assault that went on for decades, we`ve seen a number of similar allegations against other powerful men. Amazon CEO`s chief Roy Price suspended then resigned after being accused of sexual harassment. Backers pulled the plug on the former literary editor of the New Republic, Leon Wieseltier`s new magazine after he admitted to, quote, misdeeds with female colleagues.

New Orleans celebrity chef John Besh stepped down from his company amid multiple harassment allegations.

Knight Landesman, an icon of the art world, has resigned as the publisher of Artforum magazine after also being accused of sexual harassment. And of course, former Fox News host Bill O`Reilly was dropped by his talent agency after a $32 million personal settlement for sexual harassment.

And then thee are the 38 women who have come forward who accuse director James Toback of sexual harassment.

It feels like the fear that has kept so many folks silent has given way, like a dam is breaking. Is this a turning point? I`m going to talk to Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda about the moment we find ourselves in, next.


HAYES: And joining me now, my great pleasure to introduce Jane Fonda, actress and activist, co-founder of Women`s Media Center, and Gloria Steinem, author and activist, also co-founder of women`s media center. What a (inaudible) it is have you here. Thank you very much for coming.

GLORIA STEINEM, CO-FOUNDER WOMEN`S MEDIA CENTER: We`re delighted to be with you.

HAYES: This moment, this #metoo moment. I mean, the Weinstein dam breaking was one thing, and then this sort of cascade afterwards. And I`ve just been reading account after account. What do you make of this moment?

JANE FONDA, CO-FOUNDER WOMEN`S MEDIA CENTER: It feels different, it feels like something has shifted. It`s too bad that it -- it`s probably because so many of the women that were assaulted by Harvey Weinstein are famous and white and you know, everybody knows them. This has been going on a long time to black women and other women of color and doesn`t get out quite the same.

But I think it`s so huge, this story. And so much is coming out that shows that it went on so long over so many countries, with people pimping for him, that it`s really made a big difference that women have come forward. And it is like a -- hopefully it`s like a domino effect, affecting other industries.

HAYES: There`s already been resignations at places, suspensions. I`ve ticked off some of them. It also, Gloria, it struck me as logic of the strike right? The fist is stronger than the individual fingers, that it`s terrifying for one person to level an accusation, obviously, against a extremely powerful person but if 40, 50, 60, changes dynamic.

STEINEM: I think it`s even more true here in this case, because if you steal money, you probably get arrested and convicted, OK, because everybody says stealing is wrong.

But if you do something that`s very sexist or racist because there still is a critical mass of bias in this country, it takes more cumulative instances for it to be recognized. So we have reached a tipping point, I think, and it probably is important that in addition to what Jane is saying, who it is that came forward, Also, the offenders have been cross-race. There`s been Cosby. They`ve been cross political lines of all kinds from right to left, and all of this contributes to...

HAYES: All men though.

STEINEM: Well, there have been women in the past. I don`t want to say it. But important thing to remember is that it`s about power. And the idea that you have to dominate in order to be sexual, that`s the fundamental problem.

So there are occasionally women who sexually harass too, just many fewer because of the feminine role is not a...

HAYES: Because of the power dynamic.

Let me ask you specifically about Weinstein and then I want up with you about Hollywood.

He gave money to schools. There`s a chair at Rutgers, I believe, in your name.

STEINEM: Yes. He gave money to Rutgers in his mother`s name.

HAYES: And USC. And I just thought, well, what -- as someone whose name is attached to this thing...

STEINEM: No, but it was so lucky in a way, because it was early, and obviously it`s going to a media chair, which is all about reporting on bias against women, including sexual harassment.

So, Rutgers can become an example to say give this money to causes for women, give it to rape crisis centers, give it to shelters, give it to -- you know, hello, don`t give it back for his legal defense fund, no.

HAYES: Keep the money.

FONDA: But I think it`s a strategy to...

HAYES: Absolutely.

FONDA: How could he be that bad. I mean, look what he did for women. I mean, he would give women directors an advantage and all that.

STEINEM: Well, yes, he made movies with Meryl Streep and Julie Taymor that were big movies. But that`s -- but it`s because it`s about power. Those were powerful women so it wasn`t sexualized.

HAYES: But it also seemed like he was doing a bit of laundering of his representation.

FONDA: Oh, totally, that`s what it was all about.

HAYES: You think that?

FONDA: I do.

STEINEM: It was risky, I have to say.

FONDA: Yeah, but part of the excitement I guess is that is risk.

But, you know, there`s another thing, so many -- I mean, 12 million people in the United States work in restaurants, most of them women. And they`re often young, but not always, but they survive on tips, which means that they are -- they have to put up with a lot...

HAYES: It`s a great point. Every customer is a boss.

FONDA: Yeah. And if you don`t look smiley with a low cut dress and tight and the boss tells you you have to do it...

HAYES: Or if you don`t grimace your way through an inappropriate comment...

FONDA: You`re not being paid living wage, so you depend on your tips. So, this is often the first job, right. So, these young women, it becomes the norm. Nothing can be as horrible afterward as what was done to me in restaurants so must be the way life is.

STEINEM: There are restaurant chains that reward or require women to have breast implants. I mean, you can`t make this stuff up.

HAYES: Let me ask you a question about -- it`s great point about the service industry and restaurants and just sort of how this scales throughout an economy, right. So, we`re talking about the stuff at the very top.

But specifically on Hollywood, you know, there`s this -- conservatives have really run with the Harvey Weinstein thing, and at some level I understand, right, because your argument is basically like you Hollywood liberals lecture us sanctimoniously all the time and here you have got this happening in your own back yard. What do you think of that?

STEINEM: Roger Ailes, hello.

FONDA; I think it`s most ridiculous argument I ever heard.

STEINEM: Nobody ever says the patriarchy was confined, or racism was confined.

FONDA: Right, it`s just easier for those kind of predatory men, like the president, to have access to the kind of women that he likes when he`s in the model business. You know, one of them runs Miss Universe, Harvey happens to produce the Runway Project. That`s not an accident.

HAYES: Puts him in proximity to...

STEINEM: We have a president that profiteered off beauty contest is absurd in itself, in addition to fact that he is a self-confessed harasser.

HAYES: Yeah, what do you -- how do you think about him in the context of all this? Because it seems like, oh, there`s this sort of day of reckoning has come for a lot of people. It came for Weinstein finally, but at a certain level it`s like...

STEINEM: Yeah, no, it hasn`t come for him. And I think that part of the problem, if you`ll bear with him for a minute, is advertising, because advertising supports television, and therefore television rewards the number of hits. And that made him a television star, even though watching him was like watching a traffic accident. That`s why it got so many...

HAYES: But people were watching.

STEINEM: Yeah, people were watching.

HAYES: Which is true of his presidency.

STEINEM: Yeah, and so that`s why whoever it was said, you know, well he may not be good for the country but...

HAYES: He`s good for us.

STEINEM: Good for the network.

FONDA: And that`s why we co-founded with Robin Morgan the Women`s Media Center because the media -- all the platforms of media are so important and they`re controlled by men for the most part.

HAYES: And I should point out that awards are and tomorrow night. Hillary Clinton will be receiving award and I should also point out, Women`s Media Center has been doing incredible work for a very long time, and a huge part of this story was broken -- both my colleague, Ronan Farrow (ph) here, but also two Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, two women who talked about how important it was for them to be women reporters and getting folks to talk to them and trust them and how important that representation is in the media that gets produced.

STEINEM: Yeah, both having consciousness and especially a lot of women in the media, which is what the Women`s Media Center is doing, and understanding that it is about power, and therefore since the Women`s Media Center is devoted to trying to equalize the power it`s diminishing the possibility in and of itself in addition to the individual cases it reports.

HAYES: All right, Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem, what a treat. Thank you. If you ever want to come back at any time, we`d love to have you back.

Thank you very much.

That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts right now.


Copy: Content and programming copyright 2017 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.