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

Trump: "I'd love to see a shutdown". TRANSCRIPT: 2/6/2018, All In with Chris Hayes

Guests: Sheldon Whitehouse, Ted Lieu, Jess McIntosh, Kurt Bardella, Chris Stewart

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: February 6, 2018 Guest: Sheldon Whitehouse, Ted Lieu, Jess McIntosh, Kurt Bardella, Chris Stewart

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: -- front contents. I think we`ve been duped again. 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: Let`s have a shutdown. We`ll do a shutdown.

HAYES: President Trump`s shutdown threat.

TRUMP: I`d love to see a shutdown if we don`t get this stuff taken care of.

HAYES: Tonight as the White House suggests immigrants are too lazy, the President`s new threat to get his radical overhaul of American immigration.

TRUMP: Shut it down. We`ll go with another shutdown.

HAYES: Plus, why Steve Bannon was a no-show in Congress today.


HAYES: Why the President`s lawyers don`t want him talking to Robert Mueller.

TRUMP: The witch hunt continues.

HAYES: The Republican push to impeach judges who ruled against their gerrymandering in Pennsylvania and how Space X made history today in Florida.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is opening the door to a new future of space flight for the human race.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. Take a look at this headline today from the Washington Post, the Trump immigration plan could keep white in the U.S. majority for up to five more years. The census currently projects white people will no longer be the majority by 2044. The Post finds that under Trump`s plan whites could remain until 2049, buying a precious five years. That is what Donald Trump`s plan would do, keep can the nation as white as possible for as long as possible. And the plan is so important to this president that he is willing to shut down the government if he doesn`t get it.


TRUMP: If we don`t change the legislation, if we don`t get rid of these hoop holes where killers are allowed to come into our country and continue to kill, gang members, and we`re just talking about MS-13, there already many gang members we don`t even mention, if we don`t change it, let`s have a shutdown. We`ll do a shutdown, and it`s worth it for our country. I`d love to see a shutdown if we don`t get this stuff taken care of.


HAYES: Let`s have a shutdown. Love to see a shutdown. I love to see a shutdown. I love to see it. What the president is calling for, what he wants to shut down the government for this Friday is what one expert describes as the largest cut in legal immigration since the 1920s. More than 20 million fewer legal immigrants, legal immigrants over four decades, most of them Hispanic, Asian or Black, it`s a vision of the future pushed by hardliner Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon who described legal immigration as the beating heart of America`s problems. And Representative Steve King who describes demographic transformations as "cultural suicide," it has being championed by a President who says he wants fewer immigrants from African nations he calls s-holes and more immigrants from Norway.


TRUMP: I will tell you, I would shut it down over this issue. If we don`t straighten out our border, we don`t have a country. Without borders, we don`t have a country. So would I shut it down over this issue, yes?


HAYES: The President`s comments come exactly one week after he called for Democrats and Republicans to find common ground at the State of the Union. One day also after he described Democrat`s muted reaction to portions of his speech as "treasonous." And it comes on the same day that his Chief of Staff John Kelly claimed that "the champion of all people who are DACA is Donald Trump." Donald Trump, of course, ended by himself the DACA program. He threw the lives of hundreds of thousands of people into chaos, made it so they didn`t know or don`t know yet if they could take that new job or start their family because they might be deported from the country where they spent most of their lives, the country that they call home, the country they love. And John Kelly, of course, is the man who lied to smear Representative Frederica Wilson after she criticized Trump`s comments to the widow of the slain soldier. Kelly used to run the Department of Homeland Security. Under his leadership, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency undertook a crackdown that has ultimately led to people like well, chemistry instructors Syed Ahmed Jamal who`s lived in the United States for 30 years being arrested in his front yard as he walked his seventh-grade daughter to school. Kelly today hailed Trump for offering to reinstate the DACA program in exchange for Democrats agreeing to the demands to the Breitbart wing of the GOP. And listen to how Kelly described undocumented immigrants who are eligible for DACA but who did not sign up.


JOHN KELLY, CHIEF OF STAFF, WHITE HOUSE: There are 690,000 official DACA registrants and the President sent over what amounts to be two and a half times that number to 1.8 million. The difference between 690 and 1.8 million were the people that some would say were too afraid to sign up, others would say were too lazy to get off their asses but didn`t sign up.


HAYES: Sarah Sanders was asked about that comment today.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Chief of Staff John Kelly said today that some DREAMers were "too lazy to get off their asses to register for DACA protections." Is that the position of this White House that is DREAMers are lazy?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, PRESS SECRETARY, WHITE HOUSE: The position of the White House is that we want to fix a problem that was created by the previous administration.


HAYES: Joining me now, Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. A member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator, your response to the President saying he would love to see a shutdown over his immigration vision.

SEN. SHELDON WHITE HOUSE (D-RI), SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Well, you`ve got to believe that the Republican leadership in both houses is smacking their forehead with their palm as their President threatens a shutdown. It`s hard to figure out exactly how that works because what we`re doing is working on a bipartisan continuing resolution that would empower the appropriators in bipartisan fashion to put a proper budget before us and we have the immigration issue on a separate track with also bipartisan negotiations taking place. But if he means he`s actually going to interrupt the continuing resolution process and the budget measure over the immigration question, that`s got to be alarming to the Republicans. He`s very often letting them go out a little bit on a limb and then cutting off the limb behind him. He`s not a great ally, let`s put it that way for the Republicans in Congress.

HAYES: I just want to make sure I understand this. I mean, the whole idea behind of the last shutdown was that these things were tied together, funding to keep government open and dealing with DACA were tied together that was why there`s a showdown. It`s why the government shutdown for a few days. What you are saying is those have been disentangled their parallel tracks to deal with each. The President to say is saying, no, no, I want them back together and I want to shut down the government over my vision of immigration, a bill that almost certainly would not pass the Senate?

WHITEHOUSE: Yes, the fundamental achievement of the last negotiation was to put those two on separate tracks. We accepted that the Republicans accepted that. Mitch McConnell has promised a separate vote in order to try to move the DACA program forward and with any luck following Lindsey Graham`s analogy, that`s chapter one and then you move onto a broader immigration reform that would be chapter two. But the idea that you`re re- entangling that with the budget and with the threat of a government shutdown is completely inconsistent with where this actually is in Congress. And again, I`ve got to believe that Republicans in Congress are looking at this and thinking oh, my gosh, can he just please stay out of this and let us solve this problem.

HAYES: The White House today has said that the President was joking when he sort of rhetorically asked if you could call it treasonous that Democrats did not stand up and applaud him sufficiently for his liking during the State of the Union. What do you think of that?

WHITEHOUSE: Well, I think two things. First of all, I think it shows that he has a really extraordinary view of what kind of a response he`s entitled to in our rich and robust American democracy. The kind of places in which the leader steps up and gets massive applause from all corners are places like North Korea and the old Soviet Union and modern Russia. That is not what America is all about. We disagree, we`re vibrant, we`re vigorous, and that`s just what America is. So to use a word like treasonous really doesn`t make any sense and it signals to me that he`s getting pretty hot under the collar, pretty worried that there are stress cracks beginning to show over there which you`ve got to attribute to anxiety about the Mueller investigation closing in.

HAYES: Final question, you talk about sort of places where there is unanimous compelled acclimation for the leader. The Washington Post is just running a story in the last hour the President instructed the Pentagon, the Pentagon confirmed this, to plan a grand military parade for him to, I don`t know, in his honor or for him to preside over. What do you make of that?

WHITEHOUSE: Well, I think a lot of Americans remember the images of the Soviet May Day Parade that was not an image that we many associates with the United States of America.

HAYES: All right, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, thanks for being with me. With me now is Democratic Representative Ted Lieu of California, a Member of the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committees. I want to ask about your reaction to the Chief of Staff John Kelly`s comments about DACA recipients today. In one way he was couching it. Well, some people say they were scared and others said they didn`t get off their asses. How did you take that?

REP. TED LIEU (D), CALIFORNIA: John Kelly`s comments were half right. Some people may be scared and if you`re scared and you`re eligible for DACA, you should sign up immediately. It will protect you for the time being. But his comments about immigrants being lazy are wrong and offensive, and just factually has no bearing to reality. So if you look at the facts, immigrants as a whole commit less crimes than native-born Americans. Immigrants are less in poverty than native-born Americans and over 40 percent of fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants and their children. Those are the facts.

HAYES: Let me -- do you -- do you -- the fear thing, the reason that there was fear and you just encouraged folks to sign up was that the DACA registration would then be change of administrations used this as essentially as a deportation list. How can you tell people as they watch what`s happening in Washington, the showdown, that that fear is not justified?

LIEU: John Kelly today did say that even if there was no immigration deal, that folks who are DACA eligible would not be at the top of the deportation list. They will only be deported if they committed crimes. And there`s also -- a federal judge had issued a decision to protect people who are on the DACA list. So I do encourage people to sign up for DACA.

HAYES: Do you think they should trust John Kelly?

LIEU: They should trust the federal courts and Congress. You see bipartisan support to want to fix DACA, there`s a DREAM Act in the Congress that would pass the House Representatives. I believe it would also pass the U.S. Senate except you`ve got the President here who wants to put in some of his radical illegal immigration changes and that`s holding things up.

HAYES: Do you think his vision and Tom Cotton`s vision, Steve King`s vision and Breitbart`s vision for immigration restrictions, do you think it`s fundamentally driven by race? Do you think it`s fundamentally driven by a desire to essentially maintain a white majority in the country?

LIEU: I don`t know if that`s what`s driving them. It does sure seem like it when you see the comments by the President. But keep in mind, the proposal on family reunification is really extreme. In America, we believe in family which means we believe that moms and dads and brothers and sisters and children are part of the family. The family unification proposal that Donald Trump has which he uses the derogatory term chain migration to describe would exclude parents, siblings, even adult children from emigrating here. That is un-American and it is wrong.

HAYES: As someone who I believe is a child of immigrants, what do you think about the kind of rhetoric that we get from the President on this issue?

LIEU: So I am an immigrant myself. My parents came here to seek the American dream. My parents were very much like Donald Trump`s grandfather. They were poor. They did not speak English well. And when they got here, they were doing jobs that did not pay very much. But that`s what makes America great. All these immigrants that come and renew America, and if you look at countries that don`t have immigration, they tend to stagnate. America is great because we keep renewing ourselves and it`s the entrepreneurial spirit of immigrants that has continued to allow us to innovate. Donald Trump is trying to shut that down and that`s not going to pass Congress.

HAYES: Representative Ted Lieu, thanks for your time tonight.

LIEU: Thank you.

HAYES: I`m joined now by Shareblue Executive Editor Jess Mcintosh, former Senior Advisor to Hillary Clinton`s 2016 Presidential campaign and Kurt Bardella, former Spokesperson for Breitbart News, now a Columnist at Huffington Post. The President today saying that he wants to shut down, he would love a shutdown. What do you do with that if you`re the Democrats?

JESS MCINTOSH, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, SHAREBLUE: I mean, honestly, there`s not much that you can do. I think it`s important as we talk about how our Democrats and Republicans going to negotiate this thorny immigration issue to remember what they`re trying -- who they`re trying to negotiate with. You have Trump`s comments today, you have Kelly saying that DREAMers are -- DREAMers aren`t lazy. Trump is lazy. We`ll do a shutdown? He hasn`t even bothered to learn what happens when that happens or why one might go ahead and do that. And I think we`re starting to see the first fraying of Republicans who are chafing at this idea because they have to stand for midterms in November. Barbara Comstock stood up today to the President`s face, Republican from Virginia, and said we don`t need a shutdown over this. That`s unusual.

HAYES: An amazing moment, Barbara Comstock possibly one of the most if not the most endangered Republican incumbents in the district of Washington suburbs of Virginia, lots of federal workers. He says let`s do a shutdown. She`s like maybe we shouldn`t do a shutdown. I think maybe it would be better if we didn`t do a shutdown.

MCINTOSH: People seem to want us to like do our jobs. And that`s what we`re going to have to do. So I mean, they know what they`re headed for in November. And if he keeps grandstanding and bloviating like this, I think we`re going to see more of them peel off.

HAYES: Kurt, I wanted to ask you about a tweet that came from your former employer Breitbart. And you left Breitbart over ideological and political differences and the way they handled an assault on one of their own reporters. This is during the Super Bowl. "Grandpa, what`s a Super Bowl? Well, little Muhammad, back when the Kuffar ran things, they stitched up filthy pig skins, moved them around painted lines, and shoved each other." There was secular music and alcohol, a very haram affair. They later deleted the tweet saying it did not comport with their editorial standards. I couldn`t tell if that was a joke or not. But the reason I bring up that tweet is because that is the vision of Breitbart and it`s a vision I think shared by Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller. Do you think it`s fair to say that vision of a future hurtling towards a society taken over by foreigners is a fay way of characterizing the way that Bannon and others think about this problem?

KURT BARDELLA, COLUMNIST, HUFFINGTON POST: That`s exactly how they view the world. I mean, you look at whether it`s Steve Bannon, Steve King, or Steve Miller, kind of this unwholly trinity of Steves actually, they constantly permeate the idea that we are under siege from foreigners who are going to take away the things, the very fabric of what makes America- America, things like the Super Bowl, and it`s so ridiculous and it`s outright racist. And for a while, I think we thought maybe some of these influences were what driving Donald Trump to be how is he, to talk how he talks. And we`re seeing that even with some of those people removed, he still trolls on that, and he does it deliberately. He knows exactly what he`s doing, he knows exactly what buttons he`s pushing. And we`ve seen that on display and how divisive that is. And I think the challenge though is for Democrats to try to regain control of this conversation about DACA, about DREAMers, and the first shutdown they kind of lost that conversation, that narrative and they were even being blamed for the shutdown which is insane when you think about it because Republicans have full control over the government, the House, the Senate and the White House and it was Donald Trump single-handedly, unilaterally created this crisis in the first place by executive order. Why isn`t he being held more accountable for that?

HAYES: And this gets to your point, Jess, which is the whole problem at the center of this is you`re negotiating with a person in the President who has no position --


HAYES: -- has a bunch of instincts and constantly contradicts himself. That was the problem during the shutdown the first time around and now, here he comes out says let`s do a shutdown. You cannot -- you cannot negotiate with that. You can negotiate with someone who has a bad position or your opposite position as long as they have a position.

MCINTOSH: Right -- no, it`s like fighting with Jell-O. Like there`s no way you can land a punch on that. I think he loves the drama and I think he sees that a shutdown is a dramatic inflection. Like that would be the one before the season finale in this reality show.

HAYES: We`ll do a shutdown so they cover it on the shows.

MCINTOSH: Right. I think that there`s a difference between how beltway pundits take things in the moment and how voters are ultimately going to take things in November. I don`t think that this is going to turn into Democrats maybe dropped a ball on this particular negotiation and they should have kept this linked and that would have given them more leverage. Like the average American isn`t thinking that way. Republicans are in charge, Republicans shut down the government, they keep passing these bills to fund it for two weeks. America understands that that`s just not leadership.

HAYES: Well, the question, Kurt, I guess is do you think Congressional Republicans just ignored what the President said today? It seems like that`s their only option. It literally just says, yes, yes, and keep doing what they`re doing.

BARDELLA: Chris, they spent the last year and change now trying to ignore Donald Trump and trying to talk past him. When asked in the halls of Congress by reporters from NBC, they`ll say well, we`re not talking about that today. It`s just Trump being Trump. They effectively try to normalize his behavior. But I`ll tell you, the real tipping point I think for Republicans here is once they did that memo, once Devin Nunes crossed that line, went to extraordinary lengths to do something that had never been done before, they went from trying to be passive quiet cowards to being active participants in the Trump narrative and I don`t think they can disown that anymore.

HAYES: Jess McIntosh and Kurt Bardella, thank you both for being with me.


HAYES: Coming up, with the Nunes memo shaping up to be a net loser for Trump, will he release the memo written by Democrats. I`ll speak with a Republican member of the House Intel Committee about that and the Russia investigation just after this break.



REP. JEFF DUNCAN (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Let`s release the memo.

TRUMP: Don`t worry, 100 percent. Can you imagine that?

DUNCAN: Yes, sir.

TRUMP: You`d be too angry.


HAYES: President Trump last week after the State of the Union address said he was 100 percent sure he would approve the release of the so-called Nunes memo before he`d even read it. He`s now in possession of the Democratic response to the Nunes memo. He has five days to decide whether or not he`s going to be allowed -- he`s going to allow it to be released. And this time he`s in no such rush.


SANDERS: The President has seen the memo. He met with the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein within the last hour to discuss some of the differences between the two memos. And we are undergoing the exact same process that we did with the previous memo.


HAYES: Republican Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah is a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, it`s great to have you here.

REP. CHRIS STEWART (R), UTAH: Good evening.

HAYES: You`re -- there`s a little bit of dissension I think among Republicans about what this memo means. And the President and his allies, folks like Sean Hannity say it vindicates him. That`s the President`s words, that Hannity says that the Mueller investigation should be brought to a close. Flynn and Manafort should have their charges dropped. Trey Gowdy on the other hand of your own committee says no, these are totally separate things. This doesn`t mean that the Mueller investigation should be wrapped up. Who is right about that?

STEWART: Well, I`ve always said and has said to you and others as well, this -- they`re very separate things. The memo that we released a few days ago has nothing at all to do with the Mueller investigation. I want that to continue. I hope he concludes it quickly. But this was kind of an isolated offshoot of that investigation and it was in its own -- in its own bucket, if you will. And there isn`t much relationship between the two of them.

HAYES: Do you think that what the memo describes which is a FISA process, a process for a warrant that was obtained against Carter Page, is the problem there an abuse of that system?

STEWART: Well, it`s a couple of things. I mean, look, this is what we know and this is just -- it`s not disputed by anyone. Hillary Clinton and DNC hired Fusion GPS who hired ironically a foreign agent to create the dossier. And the question is, was it accurately depicted before the FISA courts. And we know it wasn`t. And again, that`s not in dispute. We just know it wasn`t. They hid very relevant facts from the FISA court.

HAYES: What did they hide? What is the level that you think would be relevant there? They did say there was a political entity behind it, right? Presumably, FISA court judges are smart enough to understand that that probably wasn`t an ally of the president.

STEWART: Well, you can`t presume anything with the FISA court judges. You have the responsibility to tell them everything and to tell them the truth and ask yourself, why in the world would they not? They actually had to work -- they actually had to sit down and how can we convey this without telling them that it was Hillary Clinton.

HAYES: Well, let me ask you this then. If you -- answer that question then. What was the motivation? Was the motivation to take down Donald Trump? Do you think this material omission to your mind was intended to do what?

STEWART: You`re saying what was the motivation of the FBI of not conveying that information?

HAYES: You`re saying they had to go out of their way to do this. I think that`s up for debate, right? I think there`s a lot of people who feel they stipulated, we`ll see what the Democratic memo says presumably if it`s declassified. But let`s just take it on your terms, right, that they had to go out of their way for this material omission. What`s the motive here? Why are they trying to do this?

STEWART: I don`t know. That`s a great question. That`s something we eventually want to know. But I`m telling you, it`s beyond dispute that they didn`t share information they should have. And by the way, listen, this is important.

HAYES: But I guess the question is --

STEWART: Wait, wait, I`m going to answer one question if I could. I`ve talked with prosecutors who have practiced before the FISA courts, I have talked with other federal judges, they would be furious as they have conveyed to me if that had been them. I think this FISA court judge must be furious. He said seriously you didn`t tell me that type of information? That`s just - it`s just beyond question.

HAYES: So if that`s the case, why didn`t -- I don`t understand why your committee hasn`t taken it up with the court.

STEWART: Well, we don`t have the ability to do that. How would we take it up with the court? All we can do is gather the information and then report to the American people and hopefully, the courts or the judicial process if necessary --

HAYES: Wait a second. You have oversight over the -- over the foreign intelligence surveillance courts, right? You just voted three weeks ago to give them expanded powers. In fact, you personally voted against an amendment by one of your Republican colleagues that would have required a higher threshold for surveillance of Americans. At the same time that you`re voting to expand what these courts can do, voting against an amendment that expands the surveillance, the courts can undertake, you`re saying they`re abusing their power.

STEWART: Dude, you`re just confusing two very different things. 702 authority which we voted on three weeks ago is the authority to survey non- U.S. citizens on non-U.S. soil .it isn`t a FISA reauthorization.

HAYES: Although Americans can be swept up in that.

STEWART: They can. But again 702 deals with non-U.S. citizens on non-U.S. soil. That`s a very different process.

HAYES: So you think they have nothing -- I just want to understand the case here. The case is that essentially that the problems of these specific agents working on this case for un-enunciated reasons in your view had some motivation to materially omit this because they had an ax to grind against Donald Trump?

STEWART: What that -- listen, you got to be honest about this. After reading some of this text and these e-mails, surely that wouldn`t be shocking to you if that was the truth. You`ve read this e-mails, you`ve read this texts.

HAYES: Let me ask you this if that`s the case --

STEWART: No, tell me, would you be shocked at that?

HAYES: I would -- I would actually because I`ve read the tests. And what I`ve seen in the text is they`ve talked smack about just about everyone including Hillary Clinton, including Bernie Sanders, and I don`t know if you ever talk to cops about politicians or law enforcement officials or people at the bureau about politicians, they tend not to like any of them. That`s been my experience.

STEWART: Tell me one of the texts that trash Hillary Clinton.

HAYES: What`s that?

STEWART: Tell me one of their texts.

HAYES: I have not read all -- I have not read all of the texts but I`ve seen them identified as Republicans. I`ve seen them praise John Kasich. I saw Andrew McCabe voted in the Republican primary. Isn`t that true?

STEWART: Yes, you know what, if you think those texts where they`re trashing about politicians equally, that`s just simply not true.

HAYES: Well, then let`s ask you this. So they apply for this FISA warrant. It`s a few days before the election, it`s ten days before election. OK? They want to get Donald Trump, right? This is the theory. They want to get Donald Trump. They get a FISA warrant or an ex-campaign member of his for possibly colluding with the Russians as a possible foreign agent and no one leaks it and no one finds out about it despite the fact the bureau is giving updates on the Hillary Clinton investigation. Isn`t that a weird way to pull off this conspiracy?

STEWART: Well, look, I think you`re reading an awful lot into that. All I can say is what the facts are.

HAYES: No, but that`s my question. Those are the facts. The facts are that it did not leak. Isn`t that correct?

STEWART: Well, you`re trying to draw some conclusions.

HAYES: No, I`m just asking the facts. The facts are that it did not leak.

STEWART: The FISA application did not leak?


STEWART: You know, again, I don`t know -- I don`t know --

HAYES: Those are the facts. The FISA application was not reported before the election, correct.

STEWART: OK, Yes. I guess you`re right. I don`t know.

HAYES: Right, so if they wanted to take down Donald Trump, wouldn`t someone leak that?

STEWART: No, I don`t think that`s necessarily true at all. Their point wasn`t to create a FISA application and leak it. Their point was to survey private citizens associated with the Trump campaign. In fact, I think the exact opposite, they would not want it to be leaked. They wouldn`t want people to know, they wouldn`t want law enforcement to know that they had done that. They wanted to survey private citizens associated with the Trump campaign. I don`t understand at all why you would think that they would want that to leak. That would hurt them, not hurt Donald Trump.

HAYES: I will give you this, Congressman. I`m having a hard time following precisely how the mechanisms of this conspiracy against Donald Trump were supposed to function. But I have faith your colleague Devin Nunes says there`s more coming out. Maybe we will learn more about that. Thank you for your time tonight.

STEWART: Well, it`s good to be with you. Thank you.

HAYES: Thank you. After the break, the man who called the Trump Tower meeting treasonous is now expected to appear before Mueller`s team next week. New reporting on the Special Counsel`s investigation just ahead.


HAYES: Steve Bannon had a lot to say about the Russia probe. The author Michael Wolff telling him on the record the Trump meeting in June 2016 was treasonous and unpatriotic and "they`re going to crack don Junior like an egg on national T.V." Invocative I have to give him that. But he`s been less than candid with the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee. Today Bannon was supposed to show up for a closed-door interview with the Committee which subpoenaed him last month after he refused to answer questions about his time in the Trump orbit.

But instead, the House Intelligence Committee ended up having to postpone the subpoena deadline today, the third time Bannon has been granted an extension. According to Ranking Member Adam Schiff, Steve Bannon`s counsel informed the committee the White House continues to prohibit Mr. Bannon from testifying beyond a set of 14 yes or no questions the White House approved. They now have a week to resolve the impasse before the new deadline. The House Intelligence Committee is not the only interview on Bannon`s schedule. NBC News reporting is he likely to meet next week with Special Counsel Robert Mueller`s team. In this case, according to a source close to Bannon, he`ll answer any questions Mueller wants to ask.

The same cannot be said, however, to the president of the United States who is reportedly being advised to refuse an interview with Mueller. His lawyers, according to the New York Times, concerned he`ll get caught lying to investigators.

And given the extremely broad scope of Mueller`s investigation, there`s a whole lot the president might be tempted to not tell the truth about, like, for instance, his finances, which Robert Mueller likely has records of in his possession. That`s coming up right after this.

HAYES: Among the many eyebrow raising Steve Bannon quotes in the book "Fire and Fury," where there was this one on the Russia probe, quote, "you realize where this is going. This is all about money laundering, their path to f`ing Trump goes through Paul Manafort, Don Jr. and Jared Kushner."

There hasn`t been much public attention paid to the money laundering aspect of Robert Mueller`s investigation, but of course that was the focus of the charges that have been filed in federal court against Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman, who was indicted last fall and who is set to go on trial later this year.

Also, the charges against his associate who appears to currently cooperating.

And according to Mueller`s biographer, journalist Garret Graff (ph), the money laundering angle is just one of what are effectively five separate probes being run out of that special counsel`s office. We know they`re investigating Russian information operations, the bots and trolls sewing discord on social media. They`re also investigating Russian cyber intrusion, the criminal theft of documents from entities like the DNC and the Clinton campaign. And then there is, of course, the question of contacts that we`ve all been focused on between Russia and the Trump campaign and whether they actually conspired together to influence the election, and finally there`s of course obstruction of justice, which is whether the president of the United States broke the law by trying to impede the overall investigation.

Jill Wine-Banks, a former Watergate prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst. And I thought of you, Jill, when I was thinking -- when I was sort of reading the story in Wired, because people talked about following the money with Nixon. And what began as an investigation into one break-in actually did end up uncovering an almost unfathomable amount of criminal activity that was being operated out of the White House.

JILL WINE-BANKS, FORMER WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: That is correct. And a lot of of it did involve campaign contributions and illegal use of money, but it also was that they had so much money in safes in the White House and in the committee to re-elect the president that they could afford to spend it to hire criminals to break into the DNC, into Daniel lElsberg`s office, which actually happened before this campaign. So that that`s why follow the money became important.

But the real meaning of follow the money, then, was that the money that paid for the burglars to -- who were at the Watergate offices of the DNC came from campaign contributions and by following the money, it was easy to say that the White House and the campaign committee were involved in the DNC break-in.

Here the follow the money is separate crimes. It isn`t necessarily that it`s paying for the Russian intrusions into our election system, or the Russian bots that influence social media, but it may be crimes of money laundering having to do with the Trump organization`s business. So it`s a -- it could be a totally separate crime.

HAYES: It`s a good point.

Do you think that`s -- as someone who worked on Watergate and someone who`s been a lawyer over a very storied career, do you think it`s legitimate if Mueller looks at that stuff, or were to charge on that stuff, or move on that stuff if it`s distinct from what actually happened with respect to Russia?

WINE-BANKS: I think that his jurisdiction includes not just the collusion with the Russians with working with them to help them succeed in interfering in the election, but anything else that came from that.

So, all of these meetings that were unreported and hidden from public view, must have been for something. And all the money that`s been alleged to have come from Russia to support the Trump business, which may be the motive behind both his failing to initiate the sanctions that have been voted by the congress, but also between why he keeps protecting Putin and praising Putin and not protecting the American public.

I have not seen any action to make sure that the 2018 midterms are safe from Russian interference, that`s what we should be focusing on. So all of the things that we`re seeing are diversions from that risk to America.

HAYES: I want to play you the president talking about how he`s looking forward to interviewing with Mueller and then the response yesterday. Take a listen.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you going to talk to Mueller?

TRUMP: I`m looking forward to it, actually.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you have a date set?

TRUMP: Just so you understand, there`s been no collusion whatsoever. There`s no obstruction whatsoever. And I`m looking forward to it.

You know, again, I have to say, subject to my lawyers and all of that, but I would love to do it.


HAYES: Yesterday, of course, The New York Times reporting, as NBC News had sort of reported about a week ago, that the lawyers are basically telling him this is a bad idea. And in that Times article, they make the suggestion that the lawyers think if they say no, they`ll call Mueller`s bluff and he won`t subpoena. What do you think of that?

WINE-BANKS: I can`t even begin to fathom how they could think that Mueller will walk away from this. This is an investigation that could go all the way up to the president. It may or may not. But we will never know if he doesn`t cooperate, and Mueller has no reason to back down.

I believe that the court will clearly enforce a subpoena for the testimony of the president, and a subpoena for any documents that they want from the president. So given that, why would Mueller do anything other than accommodate the president`s schedule? He is, after all, serving as president and so if they want to have the interview held somewhere other than before the grand jury, that might be something they could negotiate.

But to say there won`t be one is ridiculous. I think that they are wrong in predicting that Mueller will back off of this. And I think the law is on his side, and the facts.

HAYES: All right, Jill Wine-Banks, great to have you.

Coming up, new reporting that Trump wants another West Wing staff shake-up. Gabe Sherman, Olivia Nuzzi joine me ahead.

But first, flying cars have arrived, really. That`s tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two next.


HAYES: Thing One tonight, a flat earther named Mike Hughes attempted a momentous rocket launch. There were technical difficulties. Hughes said it was a bad o-ring. The rocket never really even ignited.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I hear words. I hear numbers. I hear a lot of words. So I`m going to call this right now, guys. The launch ain`t happening.


HAYES: So close.

Saturday`s failed launch was his third aborted attempt. But today, there was a much different outcome for another entrepreneur and it ended the sports car in space. But amazingly, this live picture of a car in space is not the most impressive part. That`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.



CROWD: Six, five, four, three, two, one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ignition Ignition.


HAYES: A launch of the SpaceX Falcon heavy rocket today marked the first time for a rocket with a payload that heavy since NASA`s Saturn V that took the astronauts to the moon in the Apollo mission.

Today`s launch went off flawlessly. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk having given it a 50 percent to two-thirds chance of success. Among the many factors that could have led to a mission failure were a rocket wing more than 3 million pounds, and a three booster rockets with 27 engines.

Just past three minutes after launch, the booster separation, always a precarious phase, was a clear success. And the second stage sent Elon Musk`s Tesla red Roadster into space, along with a space suit wearing mannequin named Star Man where it will be delivered into orbit around the sun for millions of years.

But, what mission control was most anxious for was the re-entry and landing of the two side booster rockets.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, now we see them coming down perfectly, perfectly. Right, right.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There you see, there it`s getting ready to land.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re witnessing one of the greatest engineering accomplishments we have seen in decades.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re landing vertically. They`re both down, both rockets have touched down smoothly eight minutes into the flight.


HAYES: All right, that was pretty cool.

While SpaceX has done this before, it`s never so with two rockets simultaneously. And while the central booster, intended to land offshore was lost, the landing of these two side boosters brings the company closer to its goal of reusable rockets for a mission to Mars. They might want to pick up this guy on the way.


HAYES: We`re getting more on the White House decision making regarding that Democratic rebuttal to the Devin Nunes announce memo. On Capitol Hill tonight, Trump chief of staff John Kelly talked about the process with reporters.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you leaning towards releasing it, at least?

JOHN KELLY, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: No, I would say -- I mean, this is a different memo than the first one. It`s lengthier. Well, it`s different. And so not leaning towards it, it will be done in a responsible way.

But again, where the first one was very clean relative to be sources and methods, my initial cut is this one is a lot less clean. But at the end of it all, it will be guys like Rod Rosenstein, Chris Wray from FBI, certainly the national security attorneys at the White House giving the president a recommendation on it.


HAYES: Coming up, new reports of backstabbing and turmoil inside that West Wing, that`s just after this break.


HAYES: Two news reports today featuring sources close to the White House seem to indicate an escalation of turmoil and backstabbing in the West Wing.

Gabe Sherman of Vanity Fair reports the president discussing a shakeup to his West Wing as he has said to be without a close confidante on the inside with whom he can plot strategy. Sherman cites a Republican close to the White House who described the following dynamic between Trump and his chief of staff John Kelly "it`s like Kelly views Trump as a mushroom, he wants to keep him in the dark and feed him a bunch of crap."

Also today, someone gave New York Magazine private messages from 2016 in which Raj Shah, the White House principal deputy press secretary said of the president, quote, "Trump is a deplorable." Shaw was working at the RNC at the time.

Another message he sent when the Access Hollywood tape was released reads, quote, "I`m kind of enjoying this, some justice. I honestly don`t think it`s the worst thing he`s done, but he somehow got passes for the other acts."

The White House responded Raj Shah`s skills as a press secretary are only surpassed by his stellar character.

With me now, Olivia Nuzzi, Washington correspondent for New York Magazine who wrote that piece of Raj Shah. Gabe Sherman, MSNBC contributor, special correspondent for Vanity Fair.

And Olivia, I start with you. Is it possible that Raj Shah had those views and they`ve changed since he`s been in the White House? Or is it your understanding there are many people who work in the White House who genuinely think that way about the person they serve?

OLIVIA NUZZI, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: I don`t know what Raj Shah believes in his heart, only Raj Shahs knows that. But I do -- it is my understanding, based on conversations with current and former White House officials, and current and former advisers to President Donald Trump, that people certainly do hold a lot of contempt for the president. They criticize him as being unintelligent. They think that he is inept. They`re very frustrated with him, and sometimes that comes out privately, as it did with Raj Shah, sometimes it spills out into the press, as we`ve seen with quotes from -- background quotes from Rex Tillerson or what we know about what his EPA administrator Scott Pruitt said about him previously. Kellyanne Conway, remember during the campaign, during the Republican primary, she supported Ted Cruz, and in doing so criticized Donald Trump pretty aggressively.

So it`s no surprise that the president is, in the words of someone I talked to, after my story came out surrounded by people who he called "rats."

HAYES: Is that your sense of what`s happening in the White House as well?

GABE SHERMAN, VANITY FAIR: Yeah, I mean without question. You know, people don`t go to work for Donald Trump because they believe in the man, they go there to advance their own agendas, their own ambitions and clearly that`s the case. And as I reported today in my Vanity Fair piece, Trump -- this is a two-way street. He has in many ways contempt for the people that work for him and so he`s constantly mulling about shaking up his staff, bringing in outsiders.

And what I find striking is that this is a president that does not have a close counselor in the White House. He doesn`t rely on people for political advice, he constantly is calling to friends and advisers outside the White House to plot strategy, which is one of the reasons there`s so many leaks coming out of this White House because he`s basically open sourcing his political strategy.

HAYES: Olivia, you`re nodding your head.

NUZZI: No, it`s that`s very true. You know, as Gabe reported, he`s always looking outside of his current staff to get advice. And I think that kind of explains why so many of the White House officials are frustrated and have been frustrated since the beginning of this administration, but Donald Trump always wants what he doesn`t have, whether that`s because he`s never had the person as a staffer or because he`s fired them or because this person has quit, he`s always reaching outside and looking to see -- he can`t blame people who are not there for what`s going on there, right, that`s one way you can put it.

And that`s true of any institution and any person leading it. But I think it`s especially true of Donald Trump. And I think people know that, and that`s why certain people won`t -- have no interest in joining the White House staff because they want to remain a person who he looks to for advice, and who he considers wise.

And, remember, it`s part of why he thought so highly of Paul Manafort, because he never paid Paul Manafort. And Trump sort of I think looks down on people who he pays.

HAYES: People that need a paycheck.

There`s a sense from the outside that Mueller looks like he`s closing in. And I don`t know what the president did or didn`t do, what his campaign did or didn`t do, I reserve judgment on that, but it certainly looks from the outside that it`s tightening -- is that the sense inside that White House?

SHERMAN: Yeah, I think without question. You know, this is a president that is increasingly acting like he is boxed in and, you know, we see this fight with his lawyers, he wants to talk to Mueller, his lawyers don`t want him to talk to Mueller.

You know, this is clearly a president who sees his options narrowing, and there`s a little bit of magical thinking going on with what I reported today. He thinks, oh, if I could bring in new people, say an adviser like Jason Miller and Dave Bosse (ph), these really aggressive types, maybe Corey Lewandowski, we can just push back enough to get this Mueller problem go away, but you can`t wish the Mueller probe away.

HAYES: You know, Olivia, it`s like -- this happens in book writing or in TV or things where people are in a bad situation, they`re like "I just had a different agent. If I had an agent who was a real shark" then everything is going to be fine. It`s like, no, no, no, the structural conditions are such that -- it`s not, the agent is not your problem. The problems are bigger than that. And it really feels like that when I look at how the White House is dealing with this.

NUZZI: Right. I think that`s true to an extent, but I also think this was true during the campaign. You know, when somebody would leave and somebody new would replace them, and things would go poorly, Donald Trump would often look back and say, oh, well, what if we could just go back to the way things where before when I was happier than I am now.

And so I think in some ways he looks at Corey Lewandowski or Jason Miller and he thinks, well, I was happy when they were around me and I was on the campaign plane and doing these rallies that made me so satisfied, and therefore maybe I would be happier if those people are surrounding me now.

I think he associates certain people with positive feelings.

HAYES: And it also seems like no one ever leaves the circle. Like you just mentioned Corey Lewandowski and Jason Miller. Like, Bannon, all these folks, no one is ever on the outs permanently.

SHERMAN: Yeah, if you`re voted off Trump island, you`re sort of wading offshore on the dinghy waiting to be brought back ashore, you`re never fully out. And I think that`s the way Trump likes it, because it keeps people constantly on their toes, even if they`re on the outside they`re not fully going to double cross him, because there might be the chance of redemption.

So I think that`s part of the dynamic here.

HAYES: If I were a therapist I would say there`s some really deep stuff happening around affection and emotional wounds, but I`m not. But if I were -- Olivia Nuzzi and Gabe Sherman,, thanks for joining us this evening.

Before we go, a quick reminder, if you can`t catch us live, you can always tune in to the All In with Chris Hayes podcast. You can listen to our entire show, the whole thing, for free, wherever you get your podcast. That`s All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow show starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.

On the dot, 9:00.


Copy: Content and programming copyright 2018 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.