Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: April 2, 2018 Guest: Amy Siskind, Josh Barro, Christina Greer, Jonathan Chait, Bob Bauer, Natasha Bertrand, Dave Jamieson, Pedro Noguera, Dina Goldstein
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on ALL IN.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We keep it in tip-top shape. We call it sometimes tippy-top shape.
HAYES: The President attacks a company because he doesn't like its owner, and stocks plummet. Tonight the endemic corruption in the Trump administration, and why it could be his downfall.
Plus, getting Roger Stone.
ROGER STONE, CAMPAIGN ADVISER, TRUMP CAMPAIGN: I actually have communicated with Assange.
No, I have not spoken to Mr. Assange.
HAYES: New reporting on exactly what Mueller has on Trump's long-time adviser.
And then thousands of teachers walk off the job in some of the red estates in the union. And Trump T.V. across America.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The sharing of bias and false news has become all too common on social media.
HAYES: The insidious propaganda on local T.V. news thanks to Sinclair media.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Good evening from New York, I'm Chris Hayes. Today one of the biggest companies in the country lost more than $36 billion in market value thanks in part to a sustained attack from the President of the United States. Amazon.com stock falling more than five percent today after Donald Trump renewed once again his Twitter campaign against the company over the Easter weekend. Amazon, of course is owned by Jeff Bezos, who also happens to own The Washington Post. Amazon itself we should be clear has no stake in the post. That does not seem to matter to Trump who either doesn't know or simply doesn't care. To the President, it's all just, "#amazonwashingtonpost." You see he's just conflating them all together. And trump, well, Trump doesn't like The Washington Post. It isn't always nice to him. So he is engaging in what certainly appears to be a kind of proxy war designed to make Jeff Bezos pay no matter the consequences.
Vanity Fair's Gabe Sherman reports tonight Trump is obsessed with Bezos. Trump has told advisers he believes Bezos uses the paper as a political weapon. A sources saying that he gets obsessed with something and now he is obsessed with Bezos. Trump is how can I F with him. It's the kind of impropriety, the kind of extension of roles that modern American presidents just didn't engage in until now. But that very lack of boundaries when it comes to what's improper, that has become the signature characteristic of the Trump presidency. He unleashed his assault on Amazon from Mar-a-Lago where he spent the Easter weekend, much of it on the golf course. The press is not allowed to film Trump inside the property so here's a picture of Trump's motorcade on the way to Mar-a-Lago passing beneath a billboard that reads impeachment now. Now the initiation fee to become a member at Mar-a-Lago us $200,000, Trump doubled it after he won the presidency. But there are perks. You get to mingle with the sitting President of the United States, just like -- and that is a real name, I'm not making this up -- Princess Camilla of Bourbon Two Sicilies, Duchess of Castro who posted this picture of her and her family enjoying quality time with Trump at Mar- a-Lago.
Now, for some people, Mar-a-Lago membership is actually a pretty good deal. Just a few $100,000 and you can personally lobby the President on whatever you want. When it comes down to the de facto bribery palace he likes to call the Winter White House. And there's other ways to buy your way into the President's good grace as well. You can hold an event at well, the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. just a stone's throw from the White House which the President still owns and which has become a magnet for foreign officials looking to curry favor or perhaps buy a place of Trump Tower Manila which featured this 2013 video on its Web site even after Trump took office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Trump Tower Manila is going to be something special. There won't be anything like it in the Philippines and actually even going beyond the Philippines. Everything involved is going to be first rate. We really look forward to it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: And it's the fundamentally scammy nature of this presidency, Trump's willingness to leverage the highest office in the land to enrich himself his family, his allies. My next guest says it's what Democrats was focused on as they try to stop him. Joining me now, New York Magazine Columnist Jonathan Chait who's cover story this week was entitled -- nice image -- entitled Corruption Not Russia is Trump's Greatest Political Liability. Why do you say that, Jonathan?
JONATHAN CHAIT, COLUMNIST, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: I think this is the rubric, number one, that encompasses a lot of what is going on in this administration. Not only the scandals, but also the policy. The idea of they're trying to get themselves rich, not you. And I think number two, what a lot of people forget is how central that promise really was to the Trump candidacy. He said I'm this rich guy. You've seen how rich and famous I am but I'm going to put all that aside and I'm going to work to get you rich and I'm not going care about getting me rich. So he had these two ideas in opposition, and he knew they were in opposition in people's heads. So they thought that he would stop trying to get himself rich and really care about the American public. But I think it's very easy to show that he has continued to try to get himself rich, as you just demonstrated a few of the points. The people around him have done the same. And you didn't even get into all the petty corruption that this cabinet has been engaging in and their policy agenda has also been about just enriching people like Donald Trump, including Donald Trump himself.
HAYES: You know, as I was reading your piece, I was reminded of the 2006 midterms which I covered very closely and there was two big issue there. That was the Iraq war I think was one of the biggest. But there was also just the manifest corruption in that Republican Congress. You had all the (INAUDIBLE) scandals. You had the all the sense of self-dealing and that really sort of reached a crescendo that year and had an electoral effect.
CHAIT: Yes, you know, sometimes, Chris, I feel like you and I are the only two people who remember the Bush administration and ever reference it and talk about it but the same thing that happened that brought down the Republicans has been much, much worse. They didn't clean up their act. They went through this whole tea party phase where they were pretending to clean up their act but they've really just come back you know, greedier than ever and less reformed than ever and it's a really potent issue.
HAYES: You know, part of the problem though is -- Mar-a-Lago is a perfect example where again, I hate -- you know, this word normalize, but the existence of Mar-a-Lago itself is a scandal. It should not be the case that private citizens can pay several $100,000 to personally lobby the President. I mean, how many times has someone walked up to him and be like, you know, Mr. President, I got this liquid natural gas facility we're looking to build in Maryland are really good. I mean, it must be happen all the time. You're seeing these Instagram photos and yet that just sort of theirs kind of background noise. I think there's a real question of like how does that the basic ambient corruption at even just these sort of background issues become more acute?
CHAIT: Right. I mean, the issue is there are so many things going on, it's really hard to focus on any of them. And all these scandals and all these issues tend to just knock each other out of the news because every day there is a new development that makes you forget about the old development. It's almost better for Trump to have 14 terrible things going on than having one terrible thing going on. But the Mar-a-Lago is of a piece of this general corruption. As you say, that's literally just going on an on-going basis all over the world, not only just in the United States.
HAYES: Why do you think this is more resonant, though? You're sure making a political argument in the piece, right, in terms of where this sort of hits home with voters. Why do you think is more resonant than things like the on-going Russia investigation, Russia scandal, which also has its own kind of, I think kind of corruption aspect, right? When you think about whether people are doing things nor the right reasons or wrong reasons, which is a big part of corruption. But why do you think this more than that, or Stormy Daniels or other things?
CHAIT: I think that Russia is complicated. I think Stormy Daniels is a case where I think people probably knew that he was not the most faithful husband.
HAYES: That's fair.
CHAIT: But that was never really part of what he was selling. You know, his racism and his sexism I think are also baked into the cake and I think the people who voted for him were mostly OK with. They -- you know, maybe some of them liked it. Some of them didn't like it but were willing to tolerate it but they all knew about it. I think what they didn't know is that he as President he would not release his tax returns, he would continue to get rich, and the people around him would continue to get rich in office and they would pass a bunch of policies to help them get even richer. None of those things are what he was promising during the campaign. I think that's what gives it the power.
HAYES: You're saying in this, there's the biggest gap between what was promised and what's been delivered because -- I mean, it is true that all the drain the swamp stuff which again because it had come out of a punch line, but so much of the campaign was basically the Clintons were enmeshed in this-this sort of corrupt croniest network of self-dealing which is just remarkable to look back at as you look at what they're doing now.
CHAIT: Yes. And Trump gave speeches during the campaign promising reforms to clean up the swamp. It wasn't just a slogan. He had specific reforms. One of them, among several, was that no one would be able to go lobby for a foreign government after they left the government. You couldn't leave the White House and then go lobby for a foreign government. Now you've got people who are lobbying for foreign governments while they're in the Trump administration. It's a million times worse.
HAYES: All right, Jonathan Chait, thanks for being with me.
CHAIT: Yes, thanks.
HAYES: With me now Bob Bauer, former White House Counsel of President Barack Obama and MSNBC Political Analyst and Republican Strategist Steve Schmidt. And Bob, the thing that unites all that to me, both the sort of Amazon attacks this morning and the stuff we're talking about vis-a-vis Mar-a-Lago, is how unlawyered this whole universe seems to be to me, that it's like no one's ever checking with the lawyers. The President is not checking with the lawyers. Is this OK? Is it appropriate? Does this expose us to some sort of legal risk?
BOB BAUER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I'm not sure it's not being checked with lawyers, I'm just not certain that he is listening to what his lawyers have to say. And they may have given up giving advice that he's not going to heed. He's taking I think an understanding of his role and his understanding of his relationship to lawyers out of one world that he's known for almost what, you know, five, six decades of adult life and he is bringing it into a world in which it does not apply. He's basically bringing a certain kind of business ethic that he's developed and it worked for him. He's transposing it into the White House and he's obviously dealing with lawyers who have to either fend for that and fend with that or fight that off, probably unsuccessfully, or he is cherry picking the lawyers who will give him the answer that he wants.
HAYES: It's almost like a social psychology experiment because you can observe the way it has an effect on the way other people conduct themselves, right? So it's not just that Donald Trump acts this way, it's that the fish rotting from the head down that it seems like everyone in the administration is viewing it as essentially a kind of smash and grab.
STEVE SCHMIDT, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, look, we're in unchartered territory here. And I don't think that we really have pondered it as deeply as we need to, the level of corruption. This is -- this is unprecedented in the modern history of the country. You have General Flynn on the inaugural platform, the National Security Council. 11 minutes into his speech is on a cell phone trying to do a nuclear deal with Russian interests.
HAYES: I completely forgot that detail.
SCHMIDT: You have -- you have Jared Kushner, the Head of Citi and Apollo group coming into the West Wing of the White House and then loaning outside of their normal processes and outside of their normal loan arrangements. $500 million? This is the type of stuff that guess on in banana republics, not in a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law. We've seen a total collapse of oversight on the part of the Republican majority in the House and Senate. Everywhere you look in this cabinet, you see malfeasance, you see corruption, big corruption, little corruption, petty criminals next to the major grifters and the real criminals in all of this. And I think that when we look back on this era ten years from now, we will see fundamental changes to so many aspects of campaign finance reform to disclosure so this can never, ever happen again. But this season of corruption that we're in the middle of is real. It's not normal. It's completely unprecedented, and it's getting worse.
HAYES: You know, it reminds -- what you said about reminds me of what happens post-Watergate, right? Because what happens is Watergate is a very specific set of crimes that are committed. But then there is this incredible push for we basically inaugurate modern campaign finance, all these sport of ethics reforms precisely to change the rules so that things that may not have been outside the rules now will be outside the rules.
BAUER: Yes, that could definitely happen. But I do want to disagree with one of Jonathan Chait's premise.
BAUER: And I think you sort of touched on this. I don't agree that this is going to wind up being more important than the Russia investigation. I think that as you pointed out, the Russia investigation if it establishes what many people are concerned that it might is going to uncover a form of corruption after all that is dealing with a foreign power for personal political gain and putting the country's security at risk and undermining our democratic institutions. And I don't think that's going to go over terribly well if indeed that's the case that Bob Mueller makes.
HAYES: That's a great point and it also is part of a broader scenario, right? We talk about Russia but to your point, right, I mean, we know that Flynn was an unregistered foreign agent of Turkey. We have credible accounts that the Kushner family tried to get a loan from the Qataris, and then when they were turned down for said loan, it's possible that Jared Kushner advised the U.S. government to essentially apply the force of the American state against the Qataris as a kind of punishment. This is like - - this is corruption, not just sort of, you know, I'm on getting a condo deal. This is essentially losing sight of what American interests are on behalf of whatever, whoever is paying your paycheck.
SCHMIDT: Yes. People will die because of it 100 percent. It's corruption on an epic scale. And the scenario you just outlined with the Qataris and Jared Kushner seems highly likely circumstantially in fact that that's exactly what happened. What we do know for sure as we sit here and we see all of these revelations over the course of the last year and a half, we know more than we used to but we don't know very much compared to what Robert Mueller knows. And so the notion that the Russia story, the interference, the active measures in the election process are somehow unrelated. They're inexorably tied to this rotten administration and the corruption that you see everywhere. You look at the EPA administrator running around with a 30-person security detail, which I suspect is larger than former President Obama's and Bush's. But by any clinical definition of the word, Scott Pruitt is corrupt. This before now would not have been tolerated in this country by a member of either a Republican or a Democratic administration. It's corruption.
HAYES: Just on that point, Scott Pruitt, The New York Times sort of running down what business was before the EPA from the lobbyist couple that was loaning -- that was renting him the $50 a night condo that he didn't have to pay for the night he was there, which nice perk. And It turns out the EPA approved a lot of their projects. Now, you don't know if there is a quid pro quo, but is precisely that's the reason that you don't have this setup.
BAUER: Well, if you have the president having organizing his business interests the way he did, then you covered that in your opening, right? The operation of his business interest and the fairly flagrant way with which he has maintained the total lack of transparency into how he is running those businesses, then, of course, he sends a signal out to the rest of the administration that the deep state is sort of an available to have its pockets picked.
HAYES: Right. Bob Bauer and Steve Schmidt, it's great to have you both here in New York City. Come by any time. Next, Roger Stone claims he was just joking when he wrote an e-mail during the campaign saying he met with WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange. Well, Robert Mueller has some questions about that. New details on the Mueller probe in two minutes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STONE: I actually have communicated with Assange.
No, I have not spoken to Mr. Assange. I have not met with Mr. Assange and I never said I had.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Roger Stone has frequently claimed some kind of contact with WikiLeaks or Assange only to backpedal under scrutiny and deny, deny, deny. And now the Mueller probe is investigating. The Wall Street Journal reporting today the Special Counsel is looking at a Roger Stone e-mail from 2016 claiming he had dinner with WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange. Stone told the Journal the e-mail to former protege Sam Nunberg was "a joke" which must have been absolutely hilarious because he claimed to use the same joke to Nunberg on the phone as well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STONE: I got him off the phone when he said do you have plans for the weekend and I said yes, I think I'll fly to London and have dinner with Julian Assange. It was a joke.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: I'm clear if he was wearing the beret in the fictional dinner. Here to help put his latest Mueller development and full contexts to the investigation, Natasha Bertrand of the Atlantic. This has now been a repeated shtick of Roger Stone. I'm in contact with WikiLeaks, I've met with Julian Assange, oh no, I haven't. It's a joke. What do you make of the latest twist in this?
NATASHA BERTRAND, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Well, it's huge. I mean, if he was writing in an e-mail to Sam Nunberg who was are a very close friend of his in August 2016 that he had dinner with Julian Assange on August 3rd when no one really knows where he was on August 3rd. He says that he was in L.A. He sent this screenshot of a Delta flight to The Wall Street Journal reporters claiming that that was some kind of you know, a vindication but of course, the screenshot just said Roger and Delta wouldn't confirm he that he was actually on the flight. So we actually don't know where he was.
HAYES: Wait, you don't book your flights with just a first name? Really?
BERTRAND: You know, it's not a practice that I -- that I adhere to but on August 8th, then, you know, five days later, we see him speaking, kind of bragging to this group of Florida Republicans about having communicated with Julian Assange. So in the span of about five or six days, he has presumably had dinner with Julian Assange. Whether or not he actually flew to the embassy, or maybe it was some kind of Skype date, I really don't know. But he indicated for all intents and purposes that he had been in touch with Assange. And of course, this was when Assange had already begun teasing some kind of October surprise.
HAYES: Yes, just to put that timeline back up, I mean, on the fourth e- mails, I dined with Julian Assange last night. The next day he tweets Hillary lies about Russia involvement on DNC hack, Julian Assange is a hero. And then three days later that quote there, I actually have communicated with Assange and then it's two weeks later, trust me, it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel. Like it does seem -- he keeps -- he keeps saying you know, oh, I have this back channel to WikiLeaks. Oh, no, I don't. And I think fundamentally we got to imagine that this is something Mueller is interested why?
BERTRAND: Well, right, because this would show that there was some kind of coordination between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign therefore and Russia because of course, we have -- the Washington Post has the source that said that Roger Stone actually knew as early as the spring of 2016 that WikiLeaks had these e-mails, that they had the John Podesta e-mail, and they had the hacked DNC e-mails. Whether or not WikiLeaks knew who their source was, whether or not they knew they got from Russia and whether or not they told Roger Stone that the source was Russian, that we don't know. But of course, that's something that Roger -- that Mueller wants to get to the bottom of this. How much did Roger Stone know as early as the spring of 2016, and did he tell Trump or anyone on the campaign about it.
HAYES: What I find fascinating about this is that you go back to that Trump Tower meeting, right? And that was a revealed. We didn't know about it. You think, oh my goodness, did they do something there? But when you look at the sort of slow motion of like Roger Stone coming from here and Julian Assange coming here and the possibility of them communicating, it almost in a weird way kind of happened nearly out in the open. And it seems like that could just be the bridge maybe in the end that we all sort of saw happen in real time.
BERTRAND: Right, it really fits. And of course, Roger Stone was never shy about this. He said that Julian Assange was his hero and of course his defense is that he believes that Assange is not a Russian agent, he is actually a journalist.
BERTRAND: And so he believes that that kind of exonerates him from many wrongdoings. But of course Julian Assange had obtained e-mails that were stolen by Russia and the Trump campaign, Donald Trump himself was briefed by intelligence agencies in August about the fact that these e-mails came what were hacked by the Russians and WikiLeaks was essentially an arm of the Russian government at that point.
HAYES: So you follow this stuff incredibly closely. You report on it day in and day out. I want to get your reaction to this one weird story which is sort of associated which is George Papadopoulos shows up with his fiancee at a Chicago nightclub called hydrate, which is always good advice and a guy sidles up to him and recognizes him and they have a conversation, which Papadopoulos tells this dude, who is at the -- at the nightclub with him, that Sessions was encouraging him the whole time when the Russians were dangling the hacked e-mail.
BERTRAND: It's interesting because of course Reuters has reported there were -- there are three witnesses who were at that meeting with Sessions and Papadopoulos that said no, Sessions actually did not push back when Papadopoulos suggested a meeting between Trump and Russian representatives. Then again, it is very, very difficult to believe that Papadopoulos would have kind of run his mouth to a complete stranger at a bar. I mean, there's the London meeting, of course as kind of a precedent to that but that was with an Australian diplomat.
HAYES: Right, I just want to be clear that like this entire investigation gets started because Papadopoulos drunk and he runs his mouth to an Australian diplomat who ends up learning American intelligence.
BERTRAND: Right, it would be really stupid of him, that's all I'll say to run his mouth about this to a total stranger in a bar. And of course his wife now Simona Mangiante was very adamant about this being a complete lie so we'll just have to see where that goes.
HAYES: All right, Natasha Bertrand, thank you very much.
BERTRAND: Thanks, Chris.
HAYES: Next, thousands of teachers refused to enter their classrooms today instead turning out a massive protest against -- across Oklahoma and Kentucky. Those remarkable scenes, right after this.
HAYES: Every public school in Kentucky was closed today as teachers marched on the state capitol to protest proposed pension cuts. And this, this was the scene at the state capitol in Oklahoma where thousands of teachers and students and their allies demonstrated today for more school funding and for better pay. Inspired by the successful strike last month in West Virginia, teachers in red states are organizing themselves in social media, walking off the job to protest what they say are poor conditions in the classrooms, where textbooks are falling apart, and wages, that according to one teacher forced her to go to a food pantry just to get by.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNIFER THORNTON, TEACHER: When I drove in to park, I drove past my own students at the after-school program on their playground and they waved all smiling at me and I thought I can't -- I'm so embarrassed. I'm so embarrassed. I should not have to do this. I have two degrees. I have student loans and bachelor's degrees and 14 years' experience. I should not have to come ask for food.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Dina Goldstein is National Correspondent for The New York Times, author of The Teacher Wars: A History of America's Most Embattled Profession which is a fantastic book, I have to say. Pedro Noguera is Professor of Education, Director at the Center for Transformation at Schools at UCLA, and Dave Jamieson is a Labor Reporter for HuffPost. And Dave, you have been covering these strikes, talking to teachers. What is going on?
DAVE JAMIESON, LABOR REPORTER, HUFFPOST: Well, you know, this is really about a lack of investment in public schools from the teachers' standpoint. In a lot of the states, the math is actually pretty simple. You know, everybody had to rein in school spending during the great recession but in the states where we're now seeing these revolts, you look at West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona, these are states that actually during our recovery went on to cut taxes as well. So you've had this falling revenue, and now there's no money to give teachers. And so you have educators who have gone four years, six years, ten years without a meaningful raise and they're pretty tired of it. So the pay is just one part of it. I mean, you talk to these folks, the first thing they bring up is how their textbooks are falling apart, how they can't keep teachers in their schools, how teachers are leaving for other states that pay better and they really see it as a crisis.
HAYES: You know, the austerity, Dina, is so severe. This stat is the one that blows my mind. 20 percent of Oklahoma schools have four-day weeks. That's like forget labor conditions and whether teachers are being paid, like that is just not sufficient to educate a populace.
DINA GOLDSTEIN, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Right. It is shocking. And imagine the bind that puts parents in to find child care on that fifth day of the week. It is -- it is a truly radical situation because of the austerity budgeting, there is no textbooks. I visited schools in Tulsa that are rationing paper for teachers and students. So this is something that parents and kids are feeling. It's not just about the teacher's salary.
HAYES: And do you get the sense there was -- I mean, one of the things we saw in West Virginia which was really interesting was you know, West Virginia is a state that's got a very you know, storied labor history. But it's also a very conservative state. You saw a lot of support for the teachers there from students and parents. Did you get the same sense when you were in Oklahoma?
GOLDSTEIN: So this walkout will not work without parent and community support. And I think what teachers are worried about in Oklahoma is that the legislature did vote last week and the governor signed a bill that would supposedly give them a $6,000 raise. And some folks are saying hey, isn't that enough for you? Why you asking for more. Now, teachers are saying we want more for the kids. We want more money for textbooks, to have those five-day school weeks so they're still on strike.
HAYES: An insane extravagance. Pedro, you know, there's a huge conversation constantly about teachers unions. It's been sort of the center of the conversation. These states you've got the sort of educational associations, but largely these are places that don't have collective bargaining where this is done as a kind of grassroots organizing effort.
PEDRO NOGUERA, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION: I think that's what makes this so impressive. And it's likely that we'll see this happen in other states as well, because throughout the south and other right-to-work states, places like Kansas, there have been cuts in education, and teachers have been barely scraping by. And I think they've seen from the success in West Virginia that collective action does make a difference, even in the right so-called right-to-work states.
HAYES: You know, this idea of austerity is really central here to what Jamieson -- David Jamison was saying, Dana, that the idea that we're still living with the great recession, that stuff got cut to the bone, and then when the recovery comes back, the state houses get to choose what they're doing with that budget surplus. A lot of places still working off the 2010, 2011 template.
GOLDSTEIN: Oklahoma has a really historically low income taxes, very, very low production taxes on oil and gas. You know, they're beginning to say, hey, let's raise those production taxes a little bit, but it's still much lower than some other states with an energy sector.
So yeah, this is a state that has really had a tax cut orthodoxy. And now the public and teachers are saying hold on a second, maybe we went too far with it.
HAYES: David, what are the politics of this like? You know, these are states where public teachers are in these states are -- I don't know if you polled them, but are probably maybe a majority of Republicans, or certainly something like 50-50, a lot of Trump voters. This is not like a bastion of lefty activism. What are the politics around this like?
JAMIESON: Yeah, it's very interesting. As you said, it is definitely a mix. I've talked to people who stand on both sides of the aisle when they vote here, but I think there is a broad agreement that the funding has been really lacking. And there is tremendous anger directed at -- and these states we're generally talking all Republican-controlled, each branch of government here.
And so it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out in November. You know, talking with teachers in West Virginia, I talked to some who really until now had never been politically active. And they were saying afterwards after their victory, they were saying we're really going to hold people's feet to if fire come November.
So, any -- you look at Arizona where there is going to be an open Senate seat. I think there really could be broad political ramifications from this.
HAYES: Do you agree with that, Pedro?
NOGUERA: I do. I do. I think that teachers as an organized force, their ability to influence politics at the state level, at the local level, is going to be very significant in the next election. And as we said, we've seen these cuts, but we've also seen attacks on teachers. For the last several years in the name of reform, teachers and unions have been blamed for the state of public education. And what we've completely ignored is that the conditions in our schools have been allowed to deteriorate, and we put our kids in very substandard conditions. And teachers are speaking out about that as well.
It's ironic at a time when they want to arm teachers, they don't want to pay them salaries that they are clearly deserving of.
HAYES: You know, there is a really interesting gender dynamic here as well. It's something that you write about in Teacher Wars, which is a phenomenal book about the sort of gendered nature of the labor of teaching for years. And when you look at those pictures and when you think about the sort of core political resistance in this era and a lot of political activation, it is a lot of women who are sort of driving this political militancy we've seen.
GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, this profession is three quarters female. And as I talk to teachers across the country that are participating in these protests, they're saying they are inspired by #metoo. They're inspired by Black Lives Matter. They're inspired by all sorts of resistance movements that have really sprung up since President Trump was elected.
You know, we pay teachers so little historically because we assume they have a spouse that makes more money, but when I'm talking to teachers in Oklahoma, that's not true. Someone's teacher might be a house painter, a firefighter. They're not making a ton more money than a teacher or they may be making less.
So the teacher's wage should be a living wage and it needs to be a living wage. That's the message I'm hearing.
HAYES: All right, Dana Goldstein, Pedro Nogueira, and Dave Jamieson, thanks for joining me.
GOLDSTEIN: Thank you.
HAYES: Still to come, the propaganda machine earning a personal shout-out from the president himself. Plus, tonight's Thing One, Thing Two starts next.
HAYES: Thing One tonight, is the Department of the Interior under Trump's Secretary Ryan Zinke editing scientific studies to remove mention of human activity of climate change? Hawaii's Senator Mazie Hirono asked Secretary Zinke last month, referring specifically to reports the Interior Department removed climate change language from a news release.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MAZIE HIRONO, (D) HAWAII: Your department released the press release on this report, but it excluded the reference to global climate change drives sea level rise. This is why I ask the question, that reports that use the terms climate change, do you edit those out? Do you censor?
RYAN ZINKE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SECRETARY: I don't believe the report itself you're speaking was edited at all. The press release could have been interpreted, because it is a press release and not the report. But any -- any -- any -- any reference, any allegation that one of the reports...
HIRONO: Excuse me, I have to correct you, Mr. Secretary, because the paper's abstract did have that sentence, which you did, you excluded from your press release.
ZINKE: There is no incident, no incident at all that I know that we ever changed a comma on a document itself. Now we may have on a press release, this is how we announce it. But I don't know of any document we have changed. And I challenge you, any member, to find a document that we've actually changed on a report.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: You hear that? Secretary Zinke's indignant challenge to find evidence of the Interior Department deleting climate change references from a specific scientific report.
Well, that evidence is Thing Two in 60 seconds.
HAYES: So, today the nonprofit investigative journalist organization Reveal came out with a stunning report that officials at the National Park Service, an agency within the Interior Department deleted every mention of human's roles in causing climate change in drafts of a long-awaited report on sea level rise and storm surge. And they have the receipts. The drafts they reviewed included tracked changes, like on February 6 of this year the phrase "due to anthropogenic climate change, meaning human impact on the climate was deleted entirely from the executive summary.
Suddenly, the report's first sentence simply says sea level rise presents challenges and no longer identifies human activity as the cause. And that's just one of eight changes in the report. At one point, several sentences are deleted that outline human activities that are impacting climate change.
The Interior Department told Reveal that no one was available to comment, but Secretary Zinke must be shocked to learn this, because those edits were made just one month before he was on Capitol Hill testifying under oath.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZINKE: I don't know of any document we have changed, and I challenge you, any member, to find a document that we've actually changed on a report.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Good news and bad news today for the residents of Mayflower, Arkansas.
That was April 1, 2013, the debut edition of All In" with Chris Hayes on MSNBC. And tonight, five years, one day, maybe a few pounds later, frankly, no one is more surprised than I am that we're still here, that I'm still here talking to you through this camera. It has been quite a ride, one that has taken us all across the country, reporting from no less than 28 states. We brought you the site of the biggest breaking news stories from Ferguson to Baltimore to Paris, France. The show won an Emmy award and has been nominated five times. Our Back to Baltimore special was selected as a Peabody Award finalist. And then we've done a bunch of stuff that really should have won awards, like that time the new Star Wars trailer came out and we watched it Mystery Science Theater 3,000 style, or our hard-hitting series Bizarro Congress hosted by me in a fake mustache.
We had a Fourth of July cookout show on the roof of 30 Rock. And of course the All In 2016 Fantasy Candidate Draft, which predicted exactly nothing about this current state of our government.
It's fair the say the show has evolved a bit since we launched into a period in 2013 when frankly interest in news and national politics had absolutely nose-dived. Barack Obama had just been reelected. Washington was deadlocked and stagnant. And the national politics were frankly kind of dull.
Everything has changed in the last five years, except us. We're still here, and that is thanks to my amazing team behind the scenes, and it's thanks to you at home. We quite literally would not be here without you, the most loyal viewers in cable news.
Thank you and happy anniversary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories without checking facts first.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The sharing of biased...
CROWD: ...false news is all too common on social media.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Local news anchors across the country read the same promo last month on the dangers of bias and fake news. The script, supplied by Sinclair Broadcast Group, the largest owner, or operator of local TV stations in the country. Over 190 of them, 22 of which are NBC affiliates, and Sinclair is in the middle of a deal that would land them even more TV stations, reaching more than 70 percent of American households.
The media company has long pursued a strongly conservative editorial line. Jared Kushner once boasted the Trump campaign struck a deal with Sinclair for better coverage, which helps explain why the president defended Sinclair media today, even while attacking Amazon, whose CEO Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.
MSNBc contributor Josh Barro, senior editor at Business Insider, Amy Siskind is author of The List, a week by week reckoning of Trump's first year, and Christina Greer is a professor of political science and fellow at NYU's McSilver Institute.
All right, you've got two tweets from the president today. He's like attacking Amazon, clearly because of The Washington Post. In fact, I'm not impugning that he says #amazonwashingtonpost. It's very clear.
And then you've got him praising Sinclair. And I can sort of go two ways, like, presidents, political figures always praise media they like and castigate ones they don't. Or there's something really creepy about this, which...
AMY SISKIND, AUTHOR, THE LIST: He's extreme. I mean, since week one of my list when he's been attacking The New York Times and SNL and the cast of Hamilton. He has a pattern of silencing dissent. And also we have seen the landscape of media change since he's taken over. Time Inc is now owned by the Koch Brothers. He's blocking the merger of AT&T and Time Warner to get back at CNN, and by the way Rupert Murdoch wants to buy them. We've had conservative media buy -- conservative billionaires buy local media in New York and L.A. and shut it down.
So, pretty quickly in the weeks that I've been tracking him, he's changed the landscape of the media and he's trying to silence the voices that are left.
HAYES: Although, does it silence it, or does it give him more oxygen?
JOSH BARRO, HOST, MAJORITY REPORT: The president has a track record of complaining about this. I don't think that he has a track record of silencing dissent. I mean, it is a great time right now for The New York Times with subscribership up and you're seeing viewership up on this network and many other networks.
So, I think, you know, the president complains. The question is what is he doing policy-wise that is different or more nefarious than we've seen in the past? You know, these FCC changes, regarding Sinclair, look very similar to the policy agenda from the Bush administration and people have differing opinions about the way broadcast television should be regulated, but you know, I look at Sinclair in 70 percent or so of American households, NBC News reaches 100 percent of American households. This network reaches about 85 percent of American households.
So, I don't -- I think that that's -- there is a zone for reasonable disagreement there rather than that being, you know, necessarily some conspiracy. And the AT&T/Timewarner merger, I think there are really good arguments you mostly hear from the left about why the market power that's created when you let companies own the cable wires and the cable networks be the same companies. So, I think you know you have to look at these on a case by case basis and the Justice Department advanced that rather than the White House because they felt they had a good substantive argument that they could make in the courts about it.
CHRISTINA GREER, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: So, this is incredibly dangerous for our democracy. I mean, it is. Because the thing is we also know that this is the most emotional president we have ever seen, and so a lot of these decisions are based on personal reasons. These aren't substantive reasons where he thinks that this is a long-term viable solution for American democracy. He fundamentally doesn't care about that.
So, when we read the First Amendment of the Constitution, we know that we should have a free media, and the fact this president consistently tweets about people he likes versus people he doesn't like, ultimately it does go into policy and ultimately I think he does sort of change the narrative and sort of us going forward or lack thereof.
HAYES: To Josh's point, I thought today with the Amazon stuff, it was like a speech act. Like the -- him tweeting was the action. Like that does -- that is intimidation. It just frankly is. It is like we will come at you. We are going to come at you. We don't like what your newspaper does. You don't have to do anything. They don't have to like have any policy things. They don't have to reinstate the sales tax or whatever it is, for that not to have an effect. Like that is intimidation, I think, frankly.
GREER: It definitely is. I mean, look at the stock market ,right. I mean, and granted it might just be a blip, but this president knows that his words or his tweets can move the stock market. He knows that pretty soon he'll be able to move ships, right, with just random tweets about Iran and North Korea, which is much more dangerous.
But I think also, no, he doesn't like Bezos because of The Washington Post, but we also know that this is such a fragile, fragile man. That we know that part of that is also Bezos has more money than he does. And this is a long-standing beef.
SISKIND: And he's been going after companies -- it's basically people have been shorting their stock ahead of him attacking companies. So, that's well-known.
But the AT&T merger is really an unusual thing, and actually AT&T going after the DOJ and accusing Trump of being -- having his hands in it is really unusual, as is, you know, he is literally now -- you know, any bit of dissent against him he does try to silence. And there are voices speaking up, but it's a shrinking pool. We have to remember time...
HAYES: Is it a shrinking pool?
SISKIND: It is a shrinking pool.
BARRO: No. It is a growing...
SISKIND: His Gothamness is gone. His D.A. info is gone. Those are bought conservative billionaires and shut down, two of the biggest websites in New York, the second largest newspaper in L.A. bought by conservative billionaires and shut down.
BARRO: The idea that you can't hear people objecting to and complaining about Donald Trump is just ludicrous. I mean, look at the media environment right now, it is extremely robust. And then you see people out on the streets. And then you see...
HAYES: I disagree about extremely robust.
BARRO: At the national level it's extremely robust. I think there are big issues with local news...
SISKIND: 73 percent of households. But for many (inaudible) because most of the people get their news from the local media.
GREER: And when we see this happening, when we see the local media being agents of propaganda and the vast majority of Americans...
BARRO: But when you have -- when the reason that people are bothered by Sinclair is that they don't like the content on the Sinclair stations, and then you have a national policy that's aimed at addressing that, that is fundamentally a content-based policy...
HAYES: Here's is my thing about Sinclair. I find this sort of cryptoness of it creeping, like, right, if you say, hey, we're -- this is who we are. We are essentially a conservative broadcaster. You know, there is something to me bad faith and disingenuous about of like -- also, a, and b, it's also the lack of branding, that I also think it's weird. It's like I'm watching Como News, that's my local Seattle station, or I'm watching Madison and all of a sudden there is this remote person with an agenda saying you must run this piece. You have to run this Boris Epstein (ph) commentary that is fundamentally has a kind of disingenuous to it that I think is...
BARRO: And I don't think that's going to work in the long run, because I think people are on to it. I mean, I think there's also...
HAYES: Well, that's a question.
SISKIND: It's been working. It's out there.
BARRO: Which is it's very low quality. It's very low quality, like Boris Epstein is supposed to be...
HAYES: But they are expanding like crazy.
SISKIND: It's past from the 1970s he turned it over, that was one of the first things the FCC chair did was take back a law from the 1970s that capped ownership, so Sinclair could expand to 72 percent.
The second thing he did was repeal net neutrality. So, if you don't think there is an effort to silence dissent, you're not following the news.
HAYES: Well, let me say on the first thing, though, to Josh's point, those kind of caps, right, are a long-standing conservative Republican deregulatory agenda. And Colin Powell's son, Michael Powell, when he was the FCC basically did the same thing, right. So, it's like, it's a little hard sometimes to disentangle he's acting like some authoritarian. He's trying to quash debate from, yes, Republicans and conservatives believe in media concentration.
GREER: This is fundamentally different, because we know this particular administration, this president never had a board of advisers. He's never answered to anyone. And he doesn't believe that he has to answer to the American public. So, that's why it's a little different this time around. And the fact that people don't know that this is sort of some long-handed agenda that's coming into their living rooms where they just think that it's, you know, their local friend saying these things where it's part of a much larger, deeper -- and this is..
HAYES: That I totally agree with.
GREER: ...conspiracy here. This is a much deeper agenda to move the country to think a certain way about the media. And that is the most damaging thing that the Trump administration has been able to do is to call into question truth and facts from people who deliver the news.
BARRO: I think the most damaging thing for Sinclair is going to be this thing where the idea that somebody in Maryland is telling your local news anchor what to say. If I were running a competing station to Sinclair in these markets, and they can own two of the top four, they can't own four of the top four, I would be saying our station is local, that station is being run by some guy in Maryland...
SISKIND: It's been happening for a year.
BARRO: I don't think -- I don't think people necessarily know which of the affiliates in their markets are owned by Sinclair.
HAYES: They don't. No one knows.
BARRO: But I will say people are likely to know that...
HAYES: I will say one...
GREER: For an entire year.
HAYES: One of the affiliates in Madison I think is the only affiliate who said they're not running it and they sort of made this big stand today.
The question about whether those are functioning competitive markets is a whole other questionable, which I'm a little skeptical of.
Amy Siskind, Josh Barro, and Christina Greer, thank you all.
That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts right now.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END
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.