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

Mueller probe far from done. TRANSCRIPT: 05/24/2018. All In with Chris Hayes

Guests: Harry Sandick, Paul Butler, Shelby Holliday

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: May 24, 2018 Guest: Harry Sandick, Paul Butler, Shelby Holliday

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: -- while dredging up the worst of our history in the order to advance himself. If you believe that the ends, his political survival, justifies such means --



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When they look at the documents, I think people are going to see a lot of bad things happened.

HAYES: The President`s conspiracy theory goes boom.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: There is no evidence to support any allegation that the FBI or any intelligence agency placed a spy in the Trump Campaign.

HAYES: And tonight`s new formal word from the Mueller team that the investigation into Donald Trump and his campaign is much larger than anyone thought. Then --

ROGER STONE, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: I actually have communicated with Assange.

HAYES: New evidence that Trump associate Roger Stone was seeking Clinton e-mails from WikiLeaks. And break down with North Korea.

TRUMP: Nobody should be anxious.

HAYES: Why Donald Trump canceled the summit with Kim Jong-un and what it means for the rest of us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you deserve the Nobel Prize do you think?

TRUMP: Everyone thinks so.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. As the President, his legal team and his allies in Congress and the media do all they can to sabotage the Mueller probe right before our eyes, the Special Counsel and his team keep quiet. They stay out of the line. They don`t leak as far as we can tell. They don`t make statements. But in an obscure court filing last night, they gave us a rare glimpse of just how massive and complex their investigation has become and how far it still has to go. As part of his ongoing efforts to kneecap the Mueller probe, the President succeed at forcing intelligence and Justice Department official to brief lawmakers today on classified material related to an FBI informant.

Democrats questioned why Emmet Flood, that would be the lawyer representing the White House in that probe, appeared at the start of these briefings which were set up in response to the President`s latest conspiracy theory about a so-called deep state spy embedded in his campaign. And that is just fun one of the farfetched baseless narratives that have taken root in the vacuum of actual information from investigators. The President`s allies have taken advantage of Mueller`s silence appointing themselves somewhat hilariously his defacto spokespeople giving status updates to the public. Rudy Giuliani for example has claimed Mueller hopes to wrap up his obstruction of justice inquiry by September while other surrogates say now is the time to start whining it all down.

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In the interests of the country, I think it`s time to wrap it up. And I would very respectfully encourage the Special Counsel and his team to bring their work to completion.

REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WI), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I there he should be free to do his job but I would like to see it get wrapped up of course. I mean, we want to see this thing come to its conclusion. It`s been a year. My guess is he`s probably coming to a conclusion.


HAYES: Last night, Robert Mueller spoke for himself. He did he in a court filing, the only method his team ever uses to communicate with the public. And it reads like a direct response to the president and his supporters arguing against emotion by news organizations to unseal search warrants and other confidential records. Mueller`s team portrays the probe as a vast complex web with components we in the public aren`t even aware of. And it`s far from being done. Quoting here, the special counsel`s investigation is not a closed matter but an ongoing criminal investigation with multiple lines of nonpublic inquiry. Many aspects of the investigation are factually and legally interconnected. They involved overlapping courses of conduct, relationships, and events and they rely on similar sources, methods and techniques.

And while the special counsel`s office has already brought charges against 22 individuals and entities, according to the filing, it does not mean those cases even are closed. "Here the government`s warrant applications and related materials including those that relate to person who have been charged or plead the guilty are part of the special counsel`s ongoing investigation. Disclosure of those tiers could reveal sources, methods, factual and legal theories and lines of investigation extending beyond the charged conduct." Here to break down what we learned from the new filing, NBC News National Security Contributor Frank Figliuzzi, former Assistant FBI Director for Counterintelligence under then-Director Robert Mueller. Frank, what do you think this filing is telling us?

FRANK FIGLIUZZI, NBC NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: So one of the things that jumped out to me, Chris, is on the bottom of page 13 where Mueller counters the argument that because some people have been indicted that he`s done with those components of the inquiry, he says to the contrary. In fact, post-indictment investigation grows because people are tied to the same individuals with similar associates to the same organization in coordinated activities. Do you know what kind of language that is? That`s the language you use when you refer to organized crime families. That`s the kind of language Mueller is using to say this is complicated, everyone`s interconnected and it`s still going on.

HAYES: There`s a part of that that also seems specifically targeted at Manafort. Of course, the news organizations who I -- who I think did the right thing by trying to get the records, that`s their job, right? We want to see stuff in the press, they`re saying look, you`ve indicted Manafort, why can`t we see the search warrants? And this -- and this is what the Mueller team writes. An indictment does not end an overall investigation, for example, when a defendant is potentially involved in activities with other subjects or targets and the warrant in question seeks evidence bearing on that joint activity but the defendant has been charged only with a subset of his conduct under investigation. What do you make of that?

FIGLIUZZI: Well, it is what it is. He`s got more -- there`s more to come here. And I`ll point out that not only is he not done with people like Manafort and others, but that he`s also being reasonable. Mueller is saying, I understand the need for the press and the desire for openness here and I`m willing to give you, it`s like a card game. I`ll give you a couple of search warrant applications on Manafort because they`re already out there in the public but I`m not giving you the rest of it. And I think the fact that Mueller`s team has not leaked, has actually helped his argument because he points out that the courts have held when there`s lots of public domain information, a stream of information leaking out, you lose your right to hold your cards close. Mueller`s team is not leaking, Mueller`s team is saying we`re not done yet. You can`t have this yet.

HAYES: That`s actually really interesting point. I hadn`t thought of that. So the leaks that come from prosecutors which by the way leaks from prosecutors can really, really insidious to the administration of justice. I just want to say, in many contexts, right? There is a reason that we don`t want prosecutors to leak, the journalist want everyone to leak, that not leaking is actually part of creating the conditions under which they could make arguments about keeping things under wraps.

FIGLIUZZI: Yes, it`s almost like in property law when you allow someone to keep trespassing on your property, you essentially give them a right-of- way. What Mueller is saying we`ve given you no right-of-way? We`re not leaking and need to keep this quiet.

HAYES: There`s also the fact that Mueller is now moving to sentence Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos is one of the key sort of cooperating witnesses. He has already pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about the nature of his contacts with Russians it appears. The sentencing and moving the sentencing, does that strike you as a significant step in terms of the role he`s playing in the investigation?

FIGLIUZZI: Yes, so while -- we have to be careful not to read too much into this. The usual case is when someone is being moved to sentencing is you`ve wrong them dry. You`ve gotten what you needed. But Mueller is still careful to point out like I said that just because someone has been indicted, it doesn`t mean we`re done with that aspect of the investigation or we`re done using what he`s already given us. So here`s my theory. They`ve approved sentencing because they got what they need from him but, they are going to use what they`ve got much on down the line against other people.

HAYES: You worked with Robert Mueller so you know -- you know, the man. You know his -- him personally and how he operates. And I just wonder the degree to which -- I mean, obviously, they`re very busy and made their heads down in trying to make these cases and get to the bottom of things. The degree to which they are paying attention to the sort of ambient noise around them, to the attacks by the President and to you know, allegations they haven`t found anything or that the whole thing`s a witch hunt or a year has gone by and it`s been too long. Do you think that penetrates?

FIGLIUZZI: So, a couple things. It`s been easy for us to say look, the team`s keeping their head down, they`re marching forward, they`re mission oriented. But here`s the reality. Everyone around them, the public, their friends, backyard barbecues, everybody is saying, when is this thing going to get wrapped up. I`m here to tell you there`s no one that wants this wrapped up more than the Special Counsel himself. He wants to get this done and he`s very sensitive, I`m sure to the fact that his job is not necessarily guaranteed. So the way it affects the team they start to create a strategy, an exit strategy, a rescue strategy. They have their charges ready to be filed. They have drafts of reports ready to go. In the event they get the word that people are being fired, dismissed, they will press send and it will go to various U.S. Attorneys or State Attorneys General and they have a plan for that. So that`s how this kind of pressure is affecting the team. It`s a strategy impact.

HAYES: All right, Frank Figliuzzi, thanks for joining us.

FIGLIUZZI: Sure. Thank you.

HAYES: For more on Mueller`s latest court filing tells us I`m joined by former Federal Prosecutors Harry Sandick and Paul Butler. Anything jump out at you, Harry?

HARRY SANDICK, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes, so I thought that -- a couple things jumped out of me. Number one, there`s this appendix A to the brief which is basically a listing in one convenient place with bullet points of everything that the Mueller team has done. So going to your question with Frank about are they an aware of what the press is doing? I don`t think it`s dictating what they do but they want to make it a little bit helpful for you to see what`s out there.

HAYES: I can only read one page. Everyone around me knows that. I get -- you get one page with me.

SANDICK: Exactly. So for anyone who wants to see it, it`s in one place. Another thing that I thought was interesting is the stress on confidentiality of the investigation particularly right now. I know you`re covering it later but while you have the Nunes meeting and all these questions about whether very sensitive information from sources within the government are going to be provided, here they`re reminding people. This is being done confidentially for very important reasons and we don`t want this to slip out.

HAYES: Yes, it jumped out at me, too. They`re basically saying we`re working here. This is a work site. You can`t just walk around and touch stuff. We`re actually in the middle of doing something here.


HAYES: Paul, there`s this -- this quote on the warrant applications that were being sought about how much info they contain and I want your reaction. They describe investigative sources and methods show physical locations and electronic facility the government has discovered and by implication not discovered identified potential subjects in the investigation, revealed preliminary factual and legal theories, the dates and volume of warrants also reveal the evolution and direction of investigative interests.

PAUL BUTLER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes, so Chris, if we trace -- if we track the timeline here, so Rick Gates who was Manafort`s deputy pled guilty for lying to the FBI about a meeting involving Manafort and other people were connected with the Russians. After he was indicted, he kept lying to the FBI until finally last month he came clean. He started cooperating. What happened then? The FBI goes and gets this warrant to search Paul Manafort. What they`re interested in is where he was going. So these little devices here, the cell phone, this is like the most reliable snitch ever. The FBI can look at this and trace Manafort`s comings and goings. So that`s what they`re interested in. You know, the big question with Manafort is, why hasn`t he pled guilty? This is a guy who is 70 years old, the crimes he`s charged with are very easy to prove and he`s looking at 20 years in prison. So why hasn`t he followed the lead of Papadopoulos and Gates and Flynn and coped a plea? He seems to be protecting somebody. And so that`s what the Special Counsel is trying to find out.

HAYES: I thought it was also interesting that they`re basically saying and they`re communicating this to the court and I think to the public because they know these are public filings, they`re fools. There`s lots of stuff we know that you don`t know.

SANDICK: Absolutely. And that`s always been the issue with the Mueller investigation for anyone who observes it. And so this filing, the law is boilerplate but the facts, anyone who follows this, you sort of linger over them. There was a reference in there to seeking warrants under 2703 B and C and not to get too into the weeds, but those are provisions that would allow the capture of electronic mail that people saved in their e-mail accounts. It would allow subscriber information for phone companies. So there`s a considerable electronic surveillance piece to the investigation. And what they`re saying here is we`ve done these things but we can`t tell you what we`ve said in order to get the court to issue warrants and certainly not telling you what we`ve learned as a result of having those warrants.

HAYES: You know --

BUTLER: And Chris, the other thing that`s really important to note is that they admitted this isn`t about the Ukraine, this isn`t about the instant charges that Manafort is facing. This is about the other thing which is collusion.

HAYES: Right. So they`re already talking and they`re basically saying look, we are investigating this Russia`s activities and the possibility that the campaign included with them. That is an active area of investigation and the stuff that we would reveal to Paul`s point has to do with that aspect.

SANDICK: I think that`s right. And going again to the question of are they thinking about the public, they say in there in the portion that you were and Frank were talking about when they talk what is in the public sphere, there`s a line to paraphrase that says not everything that`s been reported about this has been accurately reported. And one has to wonder whether that fits to the story over the weekend in which Giuliani said well, Mueller told me this is going to be done in September and then ten minutes later another news organization said actually some, and they didn`t say who. It was very interestingly written. It was a senior U.S. government official said, not true. I don`t know who that source was.

HAYES: Yes, I mean, Paul, can you imagine anyone from that team having any purpose including Mueller to say that to Giuliani?

BUTLER: No. And the thing is, they also wouldn`t say to the press even if Giuliani is lying, they`re not going to go around correcting every misstatement. So this is kind of a speaking document. This is as close to a press conference as Mueller`s ever going to get. But when you look at phrases like multiple lines of inquiry, many aspects, not complete investigation. There`s no way this is going to be wrapped up by September. The relevance of September is again this 60-day guideline that the Justice Department has where they don`t bring charges 60 days before an election but that doesn`t mean they don`t stop working. They`re heavy on the case.

HAYES: Right, that`s interesting. So the DOJ guidelines and I imagine it`s something that both you are familiar with. And Paul, I know you worked specifically in the public corruption unit where this stuff is really important because what you`re doing is looking at politicians but this is pretty sacrosanct to the Department of Justice in that window.

SANDICK: Yes, absolutely right. And of course, we saw what happened in the 2016 election when --

HAYES: When it was flagrantly violated by James Comey.

SANDICK: He has a case about it. I won`t take either side of that. But it surely was damaging to the Clinton campaign and it`s not something the Department of Justice generally wants to do. And I think even now Comey has sort of backpedaled slightly saying well, I had to tough calls either way.

HAYES: Although I will say this. If Manafort is under trial, Manafort`s is at trial and nothing the Department of Justice can do about that. You can`t stop trying the guy. So if that`s happening in the fall --

SANDICK: Yes, and it should be.

HAYES: Yes, it looks like it will. Harry Sandick and Paul Butler, great to have you both.

SANDICK: Thank you.

BUTLER: Great to be here.

HAYES: Next, new evidence that Trump associate Roger Stone was seeking Clinton e-mails from WikiLeaks and the reporter who broke the story in two minutes.


HAYES: There is new evidence out today that Roger Stone was looking to get his hands on damaging information about Hillary Clinton from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange which has raised concerns with the top Democrat in the House Intelligence Committee. According to e-mails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Stone asked an associate of Assange for e-mails related to Mrs. Clinton`s alleged role in disrupting our purported Libyan peace deal in 2011 when she was Secretary of State. In an e-mail dated September 18th, 2016, Stone wrote, please ask Assange for any state or HRC e-mail from August 10th to August 30th particularly on August 20th, 2011. A back and forth ensued with the middleman between Stone and Assange, New York radio personality Randy Credico who wrote that batch probably coming out in the next drop. I can`t ask them favors every other day.

I asked one of his lawyers they have major legal headaches right now, relax. After refusing to testify before the House Intelligence Committee invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to self-terminate, Credico has now changed his mind. The Journal reporting he met yesterday with the Committee`s Democratic staff members for what he called a limited conversation about WikiLeaks, the 2016 campaign, and Mr. Stone. As for the correspondence between Stone and Credico, it appears to have taken a different tone of late on April 7th of this year. In an e-mail obtained by the Journal, Stone wrote to Credico, everyone says you are wearing a wire for Mueller. Two days later, Stone wrote him again, run your mouth and get sued. With me now to talk about what all this means is Co-Author of the Wall Street Journal Peace Reporter Shelby Holliday. Great scoop, thanks for joining us.


HAYES: So what do we -- what have we learned?

HOLLIDAY: There are a lot of layers here. So I`ll try to unpeel them all in a very fair way because in some ways these e-mails should shine a light on something that`s really important and in some ways, there`s some explanation behind it -- behind the e-mails. So first of all the e-mail itself, please ask Assange for any dirt. What we found is that this e-mail details this big alleged peace deal in Libya and if there were e-mails that would confirm this peace deal, it would show that Hillary Clinton sort of botched it. It would be bad for Hillary Clinton. So Roger Stone is fishing for information that`s negative for Hillary Clinton and it looks like he has the intention to get that out in the media somehow.

HAYES: Can I ask this question though?

HOLLIDAY: It looks like an opposition research --

HAYES: Right except -- here`s the thing, right. He`s soliciting Assange at a point after we already know that there`s this -- the hacks of the DNC, right? Is he -- is the implication there that these e-mails have been deleted and that some hackers have gotten their hands on it?

HOLLIDAY: It`s unclear. It`s unclear if he knew that Assange -- where these e-mails came from. He says -- he denies he knows the source. He didn`t know the exact timing of the releases. He didn`t know -- for example, he still says I don`t believe that Assange is a Russian agent or that he had e-mails from Russia. So it`s hard to know what he knew and that`s a big mystery in all of this but it does look like he was looking for bad information with the intention of getting it out. The second layer that`s really interesting is Randy Credico`s response to him. At first Randy says Roger checked the Web site, it would be on there. You know, it would be online if they had these.

HAYES: Dad, go to the Web site.

HOLLIDAY: Yes, and Roger said, well, are we sure that WikiLeaks released everything they have? And then Randy says, OK I asked the lawyer. Now, Randy tells me he actually didn`t ask Assange but he told Roger he did to just get him off of his back.

HAYES: Right.

HOLLIDAY: And Randy says he owed Roger a favor. So that`s another layer of this. The fact that he knew a batch would be dropping though is really interesting before any batches had actually dropped.

HAYES: That Randy would.

HOLLIDAY: That Randy would --

HAYES: Because Randy says, I think that`ll be in the next batch.

HOLLIDAY: Yes. So that sort of raises some eyebrows when you talk to legal experts. And then the third part of this is Roger says that he never had to turn his e-mail over to the House Intelligence Committee. The House Intelligence Committee said they never saw this. And you know, Democrats on the committee say that the probe ended prematurely. It should have been turned over and it`s -- his testimony was intentionally false. If so, Roger says it wasn`t false, it was completely accurate.

HAYES: Adam Schiff saying this that there is such a document that it would mean that his testimony is either deliberately incomplete or deliberately false. There`s also the fact that you know, that the dance between -- we only got to sort of see the outside of Stone and Assange, right? He says in an e-mail with Sam Nunberg, I dined with my new pal Julian Assange last night, that`s back in April.

HOLLIDAY: Yes, we uncovered that one too.

HAYES: You uncovered that one too.

HOLLIDAY: They made a lot of contact with Julian Assange.

HAYES: In 2016, a few weeks after he corresponds to Randy Credico, he says Wednesday Hillary Clinton is done, #WikiLeaks. Not -- that`s five days before the first Podesta drop.

HOLLIDAY: Yes. So I think I`m glad you brought this up because I think another really interesting aspect of this story is the timing. Randy Credico had Julian Assange on his radio show August 25th, remember that date. He says he had no contact with Assange or anyone at the Embassy before that. Though he will admit he was friends with a WikiLeaks lawyer. But Randy Credico denies being a back-channel before August 25th. And before August 25th, Roger was tweeting about Podesta`s time in the barrel, he was claiming contact with Assange, he was predicting October surprises and that raises this huge question, if Randy wasn`t his back channel, how did he know what he knew and who told him?

HAYES: That is a great point.

HOLLIDAY: And Roger says Assange was tweeting about it and that`s why he predicted everything. And he maintains that Credico was his backchannel.

HAYES: Yes, right what`s the deal with the you are -- everyone says you`re wearing a wire from Mueller?

HOLLIDAY: So the deal with that is there were a lot of e-mails and text messages that I saw and those were some safe for work text messages. But the two were supposed to get dinner. And from my -- it`s my understanding they were supposed to get together and get dinner in New York City in April as the heat is sort of ramping up in the Mueller investigation. And then Roger according to Credico backed out and said everyone says you`re wearing a wire for Mueller and he also said I can`t believe you would (INAUDIBLE) Assange wearing a wire for the deep state. And Credico, of course, denies wearing a wire and he said he would never do that. He actually pled the Fifth when the House Intelligence Committee went to interview him.

HAYES: Yes, he has not -- yes, he did not cooperate in the investigation when he pled the Fifth.

HOLLIDAY: And he actually went down to talk to member of the house because he said he wanted them to interview Assange.

HAYES: I just think -- I mean, I don`t know but yes, the point you make about the fact that even prior to the first moment at which Credico says he had an interaction with Assange still in the sort of talking about him means that there might be more to this --

HOLLIDAY: Yes, and it does seem like one legal expert e-mailed me and said it really struck me that not only does Randy -- Roger not want Randy to be talking but also that they seemed pretty familiar and it seemed like this was a routine thing that they were making requests.

HAYES: Yes, Shelby Holliday, thanks for joining us.

HOLLIDAY: Thanks for having me.

HAYES: Coming up, the attempt to degrade and politicize the Mueller investigation on full display today but it may just be another stunt that is backfiring next.


HAYES: A strange and sorry spectacle today under pressure from Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans. The Department of Justice holding not one but two separate briefings about confidential informants in the Russia investigation. In other words, revealing key information about the ongoing currently active criminal investigation into the President`s campaign and Russian election interference. The same investigation you will recall that has already resulted in five guilty pleas and 17 indictments. Republicans originally demanded a briefing on the pretext of concerns about a supposed spy in the Trump campaign. And indeed one of today`s briefings was originally supposed to be Republicans only. Democrat Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee was added at the last minute, managed to work his way in there.

And then a second bipartisan briefing was only scheduled after Democrats and I think some Republicans behind the scenes held about a wholly partisan meeting. Oh and for some reason, guess who showed up to both meetings, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, that would be the man that works for the President who was currently being investigated and Emmet Flood who is part of the Trump legal team in the Russia probe. He`s part of the White House Counsel`s Office. They made some remarks and then left as the meeting began. But why was Flood there at all? Well, thanks to Rudy Giuliani, the chattiest member of the President`s legal team we know why, he told the ABC, "the President personally wanted Emmet there today." Giuliani spilled some more today about why even have these briefings at all telling Politico, gush, he talks to reporters all day long, "we want to see how the briefing went today and how much we learned from it.

That`s sort of saying the quiet part loud that this entire exercise appears to have really been about revealing the evidence in Mueller`s investigation to the very subject of that investigation, Donald Trump. Here to help me understand what`s really going on here Democrat Barbara Boxer, former U.S. Senator from California who now hosts the Fight Back Podcast, Jim Manley former Chief Spokesperson for then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Fordham Law Professor Jed Shugerman.

Senator Boxer, let me start with you, have you ever seen anything quite like what we saw today?

BARBARA BOXER, FORMER U.S. SENATOR, CALIFORNIA: No. And when I first heard about this partisan briefing from the FBI and the White House to Nunes and Gowdy, I actually put in a call to Adam Schiff because I was so stunned by it and I left a message and I said, please, please, we`ve got to get in there.

Look, I served on the foreign relations committee for a long time. I think you know that. I was very senior when I left. And we have never, and I mean never, ever had a briefing on a sensitive subject without both sides being there.

You cannot do this to this country. And you know, this was nothing called spy gate. They can say spy gate all they want, this is really Watergate two. This is another break-in. It`s a break-in into the FBI files on an ongoing investigation by the very people that are the subject of the investigation. And I just want to say I don`t know if Devin Nunes cares a wit what I think, but he had better watch out because this looks to me like more obstruction in plain sight.

HAYES: Jim, you worked for Harry Reid when he was part of the Gang of Eight, which is the sort of majority/minority leaders in both houses and the chair and ranking member of both intelligence committees.

To Barbara`s point, like, this is not the way it usually works, right?

JIM MANLEY, FORMER CHIEF SPOKESMAN HARRY REID: Absolutely. She`s absolutely correct. And I`ll go one step further. I have never seen a process here where, first of all, there was a briefing for individual members and then a larger briefing for the so- called gang of eight. That is now how this is supposed to work at all.

Your viewers need to understand that the Gang of Eight was specifically formed to get briefings on the most sensitive intelligence matters. There`s no two-step process here where you start with one group and you go to the other, it`s supposed to be begin and end with the briefing of the so-called gang of eight.

HAYES: And we should note -- I mean, the gang of eight, this creation sort of post-Church committee (ph) as part of this wave of intelligence reform that happens after Watergate actually, right, where the idea is like to get oversight that`s bipartisan that congress is able to -- the whole point. And we`re watching this, Jed, we`re watching this sort of framework, this structure that has been in place essentially since post Watergate really be pulled apart in front of our eyes.

JED SHUGERMAN, FORDHAM LAW: Yeah, it`s being pulled apart.

BOXER: Yes, in plain sighting.

SHUGERMAN: Go ahead, Jed.

SHUGERMAN: Sure. So I think there`s another point here which is that has backfired on the core Trump constitutional law arguments.

So, there are basically the Trump and his supporters have argued an extreme form of separation of powers that congress can`t touch the presidency in two ways. One that congress can`t pass criminal statutes that apply to the president, like obstruction of justice. If a president does it, it can`t be illegal is something that Nixon once said.

And secondly, that congress can`t protect Mueller`s job, that congress can`t add extra protections against removal. This episode, I think, shows the hypocrisy and undermines that argument because essentially Trump and his supporters have backed Nunes and congress for intervening in investigation. This is supposed to be an executive power, right? But they have overspend. They`ve disproven their congressional theory and hypocrisy about what they have supported out of congress intervening in the DOJ.

HAYES: That`s what`s so tangled here, Senator Boxer, that -- and another part of this seems unprecedented -- which is the White House, the executive, right, it`s the Article II branch, sort of collaborating, colluding with congress to attack a part of the executive itself, which is the integrity and the sort of formidability of the Department of Justice.

BOXER: Well, yes. And if you look at everybody who has been at the top of these investigations, they have been Republicans.

HAYES: Every one.

BOXER: Even some of the Republicans that he appointed, like Rosenstein.

But the bottom line here, and, you know, people say it`s complicated, here`s the deal. Since the beginning of time of this country, we have been warned about foreign entanglements. If you read George Washington`s farewell address, it`s laid out.

Now, the FBI is protecting us to make sure that no foreign nation gets entangled in our election. And what happens is they even tell Donald Trump to beware about it and they told Hillary Clinton to beware about it after they both became the final candidates for their respective parties. This was known.

And so what Trump is trying to do is find out what this informant learned, OK? By the way, the informant is a Republican. He served for Republican administrations.

HAYES: That`s also true.

BOXER: That`s what is really the icing on the cake. And he wants to find out what Mueller knows. Giuliani even said it. If any one of us did it, I think we would be hauled off to jail. Honestly, this is a mob operation.

HAYES: And Jim, I got to wonder, too, about just -- to Jed`s point about kind of the balance of power issues here. Of Ryan and McConnell like letting Nunes and Gowdy essentially represent the United States Congress. That seems to me an incredible gambling away of their own power.

MANLEY: It is, but of course, they`ve made that decision. Now they are going to have to stick to it, as far as I can tell. There`s no diminution in their efforts to try and prop up this investigation. They`ve made a decision, a strategic decision that they`re not going to break away from this president. They`re going to stand behind him and protect him at all costs. And a significant cost to their legacy and the history books are not going to be kind to either one of those two folks. They will have -- at some point in time, there is going to be a reckoning. There`s going to be a price to pay because they`ve utterly failed the system of checks and balances.

HAYES: All right, Barbara Boxer, Jim Manley and Jed Shugerman, thanks so much for joining me. I really appreciate it.

Still to come, the Trump summit with North Korea falls apart at the hands of the reality show president just ahead. Plus, tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two and the fancy commemorative summit coin starts next.


HAYES: As you may have heard by now, and as we`re going to get to later on in the show, today President Trump abruptly canceled the big summit with North Korean leader Kim Jung-un planned for next month.

And while, of course, there are huge, monumental, dangerous issues to contend with in the wake that have decision, the real question on everyone`s mind is, what`s going to happen with the fancy coins the White House made to commemorate the summit. You remember the ones with the silhouettes of Trump and Kim Jong-un facing off, a jagged split dividing them, the phrase peace talks imprinted on the top and a few olive branches thrown in for good measure?

Those magnificent coins are obviously going to be a collector item now, a hot commodity that would sell for any price, or at least that`s what you might think if you were any good at selling things with Trump`s name on them. So, of course, that`s the exact opposite of what happened. And that`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.


HAYES: When news broke today that President Trump had canceled the summit with Kim Jong-un, there was a mad rush to a White House website not for more information of Trump`s decisoin, but of course, to the gift shop for the commemorative summit coins where, lo and behold, the coin that had been designated the deal of the day, selling for the low, low price of just $19.95.

And thank goodness the shop had posted a disclaimer to dispel any concerns about the fate of the coins. In true Trump fashion, written with almost, but not quite all the words unnecessarily capitalized and missing some punctuation saying the coin will be made whether or not the summit occurs as scheduled, because the theme is coming closer to peace and celebrates the act of communication among countries. If summit does not occur, you can request a refund. But most supporters have said they want there heirloom of political history regardless of outcome.

I cannot believe someone wrote that. And then for the piece de resistance, the page couldn`t handle the volume of visitors and crashed, remaining down for several hours.


HAYES: Harvey Weinstein, the once powerful media mogul who became an emblem of alleged sexual abuse and assault, is expected to surrender to law enforcement tomorrow, NBC News has learned, and face criminal charges by the Manhattan district attorney`s office in connection to at least one allegation of sexual abuse. According to The New York Times, citing a person with knowledge of the investigation, the charges involve accuser Lucia Evans who said Weinstein forced her to perform oral sex on him in 2004.

But, based on the ongoing investigation by the Manhattan district attorney`s office, tomorrow`s charges could include allegations by other accusers. The DA has also been investigating an allegation by the actress Paz de la Huerta, that he raped her in 2010.

To date, the list of Weinstein accusers totals 95 and spans four decades, at least 20 of which involve allegations of rape or forced sex acts. Weinstein has maintained through representatives that, quote, "any allegations of nonconsensual sex are unequivocally denied," and now he will get a chance to test that denial in the criminal justice system.

Coming up, the Trump show takes a predictable turn as the president cancels the summit with North Korea. What all this means to the rest of us next.


HAYES: For the last few weeks, the pro-Prump media has been all but crowning Donald Trump the greatest diplomat in American history because he had scheduled a summit meeting with the North Koreans. In fact, a group of 18 House Republicans sent a letter calling for Trump to be awarded the Nobel Peace prize. And Trump himself told reporters that, quote, everyone thinks he deserves to win it.

At an April rally in Michigan, Trump luxuriated in Nobel chants from his most hardcore supporters.


CROWD (chanting): Nobel. Nobel. Nobel. Nobel. Nobel.

TRUMP: that`s very nice. Thank you. That`s very nice.



HAYES: Go on.

The White House even, as we mentioned, minted that special coin to mark the summit featuring Trump and, as the coin respectfully called him, supreme leader Kim Jong-un.

Yet while all of this was happening, there were plenty of people asking why are we taking Donald Trump`s Korea diplomacy seriously? Trump had accepted the offer of a summit on the spot, seemingly without much thought, and reportedly didn`t think he need to much prepare for the meeting. And despite images of Kim and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo grinning like old friends, the two sides held deeply divergent and, one might even say, incompatible positions. And they were only digging in as the June12 summit date approached, which brings us to today`s inevitable in retrospect conclusion to the latest chapter in the reality show presidency.


TRUMP: I`ve decided to terminate the planned summit in Singapore on June 12.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does the breakdown of this summit raise the risk of war with North Korea?

TRUMP: Well, we`ll see what happens.


HAYES: we`ll see what happens. Who knows?

NBC News is reporting tonight that hawkish national security John Bolton -- adviser John Bolton -- pressured Trump to walk away and that the president was worried Kim might cancel and wanted to cancel before the North Korean leader could.

Trump first announced the decision in a letter that he personally dictated, at least that`s what White House sources say, which you can believe because it alternated in tone between aggressive and wounded in which Pompeo was humiliatingly forced to read in a Senate hearing.


MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: You talk about your nuclear capabilities, but ours are so massive and powerful that I pray to god they will never have to be used. If you change your mind having to do with this important summit, please do not hesitate to call me or write.


HAYES: Call me.

Trump`s move took the world very much by surprise. To build momentum for the summit, North Korea, which says it stillwants to talk despite Trump`s decision, said it just destroyed a nuclear test site in front of foreign journalist who then found themselves upon Trump`s announcement inside a country known to use foreign hostages as bargaining chips.

The decision is already precipitating a crisis for South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who has staked his politics on this summit and could inflame tensions with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who Trump blamed for screwing up the deal.

And all this for what exactly? We`re right back to where we were when Trump was taunting Kim as Little Rocket Man, though three Americans have come home. And also threatening him with, quote, fire and fury. That Nobel prize is most definitely on hold.


TRUMP: I`ve spoken to General Mattis and the joint chiefs of staff and our military, which is by far the most powerful anywhere in the world that has been greatly enhanced recently, as you all know, is ready if necessary.


HAYES: Joining me now to discuss the cancellation of the summit, Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a member of the Senate foreign relations committee.

Senator, where does today`s cancellation leave us?

SEN. ED MARKEY, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: Well, it leaves us with a failure. It leaves us with a lost opportunity. But it doesn`t leave us without some hope that these negotiations might be restarted. A lot will depend upon Donald Trump and his team, but we should now hope that we have additional new sustained engagement, that we look at the sanctions regime and toughen them wherever necessary, that we deepen our relationships with South Korea and Japan. They weren`t even notified this morning that the president was going to pull out of the deal, but there still is some reason to be hopeful that we could get to the table, we could begin this negotiation.

HAYES: Do you know something I don`t know when you say there`s reason to be hopeful?

MARKEY: Well, we don`t have any other option. We have to be hopeful.

HAYES: Well, but here`s the thing. What you`re describing, the steps you`re taking are the sort of basic blocking and tackling of international diplomacy one would have expected to have been already done. It`s still going to be this president and his people going forward. What hope is there that they change the way they go about doing this?

MARKEY: Well, I agree with you, Chris. I don`t have any way of getting inside the internal workings of the cerebral mechanisms of John Bolton or Donald Trump. My hope is that, however, is that they may have learned a lesson here, that you can`t be using the Gadhafi model. You can`t be using the Libya model, because at the end of that Gadhafi dies and at the end of it, if you`re going to use it as an analogy, Kim dies.

So maybe, just maybe, the Trump administration now will try to tamper down some of this crazy rhetoric that was being used and maybe in turn Kim will do the same thing. There`s no guarantee that that`s the case. But ultimately, there is no military solution to this problem even though President Trump alluded to it once again in our powerful nuclear arsenal that we could use.

HAYES: I want to play both John Bolton and Vice President Mike Pence talking about the, quote, Libya option. Take a listen.


JOHN BOLTON, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I think we`re looking at the Libya model of 2003-2004.

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This will only end like the Libya model ended if Kim Jong-un doesn`t make a deal.


HAYES: There are people who think they were intentionally, both those gentlemen, opposed to the summit, opposed to talks, and trying to sabotage them by invoking that.

MARKEY: Well, you know, there were many people inside of the Reagan administration who did not like the idea of him going to the summit with Gorbachev. They just wanted to see a continuation of the arms race. So, yeah, it`s clear that there are voices, and John Bolton`s at the front of that line, who do not believe in a negotiated resolution of this issue.

The president`s ultimately going to have to decide if he wants to try to pursue his, quote unquote, Nobel prize. And the only way he`s going to be able to accomplish that goal is if he goes to the negotiating table.

But he has to do so in a way that doesn`t allow for his subordinates to be engaging in reckless charges against the North Korean regime or using analogies that actually would jeopardize the very survival of Kim if an agreement was reached. That is just going to be counterproductive and will lead to an escalation of tensions rather than a reconciliation that is reached between our country and North Korea.

HAYES: You mentioned Japan and South Korea neither being notified. We have news reports that it took them entirely by surprise, two very close allies. Obviously South Korea, the most important here. They share the peninsula with North Korea. What is the message to American allies across both Asia, Europe, and around the world in the wake of the Iran deal being scrapped unilaterally and now the summit being canceled without consultation?

MARKEY: Well, unfortunately, it is an America first or I guess more precisely a Trump first foreign policy. But ultimately that`s counterproductive. We can`t really be successful in the Middle East without our allies. We can`t be successful on the Korean peninsula without our allies. It`s on the one hand naive and on the other hand reckless. It`s just not a complete understanding of how diplomacy has to work.

Now, it has to be accompanied with tough economic sanctions, with all of our allies all joining in that, including China, by the way. But there`s a certain naivete in the president if he thinks this is a real estate deal. Kim is not negotiating ab initio here, his father negotiated on these same issues. His grandfather negotiated on these same issues. This is a family playbook. And the president should learn the family playbook because they`ve been doing this for a long time and if the president thinks that he`s just going to come in, make an assertion, demand a response and get it, he is absolutely as naive a negotiator on international issues as could be imaginable.

HAYES: All right. Senator Ed Markey, thanks for being with me.

MARKEY: You`re welcome.

HAYES: And don`t forget that All In, this show is now available as a podcast every day. And make extra sure to check out our brand new podcast, this project we`ve been working really hard on, exploring the big themes behind the news each week, asking big questions, long form conversations, why is this happening, both available wherever you get your podcasts.

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


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.