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

Law enforcement update on Annapolis shooting. TRANSCRIPT: 6/28/2018, All In with Chris Hayes.

Guests: Elizabeth Warren, Harry Litman

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: June 28, 2018 Guest: Elizabeth Warren, Harry Litman

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: "ALL IN" with Chris Hayes starts right now.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a terrible tragedy here in Anne Arundel County.

HAYES: A mass shooting in a Maryland newsroom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The shooter is in our custody.

HAYES: Tonight, what we know about the victims and what the suspect is telling police. Then --

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D), NEW JERSEY: The President of the United States right now is a subject of an ongoing criminal investigation.

HAYES: Will a president under criminal investigation take a Supreme Court justice that may rule on his case.

JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, FBI: He asked specifically of loyalty.

HAYES: Tonight, Senator Elizabeth Warren on the new push to delay a nomination until the Mueller probe is over. And as protests descend on Washington, what we know about the 2,000 kids separated from their parents by the Trump administration when ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I'm Chris Hayes. Today, a gunman opened fire on the offices of the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland. At least five people were killed, several others were injured. The first 911 calls came in at 2:34 this afternoon within minutes an intern from the Capital Gazette newspaper tweeted active shooter please help us. A man whose office is across the hall from the newspaper's office described the scene.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So I was on the phone with a client and heard a loud noise, like an incredibly loud bang and I poked my head around the corner of my desk so I could see out our front door into the front door the Capital Gazette and I saw a guy. I saw a guy holding a gun, the door the Capital was that have been blown to pieces. It was shattered pieces all on the carpet and this guy was holding what looked like a big shotgun and moving across the entrance of the Capital Gazette office pointing the gun deeper into the office like he was targeting people.


HAYES: The suspect described as a white male in his 30s is in custody and has been identified through facial recognition software after law enforcement officials say he was somehow able to obscure his fingerprints. Joining me now from Annapolis is NBC News Correspondent Hans Nichols. Hans, what's the latest.

HANS NICHOLS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, well, we're waiting on an update here that's going to start any minute, Chris. And what we know as you said, five dead three injured and we do know that the paper is going to go out tomorrow. The Capital Gazette, one of the reporters there verified report -- reporters saying, we know this. We're going to put out a damn paper tomorrow. It gives you a sense of the resilience inside of that newsroom. We still don't know how --

MELBER: You know what, I'm going -- sorry, I'm going to cut you off right there just because we're going to actually take this press conference live. Let's listen in.

WILLIAM KRAMPF, ACTING CHIEF, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT: A white male in his late 30s in custody and our Criminal Investigation Division investigators are interviewing him now. He entered the building. This was a targeted attack in the Capital Gazette that is located at 888 Bestgate Road on the first floor. He entered the building with a shotgun and he look for his victims as he walked through the lower level. We have secured the building. We are in the process of notifying the next of kin. We have five confirmed fatals and two injuries. The injuries my understanding are superficial, possibly from glass on the shotgun blast. We are working on now securing his residence.

He does live in the state of Maryland. We are in the process of securing that residence and preparing for search warrants. So this is the next phase of this scene and that is the investigative phase. This is the part that takes the most time. As I would assume many of you have already heard from many other police agencies in the state of Maryland across the country, the investigative process is very difficult. We must be thorough that's why you will not get the information from social media or from us unless it's being confirmed. We have allowed our investigators to do their job. They are there now and we are going to continue to provide you with information.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you said it's targeted --

KRAMPF: Hold on one second, I want to share something with you that I think is important. We mentioned before about the improvised explosive device that is not an IED, it was actually canisters of smoke grenades that he used inside of the building when he entered establishment. So this person was prepared today to come in. This person was prepared to shoot people. His intent was to cause harm and as I stated before the investigative part of this, it's going to be thorough and it's going to take some time. As you can see behind us, we opened up Bestgate Road. We thought that we may need to secure that roadway for a long period of time and as we get further into the investigation we realize that we don't need that roadway but the building 888 Bestgate will be secured for some time. I do not have a timeframe on that yet. We're going to be inside there for quite a bit and until this investigation is complete. When I have more confirmed information, I will share that confirmed information with you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So he targeted specifically this newspaper, exactly what was his beef with this newspaper?

KRAMPF: That's what we're investigating then.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But they're already reported that he had a history of the newspaper a couple of years ago.

KRAMPF: That's what I'm hearing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does he live in Annapolis?

KRAMPF: But before we confirm that, I need our investigators to go and look into that and make sure that correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) identifying a man that you went to a process of facial recognition to (INAUDIBLE) identification. Is that why you were able now to go to the home of (INAUDIBLE)

KRAMPF: That's the first time I've heard of facial recognition.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So Chief, you're saying he could have been associated --

KRAMPF: He was at our criminal investigation -- our detectives are down there with him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When do you think we're going to get any more information on the suspect?

KRAMPF: You will have the information as soon as we confirm it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is this somebody that knows you, Chief? Is it (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Could you confirm the suspect may have a connection to the Capital Gazette? Can you tell that?

KRAMPF: The only connection I can tell you about right now is possibly, possibly through social media. I have no other confirmation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is any of your department had any issues with this guy in the past or other departments?

KRAMPF: We're still looking into that. I cannot confirm whether or not our department has come in contact with them. We will have that at a later time as well.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you received any comment from any family members?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is he a resident of Maryland? Can you tell us if he's a resident of Maryland or he came from outside?

KRAMPF: No, he's a resident of Maryland.


KRAMPF: That's going to be part of the investigation. I can't confirm for you whether or not he actually knew employees there or if he just targeted the business in general.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you tell us where in Maryland he's a resident?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When are you able to confirm his identity, sir?

KRAMPF: Very soon, very soon.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chief, can you confirm on the information about the shotgun? Was it a sporting shotgun or was it tactical shotgun and can you tell us information about the smoke grenade if they were commercially available or military --

KRAMPF: I don't have that information.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, were there, accomplices, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) they were shot in the newspaper office, sir?

KRAMPF: I can't confirm that. There were shot on the first floor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, there were some talks about the gunman trying to hide his identity in certain ways maybe his fingerprints burned off. Can you confirm any of that?

KRAMPF: I cannot. It's the first I heard. Facial recognition and the first I've heard about fingerprints. We have no verification of either.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you confirm if he has a criminal record?

KRAMPF: I can't confirm that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there any threats against -- is there any threats on social media or directly sent to that building, do we know?

KRAMPF: We know there were threats sent to the Gazette from social media.


KRAMPF: He's in his late 30s.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By this person -- were the threats sent by this person?

KRAMPF: The threats were sent over social media. We're trying to confirm what account that was and we're trying to confirm who actually sent them.


KRAMPF: I'm sorry, hold on one second.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How long ago was this threat?

KRAMPF: How long ago? To my knowledge, those threats were as early as yesterday.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you tell us anything about the broken windows on the fourth floor?

KRAMPF: I can't answer that. The broken windows on the fourth floor, as I mentioned to you guys once before, we have a two-phase approach, right? One is tactical, one is investigative. Those broken windows in the fourth floor probably and I will confirm this but I'm almost positive they came from our tactical guys.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chief, are all the five fatalities employees of the Gazette? Are all five fatalities employees of the Capital Gazette?

KRAMPF: I can't confirm that.


KRAMPF: We have not. In fact -- that's a great question. In fact, we're pulling all those as we speak. We have property managers here. We have everybody that's associated with that building. Here's the interesting part. Governor Hogan and Mr. Schuh our County Executive has mentioned this numerous times. And if you see this gentleman behind me from the Red Cross, we have had so much support from around the state not only law enforcement but both private and public sector and this gentleman is one of them from the Red Cross that have come and just asked what they can do. And that's important for us. We have to take care of a lot of people in a scene like this, not only police officers but our victims, our victims' families and then we have to get everybody back to normal, right? That's our job. So that's why we have these people here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you tell us anything about how he's apprehended (INAUDIBLE)

KRAMPF: I can't. That's part of the investigation and when I'm able to give that information to you, I will.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does the paper have a security in place given fact they got threats?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chief, how about his age?

KRAMPF: Late 30s.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there any security in the building given the fact they were dealing with threats?

KRAMPF: We don't know that yet. That's part of the investigation. We're looking into that as well. Based on the threats, not to my knowledge, no.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) ask for any kind of protection or any kind of response to a threat?

KRAMPF: If they -- if they have, we -- I'm not aware of that personally but we are -- we will look into that because of those stress and we'll get back to you on that information.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were you able to take his fingerprints?

KRAMPF: Say that again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were you able to take his fingerprints?

KRAMPF: Were we able to take his fingerprints? That'll be part of a whole booking process. Yes, eventually his finger will be taken.


KRAMPF: I'm sorry?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are reports that he burn his fingerprints --

KRAMPF: Yes, I want to be really clear about this, guys. We have no information about facial recognition or anything about his fingerprints. If I had that information I would give it to you but we don't -- we don't have that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chief, as you're trying to verify the social media account, can you talk about the specificity of the threat? What kind of threat were made?

KRAMPF: What I can share with you now is they were general threats towards the Capital, the Capital as a media outlet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But I mean, is it saying I want to kill somebody or just saying I'm not going to buy your paper again? Can you give us the idea of the level of threat?

KRAMPF: That's a good question. So when I have that information, I will be more specific on the threat.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you say that they were violent threats?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you say that they were violent threats?

KRAMPF: They indicated violence.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Anyone specific at the paper?

KRAMPF: I can't answer that.


KRAMPF: We do not have any ink -- we have no knowledge at all that he was targeting anyone specific at the capital.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Deputy Chief, has they in the Capital talk to at any point recently about some concerns or threats, have they -- have they personally contact you? Did you guys have a conversation with that?

KRAMPF: No. Look, I want to be clear about another point. The Capital Newspaper is our local newspaper. We interact with the Capital newspaper daily. Lieutenant Frashure is our public information officer. We have friends at the Capital newspaper. We speak with these men and women on a daily basis to get stories out that are important to the citizens of this county. So we're here, we're invested, we're going to get this investigation right and, we're going to come back and we're going to give you credible, confirmed information to answer all the questions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chief, when do you think you're going to have a name on the suspect?

KRAMPF: Soon. One more.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there a boosted police presence after the threats were issued? Can you say what --

KRAMPF: Say that again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there a boosted --

HAYES: All right, we are going to keep an eye on that and see if any more news develops but we've got some news here we're learning about the investigation. I want to bring in Tom Winter, NBC News National Investigative Reporter. Tom?

TOM WINTER, NBC NEWS NATIONAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: So Chris, the information, and the Chief was just referring to a white male in his late 30s involving some threats against the paper. Our reporting here in the reporting of my colleague Jonathan Dienst is that the suspect's name is Jarrod Ramos J-A-R-R-O-D Ramos. He's 38-years-old. He'd been involved in a lawsuit against the paper where this shooting occurred. The lawsuit was filed in 2012 according to public court documents we've reviewed tonight and involved a defamation case in a court in 2015 essentially tossed that case out saying that Ramos didn't have grounds to bring it because the report that was written was written off of public documents and public information. So in that instance, defamation just doesn't apply. So we don't know whether that specific article, that specific lawsuit or anything about that led to today's shooting. We want to be clear about that. But this person did have a history with the paper and again it's Jarrod Ramos, 38 years of age who's been identified by multiple law enforcement officials as the person responsible for today's shooting.

HAYES: You know, I think immediately what happened in the environment that we're in, people wondered if this had been essentially ideologically motivated in some way against the press in general and it appears from the information we've learned, narrow information thus far there was a particular -- it seems deranged beef by this individual against this paper.

WINTER: Yes, we're in the process of going through social media accounts right now to see what this person is posed and whether or not some of those postings are authentic. But if they are authentic, then they're very clearly targeted at a specific reporter and a specific article in a specific paper, this specific paper. The art -- the reporter that was involved in this lawsuit is no longer with the paper, it's important to note but it does appear that this individual had a specific tide of the paper. I know folks have wondered if there was a broader ideology here. Frankly, it's just too soon to say and police have not stated a particular motive but obviously there is -- there is a nexus here, there's a history here.

HAYES: There's a history and a history of conflict. I mean, he sued -- he sued this newspaper according to public documents about something they wrote that he did not like.

WINTER: That's right. And the suit went on for three years and was eventually overturned but yes there was -- there was a significant law -- significant history in the in the public cases.

HAYES: We know that there was some concern I think out of a surfeit of caution, there were NYPD deployed outside media entities today. Again, I think in the absence of knowledge of a motive whether there was something broader here than this particular paper.

WINTER: You know, the NYPD is uniquely situated and uniquely prepared to send heavily armed units to specific locations based on threats that happen. We see that if there's a terrorism attack overseas, if it happens in a subway, the NYPD responds on the subway. Just -- it's something that they have the ability to do, the resources to do so we see that here in New York City before air became aware that there may be some other cities that are doing that. But as we learn more about the motive and what drove today's shooting that obviously police departments will react to that whether this is a longer-term protection or whether this is something that appears to be very isolated to this newspaper and this is something we're going to have to wait and see.

HAYES: Yes. I mean, the last mass shooting is sort of similar in this profile, the YouTube shooting which again is sort of similar trajectory, the sort of horror at the thought of it. The sort of questions about whether this was broad -- you know, abroad targeting --

WINTER: Somebody is trying to send a broad message --

HAYES: Somebody is trying to send a broad message ideologically motivated and then that -- again, that appears to have been a deeply deranged individual with a you know, violence against specifically YouTube --

WINTER: Exactly.

HAYES: -- again, as the pieces fall into place here. We should note that the very diligent and brave men and women of the newspaper there in Annapolis are putting their newspaper out. It's a small newsroom. People are talking about the shocking loss of life and how it feels like family there. And so of course, we send our condolences to those individuals on what is undoubtedly the most difficult if not one the most difficult days of life. Tom Winter, thank you for your reporting. We'll be right back after this.


HAYES: All right, the President of the United States who is at the center of a major criminal probe now gets to appoint another justice the Supreme Court which may end up being akin to picking his own jury. It remains an open question whether the President or his campaign conspired with Russia, a foreign adversary to sabotage the 2016 election in order to take the White House. It is also an open question whether the President has since then used his office to obstruct justice and impede the investigation into his campaign his family, associates, and itself. But that investigation has already uncovered a range of crimes.

Tonight, the President's former Campaign Chairman sits in jail after being indicted for money laundering and other charges. Paul Manafort's bail was revoked after he allegedly tried to tamper with witnesses after the fact. And the first of his two trials is scheduled to start in less than a month. Besides Manafort, the President's Deputy Campaign Chairman who also works on his transition pleaded guilty to a felony and is cooperating with investigators. His National Security Adviser pleaded guilty and cooperating. One of his foreign policy advisors pleaded guilty and is cooperating. And while the President is under investigation, he continues in effect to collude with Russia out in the open just as he did during the campaign.


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


HAYES: This morning on the same day the White House announced a one-on-one summit with Vladimir Putin next month, the President sided with Putin yet again over the conclusions of the U.S. Intelligence Community and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee tweeting, "Russia continues say they had nothing to do with meddling in our election." That's 130 days until the midterm elections. The President is very clearly signaling to Russia that they will not be held accountable for anything they do now to interfere with American democracy. He is essentially saying just go right ahead.

And that is the context in which this president now gets to pick a new Supreme Court Justice. A president, let's remember who once asked the FBI Director for his personal loyalty and who rails against the Attorney General for failing to shield him from a criminal probe. All of that matters because the Supreme Court will almost certainly be asked to rule on some of the most sensitive and significant aspects of the Mueller investigation. They will likely be asked to rule on what the President of the United States can get away with. The President's lawyer has already threatened a legal battle to the special counsel telling ABC News "If Mueller tries to subpoena us, we're going to court."


RUDY GIULIANI, LAWYER OF DONALD TRUMP: The President can go before a judge and say it's for the purposes of harassment, it's unnecessary, we win that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that's what you intend to do if your subpoenaed?

GIULIANI: Oh gosh, we'll say hey, you've got everything you need. You've got everything you need. What do you need us for?


HAYES: The President's own nominee can end up being the decisive vote in determining among many other questions whether the President himself has to testify in the Mueller probe. I ask Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren if that possibility concerns her.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Yes, it concerns me deeply. And you know, I know how often we say never before in history but never before in history have we been in a position where a president who can hear the hoof beats of an investigation that is bearing down on him gets to name the person who is likely to be the swing vote in the court that will ultimately determine a big part of how any investigation goes forward.

HAYES: Given what we know about how the President operates and what James Comey has said, are you confident that he is not personally or using his powers in these interviews to essentially get pledges of loyalty, to ask inappropriate questions about what these people will do if asked to rule on it.

WARREN: You know, the President has already made his history clear that he wants to screen nominees for personal loyalty to him. That's his established track record. That's not anything that's a surprise. And so no we also look at what he's done before and watch what he's doing right now as he's talking with potential Supreme Court nominees. But let me say on this. This is all the more reason that the United States Senate cannot simply be a rubber stamp. Donald Trump is not king. He does not get to wave his scepter and then someone magically appears on the United States Supreme Court. It's not how this thing works. Every single Senator gets a vote and unless Donald Trump's nominee can get a majority of those votes, they don't get to go to the United States Supreme Court. And as you know, we are closely divided Senate right now. I think there's going to be a very serious investigation into whomever Donald Trump names.

HAYES: Last question on this sort of line of reasoning which is do you think it would be appropriate for the Justice to recuse him or herself were they to be confirmed or to tell you in the hearings that they recuse themselves from issues that directly bear on the President vis-…-vis the investigation?

WARREN: It's a -- it's a very interesting question. I'm going to leave it there because I think it's one -- we've got all kinds of uncharted territory here that we're going to have to keep sorting through. As I said, this is just something we've never faced before in history. And I think there are going to be some really tough questions put to whoever the nominee is. But let's talk about what we know for sure is at stake and some of the questions that the nominee is going to face. Donald Trump has already said that he's going to pick somebody who has been pre-screened off a list that was put together by a group whose number one job an extremist group is to make sure that Roe vs. Wade gets overturned. This means that he's looking for a nominee who will criminalize abortion and try to punish women. That's what's at stake in this one.

And then from there, it's so much more. This is about health care cases that are percolating up through the courts including the one we know about right now about pre-existing conditions. This is about the swing vote in our environmental protections whether or not giant corporations are going to have the right to poison the water and foul the air. This is about workers' rights and whether or not the Supreme Court is going to stay on the path of trying to bust unions. This is about voting rights, whether or not democracy fundamentally works in this country. This is one of those moments where Justice Kennedy has been the swing vote, look and I'll be blunt, he swung a lot of times in a direction I don't like but he's been a swing vote. He was the one who helps stand up for equal marriage. All of that is now at risk when Donald Trump gets to replace the swing vote with somebody off a pre-approved extremists list.

HAYES: Another area that they will have some say over is immigration. There's a federal ruling that he has to reunite the families. It's unclear how they will proceed. There was -- there was a protest this morning in the heart senate office building about 600 women and now in aluminum blankets. What did you -- what did you make of that protest?

WARREN: So I was there. I saw them. I had just come out of Democratic caucus. This is how I see it. Look, we don't have the votes on the Democratic side by ourselves to stop anything. But I remember the day that Donald Trump was sworn in. I remember going home that night and thinking they're going to roll back the Affordable Care Act for tens of millions of people. They're going to do it next week because they've got all the -- they've got the House, they got the Senate, they've got the White House. They're going to do this. And then the next day I went to the Women's March, the biggest protest rally in the history of the world. What we still had on our side was the capacity to raise our voices. And all that spring and into the summer as millions of people across this country Democrats, Republicans, Independents said my government will hear my voice.

Do not take away health care from tens of millions of Americans. Do not permit insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. We had our voices. And look, as I stand here right now, I just got back from the border on Monday, but as I stand here right now, I remind myself two weeks ago that was the official policy of the United States government to take babies at the arms of mothers who came here to ask for asylum. And now that policy has changed. We've got a lot of problems still at the border, that's what the women were there in the lobby of our building to protest but that's the point. We still have the power of people. We have the power of our voices. I'm in this fight all the way and I'm telling on the fact that there are millions of other Americans who are in it too.

HAYES: Senator Elizabeth Warren, it's great to have you.

WARREN: It's good to be here.


HAYES: For more on whether the President should be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice while he's under investigation, I'm joined by former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman and Vanita Gupta former head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Harry, let me start with you. Senator Warren called an uncharted territory and it does feel to me like it's uncharted territory. Do you think so?

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, look, it stinks, it's rank, it would never fly in the -- in the schoolyard. But the Senate is the law of the jungle and you've -- I don't know if any rules apply. Is it uncharted? Not really, Chris, right? The U.S. versus Nixon court that that effectively ended his presidency included three of his own nominees. Clinton versus Jones Court that gave Clinton headaches leading to impeachment, included two of his nominees, maybe the most infamous Bush versus Gore. Well, those weren't W's nominees. But it has happened.

And the standards don't really speak to it unless there's some impression of impartiality. It sure stinks to high heaven, but I think there will be precedence for the Mitch McConnells of the world to point to.

HAYES: Yeah, I mean, let me be clear, there's no rules here. There's just what the power of politics.

LITMAN: Right, the law of the jungle.

HAYES: Yeah, exactly, what the power of politics can get away with.

My point here isn't that it's not allowed or is allowed, my point is that there's like a very clear conflict that they're headed towards Vanita, and it's particularly razor sharp to me for this reason: we know the president had James Comey into the White House to basically say like, hey, are you going to look out for me? We know he asked him, like, will you go easy on Flynn? We know that Mueller's front of mind if he's going to be going into these interviews with these individuals that he knows are going to sit possibly in judgment of things relevant to him and it just seems totally plausible he is using that opportunity to try to extract things from them.

GUPTA: Yeah, I mean, I think -- look, it's based on a preexisting record that we know. There are all of these pieces of evidence that show that the president prizes loyalty above everything else. And he has even, you know, with this he has made it clear that he believes he is above the law. And the Supreme Court will be the final say about what happens, whether he can be compelled to testify, whether he can pardon family members, whether he can be subject to prosecution, you know, and so that loyalty test it's hard to imagine that he isn't going to be asking some of those same questions.

I think right now the rule of law and democracy is at stake with the Justice Kennedy seat on top of course everything else like access to health care, like women's abilities to control our bodies. He's made it clear that he's been bragged during the election that he would only appoint judges who would reverse Roe versus Wade, LGBTQ rights, civil rights, criminal justice, all of that -- the Supreme Court touches on everything that we care about.

But also, more broadly, given the state of the fact that he's under federal criminal investigation, we also have a much bigger issue here at stake which is fundamentally the rule of law.

HAYES: You know, Harry you mentioned those two precedence. It's interesting, right, if you think about those, right, because the idea that going forward here, and it came up a little bit in Gorsuch, is these individuals they may have ideological predispositions that accord with the president and the Federalist Society and conservatives, but if they're people of integrity, and you can fundamentally trust them to do the right thing when sitting in judgment and not sort of act as loyal vassals to the White House.

And I guess the question is like how much is that faith preserved at this particular moment in American governance?

LITMAN: Yeah, it's a great question, because there's an irony here. If they do it and get away it, it would be in large part because of the institutional prestige the court has developed over the years from opinions like U.S. versus Nixon where they did the right thing, and that would permit them, in some ways under cloak of that, to get away with it.

One quick point to note, practically, if there were an attempt to kind of delay things, the push back immediately would be, oh, my god the Supreme Court can't function with eight people. In the, past justices when they've stepped down have done it subject to the confirmation of their successors, not Kennedy. He's done at the end of July, so any effort to use this as a delay will fall. And it's ironic because, of course, he took office in the middle of the term after the big delay and knows about the impediments to the court, but he's gone. So that will actually give a talking point to Republicans to say we have to get on with this. The poor Supreme Court can't do its work.

HAYES: Final question, Vanita, it strikes me that if you're the person, if you're Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society and you're the one who has got to take these nominees around to meet the president, you can't let them be alone in the room with him for the risk of him doing something that will put them in an impossible spot under oath in a hearing.

GUPTA: You know, I would think so. But, of course, you know, it was unprecedented for the attorney general to leave Jim Comey in the office alone with the president in the manner he did.

So, you know, let's just say, Leonard Leo has got a real ax to grind about the kind of nominee that he wants. He's created the 25 member shortlist that Trump has relied on and has all of those judges have passed his fealty test and have made their agenda very clear, too.

So, you know, it may not be in his interest to assume that he's going to be some kind of protective shield that way.

HAYES: Harry Litman and Vanita Gupta...

LITMAN: And forgive me, Chris, one quick point which is all the obfuscation will go on about cases and judicial philosophy, but they'll get this question directly, did anyone say anything. And that they'll have to answer.

HAYES; Exactly, Harry Litman and Vanita Gupta, thank you both for joining me.

Ahead, the weekend's mass protest against the Trump family separation policy have begun. What we know about how these children are being united as children as young as three get their own court dates. And next, newly unsealed court filings show Paul Manafort, the president's campaign chair, owed millions of dollars to a Russian oligarch when he signed on to the campaign. Those details after the break.


HAYES: Why would a man who is $10 million in debt take a job where he doesn't get paid. Weird, right? We now know that's exactly what the now jailed Paul Manafort did when he took a job running Donald Trump's campaign back in 2016.

It appears that Manafort saw the job as a financial opportunity despite the lack of salary. Just a short time after he was first hired by Trump, Manafort sent an email asking, quote, "how do we use to get whole?" Meaning how do we use my new job to get whole. How do we used to get whle?

Manafort sent that email to a guy you may remember named Konstantin Kilimnik who had worked for Manafort in Ukraine. He has since been indicted by Robert Mueller and fled to Russia. And the person they're apparently trying to get whole with was this guy who you also may know, Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, one of Russia's richest man who has close ties to the Kremlin.

Yesterday, a newly unsealed filing from Mueller revealed that Deripaska had loaned 10 million bucks to a Manafort business, $10 million, which he presumably wanted back.

So just to be absolutely clear, the guy who was running Donald Trump's campaign during the summer when he was running it for free and the Russians were sabotaging the election also just happened to be in debt $10 million to Russian oligarch with close ties to Vladimir Putin at the very same time that Vladimir Putin and his government were working to get Trump elected president.

Joining me now for the latest on the investigation, MSNBC contributor Natasha Bertrand, staff writer at The Altantic, covering national security and Russia investigation, and Michael Isikoff, chief investigative correspondent at Yahoo News, co-author of "Russian Roulette: the Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump."

Michael, it was always unclear to me the made whole was ambiguous in two different directions, right. Do you want to get whole because the guy owes you money or do you want to get whole because you owe him money? This seems to resolve that fairly definitively.

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, YAHOO NEWS: Yeah, there were multiple financial ties between Manafort and Deripaska. This new information about the $10 million loan comes on top of other reporting, which goes back to that I did during the 2016 campaign about how Manafort and had gotten into a dispute with Deripaska over a $19 million cable deal in Ukraine, Deripaska thought Manafort had ripped him off the money had he put up for the venture had gone missing.

But what's really significant here and why this is so important to the larger Mueller investigation is you said that Deripaska has close ties to the Kremlin. We should flesh that out a little bit. Deripaska was described in WikiLeaks cables written by U.S. ambassador a few years ago as one of the two or three oligarchs closest to Putin.

In "Russian Roulette," we report how when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state in her meetings with Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, he would repeatedly bring up the question of Deripaska because Deripaska couldn't get a U.S. visa because the FBI had concerns about his ties to organized crime.

Those, the concerns that the FBI had have been more recently fleshed out when Deripaska just a couple months ago was sanctioned by the Treasury Department in which they described the intelligence they had on Deripaska, his involvement in extortion racketeering, bribery, the murder of a business -- murder of a businessman in a dispute and these organized crime ties.

So here you had an oligarch with these organized crime ties who is so tied in with the Kremlin that the Russian foreign minister is pressing the U.S. secretary of state to give him a visa and the campaign chairman for Trump campaign was in hock can to this guy who is pressing him for the money that he owes him. And then Manafort's response is we'll give him private briefings about what's going on inside the Trump campaign.

HAYES: Yeah, I mean, this is a guy -- he's waking up every day owing this guy $10 million, which seems like, just thinking about it, puts a knot in my stomach. And he gets on the campaign, the first thing he's like how can I use this position, it's like the Blagojevich thing, I've got this and it's effing golden, right. I've got this thing which is I'm campaign manager for Donald Trump, how do I use it?

Another person in the inner Trump orbit, Natasha, who seems to really be in a tough spot is Roger Stone. We know that he's not been contacted by Mueller directly for an interview and then today an ex-aide, another one, former aide to Roger Stone, subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury hearing, evidence the Russia investigation, and to hand over documents. What is your sense of where stone is in terms of Mueller's sights?

NATASHA BERTRAND, THE ATLANTIC: Well, it seems like everyone has been interviewed by Mueller except for Roger Stone, and that should be extremely worrisome to Roger Stone because it shows that he's kind of trying to get to the people closest to him order to figure out what Roger Stone knew about what happened during the election before they actually get to maybe subpoenaing Roger Stone himself.

I think that Roger Stone is really the key to possibly -- well possibly the key to understanding who was behind the Podesta hack and whether or not the campaign coordinated it in any way with WikilLaks.

The same goes for if you have that key, then the same goes potentially for who knew in the campaign about the DNC hack. I mean, it's all kind of the same actor who's hacked Podesta's email, the Russians, and who hacked the DNC.

So, if you have Roger Stone and if you have the answer as to whether he was communicating with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks throughout the campaign, then perhaps you have a clue as to whether or not there was an intermediary who was feeding WikiLeaks this stolen information that the Russians stole from the DNC and stole from John Podesta and then gave to the campaign.

HAYES: Michael, do you anticipate -- are we going to a trial of Manafort unless something changes.

ISIKOFF: Yeah, this summer.

HAYES: You've been reporting this very heavily for awhile now, like learning new things in that trial. It's going to be quite a spectacle I imagine.

ISIKOFF: Oh, sure. And look, it is quite common for prosecutors to hold some of their best stuff back. And one can expect if this trial does come in July when it's scheduled for, that we're going to be learning a whole lot more about just how much they know about Manafort and these ties.

But also, you know, there is so much that could we'll be coming to a head this summer. The wide expectation here is that Mueller is likely to do something in the next couple of months. He can't wait until after labor Day. He can't do something during the election, lest he be criticized for doing the same thing Jim Comey did during the 2016 campaign.

So, we may well be coming to a very critical juncture and it's, you know, ironic -- or, you know, pretty significant that this is coming at the same time that there's going to be those Supreme Court hearings about the next Supreme Court justice.

HAYES: Natasha, does that scan with what your reporting indicates, as well?

BERTRAND: I have not heard that the collusion aspect of this investigation is going to wrap up by the fall. It's possible there's going to be a major indictment perhaps that related to collusion that does come out before the midterms and in that way, we have kind of a conclusion to the collusion part of the investigation.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to wrap up. But there's so much that we still don't know. We still don't know, for example, why three different people approached the Trump campaign before the summer of 2016 offering them dirt on Hillary Clinton, offering Hillary Clinton emails. We don't really know anything about this shadowy professor, Joseph Mitsu (ph). We don't know anything about Henry Greenberg, the guy who -- the Russian who approached Michael Caputo. We don't know, for example, what Carter Page was doing in Moscow, whether he did make a deal with Rosneft.

So, these are all things that Manafort -- or that Mueller is looking into now and whether or not we actually get an answer to all of those questions in the next four months. It just does not seem plausible.

HAYES: Natasha Bertrand and Michael Isikoff, thanks to you both.

ISIKOFF: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Still ahead, the fallout from the Trump family separation policy continues. What we know about the more than 2,000 children who have yet to be reunited with their parents coming up.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But this is what they said, having the nation's number one law enforcement officer threaten to subpoena your calls and emails is downright chilling. Did you threaten to subpoena their calls and e-mails?

ROSENSTEIN: No, sir. And there is no way to subpoena phone calls.

UNIDENTIFED MALE: Well, I'm just saying...


HAYES: That was a scene on Capitol Hill today where Republicans are using their precious time to investigate Hillary Clinton's emails, not making that up.

The absurdity of which was not lost on Democrats.


HADLEY: Have we conducted any oversight at all on election security, on the family separation crisis, on the administration's failure to protect Dreamers, on the Justice Department's radical decision not to defend the Affordable Care Act in court, on the Supreme Court's recent decisions to undermine voting rights and workers' rights, on the president's ongoing conflicts of interests and clear violations of the emoluments clause of the constitution, or in a myriad of other pressing issues within our committee's jurisdiction? No. As with so many issues, this committee stays silent.

But on Hillary Clinton's emails? Sound the alarms.


HAYES: But if Republicans have left a void of leadership on some of the issues, including family separation, the American people are stepping in to force congress to action. With mass protests today in Washinton outside the Capitol building, inside Senate offices, protests that are only a prelude to the big protests this Saturday when hundreds of events will happen around the country to say that families belong together.

That action is more urgent than ever with the Texas Tribune now reporting that toddlers, toddlers are being ordered to appear in court alone.

And while a federal judge this week ordered the Trump administration to reunite families torn apart at the border, there has been no clear word from the administration on how concretely they will accomplish that task.

Absent any kind plan, we will continue to see and hear more of the same like this phone call obtained by Vice News of a 7-year-old in a U.S. government shelter and his mother in Guatemala.





HAYES: Laura Pena brought cases against immigrants as the assistant chief counsel for ICE. She left before the presidential election, will soon be defending immigrants with the Texas Civil Rights Project. She recently wrote "I didn't become an attorney to prosecute and deport babies."

Lee Gelernt has, of course, been fighting family separation in court as the deputy director of ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project. They brought -- you guys brought that case.

let me start, Lee, with you. So, you were on this program talking about the case. You have gone back to court and you got an injunction. What did the federal judge order the government to do?

LEE GELERNT, ACLU: A few things. First of all, every kid now has to be reunited with their parents within 30 days -- now 28 days, so that is enormous. Kids under 5 within 14 days. So, now we're at 12 days. Every kid has to be able to speak to their parents within 10 days, it's now we're at eight days. No more separations going forward. And no parent can be removed without their kid absent and no waiver. It was a complete victory, enormous.

We thought the Trump administration was just going to say we are going to comply, because these kids are in real trouble. We are going to put this behind us. Tonight, about 20 minutes ago we heard the White House bash the injunction saying reuniting small children with their parents hurts our national security.

HAYES: We should say this is one of the memorable lines from the judges' ruling, "the unfortunate reality is that under the present system, migrant children are not accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property."

Laura, you wrote this piece in USA Today, which I found fascinating for a bunch of reasons. But let me start on this as someone who has been in those courtrooms, how is it even possible for a 2 or 3-year-old to appear in court by themselves? Like what Kafkaesque universe produces that result?

LAURA PENA, TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT: It's not possible, Chris. And as an ICE trial attorney under President Obama I had the discretion to be able to focus on criminal and national security threats. And I watched President Obama try and move the immigration system in a different direction.

What we are seeing now under the Trump administration is him moving it in the complete opposite direction. So, it's not possible to put a 2-year-old on the record. And as an ICE trial attorney I had a 6-month-old accidentally appear in immigration court separated from the mother's case. It was an accident then, now it is actually occurring by force.

And the problem is twofold, one, these children don't have the right to a government-appointed attorney. So, who is going to represent their interests? Thousands of unaccompanied minors go unrepresented every year in immigration proceedings.

The second problem is, as you heard earlier painfully, a mother who was already been deported to Guatemala is talking to her 7-year-old child. The only person in the world who knows what this child went through cannot be there. And that's absurd. It's a violation of international and constitutional laws and I am furious.

HAYES: There is a question about the representational issue, right. I mean, you guys now have this court injunction.


HAYES: But there is a sort of on the ground level question of like who is advocating for these kids? Who is checking in and who is matching them with the people they should be with?

GELERNT: Right. So, if they are all put back with their parents, that solves that problem.

With the separated kids...

HAYES: That's a -- wait, wait, wait, that's a lot of yadda-yadda-yadda. Like if they are -- right, but someone has got to do that.

GELERNT: Right, absolutely. And what we told the judge is, look, we don't want to know how the sausage is made and the judge doesn't have to micromanage it.

HAYES: Just do it.

GELERNT: Exactly. And they have the resources to do it.

But the other problem is there are kids who don't have parents here. And they are having to go into court -- little kids without lawyers. So, that's an additional problem that won't be solved by this injunction.

We need to get the kids back. I mean, this little boy, 7 years old without his mother, there are 2-year-old, 3-year-old kids every night wondering if they're ever going to see their parents again.

HAYES: You were there, Laura, during the unaccompanied minor sort of wave that hit in 2014-2015. And it was under those circumstances the Obama administration sort of pioneered the idea of family detention, they called it. And many people have said that was inhumane, that it was a terrible decision, it is also the horizon on the -- it's the future on the horizon. The Trump administration wants tens of thousands of units of family detention.

Having seen what that looks like up close, what do you think about that?

PENA: You know what's important to know is where the Obama administration ended up on this issue. After trial and error and after being pushed by organizations like the ACLU and forced by the courts to change their policies, they did so. And where they ended up was the family case management system, which is not required detention. And it's quite effective, as I understand it. The reports, individuals were appearing for their court hearings. It is also a lot more efficient and cost-effective.

So, there are ways to go about doing this in a humane way that does not require family detention, and that's what I would be advocating for.

GELERNT: Does the government -- here's the numbers before this order. So June 20 they had 2,053 separated children in HHS custody. June 26, six days later, they had 2,047, which would say a net difference of six children, so that's a pace that is worrisome.

Do you have a way legally -- I mean, part of what's maddening here is they have been so untransparent the entire time. It's a black box. Can you monitor it?

GELERNT: Yeah, you're asking the exact right question, that's our task right now. We need to get everyone on the ground monitoring it, because we will go back to court immediately if they are missing these deadlines, but we are going to need to monitor with all these other groups and all the volunteers.

So there is still a lot of work done and people need to be out there pushing, but we need to monitor, because we can't trust the administration to do it.

HAYES: Do you really mean that? That this -- you do not trust the federal government to comply with the law with a lawful court order?

GELERNT: Look, I don't want to go to the place of bad faith. I just want to go to they may not...

HAYES: Capacity.

GELERNT: That weren't -- I think they have the capacity, but are they going to be working with the urgency we need them to work on? And so if they need our help, we are there to help. I mean, there are thousands of volunteers that will help. They need to use the force that's out there if they are going to -- this force of people who want to -- but we believe they can get it done.

When the united States government wants to prioritize something, they'll get it done. They need to prioritize it.

HAYES: I should say, I get emails every day from everyone saying like how can I help? Lawyers, clinicians, people with social work degrees, therapists. I mean, people want to help. And you see folks inside the Capitol in the Senate office building today, Senator Hart outside DOJ. And I think on Saturday you're going to see tens of thousands, if not more, people around the country marching on this issue in D.C. and elsewhere.

Laura Pena and lee Gelernt, thank you both.

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.