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

Russian State TV: Trump is destroying NATO alliance. TRANSCRIPT: 7/11/2018, All In with Chris Hayes.

Guests: Bob Menendez, Nayyera Haq, Zoe Tillman

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: July 11, 2018 Guest: Bob Menendez, Nayyera Haq, Zoe Tillman

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: -- problem with Angela Merkel and with Justin Trudeau, any successful Democratic leader for that matter. It seems to be some kind of jealousy, the kind of -- the fact that -- the kind of jealousy the very young feel when they see somebody else with better toys or a nicer dress or a bigger cap pistol. That`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN" with Chris Hayes starts right now.



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are protecting Germany, we`re protecting Franc, we`re protecting everybody and yet we`re paying a lot of money to protect.

HAYES: The president picks a fight with NATO alienating Democratic allies.

TRUMP: Germany is totally controlled by Russia.

HAYES: And soft balling authoritarian regimes.

TRUMP: Frankly Putin may be the easiest of them all. Who would think?

HAYES: Then --


HAYES: Paul Manafort`s VIP treatment in jail with a private room and a personal laptop to write e-mails. Plus --

TRUMP: Brett Kavanaugh has gotten great reviews, great reviews.

HAYES: Corporations curing the President`s Supreme Court pick. And why Russian asbestos has Donald Trump`s face on it.

TRUMP: A lot of people in my industry think asbestos is the greatest fireproofing material ever, ever made.

HAYES: When "ALL IN" starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. Not even the folks on Russian state T.V. could quite believe the way the U.S. President treated America`s closest allies today.




HAYES: That is the verdict from Russian state T.V. talk show on the President`s performance at today`s NATO summit that Donald Trump is fulfilling Russia`s longtime goal going back to the Soviet Union of severing Western alliances of driving a wedge between them. After repeatedly blasting NATO on Twitter in the run-up to the summit, the President kicked things off this morning by publicly insulting America`s most powerful European ally.


TRUMP: Germany is totally controlled by Russia because they were getting from 60 to 70 percent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline and you tell me if that`s appropriate because I think it`s not and I think it`s a very bad thing for NATO and I don`t think it should have happened and I think we have to talk to Germany about it.


HAYES: The 60 to 70 percent figure is wrong. Germany is totally controlled by Russia. Germany was controlled by Russia, half of it for very long time. Some observers noted the looks on the faces of Trump`s aides during those extraordinary comments especially Chief of Staff John Kelly and NATO Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison. But according to an actual official statement from the White House Press Secretary -- I`m not making this up -- "Kelly was displeased because he was expecting a full breakfast and there were only pastries and cheese" which by the way is a full breakfast in my book. The President not surprisingly was totally misrepresenting Germany`s energy supply from Russia. He later managed to hold a cordial enough meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel who had reminded reporters earlier that she, in fact, grew up in East Germany under Soviet control. To many, the Presidents insult called to mind a particular moment from the 2016 campaign.


TRUMP: Look, from everything I see has no respect for this person.

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, that`s because he`d rather have a puppet as president of the United States --

TRUMP: No puppet. No puppet.

CLINTON: And it`s pretty clear --

TRUMP: You`re the puppet.

CLINTON: -- it`s pretty clear, you won`t admit that the Russian --


HAYES: No puppet, no puppet. You`re the puppet, Angela Merkel. The President`s conduct in Brussels as part of an increasing pattern of hostility toward the liberal democracies that have been America`s closest allies for more than half a century. Today, he continued to portray the NATO alliance as a kind of us-led protection racket demanding the member states pay up more money for American support and once again he was distorting the facts because NATO members including the U.S. contribute a certain share of GDP to their own defense. So the U.S. isn`t covering for anyone else and not owed anything in return. But one suspects the details are besides the point. The President is pushing other countries towards militarism, towards more defense spending at a time when he is expanding America`s role in conflicts around the globe. He`s lashing out at Democratic allies while undermining the rule of law and democratic norms here at home. At the same time, he`s embracing strongmen like Vladimir Putin whom the President appears to be eager to meet with next week just the two of them plus interpreters.


TRUMP: I have NATO, I have the U.K. which is in somewhat turmoil and I have Putin. Frankly, Putin may be the easiest of them all. Who would think?

HAYES: I`m joined now by the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey. Senator, what did you think of the President`s harangue of the German Chancellor this morning?

SEN. BOB MENENDEZ (D-NJ), SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: You know it`s pretty outrageous. You know, the President gives the back of a hand to our closest and most trusted allies and embraces authoritarian figures like Putin. You know, Russia`s whole effort has been to divide the West especially in NATO and here they have an American President doing the work for them. I guess Putin`s investment in the last presidential election is paying off big time in Brussels.

HAYES: I mean, the President`s call -- just to be clear right the President calling for everyone to pay more and more of their budgets in defense, in fact, surpassing two percent going to four percent which is more than the U.S. spends presumably Putin doesn`t want that right?

MENENDEZ: No. He doesn`t want that but of course, the one the President calls for a figure that even the United States is not doing, he`s once again creating a wedge with our allies. You know, Germany -- particularly that he took on Germany, Germany has been the bulwark of making sure that sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea and its other actions in undermining democracies including our own has been the bulwark of keeping sanctions in the European Union which is not an easy proposition since they work by unanimity. So undermining Germany our closest ally in this regard, undermining the NATO alliance does play into Putin`s hand at the end of the day better than any trolls, better than any disinformation campaign that he could perform.

HAYES: There`s -- your consonant colleagues took a sort of unusual trip to Moscow over the recess. It was unusual because it was not a bipartisan delegation which these sorts of things tend to be. It was just Republicans. And they came back and Ron Johnson, Senator from Wisconsin, a Republican, had this to say. I`d like to get your response. I`ve been pretty upfront the election interference as serious as that was unacceptable is not the greatest threat to our democracy. He said we`ve blown it way out of proportion. We need to really honestly assess what actually happened, what effect it did have, what effect our sanctions are actually having positively negatively and seems to suggest the time maybe to withdraw sanctions against Russia. What do you think of that?

MENENDEZ: Incomprehensible and totally irresponsible. You know, the President has fellow travelers who are dancing to the tune of sanction Russian Duma members are doing more damage to our democracy than Putin ever could. Look there is no way -- and that`s why I forced a vote today of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the question of making reaffirming that no sanctions should be lifted against Russia for so long as they continue to occupy Crimea and continue to be invaded in eastern Ukraine which passed including interestingly enough by with Senator Johnson`s vote overwhelmingly. So the reality is this is totally irresponsible and if this was going on, if these comments were going on or this is a position that Barack Obama took, I`d be peeling Republicans off the ceiling.

HAYES: It does -- it does seem that the President is successfully sort of moving his basement the Republican Party in -- towards of its orientation picking fights with Canada and Germany while you know diplomatic overtures to North Korea warm words about Russia. Do you -- do you sense that he is shifting the posture of his fellow Republicans in Congress on these issues?

MENENDEZ: Well, I think some of the votes that we had here in Congress on reaffirming the NATO alliance overwhelmingly I think was critical. A strong vote opposing the President`s tariffs policy in a way that undermines. It hurts middle-class families and working people and may lose jobs in America. We continue to have this trade war on this basis of tariffs. I think those were strong statements. But I have to be honest with you Chris, I`m really disturbed by the relative silence of my colleagues particularly vis a vis Russia. For the President to say that Russia is a competitor, Russia is not a competitor. Russia is definitely a foe. It`s an adversary of the United States and our national interest in our national security. And when you go into a meeting thinking someone`s a competitor, that`s a whole different paradigm than if you go into a meeting thinking that they`re your foe.

And so, when the President says that this guy tried -- Putin tried to undermine our democracy through his cyber-attacks in the presidential election, he`s doing it as we speak as someone who`s been sanctioned by Putin. I can tell you I have a totally different view of what Putin is all about. He`s KGB, I`m fearful of the meeting that the President is going in especially this one-on-one meeting where we will have no idea of what actually transpired and what the President will give up in terms of some of the critical national security interests we have all across the globe.

HAYES: All right, Senator Bob Menendez, thank you for your time.

MENENDEZ: Thank you.

HAYES: For more on the impact the President`s attacks on NATO today I`m joined by MSNBC Contributor Ben Rhodes, former Deputy National Security Adviser of President Obama, Author of the new book the World As It Is and Nayyera Haq whose former Senior Advisor at State Department under President Obama. Ben, obviously Senator Menendez talks about it through the lens of sort of Putin`s long-standing desire to sort of break up NATO, his fear of NATO which he`s been very clear about. You saw the Russian state T.V. clip but it also strikes me there`s some themes in the President`s foreign policy. One is militarism. He wants everyone to spend more money on military. He`s glad the U.S. government spending more money in military. Two is antagonism towards democratic liberal allies. He doesn`t like other democratic countries. He likes to pick fights with them mostly because they don`t balance great the way they say the Saudis do. And number three that he likes authoritarian regimes. He likes to go to Saudi Arabia where there`s no protest. He likes Kim Jong-un who was doing a great job running his country and he likes Vladimir Putin.

BEN RHODES, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. I mean, Chris, what`s very clear is that he has continued hostility towards our Democratic allies and he`s continually reaching out, praising, trying to get next to, trying to create these spectacles with people like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un. I don`t think it`s possible to overstate what is happening this week. The biggest danger to the national security of the United States is the President of the United States who is singlehandedly before our eyes blowing up the international architecture that the United States has relied upon for own security for 70. You know, this two percent defense spending thing is just a lever that he`s using to clobber NATO. Let`s be very clear, if you shred the credibility of America`s commitment to our allies, it doesn`t matter how much people spend on defense.

The fact the matter is by antagonizing our allies, he`s making it less likely that they`re going to stand with us the next time we need them as they did in Afghanistan after 9/11. He`s playing right into the hands of Putin who`s been trying to create a wedge between the United States and Europe since he came back into office and he`s raising curious questions about whether the United States of America wants to play the role that we played for 70 years as the leader of alliances like NATO. This is a really big deal Chris even among all the things that Trump does on a daily basis. This is literally reordering the world before our eyes.

HAYES: You agree with that Nayyera?

NAYYERA HAQ, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR, STATE DEPARTMENT: I do and I actually think that he is delivering on a promise he made to a very select group of Americans who believe that engagement with the rest of the world has not benefited them. Unfortunately, he`s been lying to people about what exactly the United States has gotten and what the United States has given in working with our allies. I mean, he`s allied him -- the United States now with not only authoritarian regimes but regimes that have zero interest in investments in expanding trade, in engaging with the United States in ways that are meaningful for working with Americans and he`s allied against the very people who stand to defend liberal democracy. I mean, he is a bull in a China shop but at the expense of American peace and security. He should be -- that the benefit of working with our allies in Europe is that we`re able to work with them to keep challenges and resolve challenges there. At the end of the day, if we have no friends overseas other than Russia, we`re going to dealing with a lot more challenges here in the home front.

HAYES: Nayyera said he`s bull in a China shop, Ben, and there`s two ways to view this right? One this is -- fits of pique that he`s sort of emotionally incontinent and he can`t control himself. He doesn`t like Angela Merkel he feels ripped off this weird conception he has it like there`s a pot in the middle at the end of like a shared vacation house and like they didn`t put enough money and now he`s stuck with a tab. But the other is that this is actually a program and the program is -- and this quote I think is interesting. In an extraordinary riff during his meeting with the G7 heads of state in Quebec Trump told the old leaders NATO is as bad as NAFTA. He wants to get out NATO. He wants to destroy it the same way he wants to get out of it and destroy NAFTA.

RHODES: Yes, I -- you know, I believe that if you look at Trump statements for years there`s a consistent threat, right, which is this hostility to our allies. I mean, look, Chris, it`s not a coincidence -- this man cannot find enough good things to say about Kim Jong-un. He said he is beloved by his people. That is playing in a loop right now in the North Korean gulag on North Korean state television. You know, he is solicitous of Vladimir Putin. That is playing in a loop on Russian state television. Meanwhile, he can`t find enough bad things to say about Angela Merkel, about Justin Trudeau. The man clearly has a degree of hostility towards our Democratic allies. It`s deeply worrying. It makes you wonder what exactly is it that is propelling him into the arms of Putin like this. On his way to a summit with the Russian President, he is trashing our European allies appending their own politics.

Their own public`s are not going to want to work with the United States anymore and he`s going to conclude this magical mystery tour by standing next to the Russian president and probably paying him a lot more respect than he paid Angela Merkel, a woman who`s done a tremendous amount on behalf of American interests and the -- and the values we share. So I think there`s (AUDIO GAP) either he is just solicitous of authoritarian dictators and hostile to our allies or you know, there`s something going on with him and Putin that is leading him to have Vladimir Putin be the only person in the world that he seems to not be able to find an ill word to use against him.

HAYES: Yes, Ben makes a point there, Nayyera, which is that is inconceivable to imagine Trump talking about Russia or Putin the way he talked about Angela Merkel today.

HAQ: Yes, I don`t think he`s going to be throwing starburst at Putin anytime soon and making snarky comments about don`t say I haven`t given you anything lately. So there`s -- the disdain goes far beyond any potential strategy or policy and it is -- it is extremely personal and emotional but that`s part of how Donald Trump works, right? I mean, he`s -- this is part of his appeal to his base is the emotion that he brings to the table, makes things relatable. He also tries to explain everything in very basic black and white terms when actually the world is far more complex than he`s willing to acknowledge and relationships that we have with allies and even with some of our adversaries are also very complex that needs to be approached that way. So he`s trying to make things very simple to appeal to a domestic audience and unfortunately going to be making things far more complicated for us in the long ride.

HAYES: I agree that this is partly politics but I don`t think it`s partly -- he really doesn`t like NATO. I mean, I think, he`s genuinely pursuing a project which is the breakup of these old alliances. We`ll see how far he gets. Ben Rhodes and Nayyera Haq, thank you both for joining me.

RHODES: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Ahead, new details about Paul Manafort`s VIP jail experience. How the President`s former campaign manager is still sending e-mails while incarcerated in two minutes.


HAYES: The former Campaign Manager for the President of the United States is in jail tonight. It`s been nearly four weeks since the judge ordered Paul Manafort`s bail revoked and put him behind bars. And while some conservative commentators have been comparing his solitary confinement between a prisoner at Gitmo, apparently has not been all so bad. Manafort himself has said he`s being treated like and I quote him, "a VIP" according to monitored phone calls cited by prosecutors. He has his own private room, shower, computer, and phone and despite the fact that he is in jail because you`ll recall prosecutors say he violated the terms of his bail by attempting to obstruct justice while on the outside, those prosecutors now say Manafort has quote developed a workaround to send e-mails while locked up in violation of policy by shuttling a laptop back and forth esteem which is not typically allowed for prisoners at Gitmo or elsewhere.

So, no wonder that today Paul Manafort objected to a judge`s order to move into a city jail closer to where his July 25th trial will take place. For more on what`s going on with Manafort and his multiple trials, I`m joined by Zoe Tillman who covers courts and justice for BuzzFeed and MSNBC Legal Analyst Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor who worked in the Justice Department`s Public Corruption Unit. Zoe, you`ve been covering this very closely and extremely well if you don`t want my saying, and there`s some evident frustration on the part of the Mueller team it seems in their filings about Manafort`s behavior. Would you say that`s a fair characterization?

ZOE TILLMAN, REPORTER, BUZZFEED: Yes. I think they have felt that his attempts to delay the trial, to move the trial from Alexandria to Roanoke have been not quite right in terms of how they present the facts of the conditions of his current confinement at Northern Neck Regional Jail. I think the filing today reflected some frustration with the characterization of Manafort being in solitary confinement unable to participate in preparing for trial so the disclosures today I think we`re meant to convince the judge that he`s had more than enough resources and time and equipment and technology and access to his lawyers to in fact be ready for the July 25th trial.

HAYES: Paul, as someone who was a prosecutor but also has written about as a scholar the criminal justice system and mass incarceration and the way that people are cycled through jails, Paul Manafort is in the 99.9 percent in terms of his jail treatment and whether he`s able to participate in his own defense would you say?

PAUL BUTLER, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. Chris, when I was a Federal Prosecutor, I visited prisons and jails all over the country and I have to say I never -- private laptop, your own personal bathroom and shower, unlimited calls, not having to wear a uniform, you know, when people in Trump`s world sometimes seem to think that they`re above the law as far as Paul Manafort`s jailing goes, it`s true. The rules that apply to regular inmates who are overwhelmingly low-income, people of color, the regular rules don`t apply to Paul Manafort.

HAYES: The judge as though he noted that Manafort had asked for delay because he was incarcerated so far away and did not want to be moved closer to the city jail. It surprising confusing when counsel identifies a problem and then opposes the most logical solution to that problem, right? So he was -- he said he wasn`t close enough to the trial and -- but then he resisted being moved is that correct?

TILLMAN: Right. So leading up to the trial, his lawyers had filed papers asking that he be waived from appearing in court because of the trip from Northern Neck which is in Warsaw, Virginia to Alexandria. They said it was a two-hour track you know, one way so four hours of travel, just really onerous. And in asking to postpone the trial they had cited that distance, the difficulty that he had getting his lawyers down there to meet with him and so the judge this week ordered him moved to the Alexandria Detention Center leading up to trial. And we then got a filing from Paul Manafort`s lawyers saying -- opposing that move saying, it really wasn`t about the distance, it was more just a fact of his incarceration that made it difficult to prepare for trial. They said that there might be some safety concerns moving him to Alexandria to which the judge said the Alexandria Jail has housed high-profile defendants everyone from terrorists to whomever and they`ve never had you know issues so there were no specific security issues that Manafort`s lawyers identified that would prevent him from being moved.

HAYES: So Paul, there`s these interesting tidbits. So when you go to jail, your calls are monitored. You`re told that you have no expectation of privacy and those -- and those phone calls can be used. Some phone call snippets show up in the matter in the Mueller filing. Manafort explained in vague terms why I wanted to go on trial in D.C. first as opposed to Virginia first. He said, think about how it will play elsewhere Manafort said according to the court filing. There is a strategy to it even in failure but there`s a hope in it. What do you make of that?

BUTLER: So I guess he`s looking at the D.C. trial is kind of a dress rehearsal for what would happen at the Virginia trial. Remember he also had the option of combining both of these so he could have had one trial where all of these charges would have been heard but he declined that so that`s why the judge said today, you know, you`ve got some nerve Mr. Manafort complaining about how you have to prepare for two trials because you really only had to prepare for one. That was your choice, not mine.

HAYES: There`s another filing, this comes from Andrew Weissmann who`s a -- who`s a sort of top-flight attorney in the Mueller team, Zoe, and it`s essentially they want to use what`s called prior bad acts. They`re sort of applying to the court or a motion the court to use those to say that -- they want to talk about his lobbying as long as thirty years ago. And the reason they want to do that is to say that Manafort had knowledge of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and its registration requirements. It`s relevant to establish the absence of mistake or accident in his failing to register and making false statements to the FARA unit. It looks like they`re gearing up to go over on the Mueller side.

TILLMAN: They are. So in the D.C. case is where he`s charged with failing to register as an agent for the work that he did for the former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. And as you said for this 404 B evidence, normally you can`t bring in evidence of crimes that a person is not charged with or hasn`t been convicted of, it`s not in the case but if it`s relevant to the crimes that they are charged with the prosecution can ask for permission to introduce it at trial. So we`ve already gotten some submissions from Mueller`s office asking to introduce evidence related to some of Manafort`s previous work, his financial transactions and what we saw today was a supplement to that saying in order to help prove that Manafort violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act that it`s relevant to bring in the fact that he was previously investigated for FARA issues over his lobbying work in the 1980s and they say that this goes to show he knew what they required -- he knew what you know -- going into his work in the 2000s for Yanukovych that he would have known what was expected of him.

HAYES: It is wild --

BUTLER: Chris --

HAYES: Yes, go ahead, Paul.

BUTLER: The weird -- yes, the weird thing about this is that there`s all this energy and attention to this Manafort case. Mueller has one of -- he`s got a number of hotshot prosecutors, one of the hottest shoddiest is on this case Weissmann, it has nothing to do with collusion. In fact, the judge said earlier questioned Mueller, why are you bringing this case? You`re supposed to be investigating the President. So here`s the thing. Mueller knows something that we don`t know and the questions to Trump that will reveal, one of the questions was but Mr. President did you know about attempts by Paul Manafort to reach out to the Russians? We also know that when Manafort was running the Trump campaign, he was in constant contact with his guy Kilimnik who was a Russian operative. So again, two charges, two different cases, nothing to do with collusion or President Trump but something`s lurking in the background that I think we`re going to find out eventually.

HAYES: That`s a great point. Zoe Tillman and Paul Butler, thank you both. Coming up, the pro-business Supreme Court nominee. Why the White House wants corporations to know that Brett Kavanaugh is resolutely on their side after this.


HAYES: The White House and advocates for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh want you to believe he will faithfully apply the U.S. constitution not make law. But behind closed doors, it is not about Judge Kavanaugh`s deference to the constitution or his process, it`s about his outcomes, and the outcomes are overwhelmingly pro-business as a one sheet memorandum circulated to business leaders by the White House shows.

The memo reviewed by The New York Times brags that, quote, Judge Kavanaugh protects American businesses from illegal job killing regulations.

Former Senator Barbara Boxer is host of Fight Back with Barbara Boxer, Jim Manley is a Democratic strategist, and former chief spokesperson for then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Andrew Hannah is a reporter for Politico.

And, Andrew, I will start with you, you know, when we talk about the Supreme Court, people talk about abortion and affirmative action and voting rights and all those cases are exremely important, but a huge amount of the court`s docket that corporate America pays to is about regulation and appeals on administrative rulings, and it matters to them a lot, and it is very telling, it seems to me, the White House is using these decisions with that constituency.

ANDREW HANNA, POLITICO: Sure, Chris. Well, even with Kennedy as a swing justice on the court, the Supreme Court tended to favor businesses against regulatory decisions by the agencies.

So, you just saw in the last Supreme Court term two major blows to the labor movement in the Janus case and the Epic Systems case, one targeting union fees, the other preventing class action lawsuits, or letting employers make class action lawsuits banned as part of a condition of employment.

So the expectation is that if you look at Kavanaugh`s record on the D.C. circuit, he is pretty friendly to businesses and the White House is being truthful here, they are touting his record.

HAYES: It`s the -- Jim, it is the sort of truthfulness that I appreciate about this document, which of course -- because it is -- it shows what is up here, right. Like they know what they are getting in Brett Kavanaugh and they`re going around to corporate America and saying, like, you don`t want your employer suing you and you don`t want unions and you don`t want the EPA nosing around with red tape, and here is a guy we`re going to put on the Supreme Court who is going to be in your corner.


Having said that, I`m glad they did it, because it`s going to be the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats throughout this confirmation process. But, yeah, it just shows how arrogant and out of touch they are, number one. And number two, it just shows once again to the base that this is exactly what it`s all about, stuff like this.

HAYES: Senator, the one thing that is notable about this fight right now is the intensity on the Democratic side. I thought this polling was interesting, I`d like to get your feedback on it. Generally, people think that Republicans are more invested in these court fight, but this new polling today shows -- from the NBC News/Wall Street Journals, says that a high level of interest, 63 percent of Democrats and only 47 percent of Republicans. What do you make of that?

BARBARA BOXER, FORMER DEMOCRATIC SENATOR OF CALIFORNIA: Well, I think it is essential, because every single right is at stake. And we have talked about the right to choose, women`s equality, you know, health care. These are all things coming.

But this particular memo, I agree with your other guests, and Jim and I worked together when he worked for Harry Reid, I agree that when they prepared this white paper on Kavanaugh, it just reeks of Federalist Society values, which are, there should be freedom, that is what the Federalist say, freedom, but not for the people to breathe clean air, not for the ability to drink safe water, not for the ability to have a decent work place that is fair, but for the business community. They are so unbalanced in that.

And the last point I make at this time is that when the Federalist Society was founded by people like Bork and others in that ilk of the far right they were nervous, because the court in the seventies was upholding laws like the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water, that Richard Nixon signed. So that is why the Federalist Society were born.

And they hide behind this, oh, we are originalists. No, they are backers of big business and they want to take away our rights and give them the rights.

HAYES: Well, Jim, it just so happens their constitutional theory also precludes a lot of the modern regulatory state. I mean, those two things going together.

I mean, I guess my question to you is we think -- I think about the sort of interest groups lining up in these fights and you think a lot about -- you`ll think about the religious right, particularly on the conservative side and the sort of legal establishment, you`ll think about pro-choice groups on the Democratic side, and civil rights groups. How big a role does corporate America play in a fight like this? How invested are they?

MANLEY: Oh, I think they are awfully invested in it. I mean, for them this is what they have been hoping for and praying for for years. I mean, with Kennedy stepping down, you know, the court now is in play on a whole host of other things that they`ve been deferential to in the past, including the so-called Chevron defense, as I understand it, and a whole host of other things that businesses have been wishing for for years.

So, you know, again, the arrogance of this memo is amazing. And it just shows how seriously they are taking this. I hope Democrats are going to push back and push back hard.

As Senator Boxer was always good about, Democrats have to highlight what is exactly at stake here, and they just gave us a gift on this one.

HAYES: For from the memo, Andrew. The memorandum said judges had overruled federal agencies some 75 times, unclear whether that figure including saying the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau was essentially unconstitutional.

HANNA: Yeah, that has been a hot button issue for people who are looking at the court and how Kavanaugh will look on regulations. You remember the movie "Blackfish," right, a trainer had died while working with a killer whale. And that case made its way all the way up to the D.C. Circuit Court where OSHA had sued Sea World, and two judges ruled that Sea World had not protected the workers, one judge had dissented, and that Judge was Kavanaugh.

HAYES: Yeah, and there`s -- well, the majority opinion in that in the three judge panel is Merrick Garland who says -- yeah, being eviscerated and killed by a whale is not a sort of fair expectation of your employment, and Kavanaugh essentially dissenting from that view, Senator Boxer.

BOXER: Oh, yeah. I mean, they have no heart. They wrap it in this originalism, textualism, but it is all about no heart, it`s all about who they fight for, and that`s why they were formed originally. And this guy passes the test, every single test.

And, you know, when you say regulation, they have made it a dirty world. They`re protections. They`re protections for our children, for our families.

The biggest cause of school absenteeism is asthma. So, we can`t just say to the corporations, who they say are people, do what you want and not weigh in for ordinary families. And that`s what`s at stake, in addition to women`s rights and health care and gay rights and all of the other things, climate change, Anthony Kennedy, he was the one who said, yeah, it is covered under the Clean Air Act. They are going to do away with that.

And what kind of planet are our children going to have? So, thank goodness there is interest in this and everything I can do is to just pound the drum and say take a look at this.

HAYES: Yeah, there`s going -- I think there is going to be more interest, actually, as we approach the hearings and more is revealed.

Senator Barbara Boxer, Jim Manely, and Andrew Hanna, thanks so much for your time.

Ahead, the resistance under the Trump administration shows no signs of slowing down, but will that momentum pull Democrats ahead in the mid-terms. The latest poling, and it is interesting, coming up.

Plus, a new chapter in a bizarre love affair that we`ve discovered here on the show in tonight`s Thing One, Thing two next.


HAYES: Thing One tonight, pick any issue, any issue and the chances are Donald Trump will be very weirdly on the wrong side of it. Asbestos is a perfect example. Yes, that toxic stuff we used to use in buildings, which causes diseases that kill about 15,000 Americans every year. As we`ve told you before on this show not only did he say in his book that asbestos was, quote, "100 percent safe when it is applied, and that the movement to remove asbestos was a conspiracy led by the mob." The man testified in support of the carcinogen before congress in 2005.


TRUMP: In New York City, we have a lot of asbestos buildings. And there`s a whole debate about asbestos. I mean, a lot of people could say that if the World Trade Center has asbestos, it wouldn`t have burned down. It wouldn`t have melted, OK. A lot of people think asbestos -- a lot of people in my industry think asbestos is the greatest fireproofing material ever made.

And I can tell you that I have seen tests of asbestos versus the new material that`s being used, and it is not even a contest -- it`s like a heavyweight champion against a lightweight from high school.

But in your great wisdom, you folks have said asbestos is a horrible material, so it has to be removed.


HAYES: That is our president.

That`s the guy that we elected, the man, the president of the United Sattes. And that is why there is now asbestos for sale in Russia with Donald Trump`s face on it.

No, seriously, that is Thing Two in 60 seconds.


HAYES: So, Donald Trump is what you could call an asbestos truther. For decades, he`s been spewing skepticism that the carcinogen -- again, responsible for tens of thousands of deaths worldwide every year, banned in at least 60 countries, isn`t really all that bad.

And now that he`s become president, guess what, his EPA has cut back on regulating this stuff. Huh, funny how that works.

And this, of course, is great news if you are a Russian asbestos company. This one, Uralasbest, which operates a giant asbestos mine in the Ural Mountains, is even celebrating with Trump branded asbestos. Uralasbest, the best darn asbestos in the Urals.

The company posted these photos on Facebook showing pallets of the stuff marked with a big red seal, depicting Trump`s face and a phrase that translates to approved by Donald Trump, 45th president of the United States.

The company which reportedly counts Russian President Vladimir Putin as an ally also posted a comment that reads in part, quote, "Donald is on our side." Oh yeah, he sure is.


TRUMP: A lot of people could say that if the World Trade Center had asbestos, it wouldn`t have burned down, it wouldn`t have melted, OK.



HAYES: In the last few weeks, we have seen a surge in activist across the country against the administration`s inhumane separation of immigrant families. Whether that is protests on Capitol Hill in lawmakers own offices, or literally hundreds of events last month coast to coast to protest family separation.

And the increasing calls, even among lawmakers, to abolish ICE completely, showing how far left the party is moving on this issue.

Nor has immigration been the topic to energize Democrats and progressives around the country, the president`s Supreme Court pick on Monday night, for example, sparked its own protests, all of which has prompted concerns, some real, some probably feigned, that Democrats are moving too far to the left right now, that somehow this groundswell of activism and organizing and direction action will harm Democrats in the mid-term elections.

But there is at least one gauge, even if imperfect we can check to see if that theory right now holds water, the generic congressional ballot, the one compiled by FiveThirtyEight, for example, shows quite the opposite, the Democratic lead over Republicans in recent polling suggests their lead has, in fact, widened recently over the last few weeks.

Now the party that is more activated wins midterms, that has been the simple rule in recent years. I mean, think of the Tea Party in 2010. Did all those protests and the tricorner hats, and sometimes the really, really ugly signs, turn some people off? Probably. But they ushered in sweeping Republican victories that resound even to this day.

If there`s one lesson for our polarized nation today, it`s that energy and intensity matter the most especially for mid-term elections. And Democrats right now are energized.


HAYES: The Trump administration continues to drag its heels and fight kicking and screaming in reuniting the immigrant children that it took from their parents at the border. By Tuesday deadline, the administration said four children under 5 had been reunited and another 34 expected to be reunited by the end of the day yesterday. But we don`t know if that happened. We`ll know more on Thursday with another court update.

In the meantime, the stories that we`re hearing about reunification underscore the barbaric cruelty of family separation in the first place.

The New York Times reporting today on two toddlers who had been taken from their parents months ago were returned yesterday. Quote, "as migrant families are reunited, some children don`t recognize their mothers. He didn`t recognize me, said Mirce Albe Lopez, 31, of her 3-year-old son, Ederson, her eyes welling up with tears. My joy turned temporarily to sadness."

Another 3-year-old tried to get free from her mother`s embrace at the point of reunification, quote, "I want miss. I want miss, Darly cried calling for the social worker at the shelter where she had been living in her mother`s absence."

Joining me now, two reporters who have done amazing, essential work on this story, Dara Lind of Vox and Aura Bogado of Reveal.

Laura, let me start with you. I mean, the stories of reunification sort of underscore precisely the level of trauma that is being imposed on these children and the parents during separation.

AURA BOGADO, REVEAL: It really is.

We`ve been focused on some of the places that the children have been held. And I do want to let you know and let your audience know that just a couple of hours ago Reveal from the Center of Investigative Reporting learned that MVM Inc., the company that has a small vacant office in midtown Phoenix. First, it told us that it didn`t operate shelters, it didn`t operate housing. It then told us that it had a temporary holding place for children. Well, two hours ago they admitted to us that it did, indeed, sometimes hold children again in that office that several neighbors reported seeing.

I eventually was able to garner databases and different documents that corroborated what the neighbors were telling us and also what we were hearing within the immigrant community about what really was happening in that office building.

And so there are so many parts to this story -- the reunifications themselves, but also what happens in that in between time and where any immigrant is being held, but particularly some of the -- some of these children in this particular facility we found that at least one girl was pregnant, one child ran away. He`s still missing. Again, this is a private contractor that has a generous contract with ICE, that`s . taxpayer money.

According to that contract, children are not supposed to spend the night. ICE has repeatedly told us that is not part of the contract. And it did, indeed, happen.

HAYES: Yeah, I want to be clear about this is an amazing bit of reporting you broke, so just to make sure people are clear this is a contract, or a defense contractor, who has a logistics contract to move children around, as I understand it. That`s what they`re supposed to be doing.

You broke that they were detaining migrant kids in a vacant Phoenix office building. They put out a response, which they essentially admit to that`s what they`re doing. They explain it. They say it`s our policy to accompany the children affected to appropriate accommodations such as local hotel. We identified several instances in which our policy was not followed. They said they`ve instituted tighter control. They said it`s regrettable. They`ve initiated a program review and we`ll take appropriate actions based on our findings.

Dara, this points to how little oversight it seems to me is happening at these facilities.

DARA LIND, VOX NEWS: Yeah. Generally the federal government has alternated between saying that they have everything under control and saying that there`s just too much going on that they can`t be expected to take care of anything.

This points to a bigger problem that they never really appeared to have built capacity for all of these children to get separated. They never thought about a different process by which they might identify and release them to parents. They`re currently scrambling to build up capacity at military bases at the same time that they are trying to find new capacity to detain children alone.

They appear to be taking a strategy of mashing all of the buttons and hoping that some of them work.

HAYES: Yeah. And that they`re also currently, Dara, just to follow up on this, and this is something you`ve reported on, what they want -- their solution now is indefinite family detention. They basically said we`re not going to separate these parents because you didn`t like that, and so we`re going to keep them together in indefinite family detention.

They petitioned the judge in the consent decree in Flores, which says you can`t do that, and the judge said, absolutely no way. It is apparent defendant`s application is a cynical attempt to shift responsibility to the judiciary for over 20 years of congressional inaction and ill-considered executive action that has so what now?

LIND: So the thing about that decree that I think it`s really important for people to understand is that it did not say that the Trump administration could not separate families.

HAYES: Right.

LIND: And it did not say that they could not detain families. What it said was a parent should be able to make the choice and the ACLU and the judge in this case as well as the judge in the San Diego case on separation have both said as long as parents are making the choice about whether they want to stay with their child in detention or have their child go to, you know, HHS and ultimately be placed with a relative or foster parent, that is their decision to make.

That means that right now the administration could...

HAYES: Could reinstitute.

LIND: Yeah, it could be posing that decision to parents, and it`s not. What we know that they are kind of reinstituting what they have pejoratively called catch and release. They`re defaulting to releasing immigrant families from detention. That is not something that they`re doing in all cases to be sure.

HAYES: Right.

LIND: But they appear to be doing it on a wider scale.

So the question right now is is that a permanent solution or are they just keeping it on pause until they ramp up the next phase?

HAYES: And Aura, that means that you`re going to still have kids in these facilities, even unaccompanied minors, right as well as separated, and you`ve also reported on a specific facility, now subject to a lawsuit, in which migrant kids were given psychotropic drugs and doctors have lost certification. This is something that, again, you`ve reported on that is happening in these facilities?

BOGADO: Yes. There`s a facility called Shilo in Texas. Children are sent there sometimes because they are perceived to have certain emotional instability. One child was sent there after he peed his pants as children sometimes do. One child that I spent time with, along with his mom, Maria Vera Nadez (ph), they live in New Orleans now, he was there for six months. He was 9 years old when he started staying there.

He was separated from his mom through a different process. She was already here, he claimed asylum at the border. He went into a sort of more regular shelter, the ones that we`re more familiar with and then sent to this place, Shilo, after he tried to run away, as children who want to be reunited with their parents tend to do.

He was then administered drugs, heavy psychotropic drugs for six months. His mom pleaded, was angry, tried everything she could for six months to get her child back. She finally did. He`s 10 years old now. He seems well adjusted.

HAYES: I`m sorry that I have to cut you off there before the bottom of the hour, but there`s a lawsuit on that and people should read your reporting over at Reval.

Dara Lind and Aura Bogado, thank you.

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.