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

Trump call to end Mueller Probe. TRANSCRIPT: 8/1/2018, All In w Chris Hayes

Guests: Margie Omero, Cornell Belcher, Jess McIntosh, Devlin Barrett, Mike Quigley

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: August 1, 2018 Guest: Margie Omero, Cornell Belcher, Jess McIntosh, Devlin Barrett, Mike Quigley

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: This is a legitimate investigation, why are you saying it`s not? 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: They go after us for a Russian hoax. It`s a witch hunt hoax.

HAYES: The President tells his Attorney General he should immediately end the investigation of the President.


HAYES: Tonight, the most damning evidence yet of obstruction in plain sight.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D), CONNECTICUT: There are evidence of criminal intent.

HAYES: Why do Trump legal team is scrambling after a letter from Robert Mueller?

RUDY GIULIANI, LAWYER OF DONALD TRUMP: The most recent letter, they sent us a proposal.

HAYES: Then, day two of the Manafort trial.

TRUMP: Now, Paul Manafort is a nice guy.

HAYES: Why the prosecution`s star witness may not testify. Plus, 97 days from Election Day.


HAYES: Barack Obama enters the fray. And why last night`s Trump rally doubled as a coming-out party for a conspiracy theory?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) the storm, the great awakening.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Military intelligence most likely has been talking to all of us.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. Today the President of the United States publicly told his Attorney General to shut down an investigation into the President`s own campaign over potential collusion with an adversary and obstruction of justice. It is the furthest the president has ever gone in his rantings about the probe and we may know why. The President`s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani today told reporters that Special Counsel Robert Mueller still wants to talk to the president.


GIULIANI: Most recent letter, they sent us a proposal. We responded to their proposal. It took about 10 days and yesterday we got a letter back from them. And now we`re in the process of responding to their proposals.


HAYES: According to ABC News, that letter yesterday from Special Counsel Robert Mueller`s team sent the President off this morning with Mueller wanting to ask Trump about obstruction of justice. In that letter according to new report from The Washington Post "Mueller`s team suggested investigators would reduce by nearly half the number of questions they would ask about potential obstruction of justice. It`s unclear which topic we`re topics will be left out. In a subsequent Twitter tirade upon learning of Mueller`s interest in obstruction, Donald Trump wrote "this is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this rigged witch-hunt right now before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted. His 17 angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA. Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this rigged witch-hunt right now.

That sounds a lot like the kind of order a boss might give doesn`t it? The President`s lawyers immediately went into full freakout mode attempting feebly I would say to gaslight America about what exactly the president was saying.


GIULIANI: What it is, is as we said immediately an opinion and he used his -- he used the medium that he uses for opinions, Twitter. And one of the good things about using that is he`s established a clear sort of practice now that he expresses his opinions on Twitter. He used the word "should," he didn`t use the word "must" and there was no presidential directive to followed it. He didn`t direct him to do it and he`s not going to direct him to do it.


HAYES: It wasn`t an order, you see, it was an opinion. The same way asking about who will rid me of this meddlesome priest is just asking a question, but it came from the President and it was directed at an underling about an investigation into the President`s own campaign. But even as the President continues to tantrum tweet, Mueller continues closing in not only as a trial of former Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort happens right now in Virginia but as the President`s own rage tweets ad possibly to the very case against him.

For more on what we know about what the President his attorneys are up to, Devlin Barrett of The Washington Post who has been reporting on all of this today. Devlin, what is the perspective inside the White House and his legal team about what`s happening?

DEVLIN BARRET, NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, obviously it`s been a busy day. And what was interesting about the legal team`s response to the President`s tweets is they really moved pretty quickly to get out there. The notion that there`s no directive or order behind this tweet, there`s no other set of instructions that have gone to the Justice Department toward Jeff Session or anyone else at the Justice Department to take action on the Mueller investigation. And while they say you know, look, this is just his opinion, the truth is that the President does sometimes announce or carry out executive decisions via tweet. You know, you can ask Rex Tillerson the former Secretary of State about that who was essentially fired by a tweet. You know, so look, I think this is an important -- an amazing day. I think there were some incredible things that happen today but how it all plays out, what the ultimate consequences are these things I think is still playing out.

HAYES: Well, there`s been -- you know, one other thing that`s happened is we`ve seen an escalation in the rhetoric against Mueller and it sort of happens day by day. I mean, he called it an illegal sham a few days ago. This was crossing a line he`s not crossed before. I mean, this is the closest he`s come to a direct public order to his Attorney General to stop an investigation of himself in his campaign.

BARRETT: Absolutely. And not only that, he`s doing it as an FBI agent is on the stand testifying in the Manafort trial. That is also amazing. That`s a little more nerdy amazing than this but it`s still amazing. And I don`t think we should lose track of either of those things because I think they are both remarkable and both frankly not something we`ve seen before.

HAYES: What do we know about this? You know, it`s been hard. We`re all looking through the Mueller investigation through a straw so to speak and we get the king of all unreliable narrators and Rudy Giuliani who walks through what`s happening but what do we know about this sort of back and forth over the terms of the possible interview with the president?

BARRETT: Look, I think a lot of today was about gamesmanship including the back and forth between Mueller and Rudy Giuliani in this instance and that`s this. You know, the Rudy folks, the Trump folks, they don`t want to say outright absolutely not, we will not do an interview and on Mueller side, they really want to show as best they can how accommodating they`re trying to be in setting up an interview. So this is part of the gamesmanship. So Mueller is saying OK, you know what, you can take -- we`ll take some of the questions off the table. Would you please sit down with us? And it`s a gamesmanship thing and I -- but frankly I think a lot of lawyers really don`t expect this interview to ever happen.

HAYES: Well, not under -- I mean or it might happen under compelled terms right?

BARRETT: It could happen --

HAYES: Under voluntary terms, I think everyone doesn`t expect to happen. That`s an interesting point. You feel like you`re reporting indicates the Mueller people want to show it as much of a good-faith effort to make this happen under voluntary terms.

BARRETT: Absolutely. I think that`s a very important point for them if this ever does come before a judge who has to make a decision on it.

HAYES: That`s a great point. Devlin Barrett, thanks for your time tonight. Here to help me understand the potential case, Joyce Vance former U.S. Attorney and an MSNBC Contributor. And Joyce, we already know that the Mueller team was sort of looking at pronouncements by the President by tweets. There`s a sort of interesting debate about the status of those legally. What do you make of what he said today?

JOYCE VANCE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Today, looks like a dangerous day for the rule of law with the President now telling his Attorney General who`s recused which means he shouldn`t be participating in this matter in any way but the president apparently directing Attorney General Sessions to terminate this ongoing investigation. And Chris, you have to ask you know, what is it that the President wants the Attorney General to stop. Does he want him to pull the plug on the Manafort trial, have him dismiss the indictment of 12 Russian GRU agents who are alleged to have hacked?

HAYES: That`s a great point.

VANCE: Take your pick of Mueller`s panoply of successes and what is it that Trump wants undone here. So that I think is one interesting aspect of this but the other interesting matter for us to consider is the language in the statute itself that makes obstruction a crime. It`s not just a crime to some -- to successfully obstruct a legal proceeding, it`s also a crime for someone to endeavor to obstruct that sort of a proceeding.

And so this tweet is very hard I think to rationalize in any manner other that then as an effort by the President to put up roadblocks for this investigation whether directly or not and it`s certainly a great piece of evidence if someone were to be looking at his motive or his intent as it applies to obstruction. Of course, that likely happens in the course of impeachment proceedings on the Hill rather than in the form of an indictment because of the long-standing prohibition at DOJ on indicting a sitting president. But this is something that if the president were your client you would be very unhappy to see him do it.

HAYES: I want to play you the defense from Sarah Huckabee Sanders which was in line with Rudy Giuliani which is basically sort of this funny thing the President`s a citizen like anyone else expressing his opinion. Take a listen.


SANDERS: It`s not an order, it`s the President`s opinion and it`s ridiculous that all of the corruption and dishonesty that`s gone on with the launching of the witch-hunt the president wants to -- has watched this process play out but he also wants to see it come to an end as he stated many times and we look forward to that happening.


HAYES: I mean, what to make it -- what`s amazing about that is that she seems to be furthering precisely these undercurrent words, the subtext about the text in the tweet in her response to it.

VANCE: I suppose it`s not surprising that a president who seems to have less respect for the First Amendment than any other president in this country`s history would have a press secretary who would engage in this sort of word salad trying to justify the president`s tweet as anything other than what it clearly is. It`s not an exercise of his First Amendment rights, it`s not a statement of his opinion, it`s a direction to his Attorney General.

HAYES: Joyce Vance, thank you for joining me.

VANCE: Thanks for having me, Chris.

HAYES: Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley of Illinois, Member the House Intelligence Committee joins me now. I want to play something, it`s Senator Richard Blumenthal said about this today. Take a listen to what he had to say.


BLUMENTHAL: These tweets adding to each other amount to evidence of criminal intent. There is now right now a clearly credible case of obstruction against the President of the United States.


HAYES: There is right now a clearly credible case of obstruction of justice against the President of the United States. Do you agree?

REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D), ILLINOIS: Yes, I think it`s a pattern of behavior. Rarely in these sort of prosecutions you have one big bombshell act typically especially post Enron when we beefed up the laws allowing for this sort of prosecution, they understood that it was going to be a pattern of behavior, actions, activities. Clearly, the President not just in his tweets but you know the talk of pardons of people like who are on trial right now implying that if they -- if they didn`t go along and cooperate with the investigation, they could possibly be pardoned.

I think the sheriff`s pardon in Arizona was a clear intent to tell other folks that you don`t have to abide by lawfully subpoena -- lawful subpoenas so it`s a concern there. But obviously add the other things to it firing Comey, asking for his loyalty, threatening to fire Mueller previous time, you put all that together I think we`ve already met the burden. Unfortunately, this investigation is going to take much longer. We need to be patient.

HAYES: You know, there`s two ways I think of looking at these present statements. One is this sort of like frog boiling in the water right, where he sort of he`s testing his limits. The other is that it`s a sign of how impotent he is. This is someone who`s whining because he knows that he can`t actually take the steps to fire Rosenstein or Mueller because that would be a kind of political cataclysm.

QUIGLEY: I think the legal term is he`s actually freaking out right? His campaign chairman is on trial, his National Security Adviser has already pled guilty and is cooperating and his personal attorney, a person who was so important. Why do we know Cohen was important? Because President Trump thought he was important. He gave him as you know his most sensitive task and right now there`s a possibility, a very real possibility that he`s going to follow Flynn and cooperate.

HAYES: You know, you`re on the House Intelligence Committee and you guys had the investigation that was I think editorialized, prematurely cut short by the majority. There was reports issued on both sides. Is it your sense -- I mean, I always think to myself, do people on Capitol Hill feel confident they know what the President did and what will come out and are they walking around if you`re on the Republican side with the sort of -- sort of (INAUDIBLE) over your head?

QUIGLEY: I think some of my Republican colleagues wish it would go away. I think they`re sort of repulsed by the President`s activities. I think others are co-conspirators in a sense including many of my colleagues and the Chairman of the Intel Committee. What exactly did they do? They tanked the investigation and they shut it down. They work hand in glove with the President of the United States to obstruct this investigation.

HAYES: Do you think that is going in when you guys get back from recess in the fall and it`ll be week you know within months of the midterms. Do you expect more pressure on that front?

QUIGLEY: It depends entirely upon what Mr. Mueller does in August. I can`t -- as you say we look at this investigation through a straw. I think the Mueller investigation has been very careful about leaks and they`ve been very careful to stay away from our investigation and vice versa. But knowing the type of person he is, my assumption is if he doesn`t do something pretty soon, he`s probably going to put off anything until after the election.

HAYES: Because of that sort of window of interfering with the election.

QUIGLEY: Sure. What we learned from Comey all too well before the Presidential Election `16.

HAYES: Do you -- what do you -- you`re back in your district now.


HAYES: You guys are on recess and I just wonder what your conversations on this topic are back in the district or whether it comes up.

QUIGLEY: It comes up all the time. I get stopped in coffee shops, riding my bike, walking my dog, most people say please continue this, find some way to find out what took place. It is clearly on people`s minds being on programs like this reminding them on the Intel Committee and all I can tell them is we`re doing the very best we can, given the fact that the Republicans shut down their side of the investigation. I think most people recognize for what it is. This is more important than Watergate and more complicated.

HAYES: More important -- why is it more important than Watergate?

QUIGLEY: Because it involves a foreign adversary and the very real possibility that our President conspired with them to attack our democracy.

HAYES: You assess that is a very real possibility.


HAYES: Congressman Mike Quigley, thanks for being here tonight.

QUIGLEY: Thank you.

HAYES: Now, after the break, day two Paul Manafort`s trial, things are already going faster than expected but we`re now learning the supposed star witness might not testify. What happened in two minutes.


HAYES: In day two of the trial of President Trump`s former Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, the prosecution called a slew of witnesses, most of whom were there to establish one thing, that Manafort repeatedly paid for lavish Goods and property by wire transfer from bank accounts in Cyprus to recipients the United States. Why? According to the government, well, very simple, to hide that income from the IRS. It`s not very complicated and he gets paid in the bank account. He pays for stuff with it, IRS never sees it. And if it`s proven, it would be tax evasion.

But the big surprise of the day came when Judge TS Ellis asked the prosecutor why he was using a particular witness to introduce a document when Rick Gates, Manafort`s deputy expected to be the prosecutor -- prosecution`s main witness could do it later. The judge said why are we -- are you going to -- you`re going to offer Mr. Gates aren`t you? The prosecutor replied, Your Honor that`s -- we`re not sure if we`re -- he may testify in this case your honor, he may not. Again, Manafort`s assistant Rick Gates, the former Trump campaign Deputy Chair had been described by many observers as the prosecution`s star witness. The judge reacted to this. That was news to me by the way and obviously to about 25 other people who scurried out of here like rats leaving a sinking ship.

To help sort through the cases fast second day I`m driving by MSNBC Legal Analyst Nick Akerman, former assistant Special Watergate prosecutor and NBC News Intelligence and National Security Reporter Ken Dilanian who witnessed today`s proceedings inside the courthouse. Ken, this judge seems like he is cracking the whip in that courtroom.

KEN DILANIAN, NBC NEWS INTELLIGENCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: That`s one way to look at it, Chris. Much to the annoyance of prosecutors I think, that judge TS Ellis has been a judge since the Reagan administration and he likes to make himself a part of the theater. But there was really two main themes as you suggested today, Chris. One was prosecutors showing the lavish spending by Paul Manafort on luxury goods paid for with wire transfers from foreign accounts in Cyprus with names like Lucile LLC and Leviathan Advisors.

And as you said this is money that prosecutors say he parked there to avoid paying federal taxes. But prosecutors wanted to show the jury that he didn`t just avoid taxes on the money, he then used it to pay for example $1 million, $1 million, Chris four suits over a period of four years. $3 million paid to a contractor whose doing various improvements on his Hamptons vacation homes. And the prosecutors were really pushing the envelope trying to get in evidence about you know, his luxurious lifestyle for obvious reasons that would play well to the jury.

The Judge was pushing back on that and admonishing them that look he`s not on trial for being wealthy, you`ve got to show the relevance. But the other major theme as you suggested was Rick Gates may not be as important to the prosecution case as the defense would like him to be. Not only did prosecutors song they suggest that he might not testify at all but for every one of these witnesses who described these transactions in these wire transfers, the prosecution would ask have you ever heard of a man named Rick Gates? This was Paul Manafort`s right-hand man after all and they said no to a person they had never heard him. He was not involved in any of these transactions and so it`s hard for the defense to argue that at least for this element of the case that you know it Rick Gates is to blame for all this alleged illegality.

HAYES: Yes, so in just the opening argument for the defense is very focused on Rick Gates and basically said their theory of the case as it were is that Rick Gates screwed over Paul Manafort. He was the one put in charge. He did all this. Whatever bad financial transactions it was Rick Gates` fault. Let`s say, you`ve got these people who sell Paul Manafort`s suits who say I never heard of Rick Gates, Paul Manafort says bill my Turkish banking -- my (INAUDIBLE) bank account and I bill it and then I sell $1 million in suits. What do you think about the centrality of Gates in this case?

NICK AKERMAN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: I don`t think he`s central all. This is basically a documents case. If you look at the exhibit list here, there are lots of e-mails involving Rick Gates, there are lots of directions to Rick Gates. I don`t need to call Rick Gates. In fact, I don`t think they are going to call Rick Gates. If you look at the prosecutors opening, it is not the traditional opening where the prosecutor says I`m calling X witness and I want to let you know about his background. Yes, he lied to us, he lied on his taxes, but the real issue for you ladies and gentlemen of the jury is whether he`s telling you the truth and you`re going to see that what he tells you was corroborated. They didn`t say any of that.

HAYES: You would normally do that to sort of inoculate, to kind of --

AKERMAN: Exactly.

HAYES: -- rebut what defense is going to say about this guy.

AKERMAN: And in addition to that, Mueller has a very good reason not to call Rick Gates. If he calls Rick Gates, he has to turn over what is known as impeachment material. Under the Supreme Court`s decision in Giglio versus U.S., he has to produce impeachment material which means he has to provide to the defense all of the witness statements that were made by Rick Gates. The last thing he wants to do is turn over statements that Gates has made about the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. On top of that, prosecutors like me used to like to try really lean cases. The less evidence you put before the jury, the better you are because every time you call a witness there are pluses and minuses and if you don`t need that person on the stand, you do not call them.

HAYES: The shortest distance between two points.

AKERMAN: Exactly. And if you can prove your entire case through documents, that is absolutely the way to go. And on top of that, the government is also going to argue at the end that Rick Gates was available to the defense. So if they`ve got this crazy theory that --

HAYES: They can call it.

AKERMAN: They can call them. And there`s a charge that the judge will give the jury that this witness was equally available to both sides. Ken, did they cross-examine the witnesses today?

DILANIAN: Very gentle cross-examination. Because most of this evidence is not contested by Manafort`s side. They`re agreeing yes, he paid this money. Yes, he bought these goods. In their opening statement they argued that he never intended to commit tax evasion. He didn`t do it willfully and essentially they said they`re going to blame employees, Gates but potentially other people as well. Well, you know, Mr. Manafort was very busy and he signed documents that were put in front of him. Unfortunately for the defense, the evidence so far has shown that Paul Manafort was very involved in all these transactions, was negotiating with his home improvement contractor personally so we`ll have to see how that plays out.

HAYES: So that`s interesting. So they`re basically saying yes. He parks the money in Cyprus. Yes, he pays for the stuff out of the Cypriot Bank account but he didn`t realize that you had to -- you had to rest about it, I guess because he had employees doing it. What you`re saying is they`re not even contesting that because the paper trails is there. They`re just trying to say like he didn`t know.

DILANIAN: Yes, and they are also saying that it was the oligarchs and the Ukrainians` idea to do it that way, to pay him that way and he just went along because they didn`t want to disguise that they were paying this American political consultant on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych.

HAYES: All right, Nick Ackerman and Ken Dilanian, thank you for that. Next, the conspiracy theory out in full force at the President`s rally, the unbelievable story behind that. That sign you see there and why the absolutely insane conspiracy theory represents has more followers than you know unfortunately right after this.


HAYES: If you tuned in to Donald Trump`s rally in Tampa, Florida last night, you might have noticed a somewhat ubiquitous Q symbol on signs in the crowd. And if you are lucky enough not to have to had to interact with this idea, let me take a moment to explain. Those Trump supporters you see waving around the letter Q printed on signs and on their t-shirts are followers of Q, an anonymous poster on the message boards for (INAUDIBLE).

Q claims to be sharing insider government secrets of the masses and has spawned an entire movement QAnon which essentially believes the entirety of the Democratic Party and much of Hollywood are conspiring and running an underground pedophile sex trafficking ring, even Tom Hanks. And the followers of Q also believe that President Donald Trump is working secretly with the generals to expose this entire sick thing and that the Mueller probe isn`t actually investigating Donald Trump but Robert Mueller and Donald Trump are actually investigating the Obamas and the Clintons. All of them are wearing ankle bracelets because they`ve already been secretly indicted.

Now if you`re hearing this for the first time, your reaction is correct. This is all insane and incoherent. It is also shockingly widespread as evidenced by last night and remember when Roseanne Barr tweeted about how President Trump has dreamed so many children held in bondage to pimps all over this world. That was a QAnon reference. Curt Schilling has linked to a pro-Q in on video on his Facebook account and Sean Hannity retweeted a #QAnon tweet this past January. The QAnon Reddit board Great Awakening has almost 50,000 subscribers. Its YouTube videos regularly get hundreds of thousands of views. It`s a conspiracy theory that appears to be growing in strength and it had its coming-out party at the President`s rally in Tampa last night.

I want to bring in two people have been tracking the growth of this conspiracy theory. MSNBC Contributor Sam Seder, Hosts of the Majority Report and Will Sommer Tech and Internet Reporter of The Daily Beast who has been on this. Will, I want to start with a bite of someone at the rally sort of explaining it because I think it shows the like crazy sort of mystical cult quality of the following of this. Take a lesson.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: QAnon, the storm, the great awakening. It started back when the President was meeting with military leaders back in October last year and said this is the calm before the storm. That launched us into what the Q team, military intelligence most likely has been talking to all of us, letting us know what is going on behind the scenes, letting us know the covert battles waging between the deep state and Donald Trump his military alliance.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Spread it. Combat the mainstream media. We`re fighting a battle on all fronts here.


HAYES: What do we -- I don`t want to get into the details of this, because it really is like this sort of like bizarre no stick nonsense. But why is this thing taking hold?

SOMMER: You know, so Q Anon, I think you had a great summary of it, it almost presents like a counter narrative for Trump supporters who maybe aren`t happy with how the administration is going, or they wanted more, like they wanted to lock her up or something like that. And so Q Anon presents this whole counter narrative of all the items are like Trump is winning and Trump is taking on the deep state.

And so that is wide appeal to Trump supporters.

HAYES: It also -- It also like what I find intereting, too, about it, Will, is that it`s like the Mueller, all of this news you`re seeing about Mueller, which is upsetting if you support the president or that like actually it is all going to be revealed that they are on the same team.

SOMMER: Exactl. It is very like take it easy, don`t worry, we are taking down the deep state.

HAYES: You know, Sam, we wrestle sometimes on this show with like what do you cover, and what don`t you, right? Like, you don`t -- you know, there`s lots -- people across the entire political spectrum believe all sorts of insane things, and that is true of liberals and people on the left. I want to be clear, this is -- there`s not like a monopoly, but the way the right wing ecosystem works there`s a kind of growth that this can spread to.

And just to be clear, like, there was a dude at the Hoover dam who was a standoff with law enforcement armed with like a Q Anon release the OIG report nod.

This is something that has really spread, it seems to me, fairly far in that world.

SEDER: Yeah, and I understand the dilemma of whether you cover this. I remember an associate producer on my podcast wanted to cover Gamergate years ago and I thought, oh, what is the point of that? That is not politics. And then these people end up in the White House four or five years later.

I mean, honestly, this is the dilemma that we deal with.

I mean, there`s a couple of fascinating things about this. One is you can track this through Alex Jones promoted it for awhile. I mean, for all we know Q is just some guy who started on Four Tran who wanted to see if people would believe this like other fake news stories that we`ve heard.

And the other element that is sott of fascinating is we have seen left, right, conspiracy theories, but this is for the guy who is in power and it is creating a narrative. I mean, there is that stat out today I think by The Washington Post that the president has told something like 4,000 lies or something like this.

So, this whole narrative is really only different in its quality, right, or you know, it is just, it is more interesting version of what the president is telling us.

HAYES: That`s a great point, Will. And there is also the fact that people are getting, being told at the rally by the president all the time don`t read The New York Times or read The Washington Post and listen to this, that -- like there is nowhere to get your information. Listen to me and anyone that believes in me. And so you choke off one information source and this is what you get.

SOMMER: Absolutely. I mean, people who believe in Q Anon. I mean, if you believe in it, you are completely unmored from what is actually going on in the world. And so this is kind of the culmination of decades of Republican attacks on the media and on independent sources of truth, and of course the president himself attacking it.

And so you end up with these very dangerous situations like as you mentioned this man at the Hoover Dam.

HAYES: Well, and you also got a situation in which the where the platforms, once again are aiding this. Here`s -- when users search for Tom Hanks, Tom Hanks on YouTube, the top five videos all accused Hanks of being a pedophile, Sam.

Like, this stuff, it starts at the margins, but if you are some person who just searches for Tom Hanks on YouTube, and the next thing you know, you are watching one of these videos.

SEDER: Yeah. I mean, look -- and you`ve hit the nail on the head in terms of the right wing echo chamber. And it goes a lot of strange places. Like I said, Alex Jones has been promoting this for a long time with Jerome Corsy (ph) of -- who has been well known in terms of Swiftboating John Kerry.

And then at one point when they realized they were losing control of the narrative, they started to saying that Q Anon had actually been overtaken by I guess internal spies who were starting to spread disinformation.

I mean, it is all part of a narrative. And there is a lot of money to be made with this stuff. Alex Jones is making hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars a year, off of his various different platforms and that is pretty compelling.

HAYES: I have to say, like this has been a sort of the margins of my consciousness, seeing that at the rally last night was kind of a shocking and arresting moment. I really have to say, like there is the president and like -- it would be if Barack Obama were up there like with a bunch of people being like Google 9/11 Truth, like that would be pretty shocking., and that`s sort of what we got last night.

Sam Seder, Will Sommer, thanks for joining me.

SOMMER: Thanks for having me.

SEDER: Ahead, President Obama, speaking of which, is back and handing out endorsements ahead of the midterms, but there are some notable candidates he is not talking about. More on that ahead.

But first the Otrich obsession sweeping the nation in tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two starts next.


HAYES: Thing One tonight, fun facts about Ostriches. Yes, these majestic beasts are the largest and heaviest birds on the planet with some adult males reaching nine feet tall and more than 300 pounds.

Their typical wingspan is over six feet, but ostrich never flies, instead it runs on long powerful legs at speeds up to 43 miles per hour. And if ever threatened, it can deliver a kick powerful enough to kill a lion.

Ostriches are native to Africa, and they once roamed all over Asia and the Arabian peninsula. Today, they are raised on farms and live in zoos all over the world, including at the home of super rich people like former president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich.


VIKTOR YANUKOVICH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE (subtitles): First, I supported the ostriches, what`s wrong with that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (subtitles): You supported the ostriches?

YANUKOVICH (subtitles): Yes, they just lived there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (subtitles): They just happened to be living there on the ground of your residence?

YANUKOVICH (subtitles): Yes. What am I supposed to do, go around with my eyes closed?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (subtitles): Excuse me, but it`s a little hard to believe that the president of the country was in a place hwere there just happen to be ostriches wandering around.


HAYES: Very strange indeed.

What is even more strange is that ostrich-loving president of Ukraine went on to pay a lot of money to a guy named Paul Manafort. And Paul Manafort went on to spend a lot of that money on a $15,000 ostrich jacket. And that`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.


HAYES: So, the trial of Donald Trump`s former campaign chair started yesterday, and the one detail captivating the nation was that Paul Manafort paid $15,000 for an Ostrich jacket. Everyone now just wants to know more. Could this be the jacket? There`s been some speculation this Gucci number, which retailed for $14,500 is the one Manafort bought, but it is unconfirmed.

A reporter for Forbes reached out to one of Manafort`s favorite stores, House of Dijon, on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. They would not confirm or deny any purchase by Manafort, but said they do, and I quote, "offer men`s jackets from $8,800 up to $195,000 depending on the material and particular exotic skin."

The internet, of course, has been hard at work on the case as well. This is an artist`s rendering of what it might look like. Some have suggested this one. Although to be fair, that`s really less of a jacket and more of a $39 Halloween custome. Based on our own research here at All In, mostly on that same costume company website, we are pretty sure we`ve located the Manafort ostrich jacket. It`s possible he just really overpaid for it.

You`re welcome, America.


HAYES: We have covered on this show the strange case of the former deputy finance chair of the Republican National Committee Elliot Broidy. And he was forced to resign from the RNC after admitting he had an affair with a former Playboy model, Shera Bechard, and had agreed to pay her $1.6 million in a non-disclosure agreement regarding the affair, her resulting pregnancy and her abortion.

Now many of the facts around this case have been mysterious, and frankly so similar to stories out there about Donald Trump affairs, that it caused people to speculate, not unreasonably, there was something about this one that didn`t quite add up.

For instance, the same lawyers, Michale Cohen and Keith Davidson, involved in the Stormy Daniels hush money payment were involved in this hush money payment. And a theory began to emerge that maybe Broidy is covering for Trump, that it was, in fact, Donald Trump who had the affair and Broidy is taking the fall like a good Republican soldier.

Well, today, in just unsealed pages of a lawsuit, there is very strong evidence that works against that theory. In the lawsuit, Shera Bashard says she did not get paid in full under the non-disclosure agreement, and she asserts through her lawyer that she was seven weeks pregnant with the child of Mr. Broidy, conceived in an extramarital affair.

Now, something like that in a lawsuit will be put forth under penalty of perjury, so it`s hard to imagine Bashard and her lawyers would take a risk like that.

So, again, it seems to rebut the wildly tantalizing story involving Donald Trump, and instead it just reaffirms the much more boring story that the deputy finance chair of the Republican National Committee had an affair with a Playboy model, got her pregnant, and paid her to stay silent about it all, including the abortion.

It is worth, by the way, taking a quick look at what has become of the finance committee of the RNC. Steve Wynn, former finance chairman, has resigned his position after numerous allegations of sexual harrassment and sexual predation. The RNC has not returned any of his donations, by the way. Michael Cohen, former deputy finance chair, has also resigned citing the ongoing special counsel investigation, oh and his objection to the Trump administration`s family separation policy. And Elliott Broidy, another former deputy finance chair, who it appears paid to cover up the affair and abortion of the former Playboy model. And according to her lawsuit, failed to pay in full.

Your Republican National Committee everybody. And just in time for the 2018 mid-terms. That`s next.


HAYES: Barack Obama is back on the political scene in a big way, after largely steering clear of politics since leaving the White House, the former president released a list today endorsing 81 Democrats running for office in nearly every level of government, including some who worked in his administration, like Andy Kim, for example, former Obama adviser, who is running for a House seat in New Jersey and Richard Cordray, who is the former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who is now running for governor of Ohio.

He also endorsed Stacey Abrams, that`s the -- she`s the Democrat running to become the first black female governor in American history.

Notably, or notably to me, Obama did not endorse Congressman Beto O`Rourke, who is running within just a few points of Ted Cruz in a Texas senate race. The Obama folks say, however, this is just a first wave, and that more endorsement will follow.

To talk about the state of the mid-terms 97 days out, I`m joined by Jess McIntosh, executive editor at Share Blue Media, former adviser to Hillary Clinton, Cornell Belcher, Democratic pollster and MSNBC political analyst, and Margie Omero, also a Democratic pollster.

Cornell, let me start with you, I know that the Obama folks are very strategic about endorsements and Barack Obama said this back in 2010 like there`s some races it does not help if I got and endorse.

And here`s what I thought was really interesting. Compare Stacey Abrams and Beto O`Rourke, it`s interesting to me that running in a red state in Georgia, Barack Obama endorses because he hinks based on the theory of the case Stace y Abrams has to win that race, right, that that`s a helpful endorsement in the red state of Georgia.

CORNELL BELCHER, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: Yeah. Well, look, in Georgia is a state that, you know, secret here, we actually did an Obama campaign, we did poll Georgia, and it was competive, but we didn`t put resources there, right.

Georgia is this state that people are saying is trending blue. Georgia -- you know, I think Georgia very soon is going to be what North Carolina is, and I think very soon North Carolina is going to be where Virginia is if, in fact, they don`t -- because I think that`s where that trend line is going.

But the Obama endorsement is important, right. We`ve seen his sort of favorabilities and his sort of mean thermometer rise as he`s left office, and a lot of these -- especially in these House districts, in a lot of these suburban House district, you know, his average mean thermometer rating is 20-30 points better than what Donald Trump`s is. So, this is actually a good endorsement for a lot of these candidates.

HAYES: That`s interesting. It`s very different than that 2010 situation.

Another big factor at play here, and I saw this graph today that I want to talk talk to you about, Jess, so Steve Bannon told Vanity Fari the Republican college educated woman is done, they`re gone. They were going anyway at some point in time. Trump triggers them. This is now the Trump movement.

And he`s not wrong about -- if you look at the polling.


HAYES: Look at this, this is -- like that, there, that is White women with a college degree who have just absolutely, like someone with like a thing that makes them allergic in front of them, like an organ rejection about Donald Trump.

MCINTOSH: As if someone were grabbing at them in an unwanted way, they move back that quickly.

HAYES: That`s exactly right. That`s what that graph shows.

MCINTOSH: The only place where Steve Bannon is wrong is that they were going anyway.

So, to back up a little bit, we`ve always done this wrong about women voters. We always say that women voters are Democratic, women vote Democratic. That is like just a maxim that you`ve always heard in politics. It is not true. Women of color vote so Democratic that they pull white women over the line. White women are reliable Republican voting blocs, that`s just the way it is, always has been. Hillary lost them. Obama lost them. They vote Republican.

HAYES: Those margins shrink and expand, we should say.

MCINTOSH: Absolutely. And you can cut it by married/unmarried, you can cut it by college/none, but losing a giant chunk of White women who have been reliable Republican voters is astronomically important for the Republican Party, like they are not going to get those voters back, and it means that they`re shrinking their base to just white men. There aren`t enough of them, even in places like Texas and Georgia.

HAYES: I mean, that`s the question, Margie, like those -- what`s interesting about those numbers is those numbers are crazy, right, but white college educated women are just one part of a demographic patchwork in America. What does that mean in sort of -- in the kind of -- most contested, say, 30 House seats, the most contested Senate races?

MARGIE OMERO, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: Well, it means that this is a group thatis clearly moving Democratic. And the thing that Steve Bannon said, is like it just happened. Like who could have thought, who could have ever predicted that this would happen? I mean, there`s really not much currently that the Republican Party under Trump is trying to offer women across the board of a variety of different stripes. And you see it in a variety of issues and the candidates they support.

I talked about abortion the lasttime I was on. Today, we have a poll about guns that shows a really strong message to keep guns out of -- to reduce the number of guns to make it harder to get guns is a message that helps a progressive candidate by a 20 point margin with women, just adding that versus having no guns message at all.

So, there are a variety of issues where you can really see women responding to a Democratic message and the Republican message -- theyr`e just simply throwing up their hands and saying, well, you know, we lost them. What can we do?

HAYES: One other interesting dynamic this sort of -- about the kind of demographic groups, right, within theRepulbican coalition and the Democratic coalition, the Obama coalition, Cornell, one of the endoresments today is a guy named Antonio Delgado in New York 19, who won the Democratic primary there, African-American, from upstate New York, very impressive resume. He`s against a Republican incumbent named John Faso.

Whta`s really interesting about that district is he`s a black nominee who is running in a district that`s I think 80, 85 percent white, it`s a very white district. He`s not the only one. I think Lucy McBAth down in Georgia, who is in Georgia 6th is a black woman who is running in a district that`s majority white. You have got Stacey Abrams running statewide. Those are really interesting races.

BELCHER: Lauren Underwood in Illinois 14 as well.

HAYES: So, that`s a really fascinating phenomenon to me, given the kind of sort of white racial identity politics we`ve seen cultivated by Donald Trump in this era, those as kind of test cases.

BELCHER: Well, it`s a backlash. In full disclosure, I work for Lauren Underwood.

HAYES: Well, that name just came to the tip of your tongue so -- she`s getting her money worth tonight. Cornell continue.

BELCHER: But, yeah, that`s it`s part of this backlash, right, and this ideal that you can double down on the tribalism and it is going to expand the tent. It is not expanding the tent, it`s shrinking the tent. So, when you see -- and listen, if I were sitting at the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee I would be losing my mind to see that you`re losing, you know, college educated white women by better than 20 points, because you know what it`s really hard to compete in those suburban districts, those suburban districts that we`re talking about here if you`re losing white women by better than 20 points.

And it`s something that I think we`ve talked about before, Chris, like this isn`t about economics, right, this is about you know, women being ticked off about what`s happening in this country in a way that is completely disconnected from sort of our economic theories because -- in places where they`re moving the most away from him is in fact these suburb districts that -- economically they`re doing very well.

MCINTOSH: So, I don`t work for Lauren Underwood and I`m going to make a point about her campaign anyway. When women run for office, they tend to say that they`re doing it because they want to fix a specific problem. Men have a variety of reasons for doing it. Women point to the potholes in -- if they`re running for local -- they point to health care -- Lauren Underwood is running on her own healthcare story, and how she can use the crisis that she went through to translate for better policies. That`s what Stacey Abrams is doing, running on her own story about how she is able to pull herself up by her bootstraps because Georgia gave her just enough to do so.

Like, these candidates are speaking to problems that people in America are facing. And they are not playing identity politics and that is one of the reasons why they`re doing so well in white districts.

HAYES: Final point, and quickly here, there`s a special election that has the Democrat tied in a plus Trump district in Ohio 12. Margie, what do you think?

OMERO: Well, you know, it`s a top tier race. It`s a targeted race. And it looks like Democrats are over-performing where Republicans should be similar to what we`ve seen in a lot of other races so far this cycle.

HAYES: It`s interesting, because Republicans are saying like this one we are going to win. We`re going to win this one. They were up 10 points. That has now evaporated. We`ll see who turns out. I mean, it`s amazing to think about who is turning out in that race, but a testament to the excitement level.

Jess McIntosh, Cornell Belcher, and Margie Omero, thank you all.

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


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.