Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: August 10, 2018 Guest: Daniel DiMauro, Elie Honig, Rashida Tlaib
STEVE KORNACKI, NBC NEWS NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Chris Matthews will be back Monday with special guest Omarosa. You`re not going to want to miss that one. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tonight on ALL IN.
SAM NUNBERG, FORMER AIDE, TRUMP CAMPAIGN: Ultimately Mueller wants to indict Roger.
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Roger Stone in the Special Counsel`s crosshair.
ROGER STONE, FORMER ADVISER, TRUMP CAMPAIGN: There`s no circumstances under which I would testify against the President.
HAYES: Tonight the growing case against Trump`s long-time friend and confidant.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Roger is a good guy and he is a patriot.
HAYES: As the subpoenas of Stone`s associates pile up.
RANDY CREDICO, COMEDIAN: I didn`t want to talk about it because I don`t want to instigate the special prosecutor.
HAYES: Then, day nine of the Manafort trial. New testimony that reaches all the way to the White House doorsteps and one year after Charlottesville.
TRUMP: I think there is blame on both sides.
HAYES: The message has gone mainstream.
JEANINE PIRRO, HOST, FOX NEWS: Massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people.
HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. A former associate of Roger Stone, the longtime advisor and confidant to the President United States was held in contempt of court today for refusing a subpoena from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It was at least the third time that this individual Andrew Miller who has worked for Stone failed to show up in court to testify before the grand jury and he could face jail time as a result. Miller is now the second witness connected to Stone to cut and run from a grand jury appearance. You may remember Sam Nunberg`s public meltdown all across cable news after receiving a subpoena way back in March and he was explicit he did not want to help incriminate his mentor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NUNBERG: Here`s what I would say, Ari, is Roger Stone is like a surrogate father -- he`s like my father.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: You feel loyal to him?
NUNBERG: And I`m not going to go in there for them to set up a case against Roger.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: OK. After all that, Nunberg did end up testifying before the grand jury just a few days later. Today, he told MSNBC he thinks Roger Stone`s days are numbered.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NUNBERG: Well, ultimately Mueller wants to indict Roger. He -- I think that this indictment he`s going to have a very splashy, sexy charged conspiracy to defraud something to do with hacking of the e-mails. My opinion as I said to you is Roger just have conspired against himself and not with the Russians and what he`s going to do then is putting on backload financial issues.
HAYES: Mueller`s team has continued to subpoena witnesses linked to Stone another onetime employee Kristin Davis former Manhattan Madame appeared before the grand jury hearing evidence and Mueller investigation just this afternoon. And there`s also Stone associate Randy Credico. He`s reportedly scheduled to testify in September 7th. It is no surprise that Roger Stone seems to find himself in the Special Counsel`s crosshairs. Stone himself has confirmed he is the individual explicitly mentioned in Mueller`s indictment last month on 12 Russian hackers. "On or about August 15th, 2016, the conspirators posing as Guccifer 2.0 wrote to a person who is in regular contact with the senior members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump.
Stone maintains his communication with the hackers was totally innocuous but there`s other evidence that Stone could have colluded with Russians or their agents including his own claim in August 2016 of having been in touch with WikiLeaks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STONE: Next question.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With regard to the October surprise, what would be your forecast on that given what Julian Assange has intimated he is going to do?
STONE: Well, it could be any number of things. I actually have communicated with Assange. I believe the next tranche of documents pertains to the Clinton Foundation but there`s no telling what the October surprise may be.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: The Washington Post has reported that Stone told two associates including Nunberg he talked to Assange in May 2016 weeks before any of the hacks were made at all public, learning from Assange that WikiLeaks had obtained e-mails that would torment senior Democrats such as John Podesta. That was five months before WikiLeaks actually released Podesta`s stolen e- mails. Now, Andrew Miller that`s the one who didn`t show up in court may have been a no-show today but his lawyer was at the courthouse and he told reporters that they plan to appeal Mueller`s subpoena which is already been upheld by a federal judged. In the meantime, Miller could be sent to jail for his refusal to comply. And if that happens, as journalist Marcy Wheeler points out, there`s a nonzero chance that Miller, Paul Manafort, and accused Russian spy Maria Butina could all end up in the same jail.
For more on what happened today and what it means Roger Stone I`m joined by Daniel DiMauro, he`s Co-director of the fantastic documentary Get Me Roger Stone and MSNBC Legal Analyst Benjamin Wittes, Editor in Chief of Lawfare. Ben, I`ll start with you. I mean how often do someone just not show up when they`re subpoenaed?
BENJAMIN WITTES, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it is the way that if you`re going to challenge say the appointment of Bob Mueller which is what Mr. Miller is doing that is actually how you do it. You move to quash a subpoena and then you get held in contempt and you appeal the contempt finding and so that`s actually not a wholly improper way to go about challenging Mueller`s appointment which is what Mr. Miller wants to do. The trouble is that there`s nothing defective about Mueller`s appointment and so Judge Howell, chief judge of the District Court here wrote the opinion saying there`s no problem with the appointment and that the subpoena is, therefore, valid and there`s every reason to expect the D.C. Circuit to affirm her on that and I can`t imagine that the Supreme Court would interfere with that. And therefore this is at the end of the day a lot of Sturm und Drang that`s going to end up with an order for him to appear before the grand jury.
HAYES: You follow Roger Stone for four years. You know people in this circle. Who is Andrew Miller? What`s his role in the Stone operation?
DANIEL DIMAURO, CO-DIRECTOR, GET ME ROGER STONE: Well, sort of like Nunberg and Michael Caputo before him. He was a protege of Roger Stone. He started as a driver and this we learned the dark arts politics from Roger ended up working on a lot of campaigns with him including being the campaign manager for Kristin Davis`s 2013 run for Comptroller in New York. He also worked for Governor Gary Johnson, his presidential campaign in 2012. So you know, he`s basically been Roger`s body man and his right hand for about over ten years.
HAYES: So close to him, like a very close associate?
DIMAURO: And also like Nunberg, considers him a surrogate father.
HAYES: Ben, there`s a sort of interesting backstory here which is they`ve already tried to challenge Mueller once and you`re saying this is again -- this entire strategy appears to be less about how Andrew Miller wants to represent himself and more about sort of crafting a legal strategy you try to go after the Mueller investigation as it is.
WITTES: Yes, I think that`s right. I mean, I think -- so there`s really two issues here right? One is using challenges to Mueller`s actions as a way of challenging him and the second is the case that he appears to be building around -- against Roger Stone. Now the precise nature of that case I don`t know but I will tell you this. If all your friends and associates start getting grand jury subpoenas it`s a good sign that prosecutors are interested in you particularly if they mention you specifically in an indictment as having been in contact with a foreign intelligence operation posing as a Romanian hacker. And so I think you know, when you have all --
HAYES: It`s a good rule of thumb.
WITTES: It`s a good rule of thumb. And you know I think, you know, there`s a -- you know, one way or another they are looking at something very serious about Roger Stone and that seems to be coming to a head so they`re using this collaterally to attack the investigation itself.
HAYES: You know, Stone has said that he knows that he`s going to be or he thinks he`s going to be indicted. He`s preparing for it. He`s had a bit of a falling out with Nunberg. I mean, having followed him and looked in for so long, how do you think he`s preparing himself for this.
DIMAURO: Well, he certainly doesn`t seem worried but I think that`s kind of within his M.O. But I mean they`re certainly closing in on him even with Kristin Davis testifying today to the grand jury I mean, so shortly after she was interviewed by Mueller I think you know, it`s a pretty clear indication that they`re looking to bring charges against him and similar to Manafort it`s -- it might be completely unrelated to Russian hacking or collusion and it could be something in his past and that`s what Andrew Miller might know about.
HAYES: Davis (INAUDIBLE) here are quite close?
DIMAURO: Yes, yes, for sure.
HAYES: Was she around while you were filming the film?
DIMAURO: Yes, actually kind of the film before the film if you will. But we followed her 2013 Comptroller run where she was actually running against Eliot Spitzer who`s trying to make a political comeback at the time. The campaign fizzled out because she got ensnared in an FBI sting and then was arrested for selling prescription drugs so that was her second time in prison and she didn`t get out of prison until I think it was May of 2016. So her sort of knowledge of working for Roger isn`t really during the time of the Trump campaign whereas with Andrew Miller he was brought back into the fold around the time of the RNC. He was with Roger in Cleveland and certainly was working for him the months after that that are sort of in question.
HAYES: You know, one thing been that striking is we`ve got Mueller having referred some cases. We know he`s referred lack of FARA Registration of a number of folks that work in D.C. that aren`t Paul Manafort to U.S. attorneys. We know he`s referred out the Michael Cohen matter to the Southern District. This he has not referred out. I mean, this is -- this is the Mueller grand jury that is looking at Stone.
WITTES: Yes, I think that`s right and I think the reason for that is pretty clear which is that you know, if you look at the GRU, the hacking indictment, the link to Roger Stone is the collusion stuff right? And the heart of the Mueller investigation is the question of coordination between the Russian interference in the 2016 election and anybody associated with the Trump campaign. The person who is most clearly identified with that in the document itself is Roger Stone. And so I think this is the most public aspect we have other than the Trump Tower meeting of what is really the heart and soul of the Mueller investigation.
HAYES: It`s a great point and I keep coming back to the fact that they mention how often he`s in contact with senior campaign officials in the indictment of the Russian officials just a few weeks ago. Dan DiMauro and Ben Wittes, great to have you both. For more on the possible legal jeopardy facing Roger Stone, I`m joined by Paul Butler and Mimi Roca both former Federal Prosecutors and current MSNBC Legal Analyst. Mimi, let me start with you. I want to play you Andrew Miller`s lawyer. Andrew Miller is being represented by a sort of conservative action organization that clearly is sort of taking him on as kind of a cause and the broader assault on the of the Muller investigation. Here`s what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL KAMENAR, LAWYER OF ANDREW MILLER: In order to appeal Judge Howell`s decision, challenging the constitutionality of the special counsel, you have to have a contempt order in order to go to the court of appeals. This is a major precedent set in the case, it`s a serious constitutional issues on the Appointment Clause whether Mr. Mueller was properly appointed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Now, they already tried once in -- with the district court. They tried to say the files saying he`s not improperly appointed, the judge filed against them, now they`re trying to escalate.
MIMI ROCAH, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: I think twice actually because I believe Judge Ellis, it was Manafort raised it with Judge Ellis as well, so it`s a different party but same argument. So there`s every reason to think that on appeal they`re going to get the ruling by the judge will be affirmed. But you know as Ben said, I mean this is the way to challenge it if they want to get it up on appeal and you know it`s risky in the sense that if they lose that he`s got to then either go to the grand jury or he`s going to jail. I mean, they don`t have to but the judge has every right to do that.
I had many cases in the District Court that I was involved in where usually organized crime cases, it always comes back to that analogy where you know they didn`t want to go to the grand jury because that`s just against their religion, I guess and they were put in jail. And you can be put in jail until you agree to testify or you know, that I think there`s a maximum of about two years that you`re allowed to be a jail.
HAYES: Although, Paul, he could -- I mean you could just go to the grand jury and plead the Fifth right?
PAUL BUTLER, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: He could and in fact in some of his papers he says well, I don`t really know anything about collusion or obstruction so I don`t know why they want to talk to me and then at the same time he says but if I do get forced to testify I`m going to take the Fifth, so how did you not know and then take the Fifth? This is kind of a Hail Mary pass the D.C. Circuit is very likely to clap back and say haul yourself into the grand jury and testify. But Chris, on the off chance that this is successful, the whole Mueller investigation is done. It`s a wrap because this isn`t only about Roger, Miller, this is about whether Mueller has the constitutional authority to do this investigation.
HAYES: That`s a great point. The argument they`re making is an existential assault on Mueller`s authority. It`s basically saying it is a violation of the constitutional appointments clause to create this body that it is -- it is violation the Constitution. And if a D.C. appellate court were to find that, I mean it would probably go up to Supreme Court right?
ROCAH: It could, yes.
HAYES: But if any court of a final ruling was that it would, to Paul`s point, it would get rid of the whole thing.
ROCAH: I mean, it would be yes. It could it could be the you know, straw that broke the camel`s back or one of those things. It would be very bad for the Mueller investigation. But again, I mean, you know, we can sort of go down that road. I mean --
HAYES: You just think it`s unlikely --
ROCAH: I think it`s unlikely given you know this statute was written with a lot of the concerns in mind about you know the Watergate special counsel. And so it there are things written into it like the main one being that he has to report to the Deputy Attorney General. Well, Attorney General but now Deputy Attorney General in this case. And so I think that you know that that yes the judge said in this case, you know these are good questions to raise but no right no and I think that`s kind of where we are with this.
HAYES: I want to ask you about a really surreal moment that happened today. Sean Hannity has got a radio show and the President`s lawyers just like took it over for the day like you know, guest hosts. Just drive time with Giuliani and Sekulow calling up a long time first time. I got questions for you. Take a listen to some of it.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
RUDY GIULIANI, LAWYER OF DONALD TRUMP: Flynn is the example. No crime. If it had everybody said, the President says go easy on him.
JAY SEKULOW, LAWYER OF DONALD TRUMP: Which the President says --
GIULIANI: He didn`t say -- he didn`t say stop it, don`t do it, so no crime. However, it didn`t take place according to the President. According to Comey, it did.
SEKULOW: Of course if it did, it would have mattered but then you`d -- but your right. If there`s two different recollections of a meeting, now do you said set a perjury situation.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
HAYES: Have you ever in your life seen something like that?
ROCAH: No, this is stunning. And I didn`t think Giuliani could stun me anymore because he says a lot of things that are just you know, ridiculous. But this act of what they did, they took over a radio show to make arguments on behalf of their client.
HAYES: They took calls --
ROCAH: And let me tell you though. I mean, I think Giuliani has been skirting the line and you know, in my opinion, has now gone over the line of violating the rules of professional conduct as a lawyer. And I don`t know the exact process for who or where that complaint gets filed but I wouldn`t be surprised if somebody did. Because if this were a proceeding, if he were a lawyer in a proceeding in a court, he would absolutely not be able to do this.
BUTLER: And Chris --
ROCAH: -- situation but we`re pretty close because there are proceedings in federal court. There`s one a trial going on now and there`s going to be others and that`s clearly what they`re doing. They`re trying to poison the well of the American public jury pool.
BUTLER: These guys, they don`t need to be on T.V. The President`s lawyers need to be preparing him for whatever eventualities. The President has tweeted 400 times about the Mueller investigation. This month, it`s only August 10th, he`s on track to treat -- tweet more this month than ever. He`s running scared and that`s related to the first part of the segment, Roger Stone. So, Chris, act one was this indictment of the Russians for hacking the e-mail, act tw0, potentially as the indictment of Roger Stone, act three is going to be really dramatic if it happens.
HAYES: Well, and let me say this. They understand Giuliani has said this, he views this as entirely a political proceeding a not a legal one because he basically said look, the only (INAUDIBLE) impeachment of patrons of political proceeding and so he`s doing something that is outside the bounds of --
ROCAH: Exactly. But the problem is he`s saying that but he`s a lawyer and he still has to abide by the rules.
HAYES: Paul Butler and Mimi Rocah, thank you both for joining me. Next, the trial of Paul Manafort reaches the White House but testimony about Manafort`s actions while serving as chair of the Trump campaign, that story in two minutes.
HAYES: Today the Paul Manafort trial landed on the White House door and that is because today in day nine of the proceedings a witness testified about how Paul Manafort may have used his position as campaign manager of the Trump campaign and has accessed the Trump team even after he`d resigned to dangle possible jobs in the Trump administration to a bank CEO over a month long process to get millions of dollars in bank loans from that CEO`s Banks. Dennis Raico, he`s a senior adviser, the president of the Federal Savings Bank in Chicago, testified in court under grant of immunity that the bank`s CEO Stephen Calk believed he was possibly up for some role in the Trump administration.
The bank CEO was hoping for a get this, Treasury Secretary or a HUD secretary or Secretary of the Army. Rick Gates previously testified Manafort was trying to get the bank`s a yield the job of Secretary of the Army. That Bank CEO Stephen Calk ultimately got none of those jobs but Manafort got two different loans from that bank totaling $16 million, one a few days after the election, another in January as the inauguration approached. For more on today`s testimony and it`s the legal implications I`m joined by Elie Honig, he`s former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. What do you make of today`s testimony?
ELIE HONIG, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: So you know, what jumps out at me is there could be two separate crimes here. First of all, there`s a fraud on the bank on Federal Savings Bank because Calk seems to be working with Manafort and others to get a loan that he would never have gotten $16 million of loans for a guy who`s already debt-ridden that never happened so that`s the bank fraud charge. What`s not charged but also spring some ideas could be bribery, right? I mean, they`re talking about these outrageous cabinet positions and in exchange they`re delivering this enormous loan to Manafort and I think it answers one of the big questions that`s arisen in this case which is why did Manafort take this job for no pay at such a strange time when he`s just washed out of a Ukrainian business --
HAYES: And desperate. Yes, and here`s the timeline because I think it`s - - we should zoom in on this. He joins --- Manafort join the Trump campaign March 29th, 2016. He resigns August 19. So he`s there for a few months, right? In May, you know, a few months he`s -- they have dinner. He has dinner with a bank CEO. In July, they video conference Manafort and Manafort`s son-in-law, on August 3rd, Manafort asked for Calk`s resume. November 11th, Calk believes he might be up for a job in the Trump administration and then the loan deal closed five days later for $9.5 million after Paul Manafort saying I`ll put in some words for you.
HONIG: Right. I mean, there`s just no legitimate explanation for it. You know, I mean, again, I don`t know why Trump wanted him. I don`t know why he took this job for no money, but you know it all sorted starts to tie together and tell you a little bit of a story about why he would have come in as campaign manager.
HAYES: Right. And the story -- what I find interesting here is this is the first -- you know, this trial has to do with Manafort`s activities largely before he enters Trump`s orbit, but here he is using that position in a corrupt way allegedly right? The testimony is that he`s using his proximity to power, promises of jobs to get bank loans, and it`s the closest we come to the actual administration in the campaign.
HONIG: Right and this is the key turning point sort of in the Manafort timeline, right? He`s living large. He`s got his crazy wardrobe and his landscaping and all that. He`s making tens of millions of dollars a year. His business goes bust and then he starts lying to the banks because he`s got to maintain his lifestyle. And the way that we see that he got some of these loans, he lied. He outright lied. He doctored documents, he had Gates lie for him about the Yankees tickets and things like that. But he also seems to have leveraged his position with the Trump Administration.
HAYES: You know, the other thing about this is the one theme of the Trump era is like grifters grifting grifters. They`re all -- because everybody is lying and everyone`s like sort of a con artist. Speaking of which there`s a book out that seems to be in that theme. And basically, you`ve got -- you`ve got Paul Manafort telling this dude that he`s trying to roll for a loan that according to testimony, that you might be up for Secretary of the Treasury which is a preposterous lie on its absolute face.
HONIG: It sounds like you`re giving a piece of the prosecution closing, right, is what we say. We say it`s grifters grifting grifters. They`re going to attack Rick Gates, they`re going to say Rick Gates is a liar, you can`t trust them. Grifters grift grifters, right? You can`t flip. You can`t get into a closed secretive criminal organization without some grifter walking you through it. So you`ve taken a page right out of the Southern District closing playbook.
HAYES: Well, what I find amazing too is that Manafort pulls off the grift because the end of the day Manafort walks with $16 million and Calk doesn`t walk with a job.
HONIG: Yes, and that`s also just the amount of money is such a great piece of evidence for the government, right, because --
HAYES: That`s a lot of money.
HONIG: Right. And compare it to Gates -- because the defense is it was all Gates, it was all the number-two guy. The big -- the big boss knew nothing about it. But look at the money. Manafort makes ten times what Gates makes. So --
HAYES: Right, right. It`s all that`s hard to say it`s Gates.
HONIG: Yes, look for that in the closing too.
HAYES: All right, Elie Honig thank you so much for your time. Still, to come, Laura Ingraham is afraid of the massive demographic changes happening to her America. Next, I`ll talk to one of the women running for Congress who is causing Laura Ingraham`s panic, that`s ahead. And our own Trymaine Lee goes back to Charlottesville one year later. And a reformed white supremacist on how he broke away from the hate movement next.
HAYES: It`s been one year since white supremacists gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia carrying Tiki torches and chanting "Jews will not replace us," and "blood and soil" ostensibly to protest the proposed removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Our own Trymaine Lee traveled throughout what was once the Confederate south to summer from Virginia, to Kentucky, to Mississippi, to Alabama meeting some of the people who still honor monuments of the Confederacy. Trymaine, what`d you find?
TRYMAINE LEE, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Right, Chris, a year after Charlottesville, I really wanted to better understand the deep connections to these monuments, right? So I headed down south, grabbed a riding buddy John Eligon of the New York Times and we really talked to folks in the communities where these monuments exist to understand the deep familial connections from the slavers but also the enslaved. We learned a lot along the way. It was really eye-opening. But if we learned anything at all is that it was never about a monument at all.
LEE: First would you mind not saying or spelling your first and last name for us?
COTTON: My first name Gordon, G-O-R-D-O-N. My last name Cotton C-O-T-T-O- N just like you picked.
LEE: There we go. So all this fuss over the Confederate statues and the flag and slavery is it time for us to move forward?
COTTON: No, if we move forward on this, we will leave everything out of our history. Are we going to be selective in what we are going to keep and what we are going to forget?
LEE: What about the idea, though, that these men were fighting to maintain this system of slavery.
COTTON: That wasn`t all they ere fighting for, they were fighting because our homes were invaded. The whole thing based on money. Most things are.
LEE: Going back to -- what happens to Charlottesville. Someone was killed. Someone was shot at. Someone else was beaten up. Does it surprise you when you see that people are that virulent about their and defense of Robert E. Lee and the rest?
COTTON: Well, they are not the ones that started it, defending it, yes, I can understand that, but they`re not the ones that started it.
Had the people not wanted to tear down a beautiful monument, it wouldn`t have happened.
LEE: Perhaps they should be moved to somewhere where they can be respected, not in a place of -- in a public display where it`s doing nothing but sending a certain kind of message.
COTTON: I totally disagree with you. It happened right here, we commemorate it here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you think of Jefferson Davis?
COTTON: He is my personal hero. I think he`s one of the great men in American history.
FEMALE: What about he was obviously someone who supported the expansion of slavery. Should that diminish or tarnish his legacy at all?
COTTON: No, because he wasn`t the only one. I think growing up in this community seven miles from Briarfield, going to a school name Jefferson Davis, they can destroy what they can, but they`ll never destroy the legend of the man.
HAYES: A fomenting documentary, Stone Ghosts: a Journey through the Confederate South, from Charlottesville to Selma. It`s online right now at NBCNews.com/stoneghost.
Trymaine Lee, I want you stay with us. We`ll have much more on the state of the union one year after Charlottesville right after this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think there is blame on both sides. You look at both sides, I think there is blame on both sides and I have no doubt about it. And you don`t have any doubt about it either.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Charlottesville, Virginia is preparing for the one year anniversary for the white supremacist rallies leaving one person dead. Here a former white supremacist rallies that left one person dead and many more injured. A year later, what has changed and what hasn`t. Here with me at the table, our own Trymaine Lee and Christian Picciolini, a former white supremacist now working to separate people from that movement.
A new documentary about his journey, breaking hate, airs this Sunday on MSNBC. Great to have you here, Chris.
I guess my question for you, Chris, as someone who was in a white supremacist group movement, is whether Charlottesville was a kind of victory for that movement or a defeat.
CHRISTIAN PICCIOLINI, FORMER WHITE SUPREMACIST: You know, I think it was a victory, Chris, because any sort of publicity is -- they consider good for them. They go to progressive areas like Charlottesville or like Berkeley, or even in the 1970s Skokie, Illinois when the American Nazi Party marched there, because they are trying to provoke people and we are still talking about it a year later. Unfortunately, Heather Heyer was killed because of that, and they are threatening to come back, and it`s something that they`ve done for decades.
I used to do it 30 years ago. We used to March in rallies that were bigger than Charlottesville and did the same exact thing.
HAYES: You know, one of the things that comes through in your reporting is just -- there is just not that much -- like it is not an accident that those folks who are out in the streets in Charlottesville with tiki torches were there for Robert E. Lee. There is a continuity between the ideology that says this is someone we should memorialize and in some ways they`re being the most honest about what that means.
LEE: It is like this idealized version of historical, even though it`s so much -- it`s ahistorical, and there`s a lot of romance and myth. And you get the sense that when kids are growing up in these communities, to their old men like Mr. Cotton, 82 years old, they`re surrounded by statues. It is hard to go anywhere in the south without crossing the Jefferson Davis Highway. Their schools are named after Robert E. Lee. It continues to fuel itself and this idea of the lost cause. We`re still seeing that play out. The idea that you`re fighting for virtue and some sort of purity, whether it`s in your Christianity, whether it`s keeping the country as white as possible and you kind of want to push the brown people back over the border, or keeping them from flying in. There`s all -- you can`t separate the roots of the tree from the leaves.
HAYES: You were from north. I mean, you were from Chicago and got into this movement. And there`s lot of people that we saw -- I mean, one of the people in the A.C. Thompson documentary on Frontline was a UCLA grad school working for Northrop Grumman.
What -- how do people get pulled into this movement? How do white people get pulled into this movement?
PICCOLINI: Well, I think the important thing to understand is it`s usually not about ideology. The pre-radicalization starts much, much early than that, and it is about a search for identity, community and purpose. And if we hit what I call potholes in our journey of life, sometimes it detours us, but there is always a very savvy recruiter waiting for a vulnerable people, that`s their MO is they go to find vulnerable people.
Back in my day, we would stand outside of a punk rock concert to do that. Today, the internet has become that punk rock concert, because there are so many disillusioned young people online who just live there. They can whatever persona that they want, and then they go down a rabbit hole and get sucked in.
HAYES: Does it help recruiting to have a president of the United States who says, you know, there were blame on both sides?
HAYES: Who, you know, uses all sorts of tropes of white supremacy and racist language and behind the scenes calls African countries s-hole countries. Like does it help the movement?
PICCOLINI: Absolutely. I mean, it`s their language. So, 30 years ago we recognized that the language we were using was putting off the average American white racist, so we decided that we were going to massage the language, change the look, go from boots to suits, which David Duke did in the early `90s when he won a seat for House of Representatives in Louisians after taking off the Klan hood.
But that is the MO is they really are just trying to massage this and normalize it. And unfortunately it worked. And the president is absolutely enabling that.
HAYES: You know one of the things Heather Heyer`s mother and family is living with the aftermath of white supremacist terror and violence, and that is a legacy that is the other part of the legacy of the south that you memorialize in your reporting.
I want to play this bit from the documentary in which you talk a woman named Josephine Boling McCall about her father who was lynched. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEE: When you think about what you missed in life from not having him.
JOSEPHINE BOLING MCCALL (ph): My mom went from prosperity to poverty almost overnight.
Sometimes I wondered what my life could have been had he lived. What my life could have been.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEE: Thinking about the sort of mourning and trauma of those folks down through the years and in Charlottesville right now as they prepare to sort of commemorate this one year.
LEE: The symbolism is not benign at all. You see the Confederate battle flag, you see the statues around every corner. But they are sending a clear message to black folks it`s you`re still walking in the shadow of white supremacy. And to those misguided, those that are lost who are seeking some identity and find their identity in their whiteness, it is actionable, right, because ultimately at the end of the day, it ends up being about racial terror.
Certainly there`s a journey among those white folks who are going through that, but on the other side of it, so often from -- we go to the lynch memorial in Montgomery, Alabama. And you see 4,000 names, and that`s just the names of the lynchings that have been documented. But the many more who have been dumped in shallow graves or rivers, it was always about violence and putting people in their place.
HAYES: There`s a debate right now, this question about how to deal with what seems to be a rise in white supremacist, white nationalist rhetoric. It`s being channeled, you know, in sort of less and less disguised fashions, closer and closer to the mainstream of American life. And there`s a question about persuasion and arguing, like can you argue with this ideology or must you sort of defeat it? How do you think about it?
PICCOLINI: Well, you know, I think that that`s -- that is a question that`s on everybody`s mind right now. You know, I think that we can have these conversations without enabling the ideology, without endorsing it when we do that. The work that I do is based on empathy, so I sit across from white supremacists almost every day or I talk to them because my goal is try and kind of enlighten them, not through a debate in ideology, but through humanization.
So, I try to destroy the demonization that is happening in their head by introducing them to the people that they that they hate. And that is really a very powerful thing for people.
HAYES: Does that work?
PICCOLINI: Absolutely it works. And it has worked over 200 times. I`ve worked with over 200 people to help them disengage from hate groups. And I can tell you almost by the one every single one of them will tell you that it is the compassion that they received from the people that they didn`t even know that they thought that they hated that transformed them, that changed their mind.
HAYES: Trymane Lee and Christian PIccolini, it`s great to have you both there. The documentary about Chris`s work, Breaking Hate, aires this Sunday at 9:00 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC. You should definitely check it out. Thank you both a lot for being here.
Still to come, two years ago she was forcibly removed from a Trump speech for heckling the then Republican candidate. Tonight, she is my guest after winning her Democratic primary for congress. Rashida Tlaib joins me ahead.
Plus, who needs good poll numbers when you have Photoshop? Tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two starts next.
Tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two starts next.
HAYES: Thing One tonight, Donald Trump of course has no shame when it comes to boasting about his success or his popularity even when it is a full-blown lie.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You said today that you had the biggest electoral margin since Ronald Reagan with 304 or 306 electorate votes. In fact, President Obama got 365 in 2008...
TRUMP: Well, I was talking about Republican.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Obama, 332. And George H.W. Bush 426 when he won as president.
So why should Americans trust you?
TRUMP: Well, no, I was told -- I was given that information. I was just given. We had a very, very big margin. I was given that information. Actually, I have seen that information around. But it was a very substantial victory. Do you agree with that?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Donald Trump is given all sorts of information like this recent tweet where he claims his approval rating is 90 percent without mentioning that it is just among Republicans. A few days later, Trump told the Sun, quote, "I am the most popular person in the history of the Republican party, beating Lincoln. I beat out Honest Abe."
Actually, President`s Bush, other Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower were all at least as popular with Republican Party members at one point or another. And get this, there was no Gallup polling during the Civil War.
But the president`s fuzzy grasp on numbers runs in the family. Take Donald Trump Jr. always seeking his father`s approval, who posted some incredible poll numbers on Instagram this week, numbers that seem too good to be true, numbers that appeared to be altered. And that is Thing Two in 60 seconds.
HAYES: Donald Trump Jr. is always trying to make dad happy so he posted what looked like some good new polling for the president on his Instagram this week. Wow, take a look at that, Trump at 50 percent. Nothing beats 50 percent. Look at Obama`s puny 45 compared to papa`s 50.
As Don Jr. wrote, amazing. I guess there`s a magic wand to make things happen, and @RealDonaldTrump seems to have it, #maga, #americafirst."
Note the misspelling of America.
Magic. Photoshop magic. Take a closer look, you will see the 50 percent has very clearly been edited over the original graphic, which said 40 percent.
Don Jr. took down the post this afternoon after a lot of people pointed out the issue, but hey, he was just given that information.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I was given that information. Actually, I have seen that information around. But it was a very substantial victory. Do you agree with that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re the president.
TRUMP: OK, thank you. Good answer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS: In some parts of the country, it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn`t exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people. And they`re changes that none of us ever voted for and most of us don`t like.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: That rant two nights ago from Trump TV host Laura Ingraham earned the endorsement of none other than former KKK grand wizard David Duke who tweeted the sentiment, one of the most important truthful monologues in the history of the mainstream media.
Also generated headlines like this, "the White nationalists are winning."
The Atlantic`s Adam Serwa arguing that Ingraham and other right wing talkers are, quote, echoing the white nationalist claim that America is at risk because the nation is growing more diverse, an argument that treats the mere presence of nonwhite people, citizen or noncitizen, as an existential threat to the country.
It is true the nation is growing more diverse, but here`s the thing, a big part of the country sees that not as an existential threat but as a real benefit, cause for celebration.
This year has seen a really incredible explosion of Democratic candidates from all kinds of backgrounds. People like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose comments prompted Laura Ingraham`s rant, and Sharice Davids, both of whom we`ve had on this show.
And there`s the Democrat now poised to become the first Muslim woman ever elected to congress, Rashida Tlaib, seen here interrupting a Trump speech back in Detroit in 2016. Tlaib was one of several protesters dragged out of that hall that day. This Tuesday she won a tight primary to represent Michigan`s overwhelmingly Democratic 13th district.
Tlaib is the daughter of Palestinian immigrants, the eldest of of 14 kids. She is now poised to represent a district that is 57 percent African- American and occupies a seat previously held by civil rights icon John Conyers who resigned from congress last year amidst sexual harassment allegations.
And joining me now from Detroit is Rashida Tlaib.
Congratulations on your victory. And it`s -- it was a really contested primary. You had this incredible inspector of the legend of John Conyers and the way that he went hanging over it. And I guess my first question is how did you win?
RASHIDA TLAIB, DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL NOMINEE, MICHIGAN: I think I focused on the human contact. I think people really underestimate that conversation that you can have with people when you look at them in the face and the eyes, on their porch. It reall, I think, changed people`s minds and hearts when they got -- actually was able to engage me and to see that I really do want to elevate them and help them thrive.
And I really, truly believe it`s because of that aggressive center around door-to-door in that direct human contact.
HAYES: You know, the district is 57 percent African-American and amidst this conversation, right, about diversity and representation, you find yourself in a posiition where you have a -- your own kind of sort of interesting representational role. How do you think about it?
TLAIB: Well, I think about it because I grew up in a community that`s predominantly African-American. Many of the things that I have done around social justice and civil rights issues is so much in line with the needs and the priorities for my families in the 13th congressional district.
I don`t think it is so far, you know, this kind of conversation about disconnect and that I`m not African-American. I can tell you that I`m going to surround myself with a lot of people with that lens of growing up African-American. I think there is a lot of discussion around that connection and trauma sometimes in growing up black in America.
And I recognize that and I honor that, that`s why I constantly surround myself with people with that lens and that experience.
HAYES: You have an agenda, or positions, that are similar to some of the other sort of people that are more to the left of the caucus -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of course, winning that primary in a heavily Democratic district, abolish ICE, Medicare for all, $15 minimum wage, tuition free college. What do you say to people who say, people like yourself are feeding Republicans a kind of useful caricature of the terrifying socialists who are coming to scare away middle America.
TLAIB: We`re not scaring anybody away. We`re kind of like the mama bears, I think, of the congressional delegation that`s about to come. It`s true.
I don`t think you will find any women, especially women of color, that doesn`t want to take care of their constituency, doesn`t really put them at the heart of what they perceive, as they move forward. We`re going to be able to embrace everyone no matter their background, be able to help every single person live in a free, just society. I am really excited with exposing who I am as not only a Detroiter, a Democrat, a progressive, as a woman, to so many people across the country, not just in the 13th congressional district, so that people have less fear. I mean, they shouldn`t be afraid us. We really are an incredible breed and I can`t wait to work with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I can`t wait to go and help Ilhan Omar in Minnesota get elected this coming Tuesday. I want to walk hand in hand with these beautiful women that are really have the heart that we need in congress. It is really something that is completely missing right in that culture that is right now present in the U.S. congress.
HAYES: Do you think differentfully about what your life and job are going to be like in the minority and majority should you win -- and I should say the odds of you winning are overwhemling at this point -- should you actually enter congress, which is likely, the difference between being a member in the minority and a minority in the majority?
TLAIB: Look, you know, I am a former Michigan state legislator, and I worked in a majority and I worked in a minority, and I know this is bigger. But I know this much, if your work and the issues you surround yourself around your constituency, around your district, if your center is them, then you`re going to be able to be effective.
I was able to do so much more even in the minority in bringing resources back to my community, because I had a neighborhood service center right in the heart of my district and I`m going to continue to do that as a member of congress. It keeps me grounded, it keeps me focussed and it helps me bring resources to my families right now at this moment. And so they`re not waiting to get us -- you for, us to pass Medicare for all or the minimum wage increase, or get -- you know all the things that I think are really critical and important for us to work on.
But, yeah, it`s going to me getting them connected to those resources now and that sometimes that doesn`t even matter is we`re in a majority or minority.
HAYES: All right, Rashida Tlaib, thanks so much for spending some time with me tonight.
TLAIB: Thank you for having me.
HAYES: Before we go, this is your friendly Friday reminder to listen to our podcast, Why is This Happening? Why not check out some of the episodes we already have out, covering everything from mass incarceration, family separation policy, school segregation in 2018, and political tribalism. We talk about it all.
This week we have Nancy Northup to talk about the past and future of Roe v. Wade. You can find that and all of our other episodes wherever you get your podcast. And tweet us your thoughts. We`ve got two ways you could use the hashtag #withpod, if you`re tweeting.
But if you`re emailing sort, you can email us at firstname.lastname@example.org. In fact, we`ve been getting lots of great feedback. Recently, we did two episodes this week. We incorporated that feedback into the show. We`d love to hear what you think we should be doing on the show in terms of guests, what sort of topics we should be talking about, all of that is available for you if you email us at email@example.com or you tweet us at #withpod.
That is ALL IN for this evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END