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

The end of the road for Trump and his wall. TRANSCRIPT: 02/12/2019, All In w. Chris Hayes.

Guests: James Clyburn, Alicia Menendez, Angelo Carusone, Kirsten Gillibrand, Ron Wyden, Ammar Campa-Najjar, Jill Jacobs

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: February 12, 2019 Guest: James Clyburn, Alicia Menendez, Angelo Carusone, Kirsten Gillibrand, Ron Wyden, Ammar Campa-Najjar, Jill Jacobs

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: That`s HARDBALL for now. "ALL IN" with Chris Hayes starts right now.



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will build a great, great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall.

HAYES: After a campaign of promises --

TRUMP: Who`s going to pay for the wall?

HAYES: The negotiations are over.

TRUMP: I think I`m a great negotiator.

HAYES: And the deal is all but done.

TRUMP: I make great deals.

HAYES: Tonight, after all that deal making --

SEAN HANNITY, HOST, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Any Republican that supports this garbage compromise --

HAYES: Is president Trump finally out of options?

HANNITY: $1.3 billion? That`s not a -- not even a wall, a barrier/

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Barriers but not walls, what is going on here?

HAYES: Then, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on her campaign, national paid leave, and how sexism plays out on the trail. Plus, Senator Ron Wyden on what Senate Intelligence is saying about collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. And a moral authority alert.

TRUMP: I think this blame on both sides.

HAYES: As Donald Trump begins calling for Democrats to resign.

TRUMP: We`re building a wall. He`s a Mexican.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York I`m Chris Hayes. Just a little while ago President Trump waved the white flag on his border wall tweeting his apparent approval of the deal. It`s been worked out in the conference committee between both parties in both houses. And ladies and gentlemen, the author of the art of the deal has done it again.

President Trump`s nearly four-year quest for a bluer wall seems to be in an end. His opening bid was for a massive concrete wall stretching from sea to shining sea and Mexico would pay for it. Piece of cake.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The question is how are you going to build a 1,900-mile wall?

TRUMP: Very easy. I`m a builder. That`s easy. I build buildings at a 94 -- can I tell you what`s more complicated? What`s more complicated is building a building that`s 95 stories tall, OK. I`ll tell you what it`s going to be made of. It`s going to be made of hardened concrete and it`s going to be made out of rebar and steel.

We`re going to win at the border and we`re going to build this beautiful, beautiful powerful big wall and Mexico`s going to pay for that wall. Mexico is going to pay.


HAYES: Big, beautiful, rebar, concrete, Mexico is going to pay. After Mexico told Trump what he could do with his wall, he came back to the table last February with a new plan with the Republican Party in complete control of the federal government. Trump said he would hold thousands of DACA eligible folks hostage in exchange for $25 billion in wall ransom money basically.

And guess what the Democrats agreed, OK, here take it. Oh no. But the master negotiator didn`t fall for it. That was not good enough for Mr. Art of the Deal. He says nope to the $25 billion and manages to negotiate himself into the amazing position of getting offered $1.6 billion for some fencing back in December. But he won`t take that because he`s tough. So the master negotiator says $5.7 billion or I`m shutting down the government and he follows through.

Trump shuts down the government for 35 days, the longest in U.S. history. His approval ratings plummet. He almost has to deal with a full-on rebellion from within his party amidst the misery it causes for hundreds of thousands of people. And after all this the man whose day is written on the cover of the Art of the Deal, president deals as I like to call him ends up with less than $1.4 billion dollars for 55 miles of fencing.

Yes, this man, this brilliant negotiator, this master of the deal. He has somehow managed to keep successfully negotiating things down. Needless to say, the conservative media was less than thrilled Ann Coulter said Trump is afraid to fight for the wall tweeting "Call this his Yellow New Deal." Laura Ingraham wrote, "Let`s stop calling a $1.37 billion proposal wall funding. It`s more like stall funding kicking everything into the 2020 cycle."

And Sean Hannity one of the President`s staunchest supporters and I mean staunch, a man whose softball questions have even been mocked by the President himself had this to say.


HANNITY: $1.3 billion, that`s not a -- not even a wall, a barrier. I`m going to tell this tonight and we will get back into this tomorrow. Any Republican that supports this garbage compromise you`ll have to explain.


HAYES: Well, garbage compromise. Now following that backlash, Trump seemed at first a little undecided and uneasy about his position on the latest deal.


TRUMP: Am I happy at first glance? I just got to see it. The answer is, no I`m not. I`m not happy. But am I happy with where we`re going? I`m thrilled.


HAYES: OK. I spoke to House Majority Whip James Clyburn tonight before the President`s tweet and asked him whether this was a good deal or a bad deal.


REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC), HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP: Well, I have full faith and confidence in the Democratic conferees. They seem to be on board with this. I understand from them that the Republican conferees are satisfied with this. And so yes, I think it`s a good deal.

HAYES: $1.375 billion for new barriers, fencing 55 miles, it looks like, is that fundamentally a walk back from the House Speaker`s promised there would be not one dollar for the president`s wall?

CLYBURN: I think that we are compromising here. I have no idea whether or not this is replacement or repair or new. Now, I understand people have been describing it as 55 miles of new barriers. That may be the case. I have not seen the language so I would not categorize what it may be but I`m not insulted by it either way.

HAYES: What hangs over all of this is whether the President will accept it. Of course, there have been numerous deals struck in the past. There was a March deal last year, DACA and wall funding, there was a deal struck in December. The president has ripped up many of these. Do you have any sense of what happens this time around?

CLYBURN: No, I have absolutely no idea what this President might do and I`m not too sure that any of his good friends will have any idea about what he might do. I`m perfectly willing to wait and see and then to fashion some response once he acts.

HAYES: Well, I guess what is the back-up plan here? If the President rips it off like he ripped it up back in December, what`s the back-up plan?

CLYBURN: I have no idea. The House and Senate must do something. I have some ideas about what the House will do, I have no idea what the Senate may do or what they can do. What I do know is that we, nobody Democrats or Republicans and certainly not the White House can afford to shut this government down again.

When you look at what we`re going through now trying to figure out what to do because of this last shutdown, it would be crazy for us to do this again. We ought to and have learned some lessons from this. Hopefully, we won`t repeat that.

HAYES: Obviously as the House Majority Whip, you are the individual who will be whipping the votes to get this package passed should the president sign offs and go full steam ahead. And there`s some back-and-forth about capping the number of ICE beds and some ambiguity about what exactly this does. Are you concerned that members of the Democratic caucus are going to feel that they`ve been rolled here that the President and his administration gets to keep tens of thousands of people in detention?

CLYBURN: That is a concern of mine, absolutely. We know that there are elements within our caucus that felt this -- there should be caps on these beds and I know they feel strongly about it. I feel strongly about it. But the fact of the matter is the government is now open again things are beginning to function properly. I think that we have to look at this and see whether or not this is the best thing for the entire country at this point and maybe revisit this issue later.

That is something that I think we need to take serious consideration about. I don`t think we ought to run the risk of shutting the government down.

HAYES: I think we just got a 45-second preview the argument you may find yourself making this for the people in your caucus over the next few days. Congressman Clyburn, thank you for your time.

CLYBURN: Well, thank you so much for having me.


HAYES: Joining me now Alicia Menendez who`s Contributing Editor at Bustle and Co-Host of PBS` Amanpour and Co. and Angelo Carusone who`s President of Media Matters. And Angelo, let me start with you because we know the most important veto vote last time around was that we were in almost exact same position.

There was a deal that was struck, Schumer signed off, McConnell signed off, then Paul Ryan who`s Speaker the House at that time signed off. Everyone is good to go. The President kind of tepid and then Ingraham, and Coulter, and Rush all slammed it and he backs out. It`s how he got the first shutdown. What`s happening this time around?

ANGELO CARUSONE, PRESIDENT, MEDIA MATTERS: So the one thing -- you know, there`s a little bit of differences in the conservative media and you know, your intro sort of gave their characterization of the deal, but the one thing they all agree on is that Donald Trump should sign it.

And just a little while ago, as Sean Hannity was finishing up his radio show even though he said national emergency more times tonight than he typically says in a two-week time period over the last couple months. I mean, he`s really ramping that up. He concluded his radio show by making it really clear that the President needs to sign this bill. So that`s sort of what the one consistent. Even Rush Limbaugh they all agree, except for Coulter, they have to sign it.

HAYES: He`s completely -- I mean Alicia, it is amazing the degree to which he has completely trapped himself utterly and completely trapped himself.

ALICIA MENENDEZ, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, BUSTLE: Yes, this is a far cry from his big beautiful wall. But if we`re thinking about how he`s going to spin this, it`s actually pretty clear right, Chris? I mean, he was at that rally yesterday acting as though the wall is already being built. That`s a lie that we`re going to continue to hear repeated.

And there`s the possibility that he can go back and say, hey, listen, between the money that I got for the actual border security and the more general border security, and at about $3 billion. That`s halfway to what I wanted. And don`t worry I`m going to go back for more. So we`ll see if he makes that argument.

HAYES: Yes, you`re 100 percent right. It is going to be the emperor`s new wall by the end of this. He`s going to be doing photo ops in front of empty expanses of desert where he gestures behind to the beautiful wall behind him. And here`s -- your right. Last night, Angelo, this was very funny. Brad Parscale who`s a campaign manager for the 2020 reelect introducing the crowd the notion that the new slogan is finished the wall because the wall has already started to be built. So they could lay the groundwork for this. Listen to this. This is really interesting. He`s got to teach it to them.


BRAD PARSCALE, CAMPAIGN MANAGER, TRUMP 2020 CAMPAIGN: Now, it`s not build the wall, it`s finish the wall. Finish the wall. Finish the wall. Finish the wall.

AMERICAN CROWD: Finish the wall. Finish the wall. Finish the wall.

TRUMP: Now you really mean finish that wall because we built a lot of them. Let`s finish the wall.


HAYES: He had to correct him.

CARUSONE: Yes, it`s true. And I think you know -- and one of the reasons that he can get away with something like that is it`s sort of a joke but it`s also the scary part about this is that he actually has an entire propaganda operation around him. And so they will both reinforce that notion and one of my colleagues often says, he`s on the night shift at Media Matters, he often says Trump cannot fail, he can only be failed.

HAYES: Right.

CARUSONE: And that would be the narrative that comes out of this. That the wall that he was successful and all the shortcoming about this deal, you can boil down into the Republican establishment.

HAYES: Well, and that gets -- Alicia, you know, Joy Reid made this point of my program and I thought it was a really smart one which is that if a stronger president would realize he could tell these people to buzz off and he made the deal and his base would stick with him. It`s remarkable how weak he isn`t how scared he is of the folks on Trump .T.V and others and how much veto power he has ceded to them throughout this entire lurid affair.

MENENDEZ: I mean, also how myopic and oversimplified it is to be focused on this wall because even as his detractors are taking their victory lap, let`s also take a step back and talk about the fact that Democrats and progressives were hopeful that they were going to be able to put some type of cap on these beds. And on top of that, they were hopeful that they were going to be able to at least restrict the ability of ICE to re-appropriate funds. They got neither of those things and they had good reason to be worried.

You go back to the March 2018 omnibus, they were supposed to be you know funding for about 40,000 detainees a day. There was -- you know, we`re being told at the time by appropriators that that was going to force ICE to bring down the number of beds. The number of beds actually went up.

HAYES: Went up.

MENENDEZ: So this is far from a perfect deal.

HAYES: No. And I should note -- and the reason I made that point to Congressman Clyburn is they don`t -- they`re going to have to whip the votes. I mean, they will -- there will be no votes in that Democratic caucus on this precisely for that reason. But I also wonder, Angelo, like what does this do to the wall as meme, right? It`s -- he said it the first day when he came down the golden escalator when he said Mexico is sending rapists.

It has been a consistent theme and I guess the questions like now what? Is it this -- you`ve got this kind of MacGuffin and you keep having the you know, shots of the suitcase with the light coming out. And now it`s like we all get to see what`s in that secret suitcase. It`s you know, an appropriation and no wall.

CARUSONE: I think that you`ll see some play around it. You know, he`ll try to pretend like he`s diverting some money and they`ll have that specter, but it is going to be a really big challenge for them. Because they damped up this idea that it`s an actual emergency so they`re going to have -- they can`t have it both ways, right? Either he`s going to let an emergency unfold for the next two years --

HAYES: Right.

CARUSONE: -- or he`s going to have to take more concerted action. And unlike Foxconn, there`s a physical wall whether you know, that`s going to be there or not. It`s going to be hard at some point for them to spin that.

HAYES: Alicia, I also think there`s a question about the emergency part of it. A lot of sort of intimating he has in his pocket but my sense is he has been waived off that by Republican leadership. What`s yours?

MENENDEZ: Yes. No, I share the same sense. I think the sort of larger question is do they have any appetite to come back to this or do they want to act as though these questions resolved. Because if there was some serious talk about immigration, we`d be talking about protections for DREAMers right now or we`d be talking about those with TPS. Yes, there`s none of that.

You`re just talking about a wall and we`re talking about detention so this is not at all the comprehensive discussion that you would actually have if you were interested in addressing immigration in this country.

HAYES: And that`s because he successfully got the offer to pay the hostages on DACA and the $25 billion dollars and inexplicably ripped it up and walked away from the deal. So I think we`re never coming back to that place after he did that once. Alicia Menendez and Angelo Carusone, thank you both.

Coming up, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on her 2020 campaign and why she says it`s time for the country to have an unabashedly feminist candidate like herself. The senator joins me in just two minutes.


HAYES: Today the New York Times running front-page piece right about the fold detailing the complexities the gender plays on women running for the highest office in the land. "What is not a matter of debate is the array of ways that sexism can manifest on the campaign trail affecting not only how voters perceive candidates but how candidates present themselves to voters."

So far in this 2020 race, there are six women running for the Democratic nomination for president. Joining me now is one of those women Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York. Senator, it`s great to have you. I wonder if you read that you read that -- you read that story in your hometown paper and what your response was to it where there are flickers of recognition having been through this and been on the trail now.

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D), NEW YORK: Well, yes. There`s obviously sexism in society and pretty much there`s some level of gender bias in all industries. But what I loved about the story is the fact that was a picture of four women on the front page of the New York Times who are running for president.

HAYES: You know, I wonder how much -- I think about that. How much does that change the dynamic, honestly? I`ve never seen anything like this. And you know, there`s been women on stage and presidential debates but there`s just never been something like this. We`re not -- we haven`t encountered it before and I wonder what does that do to all of those biases and those things that are sort of inherent in our politics.

GILLIBRAND: I think it breaks down bias. I think when the American people get to see a lot of versions of what female leadership looks like, they`ll begin to understand leadership at all its complexity. I think women can bring so much to the table. Their life experience is so different, they often are mothers, daughters, and sisters. They are able to bring people together in a different way.

A lot of studies show that women are really good at listening, finding common ground, building consensus and getting stuff done. So I like the fact that we have six women running for president and I think people will begin to get more and more comfortable with women as leaders.

HAYES: How much of this historic boom in women presidential candidates which comes after a historic boom in political candidates up and down the ballot for the Democratic Party. Is it because of 2016, is because a Hillary Clinton and because of Donald Trump?

GILLIBRAND: I think it`s a little bit of all those things. I think certainly Hillary Clinton is a role model for so many women and girls across the world. She made 65 million cracks in that hardest and highest glass ceiling on which all of us are building our campaigns and so I think a lot of it.

But I think this 2018 cycle was a lot about President Trump. I think so many women felt betrayed by this president because he doesn`t value women. He brags about sexual assault. He divides women in tweets daily particularly harsh towards women of color. And I think women across America just felt they had to be heard. I think that`s what started with the women`s March and that women started marching globally with every sign to say what they were for and then started running. And then women turned out in record numbers to vote for them.

And so I think that dynamic has spurred a rebirth of the women`s movement unlike anything I could have ever imagined which is inspiring. And having this whole new class of women, the most diverse class of women ever in the history of the United States holding President Trump accountable is refreshing.

HAYES: You know, one of the things you`ve talked about is being the mother of children and occupying the office you do. And I know I`ve read profiles of you and how you have navigated that as someone who has three kids at home, I`m sympathetic to that. One of the things you`re sort of focused on is the reality of trying to produce a balance for folks men and women in how they deal with their family life, their domestic life, raising their kids. You have legislation that seeks to address that. Tell me about that.

GILLIBRAND: So today we had a press conference on a national paid leave bill. All about allowing everyone to spend time with their families when their families need them. So whether it`s a dying or ill parent, whether it`s a sick child, whether it`s a new baby, allowing men and women to be able to buy into a paid leave plan, an earned benefit that will be there for them no matter where they work part-time, full-time, large company, small company, and it`s not a lot of money.

It`s about the cost of a cup of coffee a week for you and your employer. It`s about $100 a year per employee. It`s not a great deal of money and it would allow a national paid leave plan. And you know, Chris, we`re the only industrialized country in the world that doesn`t have a national pay leave plan. And if we had one, more men and women would earn their full potential in the workplace.

Right now not having one as a drag on the economy. You would restore huge economic opportunity to a lot of families if you had something like paid leave. And I would add to that affordable daycare, universal pre-k, raising the minimum wage, all of those things would allow more people to reach their highest and best potentials in the workplace so they could provide for their families better.

HAYES: You`ve been I think pretty forthright in a way I found frankly quite compelling about some users that have changed particular and immigration. I think you have sort of position yourself as an immigration skeptic or restrictionist, a hawk earlier in your career. You basically said I was not right then. I`ve learned a lot about the issue.

What is your thinking about the deal struck today particularly because it does not do something that Democrats and a lot of activists in the immigration world had wanted to do, was restrict the number of beds that ICE can use to detain people that have no criminal history, no reason to think they`re a security threat?

GILLIBRAND: Well, one of the biggest challenges with this bill and with the debate is that President Trump has really turned ICE into a deportation force. And one of the most disturbing things about how he`s handled ICE is that he`s diverting funding that would normally go to anti-terrorism, stopping human trafficking, cross-border criminal activity, gun trafficking, drug trafficking and diverting that money to the for-profit prisons that are running these facilities.

And so I`m not surprised that advocates and a lot of folks are concerned because we don`t want to continue to pay for that because it`s inhumane. It`s not appropriate. He needs to fix the immigration system. We need comprehensive immigration reform.

HAYES: Right. But just to -- just to step in for a second. You`re going to have to vote on it. I mean, this is the deal. This is the thing that`s going to be before you.

GILLIBRAND: Yes. So the challenge for me is I like the fact that he -- that the deal does include some money for the anti-terrorism work and the cross-border criminal activity prevention because that`s important to me. I`m concerned that they are increasing the number of beds or the ability to fund more of these for-profit prisons. That concerns me gravely. But there is money for other things that people need across the country and across New York.

There`s money for infrastructure, there`s money for the census. So they did try to sweeten the deal, try to put money in where it will help, but you have to give pause given the investment in this for-profit prison system that`s locking up children and moms and families.

HAYES: So I`m going to put you down as a not -- a not a yes or a no hard either way at this point. Is that fair?

GILLIBRAND: Yes. I`m going to -- I`m going to wait till I actually get to see the bill because we only gotten top lines at this point.

HAYES: Got you.

GILLIBRAND: So I want to see what`s in it and then I`ll decide. But there are some good things but places of concern.

HAYES: Final question for you. Mitch McConnell is the sort of a funny turnabout. You know, he could have brought a bill of the floor during the shutdown and a lot of people think would have passed. But his thing was if the President is not going to sign it, I`m not going to have bills. We`re not going to have show votes.

Today he announced that there got a show vote on the Green New Deal, literally the exact opposite of what he was doing a few months ago when the government being opened depended on it. Are you going to vote for the Green New Deal? Do you think this is some brilliant troll by your colleague from Kentucky?

GILLIBRAND: You know, we`re for what were for. And we want to see a green economy in the next decade not because it`s easy but because it`s hard. We need a moonshot. Like John F Kennedy said, we`re going to put a man on the moon in the next ten years as a measure of America`s innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, why not make the same national call to action to say let`s create a green economy in the next decade.

And yes it`s really hard. But part of the Green New Deal, there`s some really important components like clean air and clean water as a right, cleaning up all these superfund sites and all these brownfields, making sure we invest in green technologies and teach young people how to build solar panels and do wind turbines, and geothermal, and hydropower and biofuels. Like that`s important and exciting, and we have success in New York on renewables.

And again, if you invest in the research and development, you put your plate-- you put your country in a better place to excel in next-generation development. And we should be competing with China. We should be outshining China. So there`s so much opportunity in this bill for economic growth and really fixing things that are broken. And so why not have an aspirational goal.

And maybe some things are hard to get to and maybe we won`t actually get there, but why not at least try.

HAYES: It`s a good question. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, thank you very much for making time. Come back whenever.

GILLIBRAND: Thank you.

HAYES: All right, coming up, what to make of reporting that the Senate Intel Committee is close to wrapping up their investigation into potential Russian collusion. I`ll talk with a member of that committee about whether they stand next.



SEN. RICHARD BURR, (R) NORTH CAROLINA: I can say as it relates to the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation that had no hard evidence of collusion. If this is all about collusion, and our investigation encompasses more than collusion, that issue has not been finalized at all.


HAYES: Much more information has come to light since Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr made those comments way back in September, including the revelation that Paul Manafort shared polling data with an associate linked to Russian intelligence while Manafort was actively the chair of the Trump campaign.

But Burr echoed those comments again in an interview just last week, telling CBS News if we write a report based upon the fact that we have, we don`t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia, he said.

Bipartisan sources gave a similar account to NBC News, claiming the committee is close to wrapping up its investigation without finding direct evidence of a conspiracy.

Now Burr`s vice chairman Mark Warner is pushing back, publicly breaking with Burr for what maybe the first time in the two-year course of their investigation. Warner telling CNN he disagrees about the evidence of collusion and that the probe has yet to finish.

I`m now now by a member Senate Intelligence Committee, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, and since you are a member on that committee, what do make of all of of this?

SEN. RON WYDEN, (D) OREGON: Well, I disagree strongly with the chairman, Chris.

And here is the bottom line, in my opinion, if it looks like collusion and acts like collusion, and you have someone like Paul Manafort sharing confidential political intelligence with the Russians, it`s collusion.

HAYES: Does that mean that you -- let me ask you this, is it your understand of the progress of the committee`s report that essentially facts as you are able to ascertain them, have more or less all been gathered and now it`s just a matter of issuing some final report, coming to some final judgments, and differing interpretations of what those facts mean?

WYDEN: No. In my opinion, there is still a lot of heavy lifting to do, particularly as it relates to counterintelligence 101, which is following the money. For example, this Moscow Tower issue. And what we know from public sources -- I can`t get into confidential matters -- but what we know from public sources is especially troubling.

Michael Cohen, he is the money man for the Trump administration, he has already said that the discussions went on much longer than was originally said. In effect you had the president of the United States out talking to the American people about how he was going to find a way to have a new relationship with Putin, and yet from public sources we were hearing reports about the prospect that he might make millions and millions of dollars on that Moscow Tower.

So in my own opinion there`s a lot of work to do.

HAYES: Does the chair, or do your Republican colleagues, consider something like that as within the purview of what`s being investigated by the committee?

WYDEN: I certainly do and the reason I do is that this has always been about how the Russians might get leverage on Donald Trump.

We already know that Donald Trump, without saying very much, we saw that bizarre press conference, we`ve seen the change in sanctions policy, we know that without a lot of explanation, he has made a real break with previous policies.

And so the whole point of the follow the money questions is to try to make sure that at the end of our inquiry we know whose interests Donald Trump is advocating for, his wallet or the American people.

HAYES: Another money flow that you have been focused on, and I wanted to get an update on the progress about the ties between the NRA and the Kremlin. There`s been all sorts of reporting that the ways in which Russia and Russian leaders sort of cultivated the NRA as an ally. There`s some questions about the source of NRA money that flowed into the campaign. You wrote a letter to them.

What have you been able to learn? Is that part of the investigation as well?

WYDEN: With respect to that area, I`m also the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. The Finance Committee staff is looking at it. We`ll have more to stay before too long. But when the NRA said that that trip to Moscow was not an official trip, I want your viewers to know I don`t think that that is credible, and certainly when you`re talking, again, about a tax exempt organization, we want to know who their loyalties run to. Do they run to the American people or to some foreign adversary?

HAYES: Final question. Is there an expectation on your part, or have there -- you had discussions with Democratic colleagues on the Intelligence Committee about a final report or some kind of minority report that might be issued, similar to the minority report in the House last year?

WYDEN: We`re barred from getting into those kinds of discussions. But let me tell you what I`m going to do, Chris, I will read any report, line by line, and if I think there is anything resembling a cover up with respect to import facts, I`ll blow the whistle. I`ll do it in a way that protects classified sources. But I`m going to make sure the truth gets to the American people.

HAYES: All right, Senator Ron Wyden on the Intelligence Committee. Thank you very much, senator.

WYDEN: Thank you.

HAYES: Still to come, bigotry, morality and the party of Trump reconciling the president`s call for a Democratic member to resign given his won prolific track record of awful actions and remarks.

Plus, tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two starts next.


HAYES: Thing One tonight, the most powerful man in the world has always seemed like one of the most insecure.


TRUMP: Look at those hands. Are they small hands? And he referred to my hands. If they`re small, something else must be small. I guarantee you there`s no problem. I guarantee you.


HAYES: Uh, we have gone a long time since playing that clip, which I appreciate.

We elected that guy, but that did not cure his insecurity about size, as we infamously learned on day one when he drew a much smaller crowd than Obama for his inauguration speech.


SEAN SPICER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration period, both in person, and around the globe.

TRUMP: The field was -- it looked like a million/a million and a half people.



HAYES: That was the day America entered the era of the president who lies about his crowd size. Last night, he was in El Paso, Texas.


TRUMP: Tonight, 69,000 people signed up to be here. Now, the arena holds 8,000. And thank you fire department, they got in about 10. Thank you, fire department.



HAYES: What a great shout out to the El Paso Fire Department, except that Trump just accused them of breaking the law and endangering public safety for a fire hazard MAGA fest.

The fire department was not at all amused. And that`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.


HAYES: While Donald Trump was rallying his base last night in El Paso, Beto O`Rourke was leading a counter rally not far away that Trump claimed barely anyone had bothered to attend.


TRUMP: He challenged us. So we have let`s say 35,000 people tonight and he has 200 people, 300 people. Not too good.


HAYES: I mean, crowd size is tough to measure, but it`s not that tough. Estimates put the O`Rourke rally between 7,000 and 15,000 people,which is just a bit more than 300. And as for Trump`s crowd, he claimed there were 10s of thousands outside and 10,000 more inside, Trump even even thanked the fire department for filling the venue far beyond the legal allowable capacity, except except they didn`t of course, quote, "the fire public information officer said no special permission was given by the fire department and the coliseum had about 6,500 people in it during the president`s rally, at capacity."

Trump just added a few thousand people, because telling a crowd of 6m500 they`re a crowd of 10,000 is just the kind of thing Trump does with numbers.


TRUMP: We have vets that used to wait in line for seven days, 20 days, 30 days. I`ve heard up to 38 days.

Two days, five days.

20 days, 30 days, 50 days.

To build a highway in this country would take 17, 18, 20, and even 21 years.

401(k)s are up 30, 40, in some cases much higher than that percent.



HAYES: The president today called for Congresswoman Ilhan Omar to resign over two tweets for which she has since apologized. And it`s a good opportunity, as good as any, to revisit some of the things that Donald Trump himself has said, like for instance when he launched his campaign.


TRUMP: When Mexico sends its people, they`re not sending their best, they`re bringing drugs, they`re bringing crimes, their rapists and some, I assume, are good people.


HAYES: Or when he said an American judge in his fraud case couldn`t be objective or judge him because he was, as Donald Trump put it, Mexican.


HAYES: I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He`s a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curial. And he is not doing the right thing.

The judge who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that`s fine.


HAYES: Oh, you think that`s fine.

Or the way he refers to certain countries.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president tonight apparently uncorking another astonishing statement, complaining to lawmakers in the Oval Office about protections for immigrants. "Why do we want these people from, quote, "all these shithole countries here?"

According to a Democratic aid familiar with the conversation, Mr. Trump was referring to African nations and Haiti before suggesting the U.S. should have more people from places like Norway.


HAYES: OK. Well, he hasn`t apologized for any of that or resigned for it, or he hasn`t apologized for perhaps his lowest moment as president when literally Nazis marched in Charlottesville, Virginia chanting "Jews will not replace us," and menacing folks, including synagogues, and carrying torches, only to follow that up by actually murdering someone the next day. This was Donald Trump`s response a few days later.


TRUMP: I think there`s blame on both sides. You look at both sides, I think there`s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don`t have any doubt about it either.


HAYES: Never apologized for that. He certainly didn`t resign over it.

Of course, you know all this. I know you know all this. I know it. The president knows it. We all know it. The president has no moral standing whatsoever. But it`s a bigger problem than just the president, some names to remember after the break.


HAYES: Republicans are gamely trying to show off their own moral credentials, because they took Congressman Steve King off his committees after the man literally defended white supremacy.

But that was after 20 years of knowing his odious views and supporting him. Donald Trump even campaigned for him in 2014. And it doesn`t stop with Steve King. Do you remember this guy? The indicted congressman, Duncan Hunter, who is alleged, along with his wife, to have stolen hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars, that guy? He ran against a Palestinian Mexican-American with ads like this.


ANNOUNCER: Ammar Campa-Najjar is working to infiltrate congress, using his three different names to hide his family`s ties to terrorism. His grandfather masterminded the Munich Olympic Massacre. His father said they deserved to die.


HAYES: There was essentially no reaction from Republicans. No calls to apologize. It was not a big, nationally scandal, there was no calls to drop out of the race, resign, basically, everyone was fine with it because generally the Republican Party in the age of Donald Trump as president is fine with all kinds of bigotry.

Joining me now, Ammar Campa-Najjar, who was the target of Duncan Hunter`s vile ad and who plans to run against the indicted congressman again. Rabbi Jill Jacobs, executive director of TRUAH, the Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, who wrote about the false comfort of Trump`s condemnation of anti- Semitism.

Let me start with you, Ammar. I thought of you when I was watching the Ilhan Omar thing play out, when we were sort of talking about what do people have and have not apologized for in terms of bigoted statements, or perceived bigoted statements, and I thought I wonder what Ammar Campa-Najjar thinks about this?

Were there -- was it a big deal, those ads that he ran against you? Did Republicans call for him to apologize or get out of the race?

AMMAR CAMPA-NAJJAR, CANDIDATE FOR CONGRESS, (D) CALIFORNIA: There was no apology that was issued towards me from Duncan Hunter. Honestly, I don`t want an apology from him. It doesn`t mean anything coming from him, to be honest. But here`s what I do know, Chris. We`re at a moral crossroads as a country and as politicians. We can either explore unity and exploit division, and I think this election in 2020 and beyond is about us paving a path towards a unified, fortified progressive future for all of us.

And there is no room in America for hate speech. This is the only country on Earth that was built on the notion that our differences don`t outweigh our common humanity. It`s the only nation that was built off the notion of welcoming all nations. So, there is no room in this country for hate speech on either side.

And I don`t expect anything, really, becoming of Hunter to be honest, or his party, for that matter.

HAYES: Do you feel like there is, Rabbi Jacobs, any sort of clear standard that has been articulated about bigotry, its place, what is worth apologizing for or resigning over?

RABBI JILL JACOBS, TRUAH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: It`s very clear that bigotry is not OK in our public discourse. All of us...

HAYES: You mean that as a normative statement, like it shouldn`t be.

JACOBS: As a normative statement. It shouldn`t be.

HAYES: Because it`s not that clear that it`s not OK in our public discourse.

JACOBS: And it`s also clear that there`s racism, there`s sexism, there`s anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, et cetera, et cetera in America, because it`s deeply rooted in our society, and we have a responsibility to call it out whenever we see it.

And so it`s important to call it out. I don`t think that there`s one standard that says once somebody crosses this line, then they have to resign. But what I do think is important is that we`re not weaponizing anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, that we`re not only using it for our own political means. That we`re calling it out, whether it`s on the left or the right.

But weaponizing anti-Semitism, for example, doesn`t make Jews any safer. It doesn`t protect Jews from violence form us in our synagogues, in our community centers. We, for sure, have to call it anti-Semitism, but it shouldn`t be a political move.

HAYES: OK, so what does weaponizing mean?

JACOBS: Well, for example, when we saw President Trump turn around and say that Representative Omar should resign because of her tweet. Now, people on both the left and right called her out for stepping into an anti-Semitic stereotype, but Trump is somebody who watched neo-Nazi march through Charlottesville shouting "Jews will not replace us" and said there were very fine people on both sides. And he is somebody who has made common cause with White nationalists and spurred the kind of hatred that ultimately led a terrorist to walk into a synagogue in Pittsburgh and and murder 11 Jews while they were praying.

And so somebody like that who can`t look at his own anti-Semitism, should certainly not be calling out somebody else.

HAYES: Well, I thought about Kevin McCarthy, too, Ammar, because Kevin McCarthy intimately involved in your race because he was intimately involved with California, that California delegation, which by the way he managed to like basically get rid of eight of them for his efforts, but your indicted opponent he capped.

I mean, did Kevin McCarthy say anything about the kind of race that Duncan Hunter ran against you that was so obviously rooted in your ethnicity?

CAMPA-NAJJAR: He didn`t at all. But here is the silver lining, there were 17 rabbis, Chris, who stood up shoulder to shoulder with me and condemned Hunter`s attacks. In the wake of Pittsburgh, it was the most heartening thing to see from me as a Palestinian-American, to see my brothers, my Jewish brothers and sisters, standing up shoulder to shoulder and showing the moral authority that Kevin McCarthy and Donald Trump did not have.

So, it was heartening to me and I decided to run again, in fact. We got really close, and I think Hunter in my case was using this as a weapon of mass distraction, we talked about this last time, to pivot away from his issues, and the struggles that the people in our district are facing. And that`s why this go around I`m not going to get distracted with his crap, I`m going to focus on the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, getting big money out of politics, and really paving a path towards a unified, fortified, progressive future where me and Rabbi Jacobs could never have to deal with this stuff again.

HAYES: One thing that is clear to me is that Republicans sense division on the issue, particularly of Israel, in the Democratic Party coalition in the -- and that`s too partisan in the broad sort of center left progressive universe. And they view an opportunity to drive a wedge into that.

JACOBS: Republicans are absolutely looking for an opportunity to use Israel as a wedge issue, and that is not helping Israel, that is not being pro-Israel at all. The only thing that is being pro-Israel is to actually work for a long-term solution that will guarantee the human rights and security of both Israelis and Palestinians, which is a two state solution with Israel side by side with a Palestinian state, and the Republicans rhetoric, some of the bills they are trying to drive that would, for example, try to ban boycotting Israel, which I don`t agree with. I don`t boycott Israel and yet it doesn`t -- these kinds of bills do nothing to actually protect Israel or move forward a peace agreement.

HAYES: So you view it as cynical, fundamentally?

JACOBS: I absolutely view it as cynical.

HAYES: All right, Ammar Campa-Najjar, who will be, as you just announced, running for that seat against Duncan Hunter, who I think is going to go to trial at some point. He`ll have to deal with the charges against him.

CAMPA-NAJJAR: In September, yeah.

HAYES: Yeah, innocent until proven guilty in our system. So...

CAMPA-NAJJAR: That`s why he won.

HAYES: Yeah, he`ll get to make his case. And Rabbi Jill Jacobs, thank you for coming in to our program.

A quick reminder to check out our podcast Why is This Happening? We have a great new episode out today, "Taxing the Rich." Why is it so hard to actually get rich people to pay their taxes. And crucially, how the IRS has been systematically underminded in order for them to get away with it. It`s a story I didn`t know a ton about until I started digging into the great reporting that comes from ProPublica`s Jessie Eisenger, and Jessie and his colleagues of ProPublica have taken a deep look into how Republicans, conservatives and anti-tax activists, and Republicans in congress have all undermined the ability for the IRS to do the thing it actually has to do, which is to collect taxes for the American people so as to fund the U.S. government.

He connects all the dots to tell the scandalous story. Make sure you download it wherever you get your podcasts. Do not subscribe.

That is ALL IN for this evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.