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

Beto O'Rourke releases an immigration plan. TRANSCRIPT: 5/31/19, All In w/ Chris Hayes.

Guests: Jim Cavanaugh, Shannon Watts, Bennie Thompson, Cecile Richards,Beto O`Rourke

CHRIS MATHEWS, MSNBC HOST:  He was killed by police.  MSNBC will continue covering this story all night long, of course.  And a quick programming note, as I said on Monday night coming up in two days -- actually three days, Mayor Pete Buttigieg will join me for a live town hall meeting out in Fresno State in California to answer voter`s questions about the major news of the day.

It`s going to be a big night and I`m sure we`re talking about mass shootings and gun violence.  Tune in Monday night 7:00 p.m. Eastern here on MSNBC.  "ALL IN" with Chris Hayes starts right now.

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST:  Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes.  There`s breaking news at this hour.  Another, another horrific mass shooting, this time of a municipal center in Virginia Beach, Virginia.  11 people are dead and at least six more hospitalized after a city employee opened fire on co-workers this afternoon.


JIM CERVERA, CHIEF, VIRGINIA BEACH POLICE:  We do know that shortly after 4:00 p.m. this afternoon, the suspect entered building two.  He`s a longtime employee of public utilities -- I will not release his name at this time -- and immediately began to indiscriminately fire upon all the victims.

Officers entered, wants to call one out, the officers were at headquarters.  They responded to building two.  They secured as much of the victims as they could and then they engage with the suspect.  The suspect did shoot that you`re a police officer, officers returned fire, the suspect is deceased.


HAYES:  Again, the suspect is dead.  The police officer that he fired upon is not -- he is injured.  Here with me now NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams who has been reporting on this tragedy.  What do we know, Pete?

PETE WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT:  So the police say that these intended victims were city employees killed by this man who walked into their workplace and began opening fire on his fellow workers, people that he knew.  Six others were hurt.  They were taken and they rushed to nearby hospitals where they are tonight.

HAYES:  So we have six injured, there are is it 11 dead including the shooter or 12 dead including the shooter?

WILLIAMS:  Well, that -- what the police are saying is 11 people dead.  It`s not clear whether they`re counting the gunmen in that 11, but here`s more on what happened today, Chris.


WILLIAMS:  Just before 4:30 p.m., police in Virginia Beach got the first urgent reports, gunfire at a City office building.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Shots fired!  Shots fired!

WILLIAMS:  Witnesses said a man was firing at the Public Works building next to City Hall, part of a sprawling downtown city government complex.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Shooter on the second floor, detectives coming in through the garage`s alley port.

WILLIAMS:  As first responders flooded in then city employees ran out, police stormed the building and found what they said was a single gunman who was subdued and taken into custody.  Air ambulances were on the scene.  At least six people were rushed to local hospitals.  One man who was inside saw a shooting victim on a flight of stairs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  He could be on the stairs, who knows.  We don`t know if she was on the stairs coming up or going down but she was on the stairway.

WILLIAMS:  City workers in nearby buildings were warned to stay away.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  We heard shooting but we didn`t think it was that close -- that close like in proximity of the building.

WILLIAMS:  As police went room to room to make certain it was over, city workers waited for word on their fellow employees still in shock at a deadly turn to the final hour of the workweek.


WILLIAMS:  Now, Chris, you noted that one of the shootings victims was a police officer and they say that his life was spared by his bulletproof vest.  They say the officers were on the scene almost immediately which is what you`d expect in a complex of City office buildings.

They`re not saying anything tonight about the motive of the gunman, the one who was killed in the shootout with police or what kind of weapon he was carrying, how heavily armed he was, what kind of ammunition he had.

And there is no word tonight on the condition of those taken to the hospital presumably all with gunshot wounds.  The mayor is calling this the most devastating day in the history of Virginia Beach, Chris.

HAYES:  This is also -- we should just note so that people are clear here, this was not -- we`ve had some workplace shootings in which someone recently fired or let go, an ex-worker coming back with some twisted motivation of violent revenge.  This person as far as we know from what the police have told us was a co-worker, was -- had not been fired, was working in this facility.

WILLIAMS:  That`s what the police -- the police chief said.  But frankly, we`ve heard contradictory things from people there about whether he was let go just yesterday.  They`re going to have another news conference here in about an hour and a half and perhaps they`ll have more to say about that.

But you`re right.  What the police chief said is that he was -- he was asked specifically, is this a current or former employee and he said current.  But you know, that was early on.  He had many things on his mind.  They may have more on that later.

HAYES:  Somewhat remarkable how quickly both first responders were able to mobilize, the police officers who made it to the scene because their proximity and the level of fatalities and casualties putting those together, it`s pretty horrifying to contemplate.

WILLIAMS:  Well, the police chief was asked how long do you think that he was able to fire on his fellow employees before the police got there, and they just -- they`re just not certain about that.  That`s going to be part of their investigation.

They`ll be obviously looking into the background of this man who they know well, who other people know well.  They`ll look at the circumstances of that.  Forensically, there`ll be a long time trying to work through all the trajectory of where the weapons were fired, how long it took.  They`ll listen to the police radios, they`ll listen to the 911 calls, they`ll talk to witnesses, and they`ll be helped in that forensic work by the FBI and the ATF.

HAYES:  All right, Pete Williams, as always, thank you so much for your reporting.


HAYES:  We have some -- we have some testimony from witnesses who were in the facility who saw what happened during the shooting that happened this afternoon in Virginia Beach, 11 dead, six hospitalized.  Take a listen.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Yelling and screaming, trying to get everybody safe and some gunshots.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  And when you heard the gunshots, what did you hear?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  We just heard people yelling and screaming to get down and I was on the phone with 911 so I was trying to concentrate on getting -- talking to them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  We heard shooting but we didn`t think it was that close -- that close like in proximity of the building.  So I just thank God that they were able to alert us in time because if it had been ten minutes more, we all would have been outside.  So that`s what I`m grateful for today.


HAYES:  Joining me now on the phone is Jim Cavanaugh, a retired ATF special agent in charge and former hostage negotiator.  Jim, obviously just a tremendously horrific situation and calls to mind the fact that we have seen obviously a lot of mass shootings in America.

It has become grimly, perversely, barbarically routine in the news cycle.  But school shootings, ideologically motivated shootings tend to get more attention in the workplace shooting despite the fact that those are among the most common forms of this kind of mass violence.

JIM CAVANAUGH, RETIRED SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, ATF:  That`s exactly right, Chris.  The workplace shootings, they happen all the time and they can happen anywhere.  And building and building managers and leaders and (INAUDIBLE) of this businesses, the need to try to take some steps to secure from people coming in without a firearm.

I think in this case, there`s likely going to be indications that this guy is having trouble, you know, one who`s upset when he`s talking with his coworkers or having trouble with supervisors, or somehow you know, disgruntled.  There`s something going on with his life that people that he work with knew and his family would have known.

And those indicators are the things that we want to try to pick up on early before you get this you know, devastating day where the guy comes and you know, (INAUDIBLE) just start shooting innocent people at their desk.

I mean, the only way to stop it is to try to get (INAUDIBLE).  Virginia Beach police are heroic.  You know, they sort of fire at him, injured, and killed the shooter, and they stop more killing, absolutely stop more killing.  As many rounds as he had left, Chris, he could have gone on killing.  So the police really did you know, quick response and they`ve stopped more (INAUDIBLE).

HAYES:  You know, what I think of as we`re watching these images of the facility which appears to be a kind of municipal campus, there were a sort of variety of connected buildings with municipal workers of various types that you know, in the wake of this we will see a hardening of that building. 

The security will get more intense.  And we`re seen that in building after building, schools, office buildings.  I remember after 9/11, there was a hardening of that.  But it`s getting to the point where the response of this is just a kind of fortressing of every single conceivable target, soft target, office building in America where you almost feel like you`re moving from barracks to barracks because we cannot get a handle on the fact that Americans can just acquire weapons and go shoot up people at a moment`s notice.

CAVANAUGH:  Well, you`re exactly right, unfortunately.  We`re in America now where it`s gone beyond the ability of the citizens to fix what the leaders at the top in Washington and every state Capitol will take definitive steps to stop it.  And that is better gun laws, better mental health laws, and you know, laws that allow you to have intervention if the person is suffering from emotional distress or mental health -- mental health.

You should stigmatize people who have mental and emotional issues.  But thirty percent of the time it plays a part in these killings so it`s something we have to pay attention to.  We`re not stigmatizing everyone who needs care, but we`re looking for people who are prone to violence.

You know, personally, I always (INAUDIBLE) just an old policeman and agent`s way look at it, I call it the tragedy triangle and it starts with this either emotional part, it could be mental or suicidal that`s one tip of the triangle.  The next is there`s some interaction with the police over something.  There`s some conflict (INAUDIBLE).  That`s the second point of the triangle.  And then the third point is the acquisition of firearms.

And when you see those three things, I call it the tragedy triangle because when those three things happen, then the death follows.  And you can go back and back on all these shootings and look and you can see well yes, everybody think this guy -- let`s take the Parkland shooter.  Everybody knew this guy was in trouble.  Everybody do.  He had conflicts with the police and resource officer. 

Yes.  He was having all these emotional and mental problems, two fronts right there.  But he`s now getting guns.  People knew about it.  All three of those indicators what I call the tragedy triangle were there before the Parkland shooting and in many other shootings.

Listen, I can tell you, in my career, (INAUDIBLE) many killings and shootings in ATF, many, many, many.  We were interrupting guns bought and killings stop them on the way chapter and verse.  Many are interrupted.  The police interrupt them every day.  They`re just not major news. 

But we`re into now a situation of America where the voter has to change, the voter has to change this because the political leaders, they don`t have the backbone.  They have no backbone to change it.  So it takes the voter so the voters can change.

So is this the America we want to live in or do we want to change it, because we can do better.  We can`t eliminate them all, but we can reduce these and we can reduce these other (INAUDIBLE).  That would be really a good place.

HAYES:  Yes, I mean, there is no other comparable advanced developed democracy in the OECD that has this kind of phenomenon with regularity that America does.  There`s just nothing even remotely similar and there`s none that has the number of guns in the possession of its citizens the way of America does.  Jim Cavanaugh, thank you for sharing your expertise amidst this tragedy.  I really appreciate it.

I want to turn to Shannon Watts who is the Founder of Mom`s Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.  She joins me by phone.  Your thoughts as you`re watching this unfold yet again.

SHANNON WATTS, FOUNDER, MOM`S DEMAND ACTION FOR GUN SENSE IN AMERICA:  It`s just incredibly tragic that yet again in America a community is devastated by gun violence, senseless, preventable gun violence.  It appears to be in a workplace.  And we know that every high-income country is home to people who are unstable or disgruntled and yet only America gives them easy access to arsenals and ammunition.

HAYES:  Do you think -- in one of these situations I find myself torn as if both the journalist and a broadcaster here.  We`re watching this unfold.  We have very scant details.  We don`t know the background of the shooter.  We only know how many people have died.  The shooter has died.  There are people hospitalized who of course our thoughts are with at this moment and with the health care providers that are trying to help them come through.

We don`t know the nature of the acquisition of the gun, whether it was legal or illegally purchased.  And of course, there`s a difference I suppose and what the policy ramifications are.  Do you think it matters ultimately whether this gun was legally or illegally acquired in what you are advocating for them and the kind of vision of policy that you have?

WATTS:  Well, again, we don`t know all the details yet.  But in Virginia, it`s incredibly easy to get a gun without a background check at a gun show or arranging an online in person sale.  That is the problem in America.  Only 20 states require a background check on every gun sale.

Again, we make it incredibly easy for dangerous people to have access to guns.  And these tragedies that we see play out over and over again are absolutely preventable and senseless if our lawmakers would ask.

HAYES:  It seems worth noting amidst this conversation as we have people here joining us in breaking news with the news that 11 people are dead in Virginia beach in another mass shooting.  This one apparently an active workplace violence, six hospitalized right now, that the vast majority of gun deaths in America do not happen in this fashion.  They do not happen as mass shootings whether those are like what we saw in Las Vegas where I was first hand in the aftermath of that or in Parkland or here.

The vast majority are people that know each other, their individual acts of violence are suicide.  Do you think that matters as well in terms of the kind of policy solution and the conversation we have about the kind of country we want we want to have to keep our eyes focused on the fact that these are actually the anomalies.

WATTS:  I think that`s a very important point.  You know, the gun violence in this country, the majority of it is gun homicides and city centers or gun suicides in rural communities.  But when you look at the fact that 100 people are shot and killed in this country every single day and you divide that by four which is the FBI definition of what a mass shooting is, four victims not including the shooter, that`s a dozens of mass shootings every single day in this country.

But again, it really hits home when a tragedy like this and 11 people are injured and are killed in a workplace and six injured.  It`s just devastating.

HAYES:  Do you worry about the ways in which something aftermath this can go?  We`ve seen in Florida a push to put more guns into spaces in which children are, more guns in the hands of teachers, guns as a solution to guns.

WATTS:  I want to be clear that we are winning on this issue.  The NRA is weaker than they`ve ever been.  The gun violence prevention was stronger than it`s ever been.  Last year we passed laws in 20 states, nine of which were signed by Republican governors.  We are winning this battle.  But that is why it`s so important for Americans that not the vast majority of whom supports stronger gun laws to make their voices heard in the aftermath of tragedies like this.

And look, people always come out of the woodwork and say don`t politicize a tragedy.  This is political.  We`re the only country in the world that has gun lobbyists writing our nation`s gun laws.  The best time, the most important time to talk about gun violence is in the after of a shooting tragedy.

HAYES:  All right, Shannon Watts from Moms Demand Action.  She`s got a new book out as well.  Thank you so much for taking the time tonight.

WATTS:  Thank you.

HAYES:  We will return to mass shooting -- coverage of tonight`s mass shooting in Virginia Beach, a lot more to get to.  Stay with us.


HAYES:  We are of course continuing to monitor the breaking news out of Virginia Tech where 11 are dead in a mass shooting, six in the hospital.  The shooter has lost his life as well.  We don`t have many details other than that a co-worker appears to have entered a Virginia Beach Municipal facility and began firing.

Police were there fairly quickly but 11 people dead, six hospitalized tonight in the latest mass shooting here in this country.  I`m joined now by the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Bennie Thompson who is a Democrat from Mississippi.  And let me start on this topic first, sir, if that`s OK.

The Democrats have passed two pieces of gun control legislation out of the House with their house majority in the first few months that they had control.  What`s your reaction watching this unfold in Virginia tonight?

REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS):  Well, Chris, first of all as you know, all of us have a deep sympathy for the families and those individuals impacted.  But on a more note the access to gun, the continued easy access to guns is a problem in this country, the fact that people with certain illnesses, mental illnesses can still get guns.

Background checks are not enforced in certain areas and obviously, individuals who have mental illnesses can get guns.  But on the other hand, we don`t as a country provide the services for those individuals who have mental illness.  And that is a challenge for us and I think something Congress is going to have to step forward to and address.

HAYES:  There`s two pieces of legislation if I`m not mistaken that come out of the House on background checks.  One sort of closing some of the loopholes, the other extending the time in which those background checks can be processed.  Do you think Mitch McConnell should take those up in the Senate?

THOMPSON:  Well, you know, Mitch McConnell should do a lot on the Senate side.  We do our work on the House.  But the Charleston loophole bill which would close the loophole that occurred, the other would also help.  But again we need to fully fund mental health in this country.

Mitch McConnell has basically said he`s not going to do anything.  We can`t even get disaster for Americans passed in this country.  So I`m really bothered by it --

HAYES:  I would just -- I would just note there that the Senate did pass a disaster relief funding.  Your problem right now is the Republicans who keep objecting unanimous consent to get it through in your House.

THOMPSON:  Well, yes, absolutely correct.  But they held it up on the Senate side longer than normal.

HAYES:  Right.

THOMPSON:  We normally do our work on the House side but there are so many legislative initiatives that died in the Senate.

HAYES:  That brings me to another initiative from the House that may very well die in the Senate which has been the topic at the front of minds I think about many this week for the House Democratic caucus and that is the matter of impeachment.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Jimmy Kimmel last night once again articulating her vision of why it doesn`t make sense to begin a formal impeachment inquiry, why it makes sense to go slowly and carefully in her mind.  You are a member of leadership.  You are a chair of a committee, and you have come out I believe this week if I`m not mistaken in favor of beginning of formal impeachment inquiry.  What changed your mind?  How did you get there?

THOMPSON:  Well, very easy.  I`ve been in my district for over a week.  I`ve traveled to about 18 counties over 700 miles.  I`ve talked to a lot of people, and to the person, everybody said what are you all going to do about President Trump.

They sometimes call him another name but clearly they are disappointed in his leadership.  Some of them will even tell me, Chris, you know, I don`t even want my children or grandchildren to watch the president on T.V. anymore.  He doesn`t set the standard as Americans that a president should.

So I heard enough, and I thought up until I came home this weekend I had resisted moving forward.  But you know I represent this district and I listen to the people, and I heard them.

HAYES:  Congressman, I got to tell you, that is really interesting to me for this reason.  Some of the conventional wisdom that I think has been communicated and I think is believed by many people in your caucus and in leadership is that impeachment is an esoteric concern or it`s an obsession of people that are political junkies but not real people you know, living their lives, that they`re detached.

But what you`re telling me is that you went home to your district and talked to your actual constituents and that`s what changed your mind.

THOMPSON:  Absolutely.  And let me tell you.  It didn`t matter whether I was in the hole in the wall or the finest restaurant in my district, people would come up and talk to me about this.  And let me tell you it bothers them that here we are the greatest country in the world being led by somebody who won`t tell the truth.  They are clearly upset that our values as Americans have been compromised by this president.

HAYES:  Do you -- final question for you and I really do appreciate you taking time tonight.  Do you anticipate as everyone comes back that conversations being different starting Monday because your colleagues have had perhaps similar experiences?

THOMPSON:  Well, you know, this is how things get done.  People talk.  People listen to constituents.  I don`t think it`ll be any different when we get back on Monday.  People will do that.  I look forward to it.  I`ll be in a meeting with the Speaker shortly when I get there and I`m sure people that ask me how I arrived at a position.

I`m happy to tell them.  And again since I`ve announced it, I`ve not had anything but compliments from people calling and say I`m glad you`re taking this stand.

HAYES:  All right, Congressman Bennie Thompson of the great state of Mississippi, thank you so much for making time tonight.

THOMPSON:  Thank you.

HAYES:  For more on where this impeachment debate is headed next, I`m joined by MSNBC Political Analyst Michelle Goldberg, Op-Ed Columns for New York Times and MSNBC Contributor Nick Confessore, Investigative Report of The Times.  That was fascinating.

MICHELLE GOLDBERG, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  Yes, it really was.  I mean, I can`t -- I`ve heard the same thing from so many members of Congress you know, who kind of slow-walking impeachment or a skeptical of it.  They say people in my district don`t care, right.  People up you know, we campaigned on prescription drug prices, we didn`t campaign on obstruction of justice or impeachment.

And it`s -- that`s always sounded pretty out of touch to me because first of all people out in the real world don`t even know about all of these demonstration bills that you`re passing.

HAYES:  Right.  That`s the irony, right?

GOLDBERG:  Which are also not going anywhere in the Senate.  And so you know, and I think you also saw this in the Justin Amash town hall, right.  There are a huge number of people out there who are stupefied and terrified by what`s going on in this country right now, and are waiting for somebody to act.

HAYES:  You know, it`s interesting, producer Jessica Carey and I were having conversation about this topic and she was making this case that people are going to come back having talked to their district and being a different mindset, and then there was Bennie Thompson basically -- I mean, honestly, it was like literally what she was saying in our -- in our segment meeting today.

And that was really remarkable to me because it is the inverse of the conventional wisdom, real people don`t care about this.

NICK CONFESSORE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR:  Well, the problem for Nancy Pelosi is that a big chunk of her party actually wants to begin these proceedings.  The count now is at 50 I think for Democrats in the House.  It`s going to go up not down.

HAYES:  Yes.  No one`s going to come -- that number is not coming down.

CONFESSORE:  What happened in the last week was Bob Mueller short-circuited this whole thing.  He basically said guys, I wrote this report.  I said, you should consider obstruction of justice as the Constitution prescribes it with impeachment proceedings.  He didnƒ_Tt say directly it was kind of alluded to.

But -- so if you were in the base and you were saying this guy should be impeached, now Bob Mueller is out there saying yes, that`s what I meant.  You should consider impeachment proceedings.  It`s very hard for Nancy Pelosi to be saying, tap the brakes, tap the brake.

HAYES:  Well, and you can -- you can watch leadership particularly Pelosi who I just want to be say is an extremely shrewd politician who has been through a million more political battles than I have even witness or covered.  And I am Not suggesting my political -- like I have no judgment on this one way or the other, just describing it.

But you could watch her out there trying to hold on to the reins.  I mean, it really does look like a caucus where you can see where the energy is going, you can see where the base I think increasing is going to be and they are crying their best to hold the line.

GOLDBERG:  You don`t have to say -- like you, I have a lot of admiration for Nancy Pelosi and don`t presume to know more about how to hold a caucus together.  But I will say that her arguments against impeachment are really unconvincing and nobody`s kind of put forward a more convincing version of that argument.

Her argument that Donald Trump wants to be impeached and sort of baiting us to be impeached, he clearly would regard this as a terrible humiliation and you know he even seems to recoil at the word right.  And so the argument that impeachment is divisive, not impeachment -- not impeaching Trump but kind of allowing him to get away with crimes is also extremely divisive.  It`s just divisive...

HAYES:  In a different way.

GOLDBERG:  Right, exactly.

And so, you know, the idea that kind of impeachment will necessarily redound to Trump`s benefit, again, there`s just very little support for that idea out there.

HAYES:  You know what I think?  I think the nearest analog in the Trump era to the impeachment fight is the Brett Kavanaugh fight, and that -- and for -- and that cuts a bunch of different ways.  The Brett Kavanaugh fight absolutely solidified the right, it solidified the forces that never Trumpers and Trumpers got together to fight for Brett Kavanaugh.  It energized both sides.  It was a crushing defeat for the Democrats, liberals and the center left, and they were really crushed afterwards.

But there was also in a sense in which the base was like we don`t care if you don`t have the votes, you must fight.  You must fight.  That was the message.  And Democrats went out and they fought.  They really did fight to the last inch on that.  And I think there`s a similar dynamic here.

GOLDBERG:  The thing that was so fascinating about the Brett Kavanaugh, too, is that they kind of said, oh, this is really going to hurt Democrats in the midterms.

HAYES:  It was 30 days before them as opposed to 18 months.

GOLDBERG:  And there was just a complete misapprehension. 

HAYES:  Absolutely.

GOLDBERG:  I think the problem is that Democrats always think that the American people aren`t with them even when they are, and Republicans vice versa -- they always think the American people support them because they define the American people as a very small slice of the electorate.

CONFESSORE:  Nancy Pelosi is shrewd and experienced, and she won with the House with a playbook and she, you know,  has good reason to think it will work again.  But what Justin Amash showed is that if you go out in a principled way and say I believe this.  I have no upside to doing this, but IU think it`s the right thing to do, there are people who respond to it.  It`s politics, it`s leadership. 

And the question is, is that what would happen here?  No one really knows what`s going to happen, how it`s going to play.

HAYES:  I`ve got to say the Amash data point to me is as interesting as any single one, because like I said the other day it`s quantitative data and qualitative data.  That`s very good qualitative data, right, that`s not public opinion, that`s not broad but that`s deep.

And, look, all of us have covered moments in American life where conservatives showed up at town halls because they were apoplectic about what was happening and berated their members of congress.  And I half expected that might happen.  And I thought we would see a Tea Party Obamacare style show of force, and it didn`t, and that says something to me.

GOLDBERG:  And what`s so interesting, too, is that the Republicans who did show up were -- they were sort of baffled.

HAYES:  Yes.  They were more curious.

GOLDBERG:  They had never encountered this argument before.  They had no idea that the Mueller report didn`t exonerate the president.

And so to have that dramatized over months, nobody in this country should think that the Mueller report exonerated the president.

HAYES:  Michelle Goldberg and Nick Confessore of The New York Times, thank you both.

Much more ahead, including my interview with presidential candidate Beto O`Rourke on his new sweeping immigration plan and the latest on that horrific mass shooting in Virginia Beach that left 11 people dead.  We`ll be right back.


HAYES:  Once again, we are following developments from a mass shooting in Virginia Beach, Virginia, where an employee at a municipal center opened fire on co-workers just this afternoon.  11 people are confirmed dead, at least six hospitalized.  A suspect, who was a long-time employee of the public utility there, fired indiscriminately, according to the police chief.  And he fired on police when they arrived at the scene.

Police returned fire and the suspect, whose name has not been released, is dead. 

One police officer is injured, saved from a more life-threatening injury by his bulletproof vest.  We`re going to keep monitoring the situation and bring you the latest as it becomes available.

I want to turn today to some shocking images of asylum seekers packed into cells.  Those photos were provided in a report from the inspector-general of homeland security, alerting the head of DHS about the extreme overcrowding at a processing center in El Paso, Texas -- look at that -- the center is meant to hold 125 migrants, but when officials visited on May 7 and 8, there were approximately 750 and 900 detainees on side respectively.

The report also observed detainees standing on toilets in the cells to make room and gain  breathing space, and that, quote, corrective action is critical to the immediate health and safety needs of detainees.

The report comes as migrants continue to flee violence and persecution in Central America, and as the Trump administration continues to roll out increasingly desperate and destructive policies from the emergency declaration to build sections of a border wall, now tied up in the courts, to yesterday`s punitive tariffs against Mexico.

A real solution, however, would involve far more than punitive measures.  Democratic candidates have been laying out their vision for immigration beginning with Julian Castro.  And this week Beto O`Rourke is proposing a massive overhaul of the U.S. immigration system.


HAYES:  Joining me now is 2020 presidential candidate Beto O`Rourke. 

Beto, I wanted to get your reaction first with this new OIG report of  DHS, pictures and documentation of vastly overcrowded border facilities, I mean, sometimes we`re talking 600 or 700 people in a facility meant for 125.

What`s your reaction to that?  What should be done?

BETO O`ROURKE, 2020 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  Yeah, first of all, I`m thinking about those families, and especially those kids, who are in absolute inhumane conditions in this, the wealthiest and most powerful country on the face of the planet.  We certainly have the resources and the capacity.  The question is do we have the political will to ensure that we`re treating them with the dignity and respect that they deserve.  So that`s the first order of business.

Second, we`ve got to go to the northern triangle countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, invest in violence reduction in those communities, help those farmers who are suffering through one of the worst droughts Honduras has ever seen, and make sure that they don`t have to contemplate a 2,000-mile journey to show up in these conditions in our country.

I also have an immigration plan that we announced this week that calls for a family case management program, which would release these families from detention, managed through a case management officer at a fraction of the cost and in far more humane conditions. 

We can do this.  And there`s no reason in the world that we have to treat people in this way.  We shouldn`t.

HAYES:  The plan you released was quite comprehensive, one of the most comprehensive along with Julian Castro, fellow Texan, that has also been released on this particular topic.

I noted a lot of it has to do with executive action.  And obviously that`s a place where the president has a lot of latitude.  But I wonder if you sort of foresee that continuing and even expanding into the next president?

O`ROURKE:  Well, certainly given this president`s executive actions of separating families, putting kids in cages, deporting their moms back to the countries from which they fled, this metering policy that I think you witnessed when you were reporting from El Paso where asylum seekers are literally turned away at the bridge, unable to follow our laws and forced to try to cross in between ports of entry, all of that must be changed by executive action in our administration.

But we will also need to work in concert with congress if we`re going to make the more funding fundamental changes that we need.  For example, we call for the 9 million legal permanent residents who are already in this country, who already qualified to become U.S. citizens, to have their citizenship fees waived.  We`re going to mail them an already filled out application and make that sure they`re fully participating in this country, in our economy, in our democracy. 

And in more than 11 million who are undocumented, allow them to get right with the government, make sure we know who is in our communities and also allow them to be on a path to citizenship so they can contribute even more to our shared success and our greatness. 

And if we complement that with real security, investing at our ports of entry and addressing the underlying causes for people to flee from the northern triangle, we`re going to be a much safer, much more successful country, and we will live in harmony with our values and our founding principles.

HAYES:  One more question on this policy area.  There`s been some calls to decriminalize unauthorized entry into the U.S.  It was for very many years and then it was turned into a misdemeanor infraction, which was then used by the Justice Department during their zero tolerance policy.  Do you think we should decriminalize unauthorized entry?

O`ROURKE:  Functionally, yes.  Families who are fleeing some of the most violent countries on the face of the planet are not a criminal threat to this country and should not be prosecuted in that way.  We can reduce detention numbers by 75, 80, maybe 90 percent under our plan.  But I would reserve criminal prosecution for those rare instances when someone is trying to traffic something into this country that could cause harm for our fellow Americans.

HAYES:  So you want to leave that on the books for that discretion to be applied?

O`ROURKE:  Absolutely.

But yet in the vast majority of cases, we would not criminally prosecute and we would also not  keep families or people fleeing famine and persecution and violence in detention.

This family case management program not only is a tenth of the cost of detention, it also has a 100  percent show rate for participants for their immigration court hearings and something like a 99 percent show rate for their appointments with ICE officers.  This is the best way to keep us safe and also deliver greatest value for the U.S. taxpayer.

HAYES:  You`re a Texan, obviously.  And I can`t help but notice that the senator from Texas, John Cornyn, who is high up in Republican leadership came out with a statement today disapproving of the president`s announced plan to slap tariffs on Mexican imports as a punitive measure because the Mexican government is being insufficiently vigilant, I guess, in stopping border crossings through Mexican territory from the northern triangle.

What is that going to mean for Texas?

O`ROURKE:  In almost every single instance when it comes to our foreign policy, President Trump is shooting this country in the foot, forcing farmers, for example, to bear the brunt of his tariff policies and trade wars in China.  He`s going to do it to manufacturing jobs when it comes to Mexico.

About 40 percent of the value of everything that`s imported from Mexico originated in a U.S.  factory.  So jobs in Michigan, in Pennsylvania, in Indiana and Ohio are going to be compromised, undermined, and ultimately lost if we do not change direction. 

It`s much like the president saying he`s going to cancel the $500 million in foreign aid that we provide to the northern triangle countries.  That won`t improve the situation, it will make it worse, it`ll exacerbate the problems that are there and more people will flow to this country.

He`s like the arsonist who wants to take credit for putting out the fire that he created in the  first place.  This is really expensive for this country, for our economy, for our way of life and for our  values, and it cannot continue.

We will not have a partner in Mexico if he keeps this up and it will make our border conditions right now much worse going forward.

HAYES:  Finally, I want to ask you about the question of impeachment.  Various presidential candidates have gone on the record about whether they believe a formal impeachment inquiry should be started.  Do you believe one should be started?

O`ROURKE:  Yes.  I think it`s the only way we`re going to get to the truth, find the facts, pursue them as far and high up as they go and determine once and for all that no person, no matter the position of public trust or power that they hold, is above the law in this country.

Unfortunately, though Democrats have a majority right now and are trying through the proceedings in the Judiciary Committee to get those facts, this administration is stonewalling them, will not provide witnesses, will not provide documentation, will not provide the president`s taxes.  The only way we`re going to understand what happened to our democracy in 2016 and what might continue to happen unless we put a stop to it, is to get those facts, and impeachment is the last resort, and we`ve reached that point and we`ve now got to pursue it.

HAYES:  2020 presidential candidate, former El Paso Congressman, Beto O`Rourke, thank you so much for making time tonight.

O`ROURKE:  Thanks, Chris.  Appreciate it.

HAYES:  All right, a lot of news going on today.  We`re of course continuing to monitor what`s going on in Virginia Beach.  Meanwhile today, there was also a pretty remarkable development in federal court as it relates to Michael Flynn.  Today, when we went into the day, we expected to get two documents that would provide new insight into former national security adviser Michael Flynn`s communications with Russia and the Trump legal team`s attempt to keep him quiet.

Earlier this month, the federal judge who is presiding over that case ordered the DOJ to turn over the transcript of a voicemail or one of Trump`s attorneys appears to try to convince Flynn not to cooperate with prosecutors. 

Now, most of the transcript of that call actually appeared in the Mueller report, but it`s a stark reminder of the Trump team`s attempts to obstruct Robert Mueller`s investigation, quote, "if on the other hand," and this is John Dowd speaking to Flynn`s lawyer, "if on the other hand there`s information that implicates the president, then we`ve got a national security issue.  Then, you know, we need some kind of heads up.  Remember what we`ve always said about the president and his feelings towards Flynn, and that still remains."

Hmm, I wonder what that could mean?

And President Trump`s former personal attorney John Dowd did release a statement in response to that in Comic Sans font inexplicably saying in part, quote, "this is clearly a baseless, political document designed to smear and damage the reputation of counsel and innocent people."

Keep in mind, the document is a verbatim transcript of a voicemail that he left.

Now, we also expected to finally see the transcript of that phone call, at least one of the phone calls, that`s at the heart of the entire matter: the phone call between Michael Flynn, when he`s the incoming national security advisor during the transition, and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Flynn first got in trouble, you might remember, for lying to FBI agents about this very conversation.  He pleaded guilty to lying about it.  So everyone has always wanted to know what the heck did they talk about? 

But, and here`s where things got really strange today.  Despite the judge`s direct order, we do not have that transcript.  The government, the Department of Justice, is ignoring the judge, declining to release it, saying only the government further represents it is not relying on any of the recordings or any other person for purposes of establishing the defendant`s guilt or determining its sentence nor are there any other recordings that are part of the sentencing record.

Joining me now are Natasha Bertrand, national security correspondent at Politico and an MNSBC contributor, and Carol Lam, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, also served as a superior court judge in San Diego.

Carol, let me begin with you as someone who once served as a judge.  Is this as strange as it  appears, that the Department of Justice in this filing is just essentially telling the judge they`re not going to give him the thing that he told them to turn over?

CAROL LAM, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA:  Yeah, Chris, I hope that in the next few days we`re going to get a little more context around that because I was fairly flabbergasted when I read that response by the Justice Department.

When a federal judge says I want more information in order to sentence this individual, you give him the information.  And if there are national security concerns or something like that, you give options to the judge, can you examine it in your chambers?  Can we file it under seal, which is an option that the judge made available to them.  But you don`t say you don`t need to see it, we didn`t rely on it, because sentencing is something that falls specifically in the judiciary`s hands, not the prosecutor`s hands.  And the judge is saying I need this in order to make my sentencing decision.  And it`s not a crazy request to want to see the transcript of that call.

So my concern is that while there could be an innocent explanation for this, I am concerned that the instructions here may have come from higher levels at the Justice Department.  It could be the first step towards some kind of privilege claim, not for a president but for a president-elect, because Donald Trump was not president at the time that this -- he was the president-elect, but he was not the president at the time that this phone call took place.

HAYES:  That is a really interesting point  that this may be laying the groundwork to just essentially defy this and attempt to file in opposition to it.

Natasha, the judge overseeing this is unlikely to take this well.  Judge Emmet Sullivan, who has been quite angry at the government at multiple points, he is quick to anger, if he feels like they`re getting crosswise, and also has been rather harsh to Michael Flynn, said before he asked the prosecutors whether Michael Flynn could have been charged with treason.

I can`t imagine he`s going to receive this well.

NATASHA BERTRAND, POLITICO:  Yeah, Chris, he has very little patience for these kinds of shenanigans.  And so I imagine that prosecutors defying a court order are really going to set off the already short fuse that he has.  I mean, he, just with regard to Michael Flynn, during the trial -- during the sentencing hearing he told Michael Flynn you know you basically sold out your country. 

So the tensions are already pretty high here. 

But it would have been pretty remarkable, and I just want to underscore this point, to have a transcript of a phone call that the government recorded of Michael Flynn discussing Russia sanctions with a foreign national, because of the by now well known practice of national security officials to record, you know, foreign nationals that are even -- even if that means they are picking up domestic individuals, so that was always kind of a bizarre request by the judge.  And prosecutors -- and former federal prosecutors actually pointed that out saying, well, you know, this is actually maybe going a bit too far because the information is so sensitive and it involves all of these techniques that national security officials used to monitor foreigners.

But still it is a court order.  So I think we have to wait and see how he reacts to this.

HAYES:  Well, and, Carol, I mean, of course Mueller referred 14 other matters, 12 of which remain classified.  And I wonder -- I mean, to me the question here is who is now running this case?  Has it changed hands?  And does this represent a new posture in how the DOJ is going to supervise the rest of what Robert Mueller has spun out?

LAM:  Really hard to say how much control is coming from the top.  Obviously with these sensitive issues they are run up the flag pole and the flag at the top of the flag pole has changed.  So, yeah, there are -- look, they are sensitive issues, but they have given a reason for not turning over the transcript, and their reason is, judge, we just don`t think it`s relevant.

HAYES:  Right.

LAM:  So if there is another reason, you have to tell the judge what the reason is.

HAYES:  Yeah, we`ll see if we get supplementary information on that.  Natasha Bertrand and Carol Lam, thank you both.

Ahead, former president of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards, on the growing assault on women`s wealth.  And new update on Missouri`s last abortion clinic.  A state judge intervening today.  Cecile Richards joins me ahead.


HAYES:  Some extremely rare good news for reproductive rights today, a Missouri state judge issued a temporary restraining order to stop the state from closing the last abortion clinic in Missouri.  State regulators had declined to renew the clinic`s license to perform abortions as part of an attempt to use burdensome regulations to squeeze our abortion providers. The  judge`s order today means the clinic can keep offering abortion services at least until the next court hearing on June 4.

Here with me now to put this in context, Cecile Richards, former president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, co-founder of Super Majority, a women`s political action group.  It is great to have you here.


HAYES:  So, there has been a lot of dark clouds, and a lot of bad news, today was some good news.  Your reaction to it.

RICHARD:  Well, I mean, this is very brief good news, as you said.  I mean, there is a hearing it next week, and actually what`s happened in Missouri, the context here is, the state has passed so many outrageous regulations on women and doctors that there is only one health center remaining, a Planned Parenthood health center in St. Louis, that actually provides safe and legal abortion.

And now, because they haven`t been able to do this legislatively, they`re essentially using state  regulations to try to shut this health center down.  It is outrageous.  It`s cruel.  I`m very hopeful that we`ll get good next next w eek, but this is terrifying for the more than one million women of reproductive age that live in the state of Missouri.

HAYES:  You know, we`ve seen -- we saw for a long period of time from sort of anti-abortion forces turning away from frontal challenges to Roe and going to these like trap laws, right.  So, increasing regulatory burdens so as to shut down providers and make it more difficult.

Then we saw this shift post-Kavanaugh, particularly in the last year, of just let`s go right at Roe.  But the Missouri news is a reminder that both are in effect.

RICHARDS:  That`s right.

HAYES:  I mean, basically those forces are using parallel strategies right now.

RICHARDS:  No, exactly right.  Because not only did the -- not only are they trying to shut the only provider of safe and legal abortion in the entire state, but they have also passed one of the most extreme laws.  So, you know, you look at Georgia, Alabama, now Louisiana.  This is all part and parcel of an effort now to take advantage of this administration, which has said they basically want to appoint judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade. 

Obviously this president has had two -- two appointments -- two appointees confirmed to the Supreme Court and it is an all-out assault. 

This is not a drill.  This is no longer an intellectual question.  Roe is absolutely at risk and so is the health care and the well-being of millions of women in this country.

HAYES:  What do you do about it?

RICHARDS:  You vote.  I mean, I think what you are seeing, too, and we saw it in 2018, an overwhelming number of women turn out to vote, 54 percent of the electorate, electing record numbers of women, women of color to congress and all across the country.  I think women, and not only women -- obviously we`re seeing corporations as well that are concerned about this.  I think we are seeing women so fired up.  We saw more than -- obviously huge demonstrations in Missouri.  We saw more than 500 demonstrations last week. 

Women realize that this is a real threat.   And it`s coming at a time, Chris, where support for Roe vs. Wade is higher than it`s ever been, more than 73 percent of people in this country.

HAYES:  I guess here is my question, right, because it does seem ultimately this will be decided in the courts, particularly these sort of facial challenges, right?

RICHARDS:  Right.  I mean, there -- again, there is a very aggressive litigation strategy by Planned Parenthood, by the ACLU, by the Center for Reproductive Rights, but there also has to be a political strategy.  This has to be a moment which we say in this country, we are not going to go back on a right that people have had for more than 40 years.  And I think it is important that these public demonstrations are happening, because the courts were watching that as well.

HAYES:  That was s really my question to you, because I think there is -- and the courts have talked about this, right, when they talk about reliance on precedent, right?  I mean, there is a degree to which political activation, political mobilization, expressions of political dissent in response to this, is part of what the record if not formally that the court is going to be looking at if they are going to decide to do something as radical as overturning Roe.

RICHARDS:  Absolutely, no, absolutely.  I think the demonstrations are important.  And I think -- look, the thing, too, we`re going to remember, which I know you know, is that abortion existed before Roe vs. Wade, right.  It`s just that women died routinely in emergency rooms, healthy women, because of illegal abortions.

What Roe did was make abortions safe and legal.  And so I think the judges, anyone, has to be looking at that, that what this will do is not end abortion, it will simply mean that women will die again in this country, and we cannot go back there.

The American people don`t want to go back there, that`s why you`re seeing this outpouring of activism.

HAYES:   Cecile Richards, thank you so much for making some time.

RICHARDS:  Absolutely, good to see you, Chris.

HAYES:  That does it for us and for ALL IN for this evening.  "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. 

Good evening,  Rachel.