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

Transcript: All In with Chris Hayes, 8/25/22

Guests: Adam Schiff, Tim Ryan, Nancy Northup


A Florida judge has ordered a redacted version of the search warrant affidavit outlining the Department of Justice`s case against Donald Trump to be unsealed. The polling average shows Democrat Tim Ryan neck and neck with Republican J.D. Vance, at times even ahead in Ohio`s Senate Race. Extreme drought unearthed artifacts across the globe. Arizona GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters scrubs an anti-abortion page from his website.


SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): -- billionaires out to control the country for their own benefit so they can pollute it well, so they don`t have to pay any taxes, and so they can operate without regulation.

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: This is the nightmare future, ladies and gentlemen, that these people have been trying to build for generations. This goes all the way back. Read your, you know, stories about the 1930s. This goes all the way back. Sheldon Whitehouse always bringing us out. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, I always appreciate you.

And that is tonight`s REIDOUT. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts now.


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voiceover): Tonight on ALL IN, a redacted version of the Mar-a-Lago affidavit will be released as the twice impeached ex- President twists.

JAKE TAPPER, ANCHOR, CNN: Sources say, Donald Trump himself is even posing questions about it to his inner circle about whether or not he`s going to get indicted.

HAYES: Tonight, Barbara McQuade on what we know about what may be unsealed and Congressman Adam Schiff on the irony of how we got here.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This was not just extreme carelessness with classified material. This is calculated, deliberate, premeditated misconduct followed by a cover-up.

HAYES: Then, new evidence an anti-Republican backlash is reshaping yet another Senate race. I`ll ask Democratic candidate Tim Ryan what`s happening in Ohio.

And the global catastrophe in stark relief as historic drought uncovers sunken Nazi worships and Serbia and million-year-old dinosaur tracks in Texas when ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. A Florida judge has ordered a redacted version of the search warrant affidavit outlining the Department of Justice`s case against Donald Trump to be unsealed. We could be getting that any moment. Now, the keyword there is redacted. We don`t know how much the document actually will be revealed. The DOJ is clearly reluctant it would -- to release any of it warning it could jeopardize their investigation, which is currently ongoing into the ex-president.

They are not however objecting to the release the redacted document. We should see it at any time before tomorrow`s 12 p.m. deadline. This could be the closest look we have yet --- have yet at what exactly Donald Trump is accused of doing. As we`ve learned covering Trump for the better part of a decade, he tends to lash out when he thinks he`s in trouble. And even for a man used to being in basically constant trouble, then wriggling out somehow over and over and over again, he`s it a lot of trouble right now, a lot.

According to one report, he is asking his inner circle if he -- if they think he will be indicted. Something he basically confirmed earlier today on an extended rant posted on his knockoff Twitter platform. "Even though I am as innocent as a person can be, it looks more and more like the fake news media is pushing hard for the sleazes to do something that should not be done." I`m pretty sure the sleazes being DOJ and the something that should not be done meaning indicting Trump.

It`s easy to see why he`s nervous. His old lawyers seem to have thrown him under the bus after he tried to stonewalled the initial investigation into the documents he clearly took. His current lawyers are, to put it kindly, leaving the good bit to be desired. One of them signed the document asserting that all classified documents have been returned back in June, which was well, proven quickly untrue. Two others -- excuse me. Two others have now twice bungled basic legal filings in Trump`s defense.

So, as Donald Trump sits in his vacation home seething about the investigation into those classified documents, one phrase must be playing over and over in his head.


CROWD: Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!


HAYES: There is, of course, a profound irony in Donald Trump`s current legal predicament which is, of course that the intentional mishandling of classified documents which Trump now stands accused of doing is exactly what he said Hillary Clinton should be locked up for back in 2016. It was one of the core messages of his campaign, arguably the core message.

According to Trump, Hillary Clinton could not be trusted because she maliciously and intentionally took extra-legal steps just to steal highly classified documents on her private email server, which put our national security at risk. And to be clear, that was then and he is now total nonsense. A State Department investigation under President Trump found that Clinton did not intentionally mishandle classified documents. Any transmission of classified information on Clinton`s email was rare and accidental. Some emails were even classified retroactively after they were sent. And no prosecutor in the right mind would have brought a case against her for.

But that didn`t matter. That didn`t stop Donald Trump from attacking her for it constantly. And I`ve got to say, considering what we know now, what we`ve learned in the last few weeks about Donald Trump`s willful, almost obsessive mishandling of some of our nation`s most sensitive secrets, a lot of his attacks on Hillary have not aged well.



TRUMP: We can`t have someone in the Oval Office who doesn`t understand the meaning of the word confidential or classified.

This was not just extreme carelessness with classified material, which is still totally disqualifying. This is calculated, deliberate, premeditated misconduct, followed by a cover-up.

In my administration, I`m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.


HAYES: I think everyone has like a fair amount of PTSD from the 2016 campaign and have blocked some of that out but it can be difficult to remember in hindsight just how pervasive the attacks were, I mean, ubiquitous. First, from right-wing media and then seeping into way more mainstream outlets. It was at the center of the campaign. Conservative media made a cause celeb out of a Navy reservists named Bryan Nishimura.

Nishimura pleaded guilty to mishandling classified information and was sentenced to two years probation, a hefty fine back in 2015. The argument, so this talking point went, was that Nishimura got the treatment that Hillary Clinton deserved, even though it was again, a total false equivalence. Unlike Clinton, Nishimura acted willfully and intentionally when he illegally downloaded classified documents from his base in Afghanistan and brought them back home.

So, again, despite being a manufacturer scandal, document retention habits became the issue of the 2016 campaign, the axis on which the world ended up turning. So much so that when Gallup created this word cloud are phrases that people spontaneously associate with the former Secretary of State, emails took up nearly the entire image, meaning, it was by far the most frequent response. Likely both because the private server controversy and the hacking of DNC emails by the Russians, two scandals often completed in the public consciousness.

I think there`s a pretty compelling argument that all this email nonsense cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. It was an effective attack fed into a lot of pre-existing attacks on Clinton the right had deployed and built up for decades. And clearly, the 11th-hour announcement from them FBI Director James Comey that he was reopening the investigation into the emails just weeks before the election was, by all accounts, a major factor in her very, very narrow loss in the electoral college.

So, then Trump became president and while there was no justification to lock Clinton up, guess what? He did sign the law cracking down on the mishandling of classified information. Fun fact, Trump was actually reluctant to sign this bill to reauthorize FISA surveillance. And so, perhaps to sweeten the pot, congressional Republicans added a provision into the bill to get him to sign it that made mishandling classified documents a felony, increase the penalty from one year in prison to five. It might as well been called the Hillary`s emails act.

Trump was serious about cracking down on leakers of classified information like for instance, whistleblower reality winner, who under Trump`s DOJ was given the most severe sentence ever in the history of this country for leaking government materials in the media. 63 months in prison for leaking a single classified document on Russian election interference on behalf of Trump`s campaign.

As David Laufman, Trump`s DOJ counterintelligence chief put it, "A great irony in Trump`s attack on the FBI and DOJ over the court authorized search at Mar-a-Lago is that during my tenure as chief of counterintelligence section, we were never under greater pressure to prosecute mishandling of classified information cases than we were under the Trump administration."

Irony is right, right? If Donald Trump should be charged with intentionally mishandling these documents, a big if, granted, but if he is convicted, which again, and even bigger if, he could be sentenced under the law that he signed to score political points against an opponent who he falsely accused of doing the thing he actually did.

The ancient Greeks truly could not script it better. The thing that seems most likely at this moment as he faces legal peril in every direction he turns, the thing most likely to take down Donald Trump isn`t the multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, or the egregiously botched pandemic response with hundreds of thousands who needlessly died, or the deadly coup he launched at the Capitol on January 6, it`s the real-life version of but her emails.

Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff of California is a member of the January 6 Committee and a chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He`s also the author of the book "Midnight In Washington: How We Almost Lost Our Democracy And Still Could.

Well, Congressman, you were there watching all this unfold in 2016. You`ve been a U.S. prosecutor and also you`ve been very close to classified information in your roles on the Intelligence Committee. Does the irony ever poke out at you as you`re watching this unfold?


REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Oh, absolutely. And of course, we`ve seen this kind of irony and hypocrisy time after time after time during the Trump administration, but it is particularly glaring here. And you showed, part of the reason why, you know, these attacks on Hillary Clinton in the clip of Donald Trump saying this was calculated, and deliberate, and premeditated misconduct, all which applies to him. None of which applied to her.

But nonetheless, here he is engaging in exactly the kind of misconduct he was accusing others of, engaging in exactly the kind of misconduct he`s saying is disqualifying. In Trump`s case, it should be disqualifying. But yes, there`s a healthy dose of both irony and hypocrisy here.

HAYES: I don`t know -- well, I`ll just ask him this question. Do you know what these documents are?

SCHIFF: I don`t, you know, my initial suspicion was -- because I was trying to find a rational explanation for what he was doing. At the end of the Trump administration, he and others that he had appointed were trying to declassify material, in fact, did declassified material so that he or Pence could use it in a presidential debate. This was Russia investigation- related things that he thought would be useful, which turned out not to be that helpful to him.

But nonetheless, I thought, well, maybe he`s taking a bunch of Russian materials home that he believes will help them somehow in the future. But at least according to reporting, it`s about a broad variety of subjects. And the fact that this had markings like Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information, or that applying to special programs is really terrifying from an Intel perspective because it really does mean that if the documents were improperly disclosed to others -- it`s not only information in the documents, but more importantly, the source may dry up for good. If it`s a human source, they may be gone. And if it`s a technical source, that may no longer be productive.

HAYES: Yes, when you -- you`re in a good position to explain this because I do find the concentric circles of classification a little confusing, and there`s almost to the level -- I`ve read about this from folks, right? There`s like some parts of the classification system that you don`t even -- aren`t even publicly acknowledged, that you just learned about them when you get deep enough into the secrecy labyrinth.

But to explain to people what this means, you know, Special Access Programs or, you know, TCI, like why that -- what goes through your head when you read that in the newspaper?

SCHIFF: Well, what goes through my head is that there are two very sensitive subjects that could be revealed with the documents. One is a source of information. That is you have a human source. You know, let`s say that there was somebody close to Kim Jong-un that was a source of information. And if you looked at documents, you could tell, OK, that only came -- could have only come from someone in this room, and that means we can identify the source.

Obviously, that`s a big problem. Or a technical source of collection, or a program that is completely classified that is non-public, that the public is not aware of, but if the program was available, it could cause extremely grave damage to our national security. So, these are examples here. On the North Korea case, completely hypothetical on my part, but that`s the concern.

HAYES: There was the ruling today from the magistrate judge, Federal Judge Reinhart today saying this about these -- the affidavit and the redaction. So, he had told the DOJ which said we don`t want to release this at all. He said, see if you can redact it in a way that protects your interests here of the ongoing investigation. Give it to me. He reads it over.

He says, "I further find the government has met its burden of showing its proposed redactions, are narrowly tailored to serve the government`s legitimate interest in the integrity the ongoing investigation, and are the least onerous alternative to sealing the entire affidavit." It seems like we`re going to get this right now.

What do you think about the idea that part of this affidavit is going to be made public given your role in the Intelligence Committee and your former life as a federal prosecutor?

SCHIFF: Well, it concerns me that the affidavit -- if the affidavit on the whole word disclosed, that would concern me a great deal. Both if it described in any way the nature of the materials, but also because it would certainly injure the Justice Department`s investigation their ability to do justice by giving a roadmap to the former president and his allies. It would certainly endanger people who are mentioned within law enforcement or sources. So, it concerns me.


I do think you know just having the hindsight of the last few years that the idea that submitting to the public a redacted affidavit is somehow going to satisfy the public curiosity or appease the Trump critics, we`re going to find out very quickly how that does not add up, because immediately people are going to turn to the redactions. The Trump voters say that the redactions are concealing exonerating material or something along that nature, so you can easily predict what`s going to happen.

But look, I`m sure the judge is operating in good faith and tried to do the best and drawn the line between disclosure on the one hand, which is laudable, and protecting the sources and the investigation, on the other hand.

HAYES: You know, a few months ago, as you`re speaking, the public emits the series of public hearings that the January 6 Committee had, as you talked about the Department of Justice, and you talked about the evidence that the committee had both uncovered and disclosed publicly. I think it`s fair to say you seem to almost exasperated by the apparent lack of movement of the Department of Justice on what clearly seemed to be at least significant factual predicate for an investigation.

Things look very different 60 days later. So, I wanted to check in with what you think about the developments since earlier this summer in that regard from -- coming from DOJ.

SCHIFF: Well, you know, on the one hand, you know, it`s encouraging that the Justice Department is willing to follow the evidence where it leads, even when it leads to Mar-a-Lago. I think that`s very positive. And, you know, it certainly appears they were very patient with the former president. They tried asking for the materials that should have never been there to begin with. They tried demanding them, they tried a subpoena, and only when it was clear or there was probable cause to believe they were being obstructed, misled, or that there was evidence of a crime did they feel was necessary to go to a search.

I still am concerned that as to even more serious allegations of misconduct around January 6, the attempt to overturn the election, that the department has still been moving very, very slowly. And as to certain, lines of effort to overturn the election, I don`t see much effort yet at all by the department where you see, for example, in Georgia, very aggressive action by the Fulton County District Attorney.

Now, that may be going on and just very well concealed from the public, but I am encouraged that the department has not shined -- shied away vis-a-vis the documents. I hope it is equally aggressive when it comes to the events around the effort to overturn our election and our democracy.

HAYES: All right, Congressman Adam Schiff, thank you for your time tonight.

SCHIFF: Thank you.

HAYES: Coming up, the redacted affidavit as we just mentioned, that led to the FBI search of Donald Trump`s retirement home could be revealed at any moment. Former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade tells me what we might learn next.



HAYES: Today, a magistrate judge in Florida decided to release the affidavit underlying the Mar-a-Lago search warrant writing in an order "On or before noon Eastern time on Friday, the government shall file in the public docket a version of the affidavit containing the redactions proposed." The judge apparently agreeing with the redactions submitted just today by the Department of Justice to protect what the department has called in a filing its, "ongoing criminal investigation."

So, what does that mean about what we`re going to see? For more on that, I want to bring in Barbara McQuade, former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, now a professor at the University of Michigan School of Law. Barbara, it`s great to have you.

First, I`m going to start with a very basic question which I realized we`ve been using this term and I don`t know if people really understand what it is, which is what is a magistrate judge? Why is -- why do we call this judge a magistrate judge? And what`s their job? What`s their role?

BARBARA MCQUADE, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, magistrate judges were created in the 1970s. And the idea was that district court judges, the trial level judges were just too busy, and there were backlogs. And so they created this subset of judges. They`re appointed by the judges themselves, the district court judges. They`re not appointed by the President. And they handle a lot of matters that are more ministerial in nature.

So, approving search warrants, for example. It`s time-consuming. You have to set everything aside and sit down and read, you know, pages and pages of an affidavit and then decide whether there`s probable cause. They hold detention hearings, they conduct arraignments, sometimes they handle misdemeanor cases with plea hearings or trials. So, they handle a number of cases and matters that get delegated to them by the district court judges.

HAYES: Very useful explanation. So in this case, this is the judge that right -- that did approve the warrant who has shown probable cause and approve the warrant that allowed federal law enforcement to search Mar-a- Lago, right?

MCQUADE: Yes, and that makes a lot of sense. He`s the one who read it and issued it. He likely has done dozens and dozens of these throughout his career. And any matter relating to this should properly be joined and done by him.

HAYES: So, what are these affidavits usually like when you`re showing probable cause for a judge? What`s the length? How much detail is in them? I mean, I imagine it varies a tremendous amount, but to the best you can imagine, what we`re looking at here?


MCQUADE: It does vary depending on the case, but I`m sure it`s at least 10 pages. I`ve seen them go 50 or 60 pages as you lay out.


MCQUADE: If the crime is more complex, it may require a lengthier description of the probable cause. It usually is the affidavit of an agent, of federal law enforcement agent who will say, based on my investigation, here`s the evidence we have gathered to date. And we believe there`s probable cause. They`ll articulate what the crimes are. Here, there were three, and what the elements of each of those crimes are, and then list out all the facts that makes that agent believe that probable cause has been met. A prosecutor will review it, make sure they think it`s in order, and then they take it to the magistrate judge.

And so, it usually details a lot about the investigation, what witnesses have said to them, what other methods of investigation they have undertaken. And so I think that`s the reason there`s so much concern about this been disclosed at this stage of the game while the investigation is still ongoing.

HAYES: Yes, obviously, this is the least routine criminal case arguably in American history, right, as it involves the former president of the United States. Have you -- have you ever had a case where the affidavit attached to a probable cause warrant application was made public in the middle of the investigation?

MCQUADE: No, absolutely not, 100 percent. This is really unheard of. And I think the -- it only came out the way it did. I think if the government had had its druthers, none of this would have been public. It was Trump himself, of course, who said the FBI has raided my home. And so, I think Merrick Garland felt the necessity to unseal the warrant itself. And then, of course, it`s come all of this clamor about the affidavit.

But it`s a really tricky spot for them to be in because I think they have to think about not only protecting sources and methods and investigative leads in this case, they also want to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system. They don`t want this to become a thing where people routinely ask for the unsealing of a search warrant affidavit before any charges are either filed or declined.

HAYES: Yes, that -- I hadn`t thought of that, but of course, that is something or a precedent here. It does seem you know that right now, the Department of Justice is no longer objecting, right, after they made the redactions. And presumably, again, this is speculation, but informed speculation, right, given the tenor of these hearings, we`re not going to get a document that`s like, you know, completely -- like five, 10 pages of just blacked out, because I think that would be a little ridiculous, right, like at this point.


HAYES: So, it seems like if you were taking a pen to this, right, things like what an informant might have said, but that there is an informant, but obviously not who it is kind of thing, like, that would be I guess the way that you would approach this?

MCQUADE: I think so. If you look at the judge`s order, what he said is the reason he was satisfied with the government`s redactions is that they had done it in a narrowly tailored way and only removed things like the directions of the investigation, sources, and grand jury material. And so, outside of all of that, it may be that we see the rest of it.

But I can imagine that they`ve got people who are witnesses, for example, might say confidential human source, provided information that he went to work on Wednesday, June 1st. And on that day, he saw boxes and boxes in the Mar-a-Lago basement where he works. It wouldn`t be hard for them to figure out, you know, who works on June 1 and was in the Mar-a-Lago basement. And so, they may have to remove even some of that kind of information that could reveal that person`s identity.

HAYES: That`s a great point. I mean, ultimately, I think, in terms of -- I mean, you know, media outlets are in court trying to get this. We want information as journalists and I support that 100 percent. It seems to me that this also could be one of those situations -- obviously, the Trump people want it because they want to -- they want some stuff to work with, right, for whatever conspiracy theorizing they`re going to do.

But it also sounds to me like it might be not great for them. Right, because like, it`s going to be the showing of the probable cause, which is like, yes, we really have a good reason to think the guy is willfully holding and lying to us.

MCQUADE: Oh, yes. I think that there is part of Merrick Garland who attempted to say, oh, I will show you the whole thing. You want us -- you want to see the affidavit? I will show you the affidavit. But of course, they do want to protect the investigation. But my guess is there`s a lot of the same kind of narrative we saw in that letter from the National Archives earlier this week, laying out the detail, the history of it. You know, we asked you for these documents even before you left. It`s been back and forth throughout 2021. In January, we took 15 boxes. In June, we sent a subpoena and yet still we hear that there are more boxes at Mar-a-Lago. So, I think we`re going to hear some of that, just the narrative of the history of this dispute.

HAYES: That`s a -- that seems like the thing that we should be looking for. I`m anxious to see it when it happens. Barbara McQuade thanks for your time tonight.

MCQUADE: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Still ahead, forecasters say the political winds are blowing in Tim Ryan`s favor as he tries to capture a Senate seat that`s been in Republican hands for nearly 25 years. The Ohio Democrat joins me next.



HAYES: Coming into this year, I think it`s safe to say that the race to replace retiring Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio was not considered to be particularly competitive. The ground appears to be shifting. Right now, the polling average shows Democrat Tim Ryan neck and neck with Republican J.D. Vance, at times even ahead.

Larry Sabato`s crystal ball, one of the top political forecasting outfits that monitors every race in the country just moved its Midterm rating for Ohio Senate race from likely Republican to just lean Republican. With just 25 -- 75 days until the November election, there`s still a lot that can happen in this race.

Joining me now is a Democrat running to be the next senator from Ohio, Congressman Tim Ryan. Congressman, it`s good to have you.


REP. TIM RYAN (D-OH): Thanks for having me.

HAYES: So, here`s the case against you that your opponent J.D. Vance uses. Basically, Tim Ryan and the Democratic Party are captured by the coastal globalist elites who looked down on everyday Americans and want to let, I don`t know, open border immigrants forcibly vaccinate your children. What is your -- what is your response to this? Basically I mean, that`s not that far from the line, but the general idea like here -- like, the Republicans Party are real Americans, real Ohioans, real working people. Democrats are out-of-touch coastal elitist, and you Tim Ryan are one of them. What do you say to that?

RYAN: Well, I`ve got a long record of fighting for Ohioans. And as you know, Chris, whether it`s issues of trade where I`ve taken on Democrats or taken on Democratic leadership, or even on a couple of occasions, agreed with Trump on renegotiating NAFTA or taking on China, I`ve always been grounded in Ohio, period, end of story.

And growing up around Youngstown, Ohio, you know, I`m obligated to fight for those people who have been left behind. That`s in stark contrast to J.D. Vance, you know, who`s been funded by a billionaire from Silicon Valley. He basically has two donors. He has Peter Thiel who gave him $15 million and Mitch McConnell who`s now giving him $30 million.

We have 250,000 different donors, average donation is under $100. So, if you just knew that, you`d say who`s for the average working person and who`s for the billionaires, and it`s quite clear, and I got a long record. And that frustrates J.D. Vance and the Republicans because my record has always been about fighting like hell for Ohio and workers on the deal.

HAYES: Yes, you talked about NAFTA and offshoring. And I know that this is an issue I`ve covered for years, I wrote a profile of Sherrod Brown back in 2006. He was -- he was a voice like yours early fighting against the democratic at that time consensus on NAFTA, on offshoring. There has been an unbelievable revolution, I have to say, in the thinking of that in Washington, Democratic politics.

I mean, the jobs reassured per year since 2010 we`re seeing this year is going to set a record for that. You`ve got a new Intel plant that`s going to be opening up, a $20 billion Ohio plant is happening. Like, do people in Ohio see this, feel this that there`s a quarter being turned on this really important issue?

RYAN: Yes, we`re really starting to feel it. And I remember when I first got to Congress. It was me and Sherrod Brown, and at that point, Congressman Ted Strickland who became governor Ted Strickland and others. You know, we were kind of like looked at as like, you know, the world had passed us by. And we kept saying, no, we have to bring these jobs back. We have to rebuild the middle class. We have to invest into these communities.

And when you look at the infrastructure bill that we`ve done, that`s going to allow broadband and clean water and good infrastructure in places like Ohio, and the Chips Act, which is going to take that Intel investment from $20 billion to $100 billion just north of Columbus, Ohio. The average wage there, Chris, $135,000 a year in that plant.

Those are the kinds of middle-class jobs we`ve been fighting for, whether you`re white, or black, or brown, or gay, or straight. If you`re out there busting your rear end, that`s the kind of job we want you to have. We`re building electric trucks, electric cars, and electric tractors and batteries in Youngstown, Ohio, again, solar panels in Toledo. So, really, I want Ohio to be the arsenal of energy.

And again, there`s a really stark contrast to J.D. Vance here because he has said that if you`re a 55-year-old factory worker, you might as well just come to grips with the fact that you`re never going to have a good job again. And I say, screw you. Like, we`re not giving up on the industrial Midwest. We`re not giving up on Ohio. I mean, that`s (INAUDIBLE) California, then you know, keep that stuff there. We want to rebuild this state. We want to rebuild the country and rebuild the great American middle class.

HAYES: Ohio is a state that was one of the first states -- I think, maybe the first state in the Union in which abortion became illegal and unlawful and criminalized almost immediately after the Dobbs decision in June. Of course, that awful story about a 10-year-old girl who was forced to flee the state to secure an abortion in neighboring Indiana.

Are you a supporter of national legislation to secure something like Roe v. Wade and secure abortion rights should you be elected to the Senate?


RYAN: Oh of course. And I voted for it. I voted for the Women`s Health Protection Act, and would vote for it in the Senate, would get rid of the filibuster if need be to make sure we pass that and codify that, and will absolutely -- I think this is the largest governmental overreach in the history of our lifetime. If we`re a country built on freedom and individual liberty, personal liberty, this is a complete violation. This is the most un-American thing that I`ve seen in my lifetime.

And again, J.D. Vance says that there should be no exceptions. He thinks that a 10-year-old girl who has been raped should have to go to another state. He thinks she should actually have the rapist baby called rape inconvenient. And so, Chris, on all of these issues, this is the main crux of what`s going on in Ohio. There is a very stark contrast to J.D. Vance, the extremists, and Tim Ryan who`s fighting for the exhausted majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents on how we have to come together as Americans to take on those extremists.

And I ask everybody at home if they want to help out, go to and chip in. Like I said, we got 250,000 donors. We`re building a low- dollar funding machine here that`s going to put the billionaires and Mitch McConnell, we`re going to put them to bed and we`re going to get this country back to where it needs to be.

HAYES: All right, Congressman Tim Ryan, thank you so much for joining us this evening.

RYAN: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Still to come, dead bodies, dinosaur tracks and sunken Nazi ships. Droughts across the world revealing secrets that had been hidden for hundreds of years next.



HAYES: So, it`s been a decade I`ve been doing this show, and if it`s summer it means that I come to tell you that this summer, every year, is one of the hottest ever and this year is no exception. This year, it`s causing record-breaking drought across the world. In Lake Mead, Nevada, the reservoir is so low that authorities keep finding human remains. At least four bodies have been uncovered by the receding water including one person found in a barrel who police think died of a gunshot wound in the 1970s or 80s.

Drought-related discoveries aren`t just happening near Las Vegas. As MSNBC Foreign Correspondent Matt Bradley reports, there are lots of long-lost artifacts showing up across the world.


MATT BRADLEY, MSNBC FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: In Texas, a dinosaur left these 113 million-year-old tracks. Other waterways exposed the scars of history`s worst trials, like this bomb from World War II destroyed by the Italian Army. And in Serbia, a graveyard for sunken Nazi warships emerged from the Danube. But other rivers convey urgent warnings about what`s to come.

In German traditions, these hunger stones marked the water levels that preceded famines. The oldest one from 1616 reads If you see me, weep.


HAYES: If you see me, weep. In China, the country is suffering from the worst drought in its measured history right now. The Washington Post reporting, "The unprecedented heatwave that has engulfed China`s summer has dried up rivers, wilted crops, and sparked forest fires. It has grounded ships, caused hydropower shortages, and forced major cities to dim lights. China, of course, depending a lot on big dams.

This is Poyang Lake, the largest freshwater lake in China. Right now, the lake has shrunk to just a quarter of its usual size. Usually, some are flooding covers the foundation of the pagoda on this island. Now, it is fully on dry land. Just look at this bridge stretching across the sand instead of water.

We`ve said it before, we say it every year over and over and over and again, but the effects of climate change are not somewhere down the road. They are not in their future. They are not a matter of our children and grandchildren. They are happening right now before our eyes on your screen there. And we need to take action right now to stop it getting worse.

There are some encouraging signs just in the last few weeks on that score that we`re moving in the right direction. One of them the new massive climate legislation Democrats giving real teeth the Environmental Protection Agency defining carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels as an air pollutant. This gives the EPA or should be the EPA authority to regulate these gases that are some of the largest threats to the earth.

Then today, California issued a new rule banning, outright banning the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles starting in 2035. Now, that might seem far away, but here`s the thing, automakers got a plan for the long term. It will truly revolutionize the car industry and accelerate the move to fully electric vehicles and not a moment too soon.



HAYES: Back in July 2021, Republican Blake Masters announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in Arizona. He repeatedly billed himself as unapologetically pro-life. He pushed for a so-called personhood law, a federal law, which would give the same legal rights as adult humans to fertilize eggs.

But after he won the Republican primary earlier this month, and after poll after poll showed that most Americans disapprove of the right-wing Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, Masters has suddenly well, quietly changed his tune on abortion rights, scrubbing his website policy page of tough abortion restrictions and getting rid of his claim to be 100 percent pro- life.

The reason he`s trying to pivot right now seems pretty clear. The vast majority of voters support abortion rights. And Blake Masters wants them to elect him to the United States Senate by, well, lying about how he really feels.

Joining me now, Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. Nancy, you`ve been in this fight for decades. What do you make of what we have seen from Republicans campaigning, governors, senators, all the sudden dug that caught the car, they don`t want to talk about this thing that they have tried to achieve for a generation?


NANCY NORTHUP, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: Well, you showed the polling, which is clear that the vast majority of Americans do not support but the Supreme Court did in taking away a fundamental right. This is not what people in the United States want. We saw that with Kansas, but it was put to the voters themselves. Do you want your rights under the Kansas constitution taken away? They said, heck, no by a huge majority.

So, the reality is because the Supreme Court took this extreme, extreme decision to overturn 50 years of constitutional law, the American public doesn`t want it, and you`re seeing the consequences of that of it not being embraced.

HAYES: One of the things -- I just want to zoom in on here, because I think it speaks to the before and after of the politics of this. The extremism sort of knew -- knows no bounds, right? The idea that not -- it`s not just enough to overturn Roe v. Wade, that we need a federal personhood law. This is on Blake Masters` website. Ideally, a constitutional amendment that recognizes unborn babies are human beings that may not be killed. That would confer full rights 14th amendment rights on fertilized eggs. That`s now gone. But that doesn`t mean that there aren`t people in this country working to try to make that happen still.

NORTHUP: There absolutely is a movement working to try to make personhood the standard of law in the United States which would outlaw abortion across the country, which would threaten things like in vitro fertilization, and which would continue the crisis that we already have. I mean, today was not a good day, but we saw more states have their trigger laws go into effect, extremism. Texas` trigger law, which went to effect today, it has a consequence for abortion providers of five to 99 years in prison.

I mean, this is what`s happening right now. It is extreme. And it is just frightening that we have the country right now, one in three women in the United States have lost the ability to access abortion in their home states. This is just 60 days after the Supreme Court`s decision.

HAYES: Texans who perform abortions will now face up to life in prison, $100,000 fine as of -- as of today. That`s just one of the laws that have been triggered and or passed in the country right now. What do you see as the means of opposing this kind of thing in those states like Texas or Ohio that have either had trigger laws or have passed new legislation with these just absolutely draconian criminal penalties and limitations on women`s bodily autonomy?

NORTHUP: Well, as you know, we have been filing court challenges to different outcomes, good outcome today in North Dakota, but we were able to get a preliminary injunction against the trigger ban, the abortion ban, that would have gone into effect today in North Dakota. The United States government has been challenging states who are not implementing Idaho good ruling yesterday on behalf of the Department of Justice lawsuit saying that you have to be able to give emergency medical care and you can`t have your abortion law preempt that.

But in states like Texas, it`s really tough. The challenges in court have not been able to prevail. And so, we now have in Texas the trigger law in effect. This is the up to 99 years in prison. The pre-Roe 1925 abortion ban in effect, still the vigilante SB.8 law in effect. And people in those states need to make sure their elected officials know how they feel about it.

Regardless of what their elected officials positions are, they need to let them know they don`t support these extreme laws and what they`re doing to reproductive health care. I mean, the fact that women in emergency medical situations cannot get hospital treatment in the state of Texas is absolutely an outrage.

HAYES: Yes, we should know that that that the federal -- the federal government under Joe Biden issued an executive order about emergency medical care, which basically required certain standards of care regardless of state abortion laws. That was challenged by Texas. A district judge in Texas upholding the challenge so that the Texas law remains in place, an opposite finding by a federal judge in Idaho which has blocked part of their laws. That is going to continue to work its way up the appellate ladder, I imagine, before the Supreme Court rather quickly.

We will continue to report and monitor that. Nancy Northup, thank you very much.

NORTHUP: Thank you.

HAYES: That is ALL IN on this Thursday night. "ALEX WAGNER TONIGHT" starts right now. Good evening, Alex.