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

Transcript: All In with Chris Hayes, 11/12/21

Guests: Luke Broadwater, Joe Neguse, Lisa Lerer, Jonathan Chait, David Plouffe


Stephen K. Bannon indicted by a federal grand jury. Then the jaw- dropping new evidence of Donald Trump`s complete disregard for the life of his own vice president. Law enforcement source tells NBC News Bannon is expected to surrender himself on Monday and appear in court that afternoon. Fox News was caught red-handed committing one of the just greatest of all journalistic sins here in this T.V. news business, deceptively editing a soundbite to make a politician say something they did not say.


TIFFANY CROSS, MSNBC HOST: The families that suffered and one mother`s journey to activism after watching her own daughter fight cancer twice. In the dark of the Valley air Sunday at 10:00 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC.

All right. And that`s tonight`s "REIDOUT." Joy is back here on Monday and ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES starts right now.



STEVE BANNON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST AND SENIOR COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. All I can say is strap in.

HAYES: Stephen K. Bannon indicted by a federal grand jury.

REP. LIZ CHENEY (D-WY): There is no doubt that Mr. Bannon knows far more.

HAYES: Tonight, what we know about Bannon surrender, what we know about the charges he faces and what this means for the investigation. And the other witnesses attempting to stonewall the committee.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): You cannot blow off a subpoena in America.

HAYES: Then the jaw-dropping new evidence of Donald Trump`s complete disregard for the life of his own vice president.

JONATHAN KARL, AMERICAN JOURNALIST: You heard those chants. That was terrible. I mean, it was, you know, the --

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He could have -- other people very angry.

HAYES: And wait until you see the new all-time low for Republican propaganda on Fox News when ALL IN starts right now.


Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.

Today, for the second time in just two years, Steve Bannon has been indicted. The top advisor of the ex-president has been indicted on criminal charges. In Steve Bannon`s first indictment, he was charged with defrauding donors to his private border wall building effort, ripping off the very MAGA voters who backed his and Trump`s call to drain the swamp. And he essentially got away with that one when he was pardoned by Trump during his final day in office, last day that he was there. And that came after Bannon helped plan January 6.

Tonight, Bannon once again finds himself subject to a federal indictment, after a grand jury charged him with two counts of contempt of Congress, one for his refusal to testify before the committee investigating the January 6 insurrection. The other for refusing to turn over records.

Bannon was subpoenaed back in September, ordering him to produce documents by October 7th, and appear for a deposition on October 14th. Bannon basically ignored the committee, which led the House to hold him in contempt three weeks ago, then referring him to the Justice Department.

And for the last two and a half weeks, that`s been it. Nobody knew if Attorney General Merrick Garland was even pursuing the matter, even said as much on this show, but today, all that changed. The indictment points out the Bannon who asserted executive privilege, quote, "Was a private citizen for approximately seven months in 2017, more than three years before the events of January 6. Bannon was employed in the executive branch of the U.S. government as the chief strategist and counselor to the president. After departing the White House in 2017, Bannon did not work again in any executive branch or federal government position."

It also cites a quote from his podcast noted in the subpoena from January 5th, the day before the insurrection, making quite a prophetic prediction about what would happen at the Capitol on the 6th.


BANNON: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Just understand this, all hell is going to break loose tomorrow. It`s going to be moving, it`s going to be quick.


HAYES: Law enforcement source tells NBC News Bannon is expected to surrender himself on Monday and appear in court that afternoon. He could face up to a year in prison and $100,000 fine. It`s hard to overstate the importance of this indictment, both the Select Committee`s investigation and the Justice Department.

In the last prosecution of a contempt referral was back in 1983 when a former Reagan EPA official refused to testify during a superfund investigation. Though her case, we should know, did end in an acquittal.

The stakes here though, do seem much, much higher. Because Bannon`s argument for refusing to comply is based on a completely bogus claim of his executive privilege. He doesn`t really have a leg to stand on legally. And the timing is crucial here as well, and this timing couldn`t be more fitting.

This indictment was released the same day that Donald Trump`s chief of staff, former North Carolina Congressman Mark Meadows, was scheduled to appear for a deposition with the committee. Committee staff prepared to receive Meadows at 10 o`clock this morning. Meadows was a no-show.

Yesterday, his lawyer, the guy we told you about before named George Terwilliger, who served as acting Attorney General under George H.W. Bush, released a statement telling me that he, quote, "Mr. Meadows remains under the instructions of former President Trump to respect longstanding principles of executive privilege, and now appears the courts will have to resolve this conflict.


Committee Chair, Bennie Thompson, wrote back with this warning, "The Select Committee will view Mr. Meadows` failure to appear at the deposition as willful non-compliance and would force the Select Committee to consider invoking the contempt of Congress procedures which could result in referral in the House of Representatives, the Department of Justice for criminal charges, which is precisely the process that played out and happened to Steve Bannon today, he was indicted for defying the committee.

Do you want to know what he was doing just hours before his indictment was handed down? While he was on his podcast spreading more just insurrectionist propaganda, talking about the November 3rd movement, which is this crazy effort to audit all 50 states.


BANNON: And so the three November movement is so important, and everything else flows in there, how they did the big steal until you get to the -- they understand it, see how it was done, break the pieces apart, and then are able to hold people accountable and figure out what action comes next.

And I -- my thing is that we must decertified these electors. Is a -- it is a requirement that every Patriot -- and from every Patriot grave, from every generation down here demands of us, demands of us, demands of us to do this.


HAYES: Oh, man. Say what you will. He`s a talented broadcaster.

Luke Broadwater is a congressional reporter for the New York Times who has been covering the fight over the January 6 committee subpoenas.

And, Luke, this is an enormous development today, how do you come about?

LUKE BROADWATER, THE NEW YORK TIMES CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Right. Well, so there was a big question about whether Merrick Garland would accept this referral from the House to charge Steve Bannon.

And, really, the House committee that`s investigating the attack was very concerned that if there were not charges here, they would have no teeth whatsoever. And literally everybody in Mr. Trump`s orbit would start defying their subpoenas.

So, this was a big win for them today. It means that Mr. Bannon will either have to come in and testify and share all these documents the committee wants from him or he could face jail time up to a year in jail, potentially up to two years in jail on each one year on each count.

So, it was a major development for the committee today. And it does send a serious message that the committee has to be taken seriously. And also that this change in the -- in the Department of Justice means that no longer will officials in the Trump administration be able to defy congressional orders.

HAYES: Yes, that`s a good point, right? I mean, I forget how many there were. But I remember there -- I think there were a few referrals somewhat similar to this. I don`t know if they were actual criminal firms. But there were referrals that happened, obviously, in the previous administration with an attorney general, either Jeff Sessions or William Barr or Whitaker that were just essentially not pursued. It just doesn`t didn`t go anywhere.

BROADWATER: Oh, yes. For four years, the Congress couldn`t get anything out of the Trump administration. I mean, Bill Barr, in the later stages was, you know, openly saying, we`re not going to -- we`re not going to participate with anything that they ask of us.

So, this signals a big change, and it means the committee is, you know, Steve Bannon doesn`t want to go to jail, potentially, he may have to come in. And there is a pretty long record in the -- if you look back at cases in the `70s, `80s, and `90s, many reluctant witnesses would eventually come in and sit down and testify once they realize the other option was spending some time behind bars.

So, it does provide a powerful incentive for cooperation. You know, this is -- the committee is not a criminal committee. So, what they`re asking for him to come in and testify and give them documents as they investigate this. They are not -- they would not be trying necessarily to throw him in jail if he were to come in and testify.

HAYES: Right.

BROADWATER: But because he`s refusing to, that opens them up to legal exposure.

HAYES: Yes. And there -- and the timing here today with Meadows is interesting, just because of, A, that sort of incentive point you made there, I think, the committee wanted to -- was, you know, worried there`d be a sort of domino effect.

But also that there`s -- you know, that there`s a kind of broader sense of a bunch of people who`ve been subpoenaed in the orbit and what they will do. And we know Meadows was, quote-unquote, engaging with counsel, Kash Patel was engaging with counsel, whatever that came to a sort of head today with Meadows at least.

BROADWATER: Right. There are now three people, including Bannon, who have just openly defied the committee. For a while, it seemed that Mark Meadows would participate. He and his attorney had told the committee he was, you know, searching through documents that he would potentially turn over to them.

But ultimately, when it came time to testify, when it came time to show up in person today, he didn`t show, and so they have now written a sort of warning letter to him, and I would not be surprised if we see a committee vote coming up in the near future.


His case is somewhat different than Steve Bannon, as he was in the White House --


BROADWATER: -- at the time, but Steve Bannon wasn`t. There`s another Trump ally, Jeffrey Clark, who has also refused to comply with the subpoena. He`s a Department of Justice lawyer. And he has cited attorney-client privilege. That`s another different argument. And he did show up in person and gave him a letter. But so there are three main people here who have refused to comply while 150 have been talking to the committee.

HAYES: Luke Broadwater has been covering this, thank you very much for joining us tonight.

BROADWATER: Thank you.

HAYES: Daniel Goldman served as majority counsel in Donald Trump`s first impeachment. He was assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and he joins me now.

Dan, OK. So, how big a deal is this and what happens next?

DANIEL GOLDMAN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it`s a big deal, because rarely, as you pointed out, it is something like this charge. This is a very influential person in Trump world, as you just heard from some of his rantings on his podcast today, and so it`s a big deal.

But in many ways, it`s a really big deal, because Merrick Garland is drawing a line in the sand, saying, I`m not going to be so afraid of partisan, political, brush back. I`m going to reinstate the rule of law. And that has what was -- that was what was missing in the Trump administration. And that`s what we`re facing in with all of these insurrectionists. And these accusations that continue to this day about, you know, the steal -- big steal and all that stuff.

So, I think the message is significant for Steve Bannon. But in many respects, the message is even more significant for our institutions defending Congress and congressional subpoenas and defending the rule of law, which we desperately need in this country.

HAYES: Look -- So on Bannon`s case, I mean, he really seems an outlier for a number of reasons, A, just flagrant disregard, right? He doesn`t show up. He just says, you know, his lawyer writes a letter being like go stuffing.

He has no real plausible claim, like, again, he`s a podcaster, who was like buddies with the President. And doesn`t -- there`s no colorable claim of executive privilege here. And so, you know, given that, you know, he`s in this sort of specific different category. Like, literally what happens as he turns himself in and then like a prosecution gets mounted. And then, is he going to try to mount a defense on executive privilege grounds? How would that -- I don`t even actually understand how that works.

GOLDMAN: Yes. He`ll appear on Monday, he`ll probably -- he`ll plead not guilty. And then they`ll go through the pre-trial discovery process. And then there may be motions and there may be a trial. This is not -- this trial is not going to happen next week it will be probably a few months before the trial actually begins.

So, that is what will happen in Bannon`s case. Now, one thing to just know, Bannon is not going to be compelled to turn over the documents or testify by this prosecution. This prosecution may simply just put him in jail. It doesn`t compel him to transfer the documents.

But I actually think the strategy that`s going on right now in the House is very interesting. They are pursuing the documents through this case that`s going through the D.C. courts. And what they`re doing is those documents are probably very similar to any documents that Bannon or Meadows would have.

So, they`re pursuing the documents in court through that case, and they`re pursuing the witnesses with these -- this contempt proceeding and potentially another contempt proceeding against Meadows.

I think, though, they need to be careful about charging Meadows with contempt of Congress for the documents because he does have a colorable claim about executive privilege. And he is really not in a position to adjudicate whether Trump`s assertion or instructions to him are valid or not. That`s not where Mark Meadows stands.

But, and this is what is important. He has to show up. He cannot just simply not show up for testimony. You can show up for testimony and claim executive privilege. But if he doesn`t show up for testimony, that is a clear cut case of contempt of Congress.

So, if I were the House, I would continue pursuing these witnesses with contempt while you`re pursuing the documents on the other side through the courts. And, ultimately, you get the documents to the courts in a case that`s moving quickly, and you are punishing and setting a marker down in the sand that if you are going to defy Congress and not testify, then you are going to be prosecuted.

HAYES: Right. And the third individual that Luke Broadwater was just speaking of, which is Jeffrey Clark, of course, who was the, you know, the head of the civil division in the last moments of the Trump administration and essentially kind of coup plotted with the president, for lack of a better phrase.


It appears that he did that, right? He came, He showed up, and then just asserted a lot of privilege, which has, you know, the committee quite frustrated. But that`s one step more compliance than Meadows, which I hadn`t been -- I hadn`t thought about in those terms.

GOLDMAN: That`s right. And Jeffrey Clark understands he can`t defy simply not show up, but he can raise whatever arguments he wants. And those, you know, may be legitimate, they may not be, but that`s where the courts have to come in.

And, traditionally, what has happened in the last Congress is it just takes a really long time. So, hopefully, the courts have learned their lesson as the district court judge has in issuing a very quick ruling, and let`s hope the D.C. circuit files a suit and moves very quickly.

HAYES: All right. Daniel Goldman, that was great and illuminating. Thank you very much.

It`s important to note, these two indictments against Steve Bannon were not a foregone conclusion. There`s real question about whether the Department of Justice would pursue charges, but they did. And it`s a critical development of the January 6 committee as it serves a bright flashing warning sign to every other potential witness who tries to pull the same stunt. But what does it mean for the ones who already have? That`s next?



BANNON: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Just understand this. All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. It`s going to be moving, it`s going to be quick.



HAYES: The country has now crossed a significant threshold. We`re approaching some form of accountability not yet seen for those who have bedded Donald Trump`s unprecedented attack on American democracy.

Former top Trump adviser, Steve Bannon, who was knee deep in the planning the insurrection, as you just heard, has been indicted on two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with the subpoena from the bipartisan House committee investigating the attack on the Capitol.

This is all happening on the day that former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was supposed to testify before the committee but just refused to show up.

Congressman Joe Neguse is a Democrat representing Colorado`s second congressional district. He previously served as an impeachment manager in the second impeachment of Donald Trump over the ex-President`s role in inciting the insurrection, and he joins me now.

It`s good to have you, Congressman, what`s your reaction to this development?

REP. JOE NEGUSE (D-CO): Well, good to be with you, Chris. I think it`s an incredibly important day for our republic, certainly for the separation of powers and congressional authority, and for the rule of law. I think that the line prosecutors at DOJ and the grand jury made the right call.

Clearly, the subpoena that was issued to Mr. Bannon, both the documentary subpoena and the testimonial subpoena, were lawful. They were duly issued, and Mr. Bannon chose to willfully disobey and defy that subpoena.

And I think that today`s decision, the decision by the Department of Justice and the grand jury to proceed with the indictment certainly sends a compelling message to each and every witness out there that witnesses can no longer ignore Congress with impunity, which of course, is you know, really became the norm during the course of the Trump administration, when you had the executive branch and a wide variety of individuals taking steps to obstruct Congressional investigations every turn. So, the fact that this indictment is now moving forward, I think is really important step.

It`s also, you know, I don`t -- as you said, important for us not to understate just the gravity of the decision. The last time that a decision of this nature was pursued by a grand jury in the context of a criminal contempt citation by Congress was before I was born in 1983. So, clearly, this is a big deal. And I`m hopeful that it will have a persuasive impact on witnesses to come who are subpoenaed by the committee.

HAYES: I want to read just what the committee statement put out by the chair and vice chair. "Steve Bannon`s indictment should send a clear message to anyone who thinks they could ignore the Select Committee or try to stonewall our investigation. No one is above law. We will not hesitate to use the tools at our disposal to get the information we need."

I think, you know, this idea of no one being above a law which is -- which is what Dan Goldman said in that previous block. I mean, what we saw during the Trump years was these kind of, you know, these sort of gray spaces between law and norm and custom that tend to guide the kind of constitutional structure of inter branch accommodation just completely fall apart.

And in some ways, a contemporary for all is an example of that and falling apart. But it`s sort of the least bad option it seems to me.

NEGUSE: That`s precisely right. I mean, look, during the course of the Trump administration, you had norm after norm really eviscerated. And perhaps the most salient example of that was this notion that witnesses could essentially avoid subpoenas entirely and willfully disobeyed them engage in total defiance with impunity and with no consequence.

And I think the fact that this indictment is now been filed, we`ll disabuse people of that notion moving forward. Obviously, the decision also underscores a topic that you and I have discussed previously, which is that the Congress shouldn`t have to rely on the executive branch to enforce its prerogatives, right?

At the end of the day, Article One provides for the Congress, right? It`s the first branch of government and the notion that it has to rely on the Department of Justice to execute a contempt citation, to me, underscores the need for reform.

On the congressional side, of course, inherent contempt is something that myself, Ted Lieu, other members of the Judiciary Committee have proposed in the past and I think, notwithstanding today`s decision is something we should pursue into the future.

HAYES: Well, there`s a broader question and implication here, right? Which is that both parties will be in different situations in terms of which offices they occupy, whether that`s the White House with an opposition Congress. You know, there`s sort of -- there`s institutional branch of equities to protect here. And then there`s, you know, the sort of partisan possibilities.

And I saw Jim Jordan who said today threatening, hey, look, we`re going to come after Ron Klain, the Chief of Staff and Jake Sullivan, the National Security Adviser. We want to hear testimony from them.

Now, under longstanding executive privilege jurisprudence, they would be exempted from that, that`s squarely in the executive privilege, sort of, basket. But I guess if you -- I wonder what you think about that threat and what it means, sort of, going forward.


NEGUSE: Yes. I would say, Chris, I don`t take that particularly seriously. Look, at the end of the day, the purported invocations of privilege that we`re talking about here by someone like Steve Bannon, who, as you said, was a private citizen, who had not worked at the White House, literally, for years, who decided to completely disregard the subpoena, not just, you know, come and testify and ultimately invoke privileges and attempt to avoid discussing certain subjects, but just decided not to show up at all.

That`s the kind of defiance akin to sort of the absolute privileges that were invoked by various officials during the Trump administration that I don`t think our constitutional order can stand. And so that -- that`s really the distinction here. You have very extreme examples, of course, in the case of Mr. Bannon, and I think in the case of some other witnesses that have been subpoenaed by the January 6 committee.

And look, at the end of the day, I`m always going to fall on the side of congressional oversight and the idea that separation of powers has to be maintained. And to do that, it means that the Congress has a constitutional duty to engage in oversight, and that we ought to protect it.

HAYES: Yes. I mean, you are overlooking the podcaster privilege, the James Madison put into the constitution. That`s an important protection for people talking to microphones.

Congressman Joe Neguse, thank you for joining us tonight.

NEGUSE: Good to see you, Chris.

HAYES: And when come back, Donald Trump, on tape, defending the violent rioters who chanted, Hang Mike Pence, during the attack on the Capitol, that`s next.



CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: It`s been a pretty big news day on the January 6th front, not only do we have today`s indictment of Steve Bannon, but this morning we also got a remarkable new excerpt from an interview with the ex- president, in which he says he was unperturbed by the mob that threatened to hang Mike Pence and even justifies their actions.

It`s an incredibly damning piece of audio but before I play it, I want to share with you this recurring thought that I have to say has haunted me since the insurrection.

What if the crowd of the Capitol had been successful? This is what I keep coming back to. What if the group of rioters that smashed windows trying to get into the Speaker`s lobby, the crowd that included Ashli Babbitt in that awful tragic moment? What if they gotten through? What if they had just come face to face with members of Congress?

The people they were told that stolen the election from them, what would they have done to them there with the the implements they`re using to bang down the doors? What if they had assaulted them or kidnapped them or even killed them?

What if they had managed to find Mike Pence, who you may recall was rushed out of the Senate chamber as the mob approach with his family? And as we know now from reporting by ABC`s Jonathan Karl hid out in an underground parking garage, where he read Donald Trump`s tweet accusing him of not having the courage to do what should have been done.

And as all of this was happening, the mob was terrorizing the Capitol chanting the now infamous words, hang Mike Pence and the gallows was standing on the Capitol grounds. What if they had actually gotten to the Vice President? What if they surrounded him and made good on their threat? What if some awful violence had ensued?

It`s not a wildly preposterous thought. I mean, Mike Pence was hunkered down in a secret location for a reason. There were thousands of insurrectionists over running the Capitol, literally saying they wanted to murder the vice president.

What would American politics look like if that had happened? And here`s the really, really dark thought I keep having, would it change anything? Would it have changed anything? Would anything be different in the aftermath if the mobs awful frenzy had come to fruition?

I don`t know the answer but I despair to think that maybe not a lot would change. I don`t think it would have changed Donald Trump much at all.

Just listen to how unbothered he is by what did happen as he told Jonathan Karl in an upcoming -- in an interview for his upcoming book Betrayal.


JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Were you worried about him during that that siege? Were you worried about his safety?

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, I thought he was well-protected, and I had heard that he was in good shape. No, because I had heard he was in very good shape, but -- no I think --

KARL: Because you heard those chants, that was terrible. I mean, you know, those --

TRUMP: He could have -- well, the people were very angry.

KARL: They were saying hang Mike Pence.

TRUMP: Because it`s common sense, Jon, it`s common sense, that you`re supposed to protect. How can you -- if you know a vote is fraudulent, right? How can you pass on a fraudulent vote to Congress?


HAYES: I mean, it`s common sense, the people are very angry. Yes, they said they wanted to murder the vice president. You know, they kind of had a point.

Karl reports in his new book that then-President Trump liked what he saw unfolding at the Capitol on January 6th, of course, he did. He even boasted about the size of the crowd.

And of course, for Trump, a desperately, desperately insecure and small man, this was a form of power.

The menace of it all is the point, it`s not some byproduct, not an accident. It is the point. It`s a form of coercion, the threat of mob violence is being cultivated on the right on purpose as a way of exerting political power.

Because the worst didn`t happen on January 6th, it is hard to get your head around this. It is hard to think about what success for those people right there would look like because it is so incomprehensible.

But they were being honest in the threats they made that day, and so is Donald Trump in this new interview. He thinks it is fine and deserved, justified, understandable. The brain mob he whipped up was threatening to break the neck of his vice president.

So, what does all this new information mean for the case against Trump and the Pence cooperation with the January 6th committee? That`s next.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!

Were you worried about him during that that siege? Were you worried about his safety?

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, I thought he was well-protected, and I had heard that he was in good shape. No, because I had heard he was in very good shape, but -- no I think --

KARL: Because you heard those chants, that was terrible. I mean, you know, those --

TRUMP: He could have -- well, the people were very angry.

KARL: They were saying hang Mike Pence.

TRUMP: Because it`s common sense, Jon, it`s common sense, that you`re supposed to protect. How can you -- if you know a vote is fraudulent, right? How can you pass on a fraudulent vote to Congress?


HAYES: Those two bits of sound are recorded a little over two months apart. During that period, Donald Trump had plenty of time to think about how he respond if you were asked about the hang of Mike Pence chants at the Capitol.

Yet, when he was asked, he doesn`t even occur to Trump to fake that he cared that his own vice president was being hunted by a violent mob because he`s the one who sent them there. They were angry. Pence did the wrong thing. Basically, he had it coming.


HAYES: And while it`s shocking, unprecedented in American history, is anyone really surprised to hear Trump say it?

Lisa Lerer is a National Political Correspondent for The New York Times, she has a piece out today titled, menace, as a political tool, enters the Republican mainstream, which analyzes how threats of violence have become more commonplace in the Republican Party. And Jonathan Chait is a writer from New York Magazine. His piece today is on this latest audio titled, Trump defends insurrectionists trying to hang Mike Pence as common sense. The slow, inevitable evolution of the former president`s pro-riot rhetoric.

And Jonathan, let me start with you. I like what you wrote, although, I quote a little bit in so far as I think it was pretty pro-riot rhetoric from the beginning. I`m not sure how much evolution there has been.

But this is probably the most -- the most forthright that I`ve -- that I`ve heard since the day when he was obviously sort of defending it and whipping it up.

JONATHAN CHAIT, WRITER, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: So, I think the reason you have that reaction, and a lot of people have that reaction is because we knew in a sense that he was for riot. But the way I put it was that the music has always been the same, but the words have changed.

And then, we don`t realize how much of the words was said because we weren`t really listening to the words, we were listening to the music.

What he said a week after the insurrection is that it was a terrible calamity and were against violence in any form. And then, the one I tried to show in this piece is that he started edging slowly step by step toward justifying the riot. And at first he would say, well, they should be looking at these other things, the terrible things the Democrats have done.

And then, he start saying, well, what about the election fraud, we need to look at the election fraud. And then, he`s kind of finally got to this place of saying, well, they really needed to riot for a good reason.

HAYES: Yes, and the November 3rd was a real insurrection and the sort of -- the air of menace I thought that Lisa, the piece that you do with Astead Herndon was really good in New York Times, just sort of tying some themes together about just the presence.

And we`ve talked about this on the show, it`s been a theme I`ve been pretty obsessed with, like, you know, the presence of death threats, voicemails, the fact that when the president targets you, if you`re a Republican member of Congress for instance, for opprobrium, like you`re going to have to hire security, the freshman rep from -- the fairly young rep from Ohio, Anthony Gonzalez, who basically, you know, said he wanted to quit Congress when he had a security guard escort him through the airport.

I mean, how common and how present is this sort of background noise about violence in the lives of those serving in Congress and in Republican politics?

LISA LERER, NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Oh, I don`t think it`s background noise at all. I mean, members -- the level of threat -- the number of threats in Congress is on track to double this year. Members frequently get these vicious threats, you know, their voice mailboxes are full. They have things that their homes, you know, threats put into their homes against their family members.

Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell from Michigan, shared a couple of these voicemails with me, and they`re really vile. She was telling me how one time during the beginning of COVID, when Michigan was passing restrictions on various activities, she came back to her home and there were men with assault weapons standing outside.

So, this is something that`s very present in the lives of members of Congress. And I think it`s very present in our political rhetoric. And part of what we`ve seen is what happened on January 6th and the aftermath as Jonathan was describing, is that you really had president -- former President Trump laying a foundation for this kind of acceleration.

If you`re -- if you believe as many as conservative base do that the election was stolen, that really provides you a platform to justify a lot of pretty radical violent acts.

And so, that`s part of what we`re witnessing right now. The rhetoric at those conservative events has grown extremely violent. It`s, you know, there`s talk of revolution and war and tyranny.

I mean, these are not words that really are tossed around lightly, these are words with very serious meanings.

HAYES: Yes, I want to just read the reporting from Debbie Dingell on just one of the voicemails and I was struck by that point in your piece about the man with assault rifles outside our home.

They ought to try you for treason, one caller screamed in a lengthy, graphic voicemail message. I hope your family dies in front of you. I pray to God that if you`ve got any children, they die in your face. That`s just one of them.

And Jonathan, Lisa`s point there I think is actually a really important one. The entire structure of this is built in a perverse way on a logical is that it follows from the premises.

The premise is the election was stolen and the greatest crime in the history of American democracy was pulled off in front of your face and the wrong person was put in office.

And were that the case they`re storming the Capitol might be undertaken as a fairly rational action in the face of like what is essentially a tyrannical illegitimate regime that`s been posed into Lisa`s point. It also justifies extra Democratic means of redress if that`s the case.


CHAIT: That`s exactly right and Trump who is not always a lucid figure, to say the least, was very logical when he said that it`s just common sense, which is exactly the logic (INAUDIBLE) why would you sit there and watch this illegitimate president take power illegally and do nothing, of course you`d do something.

HAYES: And that -- and that pervades, Lisa, I think that`s the point that really came through in your article. It`s like that -- the notion of the fundamental illegitimacy and the notion that because it`s illegitimate, what we need are extra constitutional, extra Democratic means of redress. The permission structure then creates all sorts of flirtations in both word.

And indeed, with these avenues that you document in the piece that are -- you know, I cannot get over how much I hear, particularly from the conservatives and the reaction to things I say about you`re next, the -- you know, the Civil War would just wait what happens until the second Civil War. A lot of like, violent fantasizing as increasingly mainstream part of the rhetoric.

LERER: Yes and look, I mean, that portion that voicemail that you`ve read from Debbie Dingell, that was basically the only portion of that voicemail that you could read on air. That would probably -- you know, that would get passed sensors and things like that to be appropriate. I mean, this is really vile stuff.

But I think it`s important to think about this in the larger structure of the Republican Party. So, it`s about a third plus or minus of Republicans and various polls, when they`re asked in different ways whether they see a situation in which violence could be justified. About a third of Republicans say that they do and that is a really sizable, somewhat shocking number.

But what`s happening outside of that number, right? And there`s, of course, a number of members of Congress who sort of dally in this rhetoric. We saw it with Congressman Gosar this past week.

But they`re really at the fringe in Congress, which is a place that for all its like, rancor right now, is really still has this veneer of civility.

But I think what`s happening, the broader part of the party is the silence. So, they are -- they are worried about alienating this set, which is the most active part of their party. So they don`t stand up in the face of this kind of violent rhetoric. And that, frankly, allows it to flourish.

HAYES: Yes, that`s well said, yes, it is still in Congress frowned upon to fantasize about murdering your colleagues. But also, not something you`re going to like rush to the microphones to condemn, just sort of move on.

Lisa Lerer and Jonathan Chait, thank you both.

CHAIT: Thank you.

HAYES: This Sunday, MSNBC films will air a new documentary called "IN THE DARK OF THE VALLEY", which explores a nuclear accident in the Los Angeles area that was covered up for decades, and the long-term consequences of that environmental disaster for the families lived there.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Santa Susana Field Lab is -- I wouldn`t say it`s always in the front of my mind, but it is consistently in the back of my mind.

In the back of my mind when I give my kids water or give them a bath. In the back of my mind when I see a new kid diagnosed. In the back of my mind when I see another kid who`s passed away.


HAYES: You can watch "IN THE DARK OF THE VALLEY" on Sunday at 10:00 p.m. Eastern right here on MSNBC.

But first, Fox News reaches new lows and their anti-Biden propaganda, the case of the Vanishing hand, after this.



HAYES: Today, Fox News was caught red-handed committing one of the just greatest of all journalistic sins here in this T.V. news business, deceptively editing a soundbite to make a politician say something they did not say.

The clip came from the speech President Joe Biden was giving for Veterans Day where he told a story about a legendary baseball pitcher named Satchel Paige.

Now, Paige is remembered as one of the greatest pitchers of all time. But due to segregation, he didn`t get to pitch in the major leagues until he was 42 after it had been integrated.

Satchel Paige is one of the greatest players ever to come out of what are known as the Negro Leagues. That`s what the all Black league during segregation and this is the unedited version of how President Biden referred to him.


JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I`ve adopted the attitude of the great negro at the time, pitcher in the Negro Leagues, went on to become a great pitcher and the pros into the Major League Baseball after Jackie Robinson. His name was Satchel Paige.


HAYES: Now, Biden stumbled a little but it`s clear what he`s saying. Listen again.


BIDEN: I`ve adopted the attitude of the great negro at the time, pitcher in the Negro Leagues, went on to become a great pitcher and the pros into the Major League Baseball after Jackie Robinson. His name was Satchel Paige.


HAYES: All right, so Fox News takes that bite, and they edit the context out of the middle. And I`m going to play it to you, when you listen, watch for where the hand goes, watch for the vanishing hand. When that sound played on Fox, it sounded like this.


RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: President Biden facing backlash for a comment during his Veterans Day address, listen to this.

BIDEN: I`ve adopted the attitude of the great negro at the time pitcher, his name was Satchel Paige.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Biden`s choice of words while referencing Hall of Fame pitcher Satchel Paige, landing him in hot water.

The remark came while Biden was attempting to wish Secretary of State Blinken`s dad a happy birthday. That birthday wish didn`t go so well.




HAYES: So, that was deceptively edited to make it sound like Biden was calling Satchel Paige negro when the (INAUDIBLE) context shows clearly not what he said.

This part with a line through it is just gone. So, that`s why you get the disappearing hand because the hands up (INAUDIBLE) is gone during his name with Satchel Paige.

So, Fox News is the most powerful messaging the Republican Party has. And it just kind of pumps lies, mistruths, misinformation, and constant agitated rage into the homes of millions of millions of Americans every single day.

And in doing so, in just sort of relentlessly hammering, it does have a real effect on American public opinion, at least conservative opinion in politics.

The Republican base slash Fox News audience naturally hated Barack Obama, they naturally hated Hillary Clinton, they naturally hate Kamala Harris. An old white guy, Joe Biden, I think a tougher project but they kept at it. Pumping lies about it all day for more than a year go into whatever means including straight up deception like you see, and now, they have -- they have succeeded, they have taught their base to hate Joe Biden as well.

Joining me now, David Plouffe, 2008 Obama campaign manager as well as a former senior advisor to President Obama, and he is here to discuss.

First of all, that -- I mean, just -- that really is like, even by their standards, pretty egregious with the disappearing hand in the middle to do that. How much of an effect in the sort of this space of American politics and the amorphous thing we call public opinion, how much effect does that one network have?

DAVID PLOUFFE, FORMER 2008 OBAMA CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Enormous. Well, first of all, Chris, you`re smart to call this out. Because I think we believe there`s no bottom at Fox, this was a new and meaningful and dangerous moment. Maybe it was a trial balloon. But this is a new front in their war.

So yes, I mean, they -- you know, basically pollute, up to probably a third of the electorate, and then that 30 electorate spills over into, you know, maybe 40, 45 percent of the country.

And it`s not just Fox, it`s Fox, it`s Breitbart, it`s Sinclair, which is such a sinister local influence. It`s Epoch Times, it`s Prager University. Some things maybe your viewers don`t even know about, that are some of the most powerful outlets on social media.

So, and they`re all coordinated. And I`ll tell you this, having gone through campaigns, we can kind of hang as Democrats in campaigns because we raised a lot of money. We spent a lot of money. We have a lot of volunteers. We do a lot of advertising.

That goes away after the election. And Fox and those other megaphones are still there.

HAYES: Right.

PLOUFFE: Huge, enormous disadvantage. And it`s structurally so unbalanced.

HAYES: Yes, that`s interesting. And it`s also structurally embarrassed because it really is -- it`s so straight-line propaganda. And it`s also so sort of determinately focus.

I mean, the Biden experience has been interesting to me, because I don`t think there`s like the natural animus towards Biden that say, Hillary Clinton, right?

I mean, the Fox base hated Hillary Clinton, they had been cultivated to hate Hillary Clinton for decades, OK?

With Biden, there was less of that. And I think that it`s wild to watch them successfully create rage at the man. Essentially, I know nothing other than like sheer repetition.

PLOUFFE: No question about that. And listen, I think if you look at what`s happening in rural America elector (PH) and obviously, Fox as viewers in every part of the country, small, large, you know, communities.

I mean, like Youngkin won some of those counties like by margins Vladimir Putin gets, OK? So, what`s happening is every Democrat -- every Democrat, you know, and they turn on Manchin if they could, is basically an evil socialist, if they`re being nice, and somebody who basically, you know, embrace pedophilia. We, you know, are like the most awful people ever to walk the face of the earth. And that has an effect. There`s no -- there`s no opening anymore, OK?

And what happened today with that clip about Satchel Paige is --

HAYES: That`s interesting.

PLOUFFE: The Fox thing is based in reality a little bit, their reality. So, the big lie is obviously, you know, completely fabricated but they have the President of the United States and most of one political party embracing its news.

As sick as it is, this is completely made up. And I think we have to watch very carefully to see if we`re going to see more clips like this because obviously, it`s the people who watch the network.

But then, the velocity with which that reaches tens of millions of Americans over the course of hours is unprecedented in American history.

HAYES: Yes, David Plouffe, who has been on the other side of that machine had it aimed at him. Thank you so much.

PLOUFFE: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: That is ALL IN for the week. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts now with Ali Velshi who is in for Rachel. Good evening, Ali.

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST: Chris, good evening to you and have yourself a great weekend.

And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.