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

Transcript: All In with Chris Hayes, 4/5/21

Guests: Bernie Sanders, Rick Hasen, Redditt Hudson, Rachel Paulose, Melanie Zanona


The Republicans are trying to cancel the critics of voter suppression happening in Georgia and across the country. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is interviewed on the growing pushback against the big lie that the election was stolen. According to "New York Times" reporting, former President Trump steered supporters into unwitting donations. Minnesota Police Chief Arradondo testifies against Derek Chauvin. Rep. Matt Gaetz is defiantly pointing fingers amid DOJ investigation.


JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Indeed, indeed. Anthea Butler, great to see you. Thank you so much for being here this evening. Best of luck with the book. That is tonight`s REIDOUT. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES," well, it starts right now.


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice over):Tonight on ALL IN. Companies call out the Republican voter suppression push as the man who empowered the corporations complains they`re bullying Republicans.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): My advice to the corporate CEOs of America is to stay out of politics.

HAYES: Tonight, Senator Bernie Sanders on the growing pushback against the big lie. Then shocking, not shocking new reporting on how the Trump campaign built supporters out of every last penny.

Plus, the unbelievable scene in the Chauvin murder trial where the chief of police testified against his former officer.

MEDARIA ARRADONDO, CHIEF, MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT: It is not part of our training and it is certainly not part of our ethics or values.

HAYES: And the latest attempt from Matt Gaetz to drag just about anyone else into his scandal.

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): Providing for flights and hotel rooms for people that you`re dating who are of legal age is not a crime.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. We are in the midst of an intensifying national temper tantrum happening right now that has already incurred enormous costs and shows no sign of stopping. One of the two major parties is acting in flagrantly anti-Democratic ways, ways that have now morphed into Republican-led efforts to change the rules of voting across the country, in response quite clearly to having lost a big national election.

And because certain corporations have taken the position that it`s wrong to make it harder for Americans to vote, Republicans are vowing to cancel even the most American institutions, Major League Baseball, Coca-Cola, not to mention Delta Airlines, American Airlines, Dell Computers. Republicans believe they should be able to crackdown on voting rights without consequences.

But there have been consequences. The Major League Baseball moved its All- Star game out of Georgia after that state passed its voter suppression law. And a number of companies have called that proposed law and similar bills in other states unacceptable. And as a result, Republicans are having an absolute hissy fit.


GOV. BRIAN KEMP (R-GA): Major League Baseball has caved to the cancel culture.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: These corporations are going to face the wrath of GOP officials, as well as the tens of millions of American consumers.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: -- who believes it now has veto power over the democratic process.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is it time for American conservatives to cancel sports, and maybe then they`d start to respect us a little bit?


HAYES: Cancel sports. Let`s remember just the context to all this. In Georgia, right, to take one example, that state, remember, had record turnout in the November election. Remember that? The vote in that state was recounted three times, audited. It had three recounts one by hand, no substantial fraud whatsoever.

Indeed, the whole enterprise there which we can lose sight of, it was actually a massively successful election, as the state`s own Republican Secretary of State said. And yet republicans decided to respond to losing the state both in the presidential election and the Senate with a whole bunch of new restrictions on voting.

And this is not rocket science here, right, about like why they`re doing that. Clearly, they`re doing it because they didn`t like losing, they are hoping this law will make it harder for their opponent`s supporters to vote so it will make it easier for them to win. And it`s part of a broader attack on the very foundations of, you know, democratic principles.

First, let`s remember, conservatives push the big lie about the election, right? That it was stolen, it was rigged, and now they`re legislating in state after state to "restore the integrity of our elections." Oh, and in between that, a bunch of them from Trump on down, nodded and winked an actual armed insurrection that led a police officer dead.

Not surprisingly, a new poll finds about half of Republicans falsely believe the Trump mob siege in the Capitol was largely a nonviolent protest, or was the handiwork of left-wing activists trying to make Trump look bad. There`s a straight line from the Trump mob attack on our Capitol is the Republican effort in the states to crack down on voting. They are both explicit attempts to subvert the basic functioning of our democracy.

And here`s the problem. In radicalizing against democracy as we`re watching Republicans do, Republicans have grown so divorced from just basic mainstream American norms, they`re just lashing out in their wider, wider circles of American life. And yet, being on the wrong side of Coca-Cola and Major League Baseball has not caused Republicans to second guess themselves to reassess are they doing. Like, are we -- are we the bad guys here, maybe?

No, they just whine even more hysterically about how persecuted they are. In Georgia, Republicans in the House were so mad at Delta, they passed a bill stripping Delta of a multi-million dollar tax break for speaking out against the voting restrictions. Now, there`s a question there like, was the tax break good policy before and it`s bad policy now? Which one was the right position there, Georgia Republicans?

But the fundamental problem for Republicans is that while they have a hammerlock on 40 to 45 percent of the country, they are growing ever more restrained from the rest of it and ever more angry, leading to these increasingly performative cultural worst and spectacles.

You got Texas Governor Greg Abbott now backing out of throwing the Texas Rangers first pitch this year. His state`s senate incidentally also just passed a restrictive voting bill. And then there are all these darkly comic intimations of using the state to punish these corporations, not -- again, not under any vision of political economy or policy, regulation, but just explicitly as punishment for them not having the right politics.


MCCONNELL: My advice to the corporate CEOs of America is to stay out of politics. Don`t pick sides in these big fights.


HAYES: Stay out of politics. Stay out of politics. That`s Republican leader Senator Mitch McConnell. That`s his message to corporations today. He also said in a statement that parts of the private sector keep dabbling and behaving like a woke parallel government. Don`t you love the way they`ve appropriated that word? And threatened that corporations won`t fight serious consequences? They become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order. To keep quiet about the Republican voter suppression rouse.

What exactly is outside the constitutional order, Senator McConnell, about a private corporation expressing a view? What`s so insane about this is that corporations have, of course, propped up the Republican Party for decades. You might remember, in the middle of the pandemic last year, Mitch McConnell`s biggest priority, as people are dying in unprecedented numbers day after day after day, he`s big laser-like focus, Mitch McConnell, that guy there was to try to make sure that corporations were protected from COVID related lawsuits. That`s what he was concerned about.

And, of course, Donald Trump`s most significant legislative accomplishment by far, thanks to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and others was to massively cut corporate taxes, which Joe Biden is now trying to raise amid opposition from corporate America and, drum roll, the Republican Party.

If to ask, is it possible that all these pillars of American culture from like soda to baseball to airlines have all decided to come together to persecute Republicans from no good reason, or could it be that Republicans have sailed so far off the map, become so alienated from democratic traditions that even their allies no longer have incentive to stomach it?

Which do you think is more likely here? You know, there`s perhaps no one I`d rather talk to you about the Republican supposedly anti-corporate turn, an Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Senator Bernie Sanders, good to have you.

You know, you have been -- you have been a critic of corporate power for a very long time. And so I have to imagine you feel very excited to have all these new collaborators and comrades who are going to link arms with you to very seriously take on corporate power in America from the Republican side.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): It is just extraordinary, Chris. Imagine that after $1 trillion of tax breaks to large corporations, to lowering the corporate tax rate, after protecting the pharmaceutical industry from charging us by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, et cetera, et cetera, Mitch McConnell and his friends are very upset that sub-corporations are now saying that it is an outrage that in Georgia, they are trying to destroy democracy and make it harder for people of color and low-income people to vote.

Look, all of this is nothing more than a deflection. And you made that point well, a deflection against the reality that are all over this country. What Republicans are doing, is trying to protect their interests by making it harder for people who might be voting against them to participate in the political process. That means minorities, that means young people, people who are not sympathetic to their right-wing agenda.

And our job is, among other things, to pass H.R.1, an important piece of legislation which says that in America, if you`re 18 years of age, no matter what they do in Georgia, or anyplace else, you got the right to vote. That we get rid of, we finally move forward to address Citizens United. And by the way, as you know, Mitch McConnell was the biggest Senate defender of Citizens United and the ability of corporations to buy elections.

HAYES: Yes. This is -- it`s an amazing thing to watch Mitch McConnell, of all people, who said himself he was the -- he was the named plaintiff to sue against McCain-Feingold. He was the biggest pusher of Citizens United. He has been, as he first principle believed that corporate right to speak in the election sphere is sacrosanct. For him to say CEO stay out of politics, it`s an astonishing sentence for that man of all people to utter.

SANDERS: Well, Chris, we no longer use the word astonishing in Washington DC. Clearly, our Republican friends are going to do everything they can in every way to try to win elections. And that certainly includes excessive gerrymandering, and it includes making it harder for people to vote.

And we have got to be extremely aggressive. I can`t think of any more issue, any issue more important than making sure that Americans can vote and participate in the political process.

HAYES: I want to -- just to be sort of slightly more serious here about the sort of Republican politics on sort of corporations, right. It is sort of interesting and strange to me. So, this is not coming from some place of a vision of political economy, like, I think, criticisms that you`ve leveled at, say Amazon or Walmart is coming from.

You know, you had Marco Rubio, right? So, you`ve got the big Amazon unionization drive. You`ve been very outspoken in support of it. Marco Rubio basically writing this column saying -- essentially saying, I don`t really like unions. And I`d like (INAUDIBLE) corporations over them. But because Amazon`s cultural politics, or because their pronouncements are bad and I don`t like them, I now support the union sort of.

And you`re seeing more and more of this. This idea that Republicans should use the mechanisms and levers of regulation or the state to explicitly punish certain kinds of speech or interventions politically by corporations. What do you think of that?

SANDERS: Well, I`ll tell you what I think. I take a little bit different take. I think the Republican Trump party now, at least certain leaders of the party, are trying to pretend that they are a party of the working class. That`s what they`re trying to do.

And obviously, that is total nonsense. But what they are trying to do is appeal to working-class people in terms of racial politics, in terms of homophobic politics, in terms of xenophobic politics. And what our job is, which takes me to what we`re trying to do with reconciliation here is, we have got the Democrats loudly and proudly of got to be the party of the working class of this country. We have got to be prepared, in fact, to take on the greed of corporate America.

We need to be passing a second reconciliation bill which deals not only with physical infrastructure and creating millions of good-paying jobs, Chris, we need to deal with human infrastructure, health care, education, climate change, making sure that every kid in this country gets the quality education he or she needs, does not leave school deeply in debt.

And one of the issues I`m working on in this reconciliation package is the need to expand Medicare to cover dental care, hearing aids, and eyeglasses because millions of seniors cannot afford those basic health care needs. I want to lower Medicare eligibility age to 60. So, a whole lot more people can get into that important program.

HAYES: So, you mentioned the second reconciliation package. So, I just want to set the table here because there`s a sort of an interesting context, right? When the big COVID rescue package passed, we saw Republicans railing against Dr. Seuss. They didn`t make a particularly, I thought, concerted or effective argument against the COVID rescue package.

Today, there`s a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian, and we don`t have to get caught up in process here. But basically, you`re going to get another shot or another reconciliation bill, which means another big bill that can pass with 50 votes.


HAYES: How big a deal is that? I mean, how much of a game-changer is that for the legislative horizon for Democrats?

SANDERS: It`s important because it gives us a little more flexibility. They don`t have to push everything into one bill.

HAYES: I see what you`re saying.

SANDERS: So, in other words, right now, what this new reconciliation package is about is dealing with long-term structural problems. Everybody knows our physical infrastructure is collapsing. We know we can create millions of jobs, transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel. But also, we have got to deal with human infrastructure. We cannot continue being the only major country on earth that doesn`t have paid family and medical leave.

We have the opportunity now to substantially lower student debt to make public colleges and universities tuition-free, to expand health care. We are behind many other major countries on earth in guaranteeing basic economic rights to working families. And we have got to move forward in this opportunity to do that. And the ruling from the parliamentarian gives us a little bit more opportunity in that direction.

HAYES: To bring it to the sort of final point here and sort of end a little bit where we began. I mean, my understanding is, one of the big fights right now is going to be on the corporate tax rate, like a huge policy fight in which the Democratic Party is going to try to raise taxes for corporations and the Republican Party will not give a single vote for it, right? Like, I haven`t lost my mind. That is actually one of the big policy fights.

SANDERS: Yes. I know that you will be shocked that after Mitch McConnell`s vehement, anti-corporate rant today, that he will vote vigorously and lead the opposition against asking large corporations, the wealthy, to start paying their fair share of taxes. I know you will be shocked at that revelation.

HAYES: Senator Bernie Sanders who of course is chair of the Senate Budget Committee, which is the site of a lot of action in these reconciliation days and a big parliamentarian ruling today. Senator, thanks for your time tonight.

SANDERS: Thank you very much.

HAYES: OK. All right, you know, when you`re buying something online, right? You`ve checked out your card, you filled everything out. At the very bottom of the last page, there`s like a little box that you can check that says yes, sign me up for coupons or newsletters or updates or whatever. And sometimes, somewhat annoyingly, frankly, companies will pre-check that box for you, and you need to be the one that catch it and uncheck it to say no, actually, keep your e-mails.

OK, we all know that, right? Now, imagine that leaving that box checked didn`t simply inundate your inbox, but instead would drain your bank account. Well, that`s what the Trump campaign was doing to their own supporters. I`ll explain how right after this.


HAYES: All right, imagine if one day you went to check your bank account and it was empty, just wiped out. Now, imagine it was the former President of the United States who took it all. According to New York Times investigation, that is what happened with Stacy Blatt, a Kansas City man who was battling cancer in hospice care and living on less than $1,000 a month. Mr. Blatt died in February. This is brother holding a picture of him.

Back in September. Blatt, who was a staunch Donald Trump supporter, donated $500, a huge sum for him. everything he could spare to Trump`s campaign. Then, another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week, and every week, every week through mid-October without his knowledge until Mr. Blatt`s bank account had been depleted and frozen.

The Trump campaign took $3,000 from him in less than a month. The Times reports it was an intentional scheme to raise money. But Trump`s campaign alongside a for-profit company that processed its online donations called WinRed began forcing donors to read through the fine print and manually uncheck a box and were to opt out of repeating donations.

So, here`s how it works, right? In March of 2020, right, they`re not yet super desperate. This pre-checked box appeared on the Trump donation portal reading make this a monthly recurring donation. And in June, a second pre- check box requesting a second donation was added underneath. Notably, this one was called the money bomb. So, now you got to uncheck both of those.

In August, the monthly recurring donation was changed to weekly, so about four times as much money every month, a subtle change with an enormous impact. Soon, the section explaining the weekly recurring donation was taken out of boldface type and move beneath other bold lettering, OK. So, I looked at the boldfaced type, but it makes it harder to see because your eyes drawn to the unimportant part. Like the literal fine print is, oh, we`re going to take this every week, and also, here`s another $100.

By October there were up to -- my God, look at that. Nine lines of bold text and all caps to read through before you learned what the box that was checked was four. Look at that. I mean, even now, can you say what the hell those two boxes mean?

In the end, this worked. I mean, it tricked not only Stacy Blatt but thousands of people. In the final two and a half months of 2020, the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee and their shared accounts issued more than 530,000 refunds worth $64.3 million to online donors. That was just the final two and a half months. All in all, the Trump campaigns refunded $122 million in 2020, more than 10 percent of the money it raised that year.

So, how could this happen at this scale and is this actually legal? To help me answer these questions, I`m joined by one of the nation`s leading election law experts Rick Hasen, Professor of Law and Political Science at U.C. Irvine, founder and editor of the Election Law Blog, and author of Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, And The Threat to American Democracy.

I guess, first, Rick, because you write about election law a lot, your just like topline reaction to the reporting of the New York Times on this as someone who spends a lot of time thinking about the contours of a law in these contexts.

RICK HASEN, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, U.C. IRVINE: Well, Shane Goldmacher`s reporting is great. But I -- and seeing the words in print, just seeing what it looks like is amazing. But it`s not at all surprising given the Trump campaign. I want to remind you that back after the election, you remember he was engaged in fundraising to try to raise money for his claims that the election was stolen. Give us money so that we can stop the steal, right?

And if you looked at the fine print there, by the end, 75 percent of that money wasn`t going to the Trump recounts or legal committees, it was actually going to his own slush fund, a leadership committee that he can use to fund his own personal work. So, this is really par for the course for how Trump has been bilking his donors for years and it`s just culminated in the 2020 election.

HAYES: Yes. One thing that I kept thinking about when I was reading the reporting was, first of all, 10 percent of all that money you raised is an enormous refund rate, right?


HAYES: $120 million. But that`s just the people that caught it, right? I mean, some people probably, you know, dissed it, I mean if they gave $15. Like, you know, at $500, someone depletes your bank account and wipes you out, you`re going to notice. But at some level, like, it probably worked. There`s some X number of millions they probably raised and got away with.

HASEN: Yes. You know, when I was asked to be on your show, I was actually thinking you actually should have Katie Porter on, my former UCI colleague who`s now in Congress who is a consumer law expert. I mean, this is kind of --

HAYES: Right.

HASEN: If this were a commercial enterprise, you know, we`d be talking about the Federal Trade Commission, you know, these kinds of deceptive things, it`s just like the worst kind of marketing whatsoever. And it relies on people`s inertia and confusion. And it preys on the people who are the least sophisticated, those who are not used to reading through fine print to figure out exactly what rights they might be giving up.

So, it really is something that when read, should be embarrassed about. And the Trump campaign, I`m glad they`re giving refunds, but this is really the worst kind of practice for people, especially giving small donations or on a fixed income.

HAYES: Yes. Although one -- so, I totally agree, right. Like, at some level, this feels more like commercial law, right? It feels like, you know, sort of commercial fraud, regulation, or statutes. But there is an interesting disclosure problem here, right? This time lag, which is that the stuff you do in the stretch run of a campaign, basically doesn`t get disclosed till after.

And there`s a lot of reason that is a real kind of like disclosure black hole where some really ugly stuff can happen. Because, you know, if you win, you`re not going to un-win if people find out about it a month later.

HASEN: Sure. I mean, certainly, you know, we see super PACs that take donations at the last minute, they don`t get disclosure after the election is over. But to me, what this screamed was much more of a concern about was Trump trying to raise money because he needed the money immediately so that he could fund to the end of his campaign as he was losing in the race to Biden, in the hopes that, you know, he`d win and therefore, you know, people wouldn`t care that he later had to give the refunds.

I think it was a way to get cash. And it seemed increasingly desperate as you got closer and closer to Election Day and as Trump remained behind in the polls.

HAYES: Yes. There`s also -- you mentioned WinRed. We should say -- I mean, WinRed was launched as a sort of counter to ActBlue, which is this incredible fundraising platform for progressive Democratic candidates. But ActBlue is nonprofit, WinRed is a for-profit company. It makes its money by taking 30 cents of every donation, 3.8 percent of the amount given. They`re also making a ton of money off this. They`re sort of partners in this enterprise.

HASEN: Oh, yes, absolutely. And, you know, like I said, you know, this is not only Trump`s fault. The thing about Trump is Republicans had a hard time. You have to go back to John McCain to find someone who really attracted small donors on the Republican side. Trump really unlocked that. And you know, he did very well.

But this was trying to just goose things in a way that is really unethical, and it`s indefensible. And I hope that other Republicans who are going to be using WinRed are going to make sure that they don`t try these sharp practices in the future because they really are deceptive and unethical.

HAYES: Rick Hasen who is a fantastic authority on Election Law, thank you so much your time.

HASEN: Thanks.

HAYES: Ahead, debunking one of the most insidious lies spread by the conservative media about the death of George Floyd. And a police chief testifies against one of his own former officers, a remarkable day in the murder trial of Derek Chauvin. We`ll get into it all next.


HAYES: Today`s star witness in the murder trial of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was the chief of Minneapolis Police Department himself, Medaria Arradondo. Chief Arradondo`s path to the witness stand today is pretty remarkable in itself. He made history as the first Black Chief at the department. He was appointed in 2017 after nearly 30 years on that force.

His history with the Minneapolis Police Department is fascinating. Back in 2007, then-Lieutenant Arradondo actually sued the department, along with four other Black officers, alleging racial discrimination. He`s also served as commander of the internal affairs unit investigating allegations of misconduct by officers, the kind of position that puts you up against the infamous blue wall of silence.

Last year, after the death of George Floyd, Chief Arradondo said the officers involved knew what was happening and one Chauvin intentionally caused it. "This was murder. It wasn`t a lack of training." Around the same time, the chief told NBC`s Gabe Gutierrez he did not even want to be anywhere near Derek Chauvin.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you could look and be in the same room with Derek Chauvin, what would you say to him.

ARRADONDO: I wouldn`t be in the same room with him. And I refuse to mention his name.


HAYES: Well, today, Chief Arradondo did have to be in the same room as the former officer. He took the stand in Minneapolis to testify that what Chauvin did was absolutely not police procedure.


ARRADONDO: Once there was no longer any resistance and clearly when Mr. Floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless, to continue to apply that level of force to a person pronged out, handcuffed behind their back, that in no way shape or form is anything that is by policy, is not part of our training, and it is certainly not part of our ethics or values.


HAYES: Chief Arredondo wasn`t the only key witness we heard from today in that trial. We also heard from the Doctor who is the one who pronounced George Floyd dead at the hospital. And he was there to debunk this insidious myth you`ve seen propagated by conservative media that Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd`s neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds, as we all seen on video, was not the cause of his death. There must have been some other reason that he died.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did they say to you, for purposes of hearing are given treatment to Mr. Floyd, that they felt he had suffered a drug overdose?

BRADFORD WANKHEDE LANGENFELD, WITNESS: Not in the information they gave. No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did they tell you in the information they gave that they felt that Mr. Floyd had had a heart attack?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was your leading theory then for the cause of Mr. Floyd`s cardiac arrest oxygen deficiency?

LANGENFELD: That was one of the more likely possibilities. I felt that at the time, based on the information I had, it was more likely than the other possibilities.


HAYES: The witnesses we`ve seen testifying in just over one week of this trial have not only knocking down every pillar of Derek Chauvin`s case, but also knocking out all the typical excuses and biases we hear about police brutality in general. We`ll talk about that next.



ARRADONDO: The badge that I wear and that members of the Minneapolis Police Department wear, it means a lot because the first time that we interact with our community members may be the only time that they have an interaction and so, that has to count for something.


HAYES: One of the most striking features of the trial of Derek Chauvin is that the prosecution has police officers taking the stand to testify against Chauvin, including the head of the department. That`s really, really quite uncommon. And it makes Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo just a fascinating, compelling witness.

In fact, two years ago, he testified in the trial of another former Minneapolis Police officer who was convicted of murder of the fatal shooting of an Australian woman while on duty. And so, for the second time in his many years, Arradondo has explained to a jury the responsibility officers have to his hometown while condemning the actions of one of those former officers.

Two people who have been following this trial closely, Redditt Hudson, a former St. Louis Police Officer, co-founder of the National Coalition of Law Enforcement Officers for Justice, Reform, and Accountability. And Rachel Paulose, former U.S. Attorney for Minnesota.

Redditt, let me start with you because it struck me watching the chief today. It`s not that common to get officers testifying in this context in these trials, and certainly not the chief. And what`s your impressions were watching that testimony?

REDDITT HUDSON, FORMER ST. LOUIS POLICE OFFICER: I thought it was powerful. I mean, the chief, essentially is telling the jury that Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd. And it`s powerful because it`s coming from law enforcement. The defense attorney, if you`ve paid attention to him through this trial, keeps attempting to ask these highly credible law enforcement people who`ve been in law enforcement work for decades, when was the last time you were in the streets, when was the last time you arrested somebody, which is another version of what police officers always throw at some activists and civilian is if you understood what we do, you wouldn`t question it.

Well, really, it has nothing to do with the fact that we all watched Derek Chauvin sadistically and brutally murder George Floyd on the street and his colleagues are confirming that. So, I hope that the jury is receiving this. However, even with this overwhelming evidence or video and the testimony of these law enforcement people, I`ll tell you right here in St. Louis, we just had three or four officers exonerated by an all-white jury who beat an undercover Black officer at a protest.

The city settle with them for $5 million. They`ve got text between the officers in advance of the beating saying how they`re going to hurt people tonight. They apologize to the officer in another text, and still a jury found a way to let these guys off. It takes people in law enforcement to really do what needs to be done in terms of holding each other accountable and we`re seeing that in this trial.

HAYES: Yes, the chief also had talked a bit about use of force more broadly. And I thought this -- what he had to say here was pretty striking as well. Take a listen.


ARRADONDO: It is my firm belief that the one singular incident, we will be judged forever on will be our use of force. And so, while it is absolutely imperative that our officers go home at the end of the shift, we want to make sure and ensure that our community members go home too. And so, sanctity of life is absolutely vital that that is the pillar for our use of force.


HAYES: So, Rachel, I want to ask you what the sort of legal thresholds for what you wanted to see from these witnesses today in terms of the cases each side are presenting first starting with the chief who it seemed to me was there to establish that this was outside of the training, this was outside our protocol, that he was not acting in a responsible fashion as a police officer. What did -- what did you see is the goal of that testimony from the prosecution`s perspective?

RACHEL PAULOSE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR MINNESOTA: Chris, the goal of the prosecution`s calling the chief to the stand was to testify on the use of reasonable force. And when the chief said without hesitation that Derek Chauvin violated Minneapolis Police Department policy on the use of neck restraints, on the use of de-escalation tactics, on the use of reasonable force, and on the use of rendering aid to people in medical distress, repeatedly without hesitation, he sent a strong message about what he expects as chief -- as the chief from his officers as well as what he intends to convey to the community about the police department`s mission to really serve and protect, which was not seen in this case.

HAYES: The doctor who testified that we showed you that clip of in the last block Dr. Langenfeld, who is the doctor who pronounced Mr. Floyd dead at the moment, you know he was -- it was interesting because he`s not definitive in his account, right? He`s a doctor who is receiving a patient. He`s getting a handoff. He can`t say like, this is definitively the thing that happened.

But it was striking to me them setting up this testimony that like, they didn`t tell you he was in some other distress, they didn`t tell you there`s other stuff going on. What was that line of questioning trying to do?

PAULOSE: Well, if the officers were truly concerned or truly believed at the moment, as Derek Chauvin is claiming now, that Mr. Floyd was in some sort of drug induced delirium, then that would have been a relevant fact to pass on to the paramedics, who would have passed it on to the doctor.

It`s critical here that on his own, the E.R. doctor came to the conclusion that the cause of death was deprivation of oxygen, and that the failure to render CPR on this scene every minute that ticked by without rendering first aid decreased Mr. Floyd`s chance at life. When none of the four officers rendered any medical aid, when they stopped an off-duty firefighter from rendering aid, and when they held back a crowd pleading with them to render aid, that`s truly relevant in the context of this case.

HAYES: That point was so powerful, I thought, because there`s two things happening here. There`s the -- there`s the proactive actions being taken by Chauvin in terms of the kneeling, but then there`s the prevention of the intervention of aid, of CPR. And this is what the doctor had to say about what that means in terms of the causal structure of the outcome of Mr. Floyd`s death. Take a listen.


LANGENFELD: It`s well known that any amount of time that a patient spends in cardiac arrest without immediate CPR markedly decreases the chance of a good outcome. Approximately 10 to 15 percent decrease in survival, for every minute that CPR is not administered.


HAYES: Right. That seems really damning to me because it reminds you of the broader context as Rachel was pointing out.

HUDSON: Absolutely. And Chris, you know, the chief said, what he saw was a violation of policy and the morals and ethics of the department over which he presides. I`m not an attorney, I`m a layperson, but I`ll tell you, man, if I have a toxic level of alcohol in my system, and I`m going to die from that in eight or nine hours, and you see me stumbling to my car and walk up and shoot me in my head to rob me, killing me, you murdered me. You`ve committed a crime and you should go to prison for it.

Derek Chauvin should go to prison for the murder he committed in front of all of us. And I`m hopeful that is the outcome that we see just as in the case of Mohamed Noor, same department, sane chief, then-Assistant Chief testified against him for the violations he committed, and Mohamed Noor is in prison now.

The difference there is that Mohamed Noor is a Black officer in Minneapolis who killed an unarmed White woman. And we all know the role that race plays in law enforcement and in the judicial process. So, let`s hope that this jury does the right thing. And I would admonish those who are in positions to affect policy broadly to stay with it.

Man, this is no time to veer off and tinker around the margins when it comes to police reform. Real accountability is absolutely necessary. And I would encourage those at the top, the Biden administration to have the guts to really envision a new response to public safety. And hopefully, this trial can launch some of that. Derek Chauvin, he disgust me, man. I just -- he needs to go to prison.

HAYES: Redditt Hudson and Rachel Paulose, thank you both for making time tonight and helping us work through all that. I really appreciate it.

PAULOSE: Thank you.

HAYES: Next, as the DOJ probe into Matt Gaetz continues, the congressman is out with a new op-ed tonight that`s downright bizarre. House -- how House Republicans are reacting after this.


HAYES: Florida Republican Matt Gaetz, now, I got to say I was on vacation last week but I did make a little time for this story. Florida Republican Matt Gaetz in the midst of swirling reports of an investigation and allegations of possible sex with a 17-year-old and paying for sex with other women says the swamp is out to drown me.

This he writes today in a right-wing newspaper defiantly refusing to resign. But as Punchbowl news reports, other Republicans would love nothing more than for him to do exactly that, and are taking potshots at Gaetz from the safety of off-the-record anonymity.

Don`t worry, the report goes on to say Republicans will absolutely call for him to resign publicly if he is indicted and the charges include sex with a teenager.

Melanie Zanona is a congressional reporter at Politico where she`s been helping cover this story. It`s great to have you on. So, there`s there`s this sort of investigation to Gaetz, there`s his op-ed today I won`t resign, and then there his Republican colleagues.

So, first, let`s just talk about the op-ed which is sort of a bizarre document. What was your read on what Gaetz is doing in this op-ed?

MELANIE ZANONA, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, POLITICO: To me, it looks like he`s following the Donald Trump playbook when it comes to scandals. I mean, he`s absolutely defiant. He is trying to muddy the waters by saying he`s the victim of an extortion scheme and that he brought up this FBI probe which is completely, you know, unrelated or separate to the DOJ probe, I should say.

And he`s throwing out these red herrings trying to blame the media, the Cheney political dynasty, the swamp, the Merrick Garland Justice Department, which mind you, this investigation started under Bill Barr. And then finally, he`s trying to make himself into a victim right, comparing himself to Justice Kavanaugh when the GOP largely was on Kavanaugh`s side in that instance.

But it`s clear to me what he`s trying to do is when in the court of public opinion, you know. But obviously, if he ends up getting indicted, it`s not really going to matter what the public thinks or what his colleagues think because he`ll probably have a lot bigger problems to deal with.

HAYES: Well, there`s also -- so, this line caught our eye. He says you`ll see more drip, drip, drip of leaks into the media from the corrupt Justice Department and others. When you do ask yourself why, they aren`t coming from me, they`re coming from you. I`m just in the way. By the way, that`s like a very common right-wing mean that last thing.

But just prepping everyone like there`s going to be more stuff to come out seems to me like a person who is not confident like we`ve passed over this portion of this story.

ZANONA: Yes. And he also said, listen, I`m not a monk. I`m not perfect. His statements have been very interesting. Some of the other statements he said have been things like, well, I`ve cherished my past relationships, but I`m ready to get married to the love of my life now, you know. So, clearly, he`s being very particular with his wording, although I would assume his lawyer is probably telling his client to shut up, but who knows.

But yeah, look, you know, I think this is only going to continue to be a huge problem for him. And he`s under a huge microscope right now.

HAYES: Yes, the wording of the -- you know, as someone who`s -- well, not formally accused, but reports of an investigation, the possibility of him as a 30-something member of Congress having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old minor, saying, like, I have never had sex with a 17-year-old, like the very specific years on the denials, like a little just weird, kind of like a little alarm belly in my head when I read it.

There`s also the fact that, like, his colleagues don`t seem like big Matt Gaetz fans, but also seem too cowardly to be very forthcoming about that.

ZANONA: Yes, I think it`s a mix of things. You`re absolutely right. I mean, he does not have a lot of friends in Congress, they view him as sort of a showboater and they don`t take them very seriously. He has this frat boy reputation. Also, keep in mind, his district is very conservative. So, if he does resign, and step down early, like there is no concern about losing that seat.

HAYES: Right.

ZANONA: So, Republicans -- you know, that`s not a political calculation. But at the same time, Congress is on recess right now. I don`t think anyone wants to be the first one in the Republican Party to call on him to resign. But, you know, I agree that if there is an indictment that come down, like the floodgates, no pun intended, the floodgates are going to open a resignation.

HAYES: Does that -- I mean, you`re reporting the story and can`t predict the future, obviously. But like, does that seem likely to you? Like, what is your sense of what -- I`m having a hard time parsing this level of seriousness where we`re looking at here from a criminal investigation standpoint.

ZANONA: Yes. I can`t speak to the investigation. Clearly, they are still knocking on doors. You know, Gaetz`s former staffer just said today that they were approached by the FBI last week. The staffer, of course, said that, you know, I don`t know anything about these allegations. And they`re not true. They`re baseless.

But that shows that it is ongoing. I think he`s in very serious jeopardy here, potentially. We just don`t know quite what his exposure is. But there`s lots of other things that have come to light, including I`ve confirmed with two sources that he`s been showing off nude pictures and nude videos of women on his phone to his colleagues in Congress.

You know, another source sent me a, you know, picture of a box of empty condoms in the trash bin outside of his office. So, just all his behavior, all of his votes as a member of Congress are now coming under greater scrutiny in light of this DOJ probe. So, even if he`s not, you know, criminally in trouble here, I do think he has a, you know, a major P.R. problem.

And, you know, that could really further damage his credibility, whatever credibility he did have on Capitol Hill.

HAYES: Yes. I mean, you`re a very good reporter who is reporting out the facts. Let me -- allow me to editorialize it. Like, showing naked pictures of people that you have had relationships with to your colleagues presumably without their consent for you to show them is just like disgusting, despicable behavior. That independent of a criminal inquiry just makes you a bad person, or person behaving badly.

And I got to think, like, one would hope that that`s generally understood by members of Congress, but maybe not. I don`t know.

ZANONA: I mean, we`re also -- you know, this is again, comparing to Donald Trump, he was just absolutely defiant. There are also two members of Congress, former members of Congress who were indicted for, you know, unrelated, completely different charges, you know, including campaign finance violations, and they were indicted, and they refused to step down, and they went on to win reelection.

Of course, those victories are short lived when they eventually -- those legal troubles did catch up to them. But you know, you could see a scenario where Matt Gaetz absolutely refuses to resign, refuses to step down no matter what happens to him.

HAYES: Oh, there`s no way he`s going to resign, right? I mean, that`s the thing is like, I think that`s the new -- the new game plan is never resign. And I think there`s actually some bipartisan belief in that, you know, post-Donald Trump, but we`ve seen a number of politicians, Republicans and Democrats in positions where they`re -- they look pretty squeezed. And the answer is, you know, public attention weans.

ZANONA: Like, keep (AUDIO GAP)

HAYES: Yes, try to -- try to ride it out. The only thing for Gaetz is given the him talking about drip, drip, drip, I`m not sure we`re quite done with the most damning details in the story yet, so we will stay attuned to that beat as well.

Melanie Zanona who`s has been doing fantastic reporting on this, Melanie, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

ZANONA: Thank you for having me, Chris.

HAYES: All right, that is ALL IN on this Monday night. My great thanks to Mehdi Hasan for filling in for me all last week. He did a phenomenal job. I couldn`t be more grateful. It was amazing to get a week with my family. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.