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

Transcript: All In with Chris Hayes, 5/27/21



The Senate tonight is expected to vote on the January 6 Commission that was passed by the House with a bipartisan vote. Sen. Mitch McConnell asked the GOP to kill the January 6 Commission as a personal favor. Embattled Trump CFO is now tied to former President Trump`s inauguration scandal. Yesterday, a Dutch court ruled that the Royal Dutch Shell company should cut its own CO2 emissions as well as from its suppliers and customers by a net 45 percent by the end of 2030. The unemployment claims last week is down 8.9 percent from the week before.




CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Usually I`m staying in the background and I just couldn`t -- I couldn`t stay quiet anymore.

HAYES: The mother of a fallen police officer pleads with Republicans. Mitch McConnell begs senators to kill the January 6 Commission as a "personal favor."

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I can`t imagine anyone voting against the establishment of a commission on the greatest assault since the Civil War on the Capitol.

HAYES: Tonight, the Republican refusal to investigate and attack on America, the Democrat that`s still standing in the way.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would you be willing to break the filibuster in order to get this passed?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): I`m not ready to destroy our government.

HAYES: Then David Corn of Mother Jones with new reporting on a new scandal for Donald Trump`s money man.

Plus, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh on what today`s jobless numbers mean for Biden`s big jobs agenda. And the climate nightmare in Alaska where one oil company is now chilling the warming ground so they can suck more oil out of it when ALL IN starts now.


HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. No one should be surprised by what is likely going to happen in the U.S. Senate tonight, but everyone should be outraged. Republicans are planning to block a procedural vote to filibuster the attempts to create an independent commission to investigate the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

This is a black and white issue. It`s not morally complex. There`s no actual justification for the vast majority of the Republican caucus to take this extraordinary step of filibustering a completely bipartisan commission to investigate the worst frontal assault on the peaceful transfer of power in this country`s history at least since the Civil War.

Remember, for months, OK -- right, it`s May right now. We`re getting to this in May for this reason, because for months, Democrats negotiated with House Republicans in good faith. Bennie Thompson was on the show talking about the negotiations. He negotiated to reach a deal to investigate the attack.

Congressman John Katko, Republican of New York is the guy who led those negotiations for his party. Katko, the Republican, hammered out all the details with his Democratic counterpart, Bernie Thompson of Mississippi. And Congressman Katko did all this at the behest in communication with House Leader Kevin McCarthy who then just turned around and told the whole Republican caucus to vote against the commission.

Here`s Congressman Katko urging his colleagues to vote for it.


REP. JOHN KATKO (R-NY): We must find answers to the many questions running that day. What information was known leading up to January 6. Why was that information not shared with the proper entities? Why were Capitol Police officers left someone prepared? Who failed to provide them with support? Why did it take so long for reinforcements to come to their raid?

How can we improve the decision-making and bureaucracy that is clearly hampering the Capitol Police and security of the Capitol Complex? How can we ensure that the Capitol, members of Congress, and our staffs are secure from attacks? And how do we ensure that this is a safer place for members of the Capitol Police Force who risk their lives every day to protect us?


HAYES: I mean, those seem like good questions you`d want the answer to. Eventually, 35 House Republicans cross party lines and join with Democrats in a bipartisan vote to back the bill. But over the Senate, the bill always seemed unlikely to succeed, at least an uphill battle, partly because of the filibuster.

You have Republican Senators Mitt Romney of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. They said they would support the House-passed bill. Maine `s Susan Collins had expressed her willingness to do the same, but only if the House bill would consider some changes in the hope those tweaks would prompt more Republicans to get behind it. But in the end, it looks like that`s not going to work.

Now, again, there`s no reason not to vote for a bipartisan commission to create a 10-person panel evenly split, five positions selected by Democratic Congressional leaders, five selected by their Republican counterparts, that would follow the model of the independent 9/11 commission to undertake an inquiry into what stands out in American history as an essentially unprecedented attack, a mob at the President`s direction storming the Capitol to attempt to overturn a democratic election to install the loser in power over the winner and against the will of the people.

I mean, this is obvious even to Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia who put it this way. There is no excuse for any Republican to vote against his commission since Democrats have agreed to everything they asked for. Mitch McConnell has made this his political position thinking it will help his 2022 elections. They do not believe the truth will set you free so they continue to live in fear.

Now, none of that justification matters to Republicans because we are not having an argument here where people can be persuaded. This is a completely amoral calculus. It is the same one Republicans have been making since 2015. Even as the family of Brian Sicknick, the Capitol Police officer who suffered two strokes after being sprayed in the face of an unknown substance and lost his life a day after he confronted rioters of the insurrection, even as his mother and longtime partner went through the halls of Congress today essentially door to door to personally lobby Republican senators. It was not enough.


SANDRA GARZA, PARTNER OF BRIAN SICKNICK: I want them to be thinking about Brian Sicknick, Officer Liebengood, and Officer Jeffrey Smith. They sacrificed their lives that day. They really did. It doesn`t matter that Brian`s cause of death was natural. He still died defending them that day.

GLADYS SICKNICK, MOTHER OF BRIAN SICKNICK: Usually, I`m staying in the background. And I just couldn`t -- I couldn`t stay quiet anymore.


HAYES: It appears those efforts, those heartfelt efforts by those individuals will come to naught. According to a CNN report, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is whipping against the January 6 Commission, personally asking Republicans to consider it a personal favor, a no vote.

Now, there are several different ways in which this is obviously preposterously hypocritical, right? You can point to the assault by militias, right, on our consulate in Libya in Benghazi, right? Remember that? And attack the cost for Americans their lives, an occasion years and years of Republican inquiry and a special committee and remarkable 11-hours of testimony by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And yet, an assault on our own Capitol by Americans at the direction of then-sitting president that resulted in the deaths of five people, that doesn`t matter.

To hammer the point home, a progressive veterans group put together an ad with audio of Republicans demanding a Benghazi investigation over video of the January 6 insurrection.


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): What I think we ought to do is complete the investigation and found out -- find out what exactly happened. And I think we have a sense of what happened. We know there was inadequate security. And we know the administration kind of made up a tail here in order to make it seem like it wasn`t a terrorist attack. I think that`s worthy of investigation and investigations ought to go forward.


HAYES: Now, you can also point to the fact that during President Trump`s second impeachment hearing, remember that, just a few months ago, Republicans in their abject cowardice love to say as an excuse for voting against impeachment that it was happening too fast, you need to slow it down and enter more facts into evidence.


MCCONNELL: What I think we ought to do is complete the investigation and found out -- find out what exactly happened.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): It is abundantly clear that the driving motivation is protecting the political interest of the president rather than telling the truth about what happened and getting to the bottom of it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why didn`t they wait for an investigation? Why did we go straight to snap judgment?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was a mistake for the House to rush into this impeachment. They`ve not fully investigated exactly who was part of this -- of this crowd.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): This is why you don`t want to have snap impeachments. Evidence really does matter.


HAYES: Ted Cruz, of course, they`re talking about Benghazi, the rest of them talking about that impeachment hearing, right? Oh, you went too fast. We didn`t get all the facts. We should get all the facts, we should have an investigation. You`re putting the cart before the horse. Now, the opportunity for investigating all the facts is coming to them, they`re saying, oh, no, we`re already past that. We`ve moved on.

OK, but all of this, remember, is being reverse engineered around the sheer political fact which is this. And it`s -- I don`t like saying it, but it`s true. Donald Trump, one of the worst men to ever occupy the office of president, arguably the worst, he`s in the running, he`s in the conversation. A man who has been impeached twice, never happened before, who oversaw literally the deadliest year in American history and kept it off by coming to overturn election and 220 years of American democracy. That man Donald Trump, he still controls the Republican Party.

No one reads his blog. I don`t know what he does in Mar-a-Lago. No one really cares about his takes as they shouldn`t, but there he is. And the reason is he fully embodies the base of the party, their worldview and their grievances and their hatreds. And it does not matter what happens. There is nothing that would pry it apart. They had one chance. They had it. It was given to them to make a clean break. That was during the impeachment.

They had it. You could have voted to convict, Mitch. You could have voted to disqualify him from future office and he -- then he would have no power. But you didn`t. And so, now he is your king. And as King, you are his soldiers. And as soldiers, you must defend him from an inquiry that would obviously show horrible things about a horrible man. And so here we are.

Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota who will vote shortly on the January 6 Commission and who is chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee has already gaveled a Senate hearing examining the January 6 attack joins me now.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: What`s the mood there like today?

KLOBUCHAR: Well, we`re very focused on the competition bill, but this fact that my colleagues are not going to allow this commission to go forward, I think some of them will vote for it, Chris. It just -- it shocks me. I just keep having the image of these workers the day after the insurrection, sweeping the glass away, sweeping the glass from the Capitol windows away. And it`s like they`re trying to sweep the facts away right now.

You heard from the mother of Officer Sicknick who died that evening. And you heard her words. She`s not used to doing these kinds of things. She`s an ordinary person doing extraordinary things, talking to Senator saying, why won`t you want the facts? And I think it`s so important that this be a thorough bipartisan inquiry.

You know, we are doing a report that will come out in about a week or so out of the Rules Committee and the Homeland Security Committee in the Senate. That`s important to do. That was Senator Peters, and Senator Blunt, and Senator Portman, and myself. And we worked hard on this. We`ve interviewed people. It`ll be thorough, but it is a report about the immediate, about what were the security failures.

It is a report that I think will immediately help us to pass some legislation. But it doesn`t get to the systemic underlying causes. It isn`t bicameral. It`s not with the House. It is just with the Senate. And I always thought it was not going to be the end, that it would be the beginning.

And so, I`m proud of the work we`ve done on a bipartisan basis, but it is no substitute, no substitute for a 9/11 type commission report and investigation.

HAYES: I mean, I`m going to play you this McConnell -- what McConnell had to say and then get your reaction. Take a listen.


MCCONNELL: Obviously, the role of the former president has already been litigated exhaustively, exhaustively in the high-profile impeachment trial we had right here in the Senate several months ago. I do not believe the additional extraneous commission that Democratic leaders want would uncover crucial new facts or promote healing.


HAYES: What do you say to that?

KLOBUCHAR: Well, first of all, I look how we voted that evening. But I also look at the fact that as much as this president, the former president should have been impeached, this -- the impeachment hearing was just about that. It wasn`t about what happened with the Defense Department and why the intelligence wasn`t shared, and all of the underlying reasons. What led up to this? What was out there on social media? What could we do differently?

Think of those 9/11 commission report recommendations, Chris? They were -- they covered a whole number of things that really helped us move forward, so we could do a better job as a country. We`re going to do our part about the Capitol security in this report that you will soon see. But it is still not the same as doing this deep dive systemic review of everything that happened.

HAYES: Well, I thought -- I thought that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tips his hand there when he says obviously, the role of the former president has already been litigated exhaustively because that`s what this is all about. I mean, he is the Republican Party. His political strength is their strength. It`s all the same thing.

And a big long report that says, yes, the guy with the largest bullhorn in America spent months undermining the integrity of the election and attempting to overthrow the democratic process, culminating in a violent assault in the Capitol. Like, it`s not going to make him look good. And that will be bad for them. And that`s it, right? I mean, that`s -- am I crazy or is that just what this is all about?

KLOBUCHAR: I believe it is. You think of the words of John McCain that you fight for a cause larger than yourself, that that`s people`s true mission and why they should want to go into public service. Democracy is a cause larger than ourselves, larger than our parties. And getting to the bottom of what happened, and the facts, this is about our democracy and it is not about what party you belong to.

HAYES: Your colleague, John Tester, a straight shooter, I think that`s fair to say.

KLOBUCHAR: Yes, that`s fair to say, very fair to say.

HAYES: Yes. He said this. "We`ve got to get to the bottom of this. Tester said, Jesus, it`s a nonpartisan investigation of what happened. And if it`s because they`re afraid of Trump, they need to get out of office. It`s bull. You make tough decisions in this office or you shouldn`t be here."

I do find the fear bizarre. I truly do. I mean, I think it`s a calculation that look, you -- this is who we are and this is what we are. And this is who we represent and this is how we can win elections by being this party and this faction. You know, I don`t think they`re crazy to think that but - -

KLOBUCHAR: But it`s not -- it`s not what our job is. I mean, our job isn`t just about winning. Our job is about getting things done for people and standing up for our country. And that`s way I think --

HAYES: Do people believe that? I`m sorry. Do people --

KLOBUCHAR: That`s why -- but --

HAYES: I mean --

KLOBUCHAR: Could I just -- that`s why you start Chertoff and Ridge join with Napolitano and Jeh Johnson, the four former Homeland Security Secretary and say we must have this commission. Those are two Republican appointees joining with two Democrats. So my point is, there are people that believe that still. There are.

HAYES: OK, final question. And this is going to bring us to the next topic we`re going to get to in a second. But --


HAYES: It feels like -- it feels this way to me. And I -- my views on the filibuster are clear. I`ve been on the record. I think it`s bad for all kinds of reasons. But -- and I know you`ve come along to view that or must as we get -- like, if you can`t get 10 here, if you can`t get ten for a bipartisan commission, a bipartisan commission to investigate the insurrection on the Capitol, like what are we doing here? What can you do? What can you get it for?

KLOBUCHAR: Well, it`s clearly one of the reasons I favor abolishing the filibuster. I think that our job is to get things done. And that includes looking at what happened at the insurrection when a mob basically invaded our Capitol and killed people.

I also believe that we need to convince our ranks that this is a time to do it. I think we have another big hurdle coming up. That`s so important for the democracy, which is the next step, which is voting rights. Because you not only see a refusal to look at what happened on January 6, you see effort to literally stop people from exercising their freedom to vote. And that`s what we`re in the middle of discussing right now as a caucus. And that is certainly a worthy reason to change the filibuster to advance that legislation.

HAYES: All right, Senator Amy Klobuchar in a very, very busy day and what will be a long night. Thank you for making a little bit of your time for us.

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you very much, Chris.

HAYES: I appreciate it. The only reason we are here wondering if the United States Congress will bother to investigate the violent attack on the Capitol is because Democrats like Joe Manchin, Kristen Sinema, chiefly, Joe Manchin, both of them, are just dead set about abolishing the filibuster. They want to keep this 60 vote threshold for the sake of bipartisanship.

But could that change if this vote fails? That`s next.


HAYES: West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin is one of the two Senate Democrats who have consistently opposed abolishing the filibuster on the record opposing that. And so, Democrats can pass things like the voting rights bill or establishing a January 6 Commission. In April, he even wrote an op- ed about it titled I will not vote to eliminate or weaken the Filibuster," saying, "The time has come to end these political games and to usher a new era of bipartisanship where we find common ground on the major policy debates facing our nation."

And, you know, he`s putting his money where his mouth is right now. He`s working with a bunch of Senate Republicans on trying to hammer out a bipartisan infrastructure deal. But he has not been able to get any significant Republican support for the January 6 Commission. And today, Senator Manchin was asked if he is willing to remove the filibuster to ensure that we have this commission.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would you be willing to break the filibuster in order to get this passed?

MANCHIN: I`m not ready to destroy our government. I`m not ready to destroy our government, no. I think that those will come together. You have to have faith there`s 10 good people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How frustrating is it for you to see Republicans lined up in opposition to this?

MANCHIN: It`s frustrating to say this, I will tell you. There was a lot of negotiations and the leadership of the Democrats on both the House and the Senate have agreed to the recommendations that were made to make the adjustments. There`s no excuse for a Republican not to vote for this unless they don`t want to hear the truth.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What`s your message to Republican senators who are still opposing it even after meeting with the family today?

MANCHIN: Let -- the truth will set you free. That`s what I`ve said. The truth will set you free. If not, then you must be concerned that you`d have still to fear. I don`t know why you would -- anyone would not want to know what went on for the first time in the history of our country, an insurrection that`s never ever happened before, and now they`re afraid to find out what really happened and how we can prevent it from happening again.


HAYES: Now, you know, Manchin gets a lot of flack. I think a lot of it justified. But you know, he`s a good politician. And what he says here is well said. I mean, you can`t say it any better, right? Republicans have gotten everything they`ve asked for it, but still -- but at the same time, when you watch that clip, you just want to grab Joe Manchin and say, hey, Joe, two plus two equals four, right? This is it.

You know, if you can`t get 60 votes on this commission with the family of a deceased Capitol Police Officer going door to door to plead with Republican senators, it`s not going to happen, right? But tonight, we will find out as we wait on that very vote.

Olivia Beavers is a congressional reporter for Politico, author of The Huddle newsletter where she wrote about Joe Manchin blocking Joe Biden`s agenda back in February. And Donna Edwards, a former Democratic Congresswoman from Maryland, now a columnist at the Washington Post. And they both join me now.

Olivia, let me start with you as -- you know, Manchin is a pivot figure here. And there`s two tracks that I think are important, right? So Manchin is pleading with his Republican colleagues to vote for this. He says he doesn`t want to get rid of the filibuster. He`s also engaged in these bipartisan negotiations on infrastructure.

And the only reason those negotiations are happening, I think, is because the White House has not secured his vote to be the 50th vote to get it through reconciliation. And so, you wonder if there`s any crossing over in his mind between these two enterprises he`s engaged in.

OLIVIA BEAVERS, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, POLITICO: No. Manchin is certainly holding this very interesting, unique position, so as Kyrsten Sinema. He is basically able to be pushing the White House to be coming to the negotiating table in terms of infrastructure, because again, basically threatened to tank whatever bill Democrats are hoping to pass in the Senate. And even if they use a reconciliation tool, he has power.

But as a result of the January 6 Commission, Manchin is hoping that Republicans will come together, will be negotiating in good faith. And what he`s recognizing and even though he`s saying he hopes that they find a way, it`s just the odds don`t look like that`s going to happen. Democrats are saying they think they have six votes. That`s not the 10 they need.

And what they`re seeing is that Senate Republicans, House Republic, this is all about power. They are putting the idea of winning in the midterms and winning back control of both chambers their number -- as their number one priority over investigating a tragic event that unfolded in the nation`s Capitol.

And so that`s really what this is about. That`s what it boils down to. And this is going to amplify the pressure to nix the filibuster, but Manchin is still holding strong.

HAYES: You know, Donna, what is particularly galling here is the process by which this came about, right? Because sometimes, if one party controls one house, and the other party controls the other house, there will be what we call message bills, right? They`ll just on straight party line, they`ll pass something with no real intention that the other house is going to take it up, right?

It`s a party-line vote. You want to sort of put them in a box politically. This was not a message bill. I mean, we had Bennie Thompson on the show. Like, he negotiated with Katko for four months. Manchin sat down with Collins. This was not -- this wasn`t a stunt. This wasn`t a bill you pass to boxing your opponent and talk about how they`re bad people. This was an honest and good faith effort to get this thing passed.

DONNA EDWARDS, COLUMNIST, WASHINGTON POST: Well, and it is a bipartisan effort. I mean, if you look at the vote in the House, 35 House members -- Republican House members voted for this legislation. As you say it was negotiated among them. I actually think that Joe Manchin completely misread the history of the filibuster. It was always designed to block by super majority, the majority.

I don`t -- the Founders did not intend that as the way it has been used. And it`s also been used in areas where it blocks progress from civil rights to voting rights, all of those things from the civil war on forward. And so, I just think Joe Manchin has it wrong. And he can`t -- he`s speaking out of two sides of his mouth, because he can`t believe on the one hand, that the Commission bill needs to go forward. And then on the other hand, side with the very arcane rule that keeps us from dealing with an issue that touches on our democracy. You just can`t have it both ways and that`s what Joe Manchin is trying to do.

HAYES: Olivia, this Grassley -- Chuck Grassley had this to say back in May 4th. I think Politico`s Burgess Everett reported this. He was just at a local event in Iowa. He tells constituents he`s confident that Manchin will hold out against supporting Dems sweeping ethics, voting rights reform. That`s -- the Senate won. I think we`ve got him nailed down that.

You know, I mean, in some ways, that doesn`t quite matter because, you know, even if you didn`t have them, if he`s not going to get rid of the filibuster, you have it anyway. But it just points again, to how pivotal he`s become for what Biden and Democrats can do.

BEAVERS: Right. You know, it`s kind of a funny situation where, you know, the progressives that I talked to basically want to say, curse you, Joe Manchin. But also, there`s the unique idea that he keeps control, he has held the seat that Trump won. And so, if they didn`t have Joe Manchin in office, Democrats wouldn`t have power in the Senate.

So, basically, because he has a moderate and he is choosing to push certain positions including on key Democratic agenda items, like the Election Reforms Bill, he basically is holding power over these legislative priorities. And if he`s not on board, they`re not going to get passed. And that`s just going to mean that there is going to be more and more pressure. It`s going to be the Manchin show and we continue to see it today.

HAYES: Well, and there`s also a timing question, Donna. Quickly on this. You went through 2009, the Obama administration, right? ACA was in these bipartisan negotiations for months and months and months, and it pushed the passage date way down the road and made things more complicated. That was lost time. Do you see history repeating itself right now?

EDWARDS: I do. And I think it`s a real lesson that basically you`ve got to do this presidency as having roughly 17 more months with the House and Senate and the White House. And if you don`t think like that, and you think you have all the time in the world, we`re done.

HAYES: Olivia Beavers and Donna Edwards, thank you both. Next, are the walls closing in on Allen Weisselberg new reporting that the Trump Org exec who could flip on the former president is tied to yet another Trump scandal. David Corn has the goods. He joins me next.


HAYES: I was born and raised in the Bronx. You may know that. I tend to bring it up a lot. And I grew up knowing all about big New York City public figures and I read the papers and the tabloids every day. And I remember when they finally got the mob boss John Gotti. He`s convicted for a whole bunch of crimes.

The thing is, John Gotti was basically a public criminal for over 20 years before they got them. Everyone knew what he was up to. He was called the Teflon Don because charges didn`t seem to stick to him, a nickname that has since been applied to another infamous Don. And in the end Gotti was finally convicted because prosecutors got his lieutenant, Sammy "The Bull" Gravano to flip and testify about the many murders they committed together.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good evening. This time, the wise guy, smart, disappeared. John Gotti the modern godfather, the so-called Teflon Don, he always escaped the big convictions in the past but not today. Guilty of murder and racketeering 12 counts, and now facing a long time in jail.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The best evidence that Gotti is a mob boss, and from his own mouth over FBI bugs.

JOHN GOTTI, AMERICAN GANGSTER: It`s going to be Cosa Nostra until I die. But it an hour from now, or be it tonight or a hundred years from now when I`m in jail. It`s going to be Cosa Nostra.


HAYES: Now, there`s a reason it took forever to nail Gotti. He was careful and they set up all kinds of ways to shield him, right, from criminal liability. And you need solid evidence or good witnesses or both to convict in that kind of case, complex high profile case.

Now, all of that is something to remember when you read reports the Manhattan District Attorney has convened a grand jury to hear evidence weigh potential charges against Donald Trump, or that the New York Attorney General`s Office which is cooperating with the Manhattan D.A. is criminally investigating Trump`s right-hand man and CFO Allen Weisselberg. Those two offices are seeking to turn Mr. Weisselberg into cooperating witness against Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization.

Now, Allen Weisselberg certainly knows Trump`s business as well as anyone in the world. He was first hired as an accountant by Trump`s father Fred more than 40 years ago, and he`s been the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Org for over 20 years. And now, prosecutors might have another key piece of leverage to get him to spill the beans on Donald Trump. E-mails that according to David Corn of Mother Jones tie Weisselberg to the Trump inauguration committee, a committee that is currently being investigated by the Attorney General of Washington D.C. for essentially grifting funds to benefit the Trump family.

And David Corn, Washington Bureau Chief of Mother Jones joins me now. David, it`s great to have you. Tell us -- tell us what these e-mails are and what they indicate.

DAVID CORN, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, MOTHER JONES: Well, first, just we have to remember there`s a scale that hasn`t gotten a lot of attention. That`s about the Trump Inauguration Committee. It`s called the presidential inauguration. The pick is what people refer to it as. And it`s being investigated. It`s a civil investigation, not a criminal investigation, not criminal yet, by the D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine for basically taking what was charitable money, it`s a nonprofit, and using it to enrich, guess what, the Trump family by overpaying payments at the Trump hotel for events that were held and events that weren`t held at the Trump Hotel, and for holding a lavish party for the Trump family costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Basically, the Attorney General of D.C. has accused the Trump family of using the inauguration to grift, to line their pockets with hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is corruption from not even the first day of the presidency, but you know, starting the day before the presidency, the week before.

And so, in that investigation, it turns out there was a court filing the notary paid attention to that came out a year ago that had e-mails in it that showed in April of 2018 -- 2017, excuse me.

HAYES: Right.

CORN: When there were questions about the Trump finances, the Trump immigration finances. What did they do? They said Allen Weisselberg should be in charge or was overseeing the internal audit. This is really weird, right? Because it`s a nonprofit that paid a lot of money to the Trump Organization probably improperly. That`s what we know now. And they went to the guy who runs the money and the numbers of the Trump Organization said, you oversee the audit, you look at what`s going on here. There`s no good explanation for this now. And so, no one picked up on this and so I found these e-mails this week.

HAYES: So, we should also just set the context here, which was always the case that this inauguration, they raised and spent two or three times what the Obama inauguration was for what was manifestly a smaller affair. And it`s always been a bit of a head-scratching thing. Like, where did all the money go? We saw --

CORN: $107 million they raised. You right. It`s twice the $53 million that Obama raised. It`s unclear still where the money went. And they had a lot of trouble afterwards putting together their final financials and the reports and there was a lot of back and forth. Stephanie Winston Wolkoff writes about this in her book Melania and Me because she worked for the pick.

And so, we have Allen Weisselberg, who`s in charge of the company that`s getting some of the questionable payments now overseeing the audit. And to pop this off, a couple of weeks ago, Karl Racine tried to extend the discovery in the D.C. case in order to take his deposition. So, they`re finally on to him down in D.C. and they want to bring him in for questions.

HAYES: Wait, so they want to bring Weiselberg to depose in this case?

CORN: In this case. They now want -- you know, they went to the judge and said, we need more time for discovery because we want to bring him in. So, again, it`s a civil case, not a criminal case. But it shows yet again, he`s in the middle of what seems to be at least it`s an alleged example of Trump grift.

HAYES: Yes. I mean, he`s -- it sort of points to the fact. I mean, you`ve got -- you`ve got this situation in which the allegation is that the committee is essentially skimming off the top for Trump org and you bring in the Trump org accountant who would be on the receiving end of those payments, essentially, or overseeing them to run the audit.

But it`s also another example of like, he`s in the middle of all this, right? I mean, he is the guy. He`s the guy. They`ve been saying it forever. We know that Cy Vance and Letitia James` offices have their eyes on him. We know they`ve talked to his -- investigated his kids according to reporting. Do you see him as the central figure based on all your reporting here?

CORN: Other than someone in the immediate family, yes, right? Because, you know, what is Trump being investigated for? Various types of tax fraud through Trump Organization, various types of business fraud. It`s a closely held company. It`s run -- it was just a few people. There`s no middle management, very, very little at Trump Organization.

So, it`s Donald Trump senior. It`s his three kids, Junior, Eric, and Ivanka. And it`s -- and it`s Allen Weisselberg and a few others. So, he knows where everything is. He was involved in the Trump Foundation. Remember, that was shut down too for rampant gross illegality.

HAYES: Right.

CORN: I mean, there`s nothing that goes on in the Trump business world that he`s not involved with. So, he is the Rosetta Stone.

HAYES: Yes. I should say, three of his four children -- three of his four children. Tiffany Trump, I see you. I got your back. David Corn, great reporting. Thank you.

CORN: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: Ahead, could the courts be the next frontier for the fight against climate change? Why we should pay a lot of attention to the landmark ruling in the Netherlands that`s holding big oil accountable? After this.


HAYES: The Biden administration has set a target of cutting U.S. carbon emissions in half by the year 2030. It`s both an extremely ambitious target in the context of America and about the bare minimum necessary to do our part under the Paris Climate Agreement to try to stop the planet from getting two degrees Celsius hotter than it was back in the 19th century.

Of course, just about every other country in the world has their own emissions targets, and targets are good. We like targets. The problem is no one is hitting those targets. And fossil fuel companies have been going around telling their investors, (INAUDIBLE) don`t worry. The targets are all B.S. anyway, and we`ll keep pumping carbon out of the ground for energy well into the future.

Here`s a case in point. Alaska where the Biden administration is defending a huge Trump-era oil and gas project in the North Slope of that state, is designed to produce more than 100,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 30 years. This despite President Biden`s pledge to pivot the country away from fossil fuels. The administration is fighting for a multi-billion dollar plan from ConocoPhillips to drill in part of the National Petroleum Reserve that was approved by the Trump administration late last year.

Now, how crazy is it to keep drilling like this? This is how crazy. In a paradox worthy of Kafka, ConocoPhilips plans to install chillers into the permafrost, which is fast melting because of climate change, to keep it solid enough to support the equipment to drill for oil, the burning of which will continue to worsen ice melt. Yes, you get all that? Did your brain just break?

To put in another way, there is literally nothing, nothing that will get oil gas and coal companies from stopping extraction other than going out of business, which is happening to a lot of coal companies particularly, or some kind of binding legal order to cut it out, stop. And on that score, enter the Netherlands.

Yesterday, a Dutch court ruled that the Royal Dutch Shell company helped drive climate change, fact-check true, and they order the company to cut its own CO2 emissions as well as from its suppliers and customers by a net 45 percent by the end of 2030 compared to 2019 levels.

Now, Shell says they will appeal. But this is a landmark ruling. This is the first of its kind. I mean, other courts in the E.U. have issued rulings that have bound governments to be more aggressive in emission targets or controls. But this is the first court order that gets a specific legally binding emissions target to a fossil fuel company.

The lawsuit brought by Friends of the Earth, Netherlands, among others, may be the first of many that use courts provide the sticks necessary to get companies and countries on track to keep their Paris promises. And it can`t happen fast enough because right now, there are a lot of carrots out there, OK, that are working well and climate policy, and they`re encouraging and they`re great.

There`s incentives for clean energy conversion, big investments in technological change that are making buildings more energy-efficient, and non-carbon fuel cheaper and cheaper and cheaper by the day. The infrastructure bill has these huge climate investments to make the Paris targets, $100 billion in funding to update the country`s electric grid and make it more resilient to worsening climate disasters, and $174 billion spendings to boost the electric vehicle market and shift away from fossil fuel-powered cars.

The problem though, is again, the Paris Climate Agreement is non-binding, OK. And every country has their own set of reasons to miss the targets. They`ve all got their own Joe Manchins or their own Mitch McConnells or whatever. So, there are carrots out there but we got our real lack of sticks. And now, an E.U. court has busted out a stick.


HAYES: You know what Thursday is? Of course, you do. It`s new jobless numbers day, which means the day we see how many Americans newly filed for unemployment. And there were 406,000 new Unemployment Claims last week down 8.9 percent from the week before. It`s the fourth week in a row it declined. That is encouraging. You see that -- the way that graph is headed. It`s good news. Evidence of recovery is continuing.

But according to the latest numbers, there are still over nine million people out of work. To help, the Biden administration is proposing this big jobs package, right, the American Jobs Plan with a variety of investments to serve productivity, boost job, and crucially wage growth. Republicans though, say the economy is overheating.

In fact, 24 states all with Republican governors have said they will cancel COVID unemployment relief from the federal government for their own states unemployed. And all the while business owners, everywhere you look are whining about spoiled workers who are asking for too much of wages, who are unwilling to do service jobs.

So, are American workers spoiled? Is the economy overheating? Well, to get the -- make the case for the Biden administration`s view of this answers to these, I bring in now the Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, Secretary of Labor, the first-ever former union official to serve in that role in over four decades.

Mr. Secretary, it`s great -- it`s great to have you. There are real -- there are some people raising these concerns. And I was sort of being a little tongue in cheek with the whining there. But that it`s extremely hard to find workers, that there`s a -- there`s a kind of labor shortage, that businesses don`t have enough to pay these higher wages. What`s your -- what`s your administration`s view of that?

MARTY WALSH, SECRETARY OF LABOR: Yes, I wouldn`t agree with that completely across the board. I think that we have, as you said, eight million people out of work, going to be looking for work. I can`t imagine eight million people saying OK, I`d rather sit home and collect unemployment and don`t go to work in our country when an opportunity presents itself for employment.

I think that there`s lots of reasons. We`re still -- number one, we still living with a pandemic. We`ve seen more people a month of April looking for work than the month of March, which is a great sign. We saw our hospitality industry coming back to strongest the last month when the job numbers came out. Hopefully, we`re going to continue to see that grows and move forward.

The President rolled out some money for daycare and childcare two weeks ago. That money is going now down to states so that we can help our child care industries that were hit very hard during the pandemic. We still have kids learning remotely, so families are still trying to figure out what do we do with our kids that are work --- learning from home.

But I do -- I`m encouraged that as we continue to move forward here. We`ve seen great job growth in the last three months. We`ve seen about a million and a half jobs come back. I think that as we continue to move here through the month of May, June, and July, we`re going to see more growth in those sectors.

And I have to imagine people want to go back to work. They don`t want to be unemployed. A lot of people lost their jobs. So, there`s a lot going on here. I think by simply saying $300 is enticing people not to go back to work, I just can`t see it being uniformly across the board the problem.

HAYES: you know, the Department of Labor does a lot of different things. What is your most important job? What`s the most important thing that you, the Secretary of Labor do?

WALSH: There`s a lot of important things. But I think, you know, to think about it, we work --

HAYES: The most important.

WALSH: The most important, we work for the American worker from the time they wake up in the morning to the time they go to bed. Right now, my priorities are making sure that the American job claim passes. That`s the President tasked myself and for other cabinet secretaries to work on the American Jobs Plan. We need to make sure that people were working in safe working conditions.

And then with the Rescue Plan, unemployment, the President allocated along with Congress $2 billion to look at the unemployment system. We know these problems there. We saw problems throughout the pandemic with people not being able to access their claims, and also with fraud. So, there`s lots -- you can`t make one priority. There`s lots of different priorities that we have to do at the same time.

HAYES: On that question, there`s a piece of legislation called the Pro Act. It would be in some ways, the most important labor legislation, some say since the Wagner Act back during the New Deal. What is your role? What is the administration done to prioritize that or to push for it or is that later down the pipeline? What are you doing to make that happen?

WALSH: Well, you know, obviously, we`re having many conversations about it right now. And you have to get to a number to pass it in the Senate. And that`s something that we`re working on, along with minimum wage. You know, you can`t -- you can`t force a vote or can`t force something if you don`t have the votes for it right now. And, and right now we`re working on that.

The President has been very clear on that issue of the Pro Act, making sure that that passes to give people an opportunity. If they want to join a union, they can join the union without disruption, without people using tactics against them. And also, the president appointed a task force, a labor task force with Cabinet Secretaries on it, chaired by the Vice President, I`m the co-chair, and looking at -- looking at labor and creating opportunities and pathways.

Quite honestly, this is all about the middle class. This isn`t just about labor unions. This is about creating opportunities to build the middle class and allow people to get into a middle class that quite honestly, some people would say, hasn`t existed in decades.

HAYES: I want to ask you a story since I have you here out of your city of Boston, of course, where you were -- you were a mayor. You left for this job. Before you left, you appointed a new police commissioner, a man named Dennis White. Shortly after that appointment, it became clear there have been allegations years ago about domestic violence that he had engaged in. You have denied any knowledge of that. There is an affidavit that`s been entered into evidence by a former police commissioner saying someone in the city and you had to have known about these accusations against Dennis White. And I just want to ask you, can you say definitively that neither you nor people in your staff knew about these allegations against the man that you appointed to be police commissioner?

WALSH: Yes, I knew nothing about it. I actually found out about it the night before I went from my hearing in front of Congress to this job. And if I had known beforehand, as I said in my statement, I would have had taken a whole different route here and taken a different course of action.

HAYES: Are you in touch with the congressional -- the sort of liaison to the Senate on this vote on the American Jobs Plan vote? Because right now, we`re in a situation in which there`s this sort of Manchin traffic jam, what he and Kyrsten Sinema are going to do. Like, what are those negotiations like?

WALSH: Yes, I know. I`ve been in contact with many senators and talking to them about it. And, you know, there are bits and pieces of this bill that everyone seems to like, and I think that we`re going to continue to have these negotiations. I have not spoken directly to Senator Manchin about this bill, but I have had many conversations with him. I will be having conversations about this piece of legislation, the Jobs Plan, the Family`s Plan at some point.

But again, it`s a conversation right now. And the President has made it clear that he`s willing to work -- he wants to work with everyone, as well as all of us want to work with everyone to move this -- move this important piece of legislation and plan forward.

This is about the American people. It`s about the American economy. It`s about forward-looking plan. And there`s lots of great pieces of it. I think everyone in the world, in this country knows now what`s in the bill. But there`s lots of good things in that bill from job training, to broadband, to clean drinking water, to roads, bridges, everything that every city and town in America is looking for quite honestly. And people that work -- live in our country are looking for.

HAYES: All right, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, former Mayor of Boston, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.

WALSH: Thank you.

HAYES: That is ALL IN on this Thursday night. :"THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now with Ali Velshi in for Rachel. Good evening, Ali.