Updated
Summary
January 6 Committee releases new testimony on former President Donald Trump`s post-insurrection speech showing just how reluctant Donald Trump was to condemn the violent insurrection he incited. The January 6 Committee is considering a subpoena for Ginni Thomas. Rep. Elaine Luria joins Hayes to discuss the January 6 Committee`s next move. Mike Pence`s former Chief of Staff, Marc Short, testify before a grand jury in the Department of Justice`s separate probe into the insurrection last Friday. MSNBC Political Analyst Tim Miller joins Hayes to discuss the power of Trump versus the power of Trumpism. American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as AIPAC is spending an enormous amount of money through a sort of soft money Super PAC against Andy Levin who also happens to be one of only 27 Jewish members in the House.
Transcript
JASON JOHNSON, MSNBC HOST: That`s why the writers are after them. Andrew Aydin, thank you so much for joining me this evening. I had fun time. Meet me at Comic-Con.
ANDREW AYDIN, AMERICAN WRITER: It`s so good to see you. Come back again, please.
JOHNSON: Definitely. And that`s tonight`s REIDOUT. “ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES” starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voiceover): Tonight on ALL IN.
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You do not represent our movement. You do not represent our country. And if you broke the law — I can`t say that.
HAYES: New evidence about Trump and January 7th.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know why he crossed that language out of the statement?
JARED KUSHNER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: I don`t know.
HAYES: Tonight, committee member Elaine Luria on the former president`s refusal to condemn the rioters of the Capitol. Plus, how Mike Pence his right-hand man just testified to a grand jury. How Merrick Garland is feeling the pressure and how the Republican Party is fully embracing its worst impulses? When ALL IN starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Today, the January 6 Committee released a brand new video showing just how reluctant Donald Trump was to condemn the violent insurrection he incited. Now, you`ll remember, of course, that it took Trump hours to publicly denounce violence and tell the mob to go home, three-plus hours. When he finally did so, he released this truly deranged video message from the Rose Garden.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I know your pain, I know you`re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don`t want anybody hurt.
It`s a very tough period of time. There`s never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election. But we can`t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace.
So go home. We love you. You`re very special. You`ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home in peace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Now, obviously, that was very far from a condemnation of the violent insurrection which left multiple people dead. It was a lot more like a coach giving his team a pep talk after losing a tough game. So, Trump`s advisors realized that wasn`t enough. That this we love you, remember this day, go home, bucko, that`s not going to work. So, they got to work on drafting a news feed for him to deliver the next day try to kind of like wipe the slate clean. Like, OK, here`s the real condemnation this time.
And last week, the January says committee released what essentially amounts to a blooper reel of that speech, the next day speech, the written speech on the teleprompter, where we saw Trump even after his coup failed refused to say pointedly the election was over.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whenever you`re ready, sir.
TRUMP: I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack yesterday. And to those who broke the law, you will pay. You do not represent our movement. You do not represent our country. And if you broke the law, can`t say that. I`m not going to — I already said you will pay.
The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defied the seat of — defiled, right? See. I can`t see it very well. OK, I`ll do this. I`m going to do this. Let`s go.
But this election is now over. Congress has certified the results. I don`t want to say the election is over. I just want to say Congress has certified the results without saying the elections over, OK.
IVANKA TRUMP, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: But Congress has certified. Now Congress has certified.
TRUMP: Yes, right. I didn`t say over. So, let me see. Go to the paragraph before. OK. I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack yesterday. Yesterday is a hard word for me.
I. TRUMP: Just take it out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Say heinous attack on our nation.
TRUMP: Good. Take the word yesterday because it doesn`t work with — the heinous attack on our country. Say, on our country. You want to say that?
I. TRUMP: No, repeat it.
TRUMP: My only goal was to ensure the integrity of the vote. My only goal was to ensure the integrity of the vote.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: So, it was a Big moment when the committee played that video last week. Well, today, committee member, Congresswoman Elaine Luria of Virginia released a new video. And this was full of previously unseen testimony, you haven`t seen it before in any of the hearings, from some of Trump`s closest advisers on just how hard Trump resisted saying anything negative about the rioters.
[20:05:20]
I. TRUMP: I`m not sure when those conversations began, because they could have started early the next morning, but I believe they started that evening on the evening of the Sixth.
ERIC HERSCHMANN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SENIOR ADVISOR: I thought we should give a statement on the seventh and obviously move forward on transition.
KUSHNER: I sat with her. I spoke to Miller about trying to put together some draft remarks for Jan 7 that we were going to present to the president to try to say, we felt like it was important to further call for deescalation.
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER AIDE TO MARK MEADOWS: From what I understood at the time, and from what the reports were coming in, there`s a large concern of 25th Amendment potentially being invoked. And there were concerns about what would happen in the Senate if it was — the 25th was invoked. So, the primary reason that I had heard other than, you know, we did not do enough on the sixth, we need to get a stronger message out there and condemn this. This will be your legacy.
The secondary reason to that was think about what might happen in the final 15 days of your presidency if we don`t do this. There`s already talks about invoking the 25th Amendment. You need this as cover.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you recognize what this is?
I. TRUMP: It looks like a copy of the draft of the remarks for that day.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And as you can see throughout the document, there are lines crossed out. There are some — there`s some words added in. Do you recognize the handwriting?
I. TRUMP: It looks like my father`s handwriting.
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: In my view, he needed to express very clearly that the people who commit a violent acts, went into the Capitol, did what they did, should be prosecuted and should be arrested.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It looks like here that he crossed out that he was directing the Department of Justice to ensure all lawbreakers are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We must send a clear message not with mercy, but with justice. Legal consequences must be swept in firm. Do you know why he wanted that crossed out?
KUSHNER: I don`t know.
CIPOLLONE: And that needed to be stated forcefully. They did not represent him or the — his political views in any form or fashion.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He also was crossed out, I want to be very clear, you do not represent me, you do not represent our movement. Do you remember — do you know why he crossed that language out of the statement?
KUSHNER: I don`t know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you describe a little more for me about what Mr. Kushner was asking you to do?
JOHN MCENTEE, FORMER DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL OFFICE: I don`t remember if it was a video message or a speech he was going to give or something but I know people were deciding like what he should say or what he should do. And then he knew since I`m always with him that, hey, if he asked your opinion, you know, try to nudge this along. This will help everything cool down. So, that`s the —
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nudge this along in what way? What does — what does that mean?
MCENTEE: To make sure he give — delivers this speech or whatever it was. I don`t know if it was a video or a speech or something. It was either — it was — it was within a few days after January 6.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was the obligation that the President was in some ways reluctant to give that speech?
MCENTEE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, what do you base that on?
MCENTEE: The fact that somebody has to tell me to nudge it along.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: So, by all accounts from some of the people closest to Donald Trump — essentially the guy that served — that last guy is kind of his body man, with him all the time, he didn`t want to say anything at all on the day after the insurrection. Now, of course, we knew that the President`s response in the wake of the six was negligent, irresponsible, dangers. The committee has shown it was even worse than many imagined at the time, right?
And while the next January 6 Hearing is until September, we may see new information like this latest video trickle out from members of the committee. Just today, for example, committee member Congressman Adam Kinzinger of Illinois told my colleague Andrea Mitchell, the committee is open to subpoenaing the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Ginni Thomas, for her role in plotting Trump`s attempted coup.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): Ginni Thomas, it started out as kind of an interest, you know. We had a few pieces of evidence that we had seen and then it just grew particularly with some of the Eastman memos and those conversation reaching out to state electors. We want to have a voluntary conversation. You know, just come on in.
She said, I think somewhere in the media that she was eager to talk to the committee. That`s it. Come in. Let`s talk. If we need to subpoena, we will, but we prefer obviously to just find out what she knows.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:10:09]
HAYES: Now, today, we also got some huge news just in the last few hours because we learned that Mike Pence`s former Chief of Staff, Marc Short, testify before a grand jury in the Department of Justice`s separate probe into the insurrection last Friday. Short is perhaps the highest profile Trump White House official testify so far, at least as far as we`re aware.
The grand jury also reportedly heard from Pence`s top legal adviser, a man by the name of Greg Jacob, who you may recognize for previously testifying before the January 6 Committee. He had a big sort of showdown with Eastman about Pence`s ability to unilaterally change the election. Their testimony signals the attorney general`s investigation, Department of Justice investigation, which has been quietly unfolding in the background, has further expanded scope from the actual insurrection itself and the people that were in the building to the plotting of the coup attempt.
Democratic Congresswoman Elaine Luria of Virginia sits on the January 6 Committee and joins me now. Congresswoman, let me just start on that news. Obviously, I know that these are completely parallel tracks, and you guys have no special vision into whatever the Department of Justice is into. But given the fact that your investigation has made public the role of Greg Jacob in resisting the Eastman legal theory, which would have essentially upended American democracy, are you encouraged by the fact that Short and Jacob, high ranking officials, have now given sworn testimony before a grand jury through the Department of Justice?
REP. ELAINE LURIA (D-VA): Well, I`d start out like you said, you know, as the committee, the select committee in Congress, we have no direct knowledge or involvement in investigations that are being carried out by the Department of Justice. But this goes much closer to the top than what we`ve previously seen with defendants who are accused of trespassing and violence, and then seditious conspiracy.
I look at it like concentric circles. You know, the Department of Justice, it feels like started from the outside and working their way in. Well, just how far have they worked their way in? We don`t know but this is certainly an indicator they`re ratcheting up the level of their investigation. And that`s, you know, encouraging from an outside perspective. Of course, the Committee continues on our separate track as a congressional committee.
HAYES: To that separate track, this new testimony today, we hadn`t seen this before. It was sort of a new method of delivering testimony from the committee. I thought was quite, quite interesting, particularly this sort of corroborating testimony of people around the ex-President about his reluctance to give that January 7 address. How did this come about? Why did you release it this way?
LURIA: Well, there`s so much more that we`ve heard from witnesses, so much more of the story to tell. And over the course of eight hearings, you know, probably about 18 to 20 hours that we`ve had an opportunity to present information to the public, we just are not (AUDIO GAP) everything into that. So, this was really additional information that explain that speech on January 7, the one where we see the President who really couldn`t bring himself to say the words the election is over.
But this gave additional detail about, you know, what went into the speech. It`s really enlightening to me, you know, the parts that he crossed out. And we wanted to make sure to share that information because it provides amplifying details on what we shared in the hearing.
HAYES: I want to also ask about the Ginni Thomas question, because there`s been some news circulating on that and some various committee members giving their thoughts. I want to show what the Vice Chair of the Committee, Liz Cheney, had to say about Ginni Thomas yesterday. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): The committee is engaged with her counsel. We certainly hope that she will agree to come in voluntarily, but the committee is fully prepared to contemplate a subpoena if she does not. I hope it doesn`t get to that. I hope she will come in voluntarily. We`ve certainly spoken with numbers of people who are similarly situated in terms of the discussions that she was having that you mentioned. So, it`s very important for us to speak with her. And as I said, I hope she will agree to do so voluntarily but I`m sure we will contemplate a subpoena if she won`t.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Congresswoman, do you share that desire to hear from Ginni Thomas given what we know about her involvement in all this?
LURIA: I do. And just like Liz Cheney said, she made an indication that she was going to come forward and talk to the Committee. if necessary to go to that step will issue a subpoena —
HAYES: Oh, I`m sorry — I`m sorry. I thought we lost you for a moment there, Congresswoman. I guess finally, the question is, where are things right now? I think there was a sense that you were going to kind of wrap things up that you had had a very successful investigation. You talked to all these people. You`d gotten all these documents. There really wasn`t a ton who had sort of evaded the grasp of the committee. Steve Bannon being a notable exception. Of course, he`s now facing sentencing for that evasion.
But it also seems that a bunch of new things really have been uncovered even in the last four to six weeks. How would you characterize where the investigation stands now?
[20:15:25]
LURIA: Well, I would say that, at the outset, we came up with this framework by which we were going to lay out the facts. And as you saw, we did the eight hearings, added an extra one in there when breaking information came that we thought was urgent to get out to the public. And we started the — so many more people have been coming for we`ve received so much more information, just volumes and volumes of information and even more leads that we need to follow.
What I`ll say with that is in the investigation itself is continuing to accelerate in fact. (AUDIO GAP) really also focusing on our work of producing a report and the recommendations which are this committee to prevent something like (AUDIO GAP).
HAYES: All right, Congresswoman —
LURIA: — just so much more information coming (AUDIO GAP).
HAYES: All right, Congresswoman Elaine Luria, thank you so much for making some time for us. I appreciate it.
All eyes are on the Department of Justice. And now, Merrick Garland is apparently feeling the pressure to pick up the pace. The reporter who broke that story joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:20:00]
HAYES: One of the ongoing investigations into Donald Trump`s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election is happening right now in Fulton County, Georgia. We know that letters were sent out to Georgia Republicans last week letting them know they could be indicted for their role in the fake electoral scheme. We know that Rudy Giuliani Trump`s personal lawyer has been ordered to testify in front of that Fulton County special grand jury next month. We also know that Georgia Republican Governor Brian Kemp was scheduled to testify today before that same grand jury.
We are now learning that that Georgia investigation, along with the efforts of the January 6 Committee, are putting a pressure on the Department of Justice.
Joining me now is the New York Times reporter who has been reporting on this, Michael Schmidt. Michael, your piece was illuminating for a lot of reasons. And one of them most was that when I saw the Georgia Fulton County DA was investigating the fake electors, I thought, well, we know the feds are looking into that too. That`s the first place where we see some sort of Venn diagram overlap. What does that mean inside the Justice Department?
MICHAEL SCHMIDT, REPORTER, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I think the question and issue that has arisen out of the hearings is that why is it that the congressional committee seems so far ahead and the prosecutor in Atlanta seems so far ahead? And it looks like some of that has to do with sort of the methodical nature of the Justice Department.
The Justice Department as someone once said to me was sort of like a tank. It takes a long time for them to move their gaze. But once they get on a target, they like go ahead in an effort to essentially destroy it or to get to the bottom of it. And there has been a lot of frustration, I think, or misunderstanding about the Justice Department from, you know, folks on Capitol Hill, from average Americans who are watching these hearings and saying, well, what is being done about this? Why is it that we are hearing from this committee first about it? What has gone on?
And Garland had to address this last week. He addressed it publicly, basically saying, you know, that the gears of justice are the gears of justice that move slowly, and they move secretly, and they`re not done in public view, and we`re not going to be out there publicly discussing this. The public had sort of been familiar with these investigations that have looked at high profile people. The FBI confirmed that it was investigating Hillary Clinton back in 2015. The FBI Director went before Congress in 2017 to lay out to the public that they were investigating this. But there`s — we`re trying to explain to the public why it is that there may not have been a lot of action that has been seen on this compared to the other investigations.
HAYES: So, you`ve you`re right about the sort of two lines of inquiry that we can glean from the publicly available information we have, right? They`re not making statements but there are subpoenas and search warrants and things like that. You say through subpoenas and search warrants, the department has made clear it is pursuing at least two related lines of inquiry that could lead to Mr. Trump. One centers on the so-called fake electors, the other line of Justice Department increase centers on the effort by Trump-era Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark to pressure Georgia officials not to certify the state election results.
Now, today we get this news which strikes me as enormous news that Marc Short and Greg Jacob two individuals who have testified to the committee and to very high ranking — I mean, the highest ranking, you know, people in Pence world, essentially, went before a federal grand jury on Friday. How significant is that do you think?
SCHMIDT: I think it`s very significant because it starts to answer the question what is the Justice Department doing?
HAYES: Right.
SCHMIDT: And the Justice Department is investigating what went on in the lead up to January 6 so extensively that they want to talk to the two people who were directly advising the vice president. And we`re not just helping counsel him, but we`re witness to the instances in which John Eastman and Donald Trump were trying to pressure Mike Pence to take the certification into their own hands.
[20:25:04]
And they were witnesses to that. They saw that. They know what was going on. They can provide detailed insider firsthand accounts of what — of how Pence was responding, as Trump and Eastman were giving them this bogus legal, you know — you know, gobbledygook about how he could take the certification and either send it back to the states or, you know, pick Trump as the next president.
And that is a significant move forward because it shows that the department`s investigation has moved into the tear of people who were directly around Trump in this key period of time.
HAYES: Yes, I mean, I was — I was — I mean, that really leapt out to me, right? You got those folks going to talk to a grand jury. They`re not doing it for their health. That`s not a — that`s not an early in the investigation kind of thing. That`s — you`re bringing them there because you want — you want to get something out of it.
You also know this about Fani Willis was the Fulton County DA and I thought the sort of notion of the interplay here. Obviously, there`s no official interplay, but just what it means the Department of Justice and others this investigation is happening. She has, you know, sent this target letter to those fake electors, including a state senator named Burt Jones, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in Georgia that he could face indictment on Monday. A judge in the Superior Court barred her from pursuing a case against Mr. Jones because she had headlined a June fundraiser for his Democratic rival in the race. Mr. Jones was one of 16 pro Trump alternate electors in Georgia.
I thought that`s interesting just because, obviously, Fani Willis has a more easier political target, I would imagine, for people that want to defend Trump, then perhaps the Department of Justice might be as these investigations go forward.
SCHMIDT: Look, a being a local prosecutor is just a different thing than being a U.S. attorney or, you know, working out of the Justice Department in Washington. And, you know, at times, a lot of local prosecutors are elected and you know, where folks at the Justice Department or are appointed or their career prosecutors, and so it`s just there are different sort of, you know, issues that local prosecutors have to come into because they are more receptive to their local community.
And the — a judge down in Atlanta had criticized her for doing so many interviews on television about this investigation. There are less restrictions on a local prosecutor about how much they can talk and go on about this stuff. And it just — it just sets up a different thing. And it just shows, you know, their investigation looks like it`s really moving ahead because they`re also — you know, there`s a lot of news that is kicking up.
HAYES: All right, Michael Schmidt of New York Times, thank you very much. Coming up, the Republican race to the bottom as potential 2024 candidates spend the weekend trying to out-Trump each other. That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Whoa.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: When you talk about the absolute superstars of the conservative movement right now, the fact that Ted Cruz is one of them well — but that is how the podcaster from Texas was introduced at the big Turning Point USA festival of dad jeans awesomeness this weekend. Amid all the pyrotechnics and loud music, of course, Donald Trump`s influence can be felt nearly everywhere at this conservative conference, despite a lot of recent talk about the ex-President starting to lose his grip on the Republican Party.
You`ve probably seen some of these headlines and I have to say, I do think there`s some truth to that. Back in 2016, the thing that made Donald Trump truly unique in the Republican Party was that he was just an enormous jerk all the time. No one else was doing that. The base ate it up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: So I`m looking at little Marco and I say, man, there`s something happening with him. And he`s like melting.
How about Cruz? Is it Lying Ted? You`re right, Lying Ted. He`s a liar.
I see Rick Perry the other day and he`s so — you know, he`s doing very poorly in the polls. He put glasses on so people will think he`s smart. And it just doesn`t work.
And I`m watching these guys like Jeb — Low Energy Jeb Bush, so low. You`ll fall asleep looking at him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Now, politicians, generally in the time that I`ve covered politics, not all of them, but most are just tried not to be jerks, right? The goal was to get as many people to vote for you as possible, people to find you likable and electable. And so, at first, I think people in professional Republican politics could not get their hands around the idea that this could be a successful method.
But it worked for Donald Trump, obviously. And now it`s basically become like the core rule of the movement, luxuriate in being a jerk and being anti-social flagrantly so, being a troll. Troll conservatism is conservatism, more or less. And that was on full display at Turning Point USA`s preposterous light show.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CRUZ: I talked to a student recently at one of our woke college campuses who said she`s required every class to introduce herself and to give her pronouns. Well, I`m Ted Cruz and my pronoun is kiss my ass.
[20:35:00]
REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): Have you watched these pro-abortion pro murder rallies? The people are just disgusting. Like, why is it that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions? Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Now, it`s worth noting the Congressman they`re talking about women`s looks is under investigation by the Justice Department, the FBI, we believe, reportedly, for allegedly paying for sex with a minor. Now, perhaps the one Republican who`s found success by moving a little bit away from the Trump method or at least doing it with a certain depth or touch is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
And look, his policies are terrible. He says really dangerous stuff as the governor of Florida, but he also says things that a savvier politician might say. Rather than calling women who support abortion rights ugly, he stirs up, caters to resent with somewhat lighter, more insidious touch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): I will have math books sent to my department of education for review, these textbooks. And they will do things like woke math. And I`m thinking to myself, two plus two equals four. It`s not two plus two — well, let`s have a struggle session over that. How do you feel about it? No, no, no, there`s a right answer here. And it`s not about injecting ideology into concepts like math.
So, what we did at the Department of Education was we sent the books back. These textbook companies had no other choice but to take the woke out and send us back normal math books. And so we`re winning.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Of course, the question is whether the base now wants what Ron DeSantis is offering or what Donald Trump is. Civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill summed up very well this sort of desire that you see on display with Matt Gaetz and others that what Donald Trump offered was the freedom to be your worst self. And it turns out many Americans have been waiting for that opportunity.
I`ve been thinking about that formulation. Although many in the pot party are now copying him, Trump is the founder of that particular style of conservative politics, at least in this era. But lately, the ex-President seems to be so caught up in his own grievances, he`s lost a bit of his ability to successfully pander to his supporters` grievances. We saw a result of that at the turning point USA conference. The Trump applause line that wasn`t right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:40:00]
HAYES: The cracks in Donald Trump`s iron grip over the Republican Party were visible this weekend when this line clearly intended to rile up the crowd at the conservative Turning Point USA conference was instead met with crickets.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: A friend of mine recently said that I was the most persecuted person in the history of our country, me the most persecuted. I never thought it that way. I never had time. I was always fighting with these people that were trying to persecute me. I didn`t have time to think about being persecuted because I was fighting persecution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Just no reaction whatsoever from the crowd to the ex-presidents whining there. So, has Donald Trump`s grievance politics become too self- absorbed for his base? Tim Miller is a former RNC Spokesman, author of Why We Did It: A Travelogue From The Republican Road To Hell, and he joins me now.
I thought that moment encapsulated a lot. And you`ve seen it borne out in some of Sarah Longwell focus groups, some of the polling as well. Like, it`s one thing if it`s your grievances he`s into, it`s another if it`s just his own grievances. And there does seem a little bit of a distinction there.
TIM MILLER, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. And this was always something that is like this battle within Donald Trump himself. This isn`t the first time that he got a little wrapped around the axle on his own complaints and whining out on the trail. You know, he always was good at reading the crowd. Some — a lot of times for ill honestly. He recognized that the crowd like some of his most deplorable sticks and then continue to promote them. That`s one of the reasons we got the Muslim ban, for example.
So, I just — look, the focus groups and this, these are data points, it`s showing that it`s possible that they`re — that he`s losing the excitement level with the — with the crowd. But we`ve all been here before. The question is, you know, can he rein it back in once he gets back on the trail?
HAYES: Well, and I also — what do you think about this idea like the sort of license to view your worst self, the kind of thrill or liberty of it? I mean, Hannah Arendt writes about this on totalitarianism about that being sort of key aspect of the authoritarian appeal. As someone who`s sort of saw this up close, what do you think?
MILLER: Yes, that was a triggering segment earlier of the 2016 insults that I had live through. But I do think it`s real. And I think that it`s having a long term impact on the culture. Look, I have a Snapchat show called Not My Party for teens, and when I tried to do is like be an antidote to this, because a lot of the content that they are getting now, teens on the right, is just this trolling, the cruelty, the meanness.
And whatever you thought about the College Republicans of yesteryear, we weren`t perfect, there is this massive cultural shift that I think is happening now within the party. You`re seeing it and how the politicians are acting, that`s what you talked about, but also on the staff level, you know, the kinds of treatment of the media, the kinds of treatment of enemies that you`re seeing, you know, the sort of trolling. The types of people that want a job working for Republican politicians, it`s self- selecting.
HAYES: Yes.
MILLER: And I really think that there`s like — even if Trump were to disappear tomorrow, you know, this element, this pernicious element of his attitude isn`t going away.
[20:45:12]
HAYES: Yes, I think that`s right. And I think that there`s a few things, right? I think A, it`s self-selecting, right? It`s attracting people who are like that who relish in being this way to Republican politics to for staff jobs, or speech writing jobs, or comp jobs. But usually, there`s a — there`s a kind of check on this right, which is, again, the reason that there were shock jocks when we were growing up, were not — and who are different than us senators was that they had different sets of incentives.
Like, senators have to get elected. Shock jocks just have to like, get people listen to them. And because of the kind of polarization because of the sort of, oh, it`s a plus-eight, plus-nine state like Ohio, J.D. Vance thinks I could run as a shock jock, Blake Masters in Arizona. Like, this idea that you can — that binding constraint doesn`t exist anymore.
MILLER: Yes. And we could do a whole symposium on this. But also, part of it is that people don`t feel like they`re getting anything from Washington and their response to this, right? Another thing that we learn from these focus groups is senators are different from governors. Like, people think their governors are being responsive to them.
You know, we`ve — I listen to this Republican focus groups today from The Bulwark, and the people are like, I really think Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz are the ones that are doing their job because they`re fighting. I see him on TV, right? And they don`t believe or even care that, you know, whether people in Washington can actually deliver results for them. So, you know, I think that disconnect between what we`re seeing in local politics in Washington is really — is really evident.
HAYES: Yes. And that distinction between how governors are doing and how senators are doing, what — you know, if you look at Mike DeWine in Ohio, right, the way that he`s trying to be a Republican politician versus J.D. Vance, it`s really quite different. I wonder how much — you know, how much the like — the Mike DeWine model can hang on when the rising tide is clearly the Marguerite Taylor Greene`s and Matt Gaetz`s.
MILLER: Pretty skeptical of that. You know, just like in Maryland, Larry Hogan, the most popular governor in America, just — his handpicked successor, a moderate Republican gets beaten by an absolutely insane QAnon person in a primary. The public give away the governorship of Maryland, you know, because his dad is — this is a bottom-up thing. It`s what the TPUSA crowd wants. It`s what the primary voters –what the primary voters want.
HAYES: Yes. Never underestimate demand. The demand side pushes.
MILLER: Exactly.
HAYES: When you look at something and you say, this seems bad, lots of demand for it. Tim Miller, thank you very much.
MILLER: See you, Chris.
HAYES: Still ahead, why the top pro-Israel lobbying group is just pouring money into Democratic primary races, including one to defeat a Jewish member of Congress. What`s going on in Michigan next?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:50:00]
HAYES: Next week, voters will turn out for the Michigan primaries among other states. And on the Democratic side, it will feature one of the most watched races of the cycle. Because of redistricting, two incumbents Andy Levin and Haley Stevens are facing off against each other which happens from time to time. They got districted into the same district.
Now, what`s fascinating here`s Levin is from arguably one of the best well- known democratic families in all Michigan. His uncle was the late sixth- term Senator Carl Levin. His father, former Congressman Sander Levin. Sander Levin represented part of the Detroit Metro area for more than three decades.
Now, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as AIPAC is spending an enormous amount of money through a sort of soft money Super PAC against Levin who also happens to be one of only 27 Jewish members in the House. AIPAC has spent more than $3 million supporting Congressman Levin`s opponent in a race where the two candidates combined have raised just over $7 million. So, this is a huge, huge, huge thumb on the scale on that race.
Last night, Levin spoke to my colleague, Mehdi Hasan about why a top Israel lobby group is going after him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEHDI HASAN, MSNBC HOST: You are Jewish. Why is a pro-Israel lobby group using a Super PAC and dark money to try and defeat you in a Democratic primary?
REP. ANDY LEVIN (D-MI): I`m not just Jewish, Mehdi, I`m one of two former synagogue presidents in the Congress along with Senator Jacky Rosen. I`ve got the — I`ve got Mezuzah on all my doors. I`m really Jewish. But AIPAC can`t stand the idea that I am the clearest, strongest Jewish voice in Congress standing for a simple proposition that there`s no way to have a secure democratic homeland for the Jewish people unless we achieve the political and human rights of the Palestinian people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: This — all that ad money seems to be paying off. New poll has Congressman Levin, again, an incumbent, well known, down in the polls by 27 points with just over a week until the election.
Peter Beinart is the editor at large for Jewish Currents where he writes, “What AIPAC and its allies have recognized is not just the power immense campaign spending, but the power immense campaign spending in open Democratic Congressional primaries. And he joins me now. Peter, what what`s going on here?
PETER BEINART, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, JEWISH CURRENTS: I think what happened is that in 2019, a group of members of Congress AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, came in who represented a shift in Democratic public opinion. The polling is very clear, younger Democrats are much more sympathetic to public — to Palestinian rights than older Democrats, and the Democratic Party in Congress is out of touch with where actual Democrats now are on the issue.
And so, AIPAC saw a danger, a danger that actually the Democrats in Congress might start to represent what most Democrats out there in the country believe, which is that the U.S. should not give unconditional military aid to Israel, irrespective of what it does, even if it demolishes people`s homes and detains Palestinian children.
And, so AIPAC decided only a massive infusion of money into Democratic primaries would keep the Democrats in Congress not being receptive to the public opinion of actual Democrats in the country.
[20:55:39]
HAYES: So, I just want to be clear. It`s not just this race, right, so — Andy Levin and Haley Stevens, it`s been a bunch of races. Most recently, Donna Edwards who was running in Maryland. And here you`ve got this, you know, the United Democracy Project, which I guess is there — is the sort of super PAC entity. I mean, the amount of money they`re spending, like $4.26 million opposing Donna Edwards, there were 3.7 of all other outside spending in their primary.
So, like, this isn`t just playing in races. This — they come in, and they are in many of the race is the single biggest source of ad money and ad spending in that race. And it`s — and it has a pretty big effect it looks like.
BEINART: A massive effect. I mean, I think in the Maryland race, both Donna Edwards and her opponent directly spent less than a million dollars. AIPAC spent almost $6 million. So, you know, that has a big impact and in a House race. And it`s not just AIPAC. What you`re seeing in some of these races is that when a pack go was after a progressive candidate because they have some sympathy for Palestinian human rights, then you tend to see other groups that also don`t like progressives, not because of Israel, Palestine, but because they think they might be too tough on the fossil fuel industry or the healthcare industry, and they pour in their money as well.
And so, what you have is essentially the creation of a whole new generation of Joe Manchin`s and Kyrsten Sinema`s in the Democratic caucus.
HAYES: Now, you know, obviously, this is the way that politics works now post-Citizens United. There`s unlimited spending from Super PACs. And the Constitution, as read by the conservative court is that this is part of the First Amendment. What`s also striking to me here, you know, there`s a New York Times piece on this, which I thought was pretty good, but the headline was Democratic primaries are embroiled in debate over support for Israel.
I thought that sort of misstated things, because the thing that`s so bizarre here is, at least in the races that I`ve covered, Jessica Ramos` race and Henry Cuellar down in — down in Texas. The vast majority of the spending hasn`t been anything about Israel or Palestine or anything. It`s not like they`re coming in and saying, look, Andy Levin is critical of Israel, Haley Stevens is a more stalwart ally, vote for Haley Stevens. They generally don`t even mention Israel.
BEINART: Right. They don`t actually want to have a debate about Israel- Palestine, partly because it`s not what most people are voting on, but also because the public opinion is very clear that AIPAC`s view which is that essentially no matter what Israel does, the U.S. will give it a blank check is a very unpopular view among Democrats.
So, what they do is they find some generic poll-tested issue, and then they just basically buy up all the advertising to try to destroy the person on that issue. And — but it`s fundamentally because they don`t want an open debate of Israel-Palestine, because they know that actually a pact is not where most Democrats in the country are on that issue.
HAYES: Yeah, I misspoke is Jessica Cisneros, not Ramos, down in the Rio Grande Valley, who wrote — who lost that very closely contested primary. What do you think — I mean, what are — who — where`s the money coming from is the other question, right? So, I mean, you`ve got huge — I mean, there`s huge checks being written. Some of it gets disclosed later on. But my sense is that, ironically enough, in these races where they`re run ads saying so and so is not a real Democrat, right, the super PAC run an ad. Like, the money is coming often from people that themselves are not Democrats.
BEINART: Yes. Some of the biggest donors, people who`ve written million- dollar checks, are Republicans. And in fact, they leave Republican institutions that had the head of the Manhattan Institute, which is a very prominent kind of right-leaning think tank which basically supports a very conservative agenda gave AIPAC super PAC a million dollars, for instance.
And so, right — I mean, AIPAC isn`t — doesn`t really — does not care whether Democrats or Republicans win. They simply want people who will support Israel unconditionally to win. But those people, by and large, are also less likely to take a progressive stance on other issues, because if you don`t basically believe in the idea of equality under the law for Palestinians, you`re less likely to actually believe it in the United States either.
HAYES: All right, Peter Beinart who`s got a piece about this and Jewish Currents, this continues to be the case. We`ll watch that Andy Levin, Haley Stevens primary and others where this will likely play out as well. Thanks a lot.
BEINART: Thank you.
HAYES: That is ALL IN on this Monday night. “THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thanks, my friend. Much appreciate.
HAYES: You bet.
MADDOW: And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.