Summary
Former President Trump admits to willful retention of classified documents in an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity yesterday. The Special Master orders Trump has until next Friday to back up allegation that FBI planted documents at Mar-a-Lago. Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, has agreed to testify before the January 6 Committee. The January 6 Committee announces hearing next Wednesday. Gov. Ron DeSantis continues to face scrutiny for flying migrants to Martha`s Vineyard. Vladimir Putin faces backlash at home while some flee the country, amid his military mobilization.
Transcript
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: A great young reporter and y`all should support her work. That is 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: If you`re the President of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it`s declassified, even by thinking about it, because you`re sending it to Mar- a-Lago or to wherever you`re sending it.
HAYES: He did it and he admits it. Trump confesses to sending top secret documents to his Florida retirement home. Tonight, the deepening legal jeopardy for the disgraced ex-president. Then --
GINNI THOMAS, WIFE OF JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS: My husband told me that the President asked about me twice, so I`m wearing my Trump button.
HAYES: The expected testimony from the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. January 6 Committee Member Pete Aguilar joins me tonight. Plus --
JAVIER SALAZAR, SHERIFF, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS: I believe there`s some criminal activity involved here.
HAYES: New details on the Ron DeSantis migrant scandal and what the Republican Senate candidate in Georgia has in common with his biggest booster when it comes to charity when ALL IN starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Donald Trump just had one of the worst legal days of his entire life, which is saying something. And it comes amidst a set of accelerating threats from local, state, and federal law enforcement. So, last night, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, as we reported, issued a unanimous per curiam ruling against the ex-President overruling a previous decision widely criticized by a Trump-appointed district judge, saying the Department of Justice can resume using the 100 classified documents seized from Trump`s home in Florida in their investigation into his handling of the sensitive materials.The DOJ has said that this inquiry is related to possible obstruction of justice and Espionage Act violations. 2
Also yesterday, New York Attorney General announced a quarter of a billion dollar civil lawsuit against Donald Trump, his company, members of his family, including three of his adult children, accusing them of committing, in her words, a staggering amount of fraud. If that suit is successful, it would bar the Trump Organization from doing business in New York State.
All of that comes just weeks after we learned the DOJ issued 40 subpoenas to all sorts of people in Trump`s orbit in connection with their investigation into the attempted coup on January 6. The DOJ has also seized the phones of two top advisors to the ex-President which is interesting. Then there`s the fact that Donald Trump`s own lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, is a target of a criminal investigation into election interference in Fulton County, Georgia. The district attorney down in Georgia in that county there has sent target letters to several other Trump allies in Georgia, and the grand jury in the case has issued several subpoenas.
Then just this afternoon, the special master in that classified documents case ordered Trump`s lawyers to state in a court filing whether they believe FBI agents lied about documents seized from our Largo or claimed to have taken items that were not actually in Trump`s possession. And all that follows the ex-president`s claims on social media and in TV interviews that the FBI planted evidence when they searched his home.
Now, this is a 76-year-old man who has essentially bullied and bluffed his way out of jams his whole life. He`s a con man and he`s going to con. And apparently no lawyer can get him to shut up because amidst all of this, Donald Trump went on national television where he sounded like a raving lunatic, totally dissociated from reality, but crucially fundamentally admitted to the main facts of the crime that the DOJ alleges he may have committed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If you`re the President of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it`s declassified, even by thinking about it, because you`re sending it to Mar-a-Lago or to wherever you`re sending it. And it doesn`t have to be a process. There can be a process, but it doesn`t have to be. You`re the president. You make that decision. So, when you send it, it`s declassified. We -- I declassified everything.
Now, I declassified things and we were having a lot of problems with NARA. You know, NARA is a radical left group of people running that thing. And when you send documents over there, I would say there`s a very good chance that a lot of those documents will never be seen again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: OK, again, amidst how addled and strange that is, Donald Trump admits the basic facts at issue. When he says, and I quote, you`re sending it to Mar-a-Lago, when you send it, it`s declassified, he`s telling the world that he didn`t ever actually declassified, but that he did order classified documents to be removed from the White House and sent -- shipped down to his retirement home in Florida. In other words, he willfully intentionally retained classified government records and national security secrets. He takes it even further when he admits that he didn`t want to send the documents to the National Archives or NARA, because he did not think he would get them back.
[20:05:13]
Yes, right. That`s how it works. Of course, they wouldn`t give them back. They`re not yours. They could keep them. Now, as if that was not wild enough, the ex-president then proceeded to go so far off the rails that his longtime supporter, confidant, colleague, if you will, Fox News host Sean Hannity, had to come in and intervene to just try to wrench them back to some semblance of reality.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: There`s also a lot of speculation because of what they did the severity of the FBI coming and raiding Mar-a-Lago, were they looking for the Hillary Clinton emails that were deleted, but they are around someplace. Were they looking for the spying --
SEAN HANNITY, HOST, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Wait, wait, you`re not saying you had it?
TRUMP: No, no, they may be saying -- they may have thought that it was in there.
HANNITY: OK.
TRUMP: And a lot of people said the only thing that would give the kind of severity that they showed by actually coming in and rating with many, many people is the Hillary Clinton feel, the Russia, Russia, Russia stuff, or -- I mean, there are -- there are a number of things -- the spying on Trump`s campaign. So, they spied on my campaign. So, why did they come in and do that especially since we were having such great conversation, Sean?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Poor Sean. Did you see that part? So, Trump`s theory of the case here, apparently, is that the FBI raided his house at Mar-a-Lago because they were looking for some physical remnants of the Hillary Clinton emails that were in Mar-a-Lago, and then Hannity has to be like, wait, the FBI was searching for Hillary`s emails? You don`t -- you didn`t have them. And you can hear Hannity almost saying like, are you having an aneurysm or am I?
But again, amidst the delusion, the spinning, the tap dancing, Trump is admitting to the core of the potential crime. And here`s the other thing, and this is crucial, as the 11th circuit pointed out, in its ruling yesterday, the point he is making, right, as he himself incriminates himself, the point he`s making about classification is irrelevant. "The declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal." So, even if we assume the plaintiff did classify some or all the documents, that will not explain why he has a personal interest in them. They`re not his either way.
The documents do not even have to be declassified for Trump to make his defensive argument. The point is that he took the material. It didn`t belong to him classified or not, although clearly it was classified. He lied about it multiple times resisted giving it back. That`s the essence of the criminal offense he`s being investigated for and he just admitted to all of it on national television.
Brandon Van Grack is a former member of Robert Mueller`s team. He was a senior official in the DOJ`s National Security Division. And Joyce Vance is the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. She now teaches law at the University of Alabama. Both join me now.
Brandon, first, let me start with you. I mean, first let`s start on this obviously ludicrous idea that there`s a kind of like -- again, I think their theory of classification that it`s like a little like -- it`s like the mystery of the communion host. Like, if there`s some moment, there`s some like -- there`s some miraculous moment when it -- when it gets transubstantiated from classified to declassified when the President touches it, or he wills it so telepathically.
So, first, I guess it`s worthwhile just like saying why that`s ludicrous, which I think it is. What do you think?
BRANDON VAN GRACK, FORMER DOJ OFFICIAL: Well, you know, even if the theory itself is ludicrous, or sort of it is almost, I would say, unknowable, in terms of the criminal charges itself, it ultimately should have at best a negligible impact, if any impact whatsoever.
HAYES: Say more.
VAN GRACK: So, you know, ultimately, declassification, whether the documents were classified or unclassified, it doesn`t actually affect the three charges at issue here. In fact, two of the charges don`t have anything to do with the sensitivity of the documents at all. The one that could, it`s involved in the Espionage Act, it also doesn`t use the term classified.
And what I`d say is because I think we need to be careful, if the documents were declassified, it could, could have an impact. But the notion of a blanket declassification order that was secret and not communicated to anyone, it`s unlikely to have any impact for a reason so we could talk about at the after-show.
HAYES: OK, well, Joyce, the other point here is that it does seem like the basic contours of the crime as alleged -- again, according to the part of the Espionage Act that`s cited in that -- in the parts of the warrant that we got to see, right, he does seem to basically be copping to all of it, right? Basically, it`s whoever lawfully having possession of, you know, a long list of sort of categories of things, right? And it calls it national defense or information relating to the national defense which information the possessors reasonably could be used to the injury of the U.S. willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it. Like, that`s the crime at issue. And it does seem like he`s saying that he did that.
[20:10:37]
JOYCE VANCE, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: You know, sometimes defense lawyers have these difficult moments with their clients where they really want them to stop talking and they won`t. But Trump is an example of that on steroids. This is someone who just straps megaphone to his mouth, goes on national television, tweets. And Brandon knows like I do that somewhere in the Department of Justice, someone is making note of all of these statements, cataloging them, capturing video, and they will be played back against the former President if he is ever indicted and if the case goes to trial, because these statements, quite frankly, are very, very damaging to him.
Beyond that, they damage the credibility of his lawyers. His lawyers were on the one hand in court saying judge, we can`t talk about declassification. It`s inappropriate to force us to talk about that. Our client needs to retain the right to talk about that later. And here Trump is out on TV saying, sure, I used a magic wand and did double secret and in my mind, declassification. So, it really is a mess.
The question and I think Brandon pointed this out is whether it becomes a crime that not only the government has the evidence to prosecute, but is similar, is in the range of cases is in this area that get prosecuted. Typically, there has to be some plus factor. Here, you`ve got a lot of obstruction of justice, which may well count.
HAYES: Yes. And to your point, Joyce, this is this is a theme. I remember this happened a lot in the -- in the aftermath of the election in 2020. Trump or others would make outlandish claims about the levels of fraud that wouldn`t actually show up in the lawyer`s filings, right? Because as sort of irresponsible as lawyers were, they were bound a little bit, I think, by some sense of legal ethics, and saying just outright falsehoods, right, in their actual filings.
We`re getting a similar thing happening here again, Brandon. And it was interesting to me and I`d like to get your reaction to the special master, Judge Dearie, basically saying in an order today, are you saying the FBI planted evidence? And if so, tell us which bits of evidence you are asserting, which seems like a put up or shut up moment?
VAN GRACK: That`s exactly right. I think the Special Master is really pressing the former president`s attorneys in terms of those allegations, and also pressing them in terms of the privilege claims. The order that he issued today really is trying to expedite the process. But -- because I want to just make one other point in terms of the declassification argument, because the conversation now is about how it may affect the criminal case. And I think, as Joyce said, you know, if anything, the comments are incriminating.
But it`s important to compare that to the unknowable damage to national security. If this is true, if there was a blanket order to declassify over these 300 documents of heightened level of classification, and no one in the Intelligence Community was told about it, and that meant the former president could share this information with whomever he wanted to.
It is -- you know, the damage to national credit, again, it is almost unknowable. And it`s 21 months later, and the Intelligence Community still hasn`t been told if in fact that`s true.
HAYES: That`s a great point that essentially the argument proves too much, right, which is to say, if he said, yes, all 300 of these documents no longer classified, and I can show them to you know, whoever when I`m hanging out at the club or at the omelet bar. I can, you know, show it to the bride at her wedding when she`s down at Mar-a-Lago. It doesn`t matter who. That that you can`t do that and not tell anyone about it, because presumably, that would be wildly reckless, even beyond the pale for Donald Trump, because there are actual human intelligence sources, for instance, who might be compromised or other things like that.
VAN GRACK: And he still hasn`t told the Intelligence Community whether that`s true and who he may have shown those documents to.
HAYES: Right. And there`s been no official representations. It doesn`t seem like we sort of -- after floating in a strange kind of anti-gravity Chamber of Judge Cannon and really, in a lot of ways, the sort of strangeness of the president`s legal status according to Department of Justice and OLC that what Trump is facing now looks more -- I mean, obviously he`s a -- he`s a singular case. It looks more, Joyce, like some of the normal gravity of the law being brought to bear.
[20:15:03]
VANCE: It does look normal. It looks refreshingly normal, Chris. And it`s a sad moment I think in our society that just this typical treatment of a litigant in a courtroom is so refreshing that it fills us with so much relief, because frankly, we`d become a country that questioned whether the criminal justice system was capable of dealing with the sort of conniving, manipulating behavior that this President routinely engaged in.
So, look, now we`ve seen two judges, one in Brooklyn, the special master, Judge Dearie, and a panel on the 11th circuit that included two judges that the former president himself appointed to the bench. We`ve seen those judges treat him like any other litigant. He deserves to be treated fairly. He`s entitled to have an opportunity to respond and make arguments. But he should not be treated with greater privilege than other litigants. And I think that`s what speaks so loudly in this moment. He`s being treated like everyone else.
HAYES: Joyce Vance and Brandon Van Grack, thank you both. I really appreciate it.
Coming up, she is the wife of the Supreme Court Justice and a coup supporter who will soon be testifying under oath with the January 6. Committee, we think. Committee member Congressman Pete Aguilar on what he wants to hear from Ginni Thomas, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:20:00]
THOMAS: I am happy to be here, but my husband told me that the President asked about me twice, so I`m wearing my Trump button. We need -- hey, it is the time to be behind whoever is our president because there`s a war for our country and the things that we believe in going on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: In recent months, we have learned just how involved Ginni, the wife of sitting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, was in the plot to overturn the election, including a text message she reportedly sent to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows days after the election. "Biden crime family and ballot fraud co-conspirators, elected officials, bureaucrats, social media, censorship mongers, fake stream media, reporters, etcetera are being arrested and detained for ballot fraud right now and over coming days and will be living in barges of Gitmo to face military tribunals for sedition."
I mean, I guess she was asking, like, is this true or she was declaring it to be so though it clearly wasn`t. That text, again, comes from the wife of the sitting Supreme Court Justice, a guy who has not recused himself from any cases relating to the election or the insurrection, including being the lone justice to agree with the ex-president on blocking the release of White House records relating to January 6. And we know just how close he and his wife are.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THOMAS: And the best part of being a justice?
CLARENCE THOMAS, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, US. SUPREME COURT: First of all, it`s - -it`d be impossible without you. And I have to be honest, I think it would be -- it`s sort of like how do you run with one leg. And it makes it whole when my wife.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: To be clear, in another context, that`s extremely sweet thing to say about your spouse and love your wife, but in the context we have -- well, now we`re learning that Ginni Thomas has come to an agreement to speak with the January 6 Committee just as they confirm their next hearing for next Wednesday.
Joining me now is Congressman Pete Aguilar, Democrat of California who serves on the January 6 Committee. Congressman, a lawyer for Ginni Thomas, saying they`re anxious to clear up any misconceptions the committee may have about her role in the aftermath of the election. Are you looking forward to your testimony?
REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CA): Absolutely. You know, we look forward to anyone coming and sharing what they know about that time period. But specifically, Ginni Thomas because of her coordination and discussion with John Eastman on these crazy conspiracy theories. We know that they were communicating during that time. We know that she was having conversations with other state elected officials. Those are all important to our investigation, important to the work product that we want to produce. And ultimately, in order to tell the full and complete story, we need to hear what she has to say.
HAYES: Yes. On the Eastman point, just to reiterate this for folks who don`t remember, and correct me if I`m wrong here, right, but John Eastman is a former clerk of Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas is very close to many of his former clerks. And there has been evidence I believe that your committee has uncovered that Ginni Thomas and Eastman were in touch and communicating about the aftermath of the election about Eastman`s plan, right, to -- essentially, he was the mastermind behind the kind of Mike Pence coup idea.
AGUILAR: Exactly. So, the theory that they proposed and we know that they were communicating during this time, in addition to the text messages that you showed that she was communicating to the White House Chief of Staff, she was communicating to John Eastman, a law professor, this is the same individual who a federal judge in California said with the precedent, more likely than not, committed federal crimes. That individual came up with this theory that the Vice President could set aside the electors or send it back to the states for more time. None of that is grounded in our laws.
And by the way, Chris, we should take a minute to acknowledge Liz Cheney and Zoe Lofgren authored a change to those laws so we ensure that this can never happen again from a legislative perspective but Ginni Thomas was in close coordination in touch with John Eastman during that time. We think that`s incredibly relevant time period, and we plan to ask questions about it.
[20:25:19]
HAYES: Well, you perfectly set up my next question which is about the legislation that passed the House I believe yesterday, co-sponsored and co- authored by Zoe Lofgren and Liz Cheney, of course, members of the committee. I think it got nine Republican votes. The Republican leadership whipped against it. It was condemned by the ex-president not surprisingly since it was the law that he was going to try to use. How should people understand both what it does, and the fact that you can only get nine Republican votes to shore up the law against possible future coups?
AGUILAR: Yes. We`re trying to ensure that another insurrection doesn`t happen. And the only individuals on the other side of the aisle who we could find are nine of them who none of whom are serving in the next Congress. So we appreciate their bravery in putting up that vote, but none of them are going to be there next year.
And that shows how strong of a hold that Kevin McCarthy and the Republican leadership has on his conference. And it`s unfortunate that while we`re trying to support and protect democracy, they don`t -- they don`t mind if we play by the same rules in which a single individual could try to alter the outcome of a free and fair election.
HAYES: Yes, I mean, I would -- I would say that I`m not sure it`s Kevin McCarthy`s hold on that caucus that`s so strong, so much as it is Donald Trump and the base that he represents. Final question for you. I believe that the hearing on September 28 is now official. Is there something we should be looking for? And what`s your understanding of the timeline this fall for the rest of the committee`s work?
AGUILAR: We look forward to convening again. The chairman announced that we would have a hearing on September 28 when we left after 20 hours of material that we laid in front of the American public. We have since received more information and we want to emphasize some of the points that we made earlier. And so, we felt that it was appropriate and timely to do that. So, in addition to the final report that we will produce in the future, we wanted to have an additional hearing.
And I won`t get into the content of the hearing but I can tell you that there will be new information, as well as reemphasizing the key points that include how the President knew he lost the election, he was told he lost the election, he continued to put forward these theories and to gravitate to any possible way to hold power, including violating laws and setting aside and disregarding that 60 times he lost in federal court. He was unfazed. And so, he pointed at the Capitol and he encouraged his supporters to march down the capitol where he wanted to march with them. And this was after the pressure campaign that he put on his own vice president to alter the outcome of the election.
HAYES: All right, Congressman Pete Aguilar on the January 6 Committee, which will be convening for a hearing next week, we will be watching that. I suspect we will be covering it in this hour that night. Thank you very much.
AGUILAR: Thank you.
HAYES: Still to come, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis tries to show he can be as cruel as Donald Trump, winds up ensnared in one of the biggest scandals of his political career. We have a lot of moving parts on that. The latest next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:30:00]
HAYES: Back in 2013, there was a big scandal involving a Republican governor who had hopes for running for president and involved then-Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey and the shutting down of access lanes to the George Washington Bridge in an act of sheer political retribution to a local mayor. The lane closures lasted for days. They cause hours-long traffic jams that delayed buses carrying school kids and commuters trying to get to work and even emergency vehicles. It was a political stunt that hurt Christy`s political aspirations, had real-life consequences for ordinary people. It led to a bunch of people getting prosecuted and even indicted and convicted.
Now, at some level, that sounds awfully similar to another political stunt pulled recently by another Republican governor with his eye on the White House. Because the last week, Republican Ron DeSantis of Florida used taxpayer money to fly 48 migrants from Texas to an island in Massachusetts. The migrants including children were told they were being flown to Boston or Washington D.C. where they would be given jobs, housing, and educational opportunities according to a lawsuit, some of them filed this week against DeSantis and others. Instead, they were taken to a small island where they were left without food, water, or shelter until residents there learned about their arrival and came to help.
Here`s the thing. This was a stunt clearly done to sort of stick it to his political enemies. But the incident is now under investigation by the Sheriff of Bexar County, Texas where the migrants had been living.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SALAZAR: I believe that they were preyed upon. Somebody came from out of state, preyed upon these people, lured them with promises of a better life to just be exploited and hoodwinked into making this trip to Florida and then onward to Martha`s Vineyard for what I believe to be nothing more than political posturing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:35:03]
HAYES: And it is reasonable ask if the announcement of that investigation might have played a part in DeSantis suddenly canceling a second plan flight of migrants this time to Delaware, the home state of President Biden. Some great new reporting from Miami Herald says that they were at it again, that this second group were also asylum seekers from Venezuela were also promised a flight to a destination where there will be more resources to help them. But instead, their flight planned for this week was abruptly canceled.
Joining me now is one of the reporters who broke that Miami Herald story, Sarah Blaskey. Sarah, it`s great to have you on.
SARAH BLASKEY, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, MIAMI HERALD: Thanks for having me.
HAYES: I learned a lot -- I learned a lot from your reporting. Just walk me through what you learned from the folks you interviewed about who these people were, what they were told, how they ended up in a hotel, I believe, waiting for a flight that never came.
BLASKEY: So, all of these people had remarkably similar stories. All of them came from Venezuela. We talked to at least half a dozen people who were getting on that bus that you showed there a moment ago, and they all said that they had recently come from Venezuela, made the journey up through Central America, cross the U.S.-Mexico border close to here, close to San Antonio, Texas. And then they ended up at the migrant Resource Center here in San Antonio.
And at that center, you have three days. You can stay for three days, and then you`re out. And so, people are very desperate here to find a way to move forward with their lives. And that`s what happened here. As they`re outside of that center, they`re approached by a woman who never gives her name. She says she`s from an organization that is going to help them get somewhere in the country. She said they couldn`t -- that she wouldn`t tell them where they were going, or she couldn`t until the very last moment. But it would be a way from Texas to a place that had more resources for them and potentially jobs.
And so, they signed up and quite literally, the way it worked was you just get into her SUV. If you`re -- if you`re a yes for this program, you`d get into the SUV. At that point, they would drive to a La Quinta outside of San Antonio, outside of downtown, and then they waited until there were enough people to fill a flight. And that news came in. Earlier this week, there was going to be a flight to Delaware.
And as of that night, as of Monday night, that flight was still on. These people were told you`re going to Delaware in the morning. Everything leaves at 5:00 a.m. And then the next morning, the bus never came for them. The plane never came and they were kind of left sitting there. What they didn`t realize was that in that span of time, an investigation was announced, as you mentioned by the sheriff here, Javier Salazar.
HAYES: So, what -- I`m just -- it`s so weird, I have to say. I mean, I`m not to hammer on this point, but you`re an investigative reporter at the Miami Herald. You know, I`ve done reporting on government agencies. This is just not the way government agencies are contractors tend to operate. Like, some sketchy unnamed woman standing outside telling people to get in an SUV. Like, who is this person? Who does she work for? Who`s paying her? How much is she paying? Is this the same woman as the Perla who got folks to go to Martha`s Vineyard? Do we know that?
BLASKEY: This is not Perla. Perla was involved -- our understanding is Perla was involved in this flight as well and in booking the hotel, for example, but the woman that was approaching everyone, nobody identified as Perla. She was a different woman. We don`t have a name at all in this case. And so, no, we don`t exactly know how all of these pieces are connected. We do know that Governor DeSantis took credit for that flight to Martha`s Vineyard. We do know that the same planes were going to be used. We do know that Perla was involved in both, this woman, but there are also others.
We spoke with people and it sounds like there are three or four other recruiters out there for this program. And to date, we don`t know who they are.
HAYES: At some point, right, there`s some contract the government of Florida using taxpayer money signed to employ -- to hire someone to do this. And that has to -- they can`t keep that secret forever, am I wrong?
BLASKEY: So, we do know that they have paid over $1.5 million to a company called Vertol Systems. And Vertol Systems really is the logistics coordinator behind this program, or at least behind the Martha`s Vineyard trip. And in that, you know, funding comes from a program that was funded up to $12 million to relocate immigrants who are seeking asylum or otherwise out of Florida into other places. And so, that is -- that is where the funding for these flights came from. Interestingly, these folks were not in Florida. Of course, they were in Texas --
HAYES: And not only that.
BLASKEY: But that`s our best understanding.
HAYES: Yes, the statutory language in that budget was unauthorized immigrants. There`s some in the Florida State Legislature pointing out these people are not unauthorized, they are actually pending asylum review, Sarah Blaskey, thank you so much for great reporting. I really appreciate it.
BLASKEY: Thank you.
HAYES: Still ahead, whether it`s claiming he has a dubious cure for COVID or showing he doesn`t really understand climate concerns, Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker has a lot in common with Donald Trump and that extends to his charitable donations too. New details on that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:45:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, what kind of preparation are you doing for the debate?
HERSCHEL WALKER (R-GA), SENATE CANDIDATE: Talking to the voters, talking to you. You told me I got to prepare so I`m preparing. I`m this country boy. You know, I`m not that smart. And he`s a preacher. He`s a smart man. He wears these nice suits. So, he got to show up and embarrass me at the debate October the 14th. And I`m just waiting you all show up and I`m going to do my best.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: As I said here before, in an election cycle full of ridiculous Republican Senate candidates, including TV doctors and coup supporters, Herschel Walker may be among the most unqualified, if not the most unqualified candidate running to serve in public office, not only because he seems just incapable of answering even the most basic policy questions, but because he appears to lie almost instinctually in a way that we have not seen since Donald Trump.
Walker lies about little things like his academic background and big things like the number of children he has. The similarities to Trump don`t end there. Yesterday, we brought you a story about a grift the ex-President pulled with his foundation where he raised millions of dollars for veterans charities. And then when he figured folks were no longer paying attention, he neglected to actually give away all the money he pledged.
It was only when reporter David Fahrenthold and other members of the media repeatedly dogged Trump about missing money that the then-candidate actually donated it all. Well, David Fahrenthold is back at it again. In a new report from New York Times, Fahrenthold uncovered a pledge made by Herschel Walker`s business to donate profits to charities, a pledge still available on an archived version of its website from 2017. "Walker`s company respects its roots and is dedicated to helping others who are less fortunate. That is why 15 percent of its profits are given to various charitable organizations serving people in need, including a National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Special Olympics, PE for Life programs, the Boy Scouts of America and others.
Well, I think you probably know where this is going. As Fahrenthold reports, it sure seems like Walker didn`t make good on that promise. "When The New York Times contacted those four charities, one declined to comment, the other three said they had no record or recollection of any guests from the company in the last decade." When asked about the missing money, A Walker campaign spokesman said "Herschel Walker has given millions of dollars to charities but refused to elaborate further."
Now, we have no way of knowing if that`s true or not. Walker`s campaign could easily clear the whole thing up by releasing any evidence. But even if Walker has made charitable contributions in the past, that doesn`t change the fact that like Trump before him, Walker through his company tried to do the same thing apparently. He tried to earn some goodwill by pledging charitable donations that, well, simply never materialized.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: From the moment that Vladimir Putin appeared on Russian television to announce his invasion of Ukraine, he was very careful not to call it a war, but a special military operation. In fact, he even signed a law making it illegal to call the invasion of war. And the reason for that is, despite his authoritarian grip on the country, he was worried about the political blowback of a society-wide mobilization.
Putin wanted to just use the existing army, secure a quick victory by toppling Ukrainian government, and never have to ask for massive sacrifice for the vast majority of Russian citizens. But with the grinding pace of the war, that has clearly not panned out. In the wake of the really stunningly effective Ukrainian counter-offensive retaking large amounts of territory in the last month, Putin has basically been forced into a nationwide mobilization if he wants to continue the war.
And he`s still trying to hedge not calling it a universal draft. But it basically is as far as we can tell from recording on the ground because there are now scenes across Russia of men being taken in for training ahead of expected deployment, prompting renewed protests by Russian people. The question now is what this means the prospects of the war, as well as the political situation inside of Russia.
Joining me now to talk about that, New Yorker Staff Writer Masha Gessen, author of several books about Russian authoritarianism, including Surviving Autocracy. It`s such a pleasure to have you here at the table.
MASHA GESSEN, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: It`s good to be here in person.
HAYES: I guess, how would you characterize the reaction? It`s 144 million people in Russia, so big, complicated country, but in Russian society to this latest announcement.
GESSEN: I think everybody understands on some level, some people explicitly and some people, you know, in their -- in their gut, that this is the moment when Putin starts using people as cannon fodder, right. And the final is very clear. It`s to put a human shield in the way of the Ukrainian counter-offensive in order to be able to hold ground through the winter with the idea that Europe is going to get tired of refugees, Europe is going to get tired of having very expensive gas are shortages of gas. And so, support for Ukraine will wane and the flow of weapons to Ukraine and financial help to Ukraine is going to be stemmed.
So, he needs to hold ground. And in order to hold ground, he`s just going to put people on that ground as a human shield, as cannon fodder. So, all tickets from Moscow to cities where you can still fly from Moscow have been bought up. People are trying to find ways to fly out of other cities. They`re getting their documents checked at the border, being asked by border guard to prove that they bought their ticket before mobilization was an announced. That it`s a bonafide vacation and they`re not fleeing. So, it`s a sort of panic.
[20:55:16]
HAYES: The Guardian reporting -- and I thought this was just useful that from one of the activist groups there, it`s not a partial mobilization, it`s 100 percent mobilization. It did seem like he was sort of head -- there`s a little bit of hedging in the speech, but just based on what we`re seeing, it does seem like, if they want to hold that ground, the number of troops they need is in the hundreds of thousands, it`s going to be a lot of people.
GESSEN: Well, the minister of -- the minister of defense said that they`re going to mobilize 300,000 people. So, nobody`s going to be able to hold him to account, right? 300,000 can turn into a million and a half. But yes, of course -- of course, it`s total mobilization. People are starting to get notices all over the country. I know, for example, of people in their 50s getting mobilized.
HAYES: Really?
GESSEN: They seem to be especially focusing on medics and, and people but the pharmaceutical education, which also doesn`t make people feel any safer.
HAYES: There`s something very bleak about these scenes, I have to say. I mean, from the beginning, this entire thing, even though I can put myself in understanding the historic importance of Ukraine to Russia, and there are -- you know, it`s always just felt like such madness, such senseless destruction. And to see it now being compounded is -- it`s very difficult to watch. It`s very upsetting.
GESSEN: It`s horrifying to watch. And you know, what Putin was commenting on was that he was going to be able to get support for a very quick military operation that was going to prove that Russia is as strong as it`s ever been and it`s going to place it alongside the United States in a bipolar world. Now, he`s still claiming that he is fighting a proxy war against the United States and against the larger West in Ukraine, right. It`s not a war against Ukraine. But it`s much harder to get people excited about that, you know, why should you go die for Russia in Ukraine while fighting the United States?
HAYES: Do you think -- I mean, we`re seeing right now we`re sending -- I mean, it didn`t seem to me, there was an interesting calculation in that first announcement, right? Special military operation. Don`t call it a war. If you call it a war, in fact, you could be arrested, right? I mean, the criminalization of that. That he did have some sense that it would not kind of have your cake and eat it too. We will have this glorious victory, but you`re not going to have to do anything. And as that comes apart, does that shift Russian public opinion in civil society?
GESSEN: Unfortunately, I think Putin is generally overcautious. He has always been more afraid of protest and more afraid of lack of popularity than he has any reason to be.
HAYES: That`s interesting.
GESSEN: There is no mechanism for protest to bring him down. I mean, yes, we saw 1300 people get arrested yesterday for protests in nearly 40 cities across Russia. These are incredibly brave people, right? These people are actually were seen --
HAYES: Exceedingly brave.
GESSEN: Yes, seven, ten, 15 years in prison, potentially. And they`re coming out into the street. But 1300 people in a country of 145 million people, you know, that`s not a lot of people. He has the capacity to terrorize the entire country. And part of the way that mobilization has been used -- also, it`s an instrument of terror, at the same time, that it`s an instrument of mobilization, because it`s random, because they`re not announcing a systematic, approach, right?
HAYES: Right.
GESSEN: 300,000 people -- here, we`re going to pluck a 51-year-old man with a medical education. Here, we`re going to grab an 18-year-old on the metro, right? So, that is also a hedge against any change in public opinion.
HAYES: That`s such an interesting -- I hadn`t thought of that, obviously. Drafts are not -- it`s not like Russia invented the draft. The U.S. has had conscription, of course, in the -- in the Vietnam War. You had, at least at the top line, a system that people knew. They knew what their number was. They knew what the lottery was drawing.
What you`re saying here is this is --
GESSEN: Everybody is on notice.
HAYES: Yes, right. And it could be you. And that`s just another implement for the state to terrify people.
GESSEN: Exactly. And that`s part of why we`re seeing that kind of -- you know, we`re seeing that people are panicking, we`re seeing that people are terrified, because it is terror, right? And, you know, that`s an expected reaction from Putin to the Ukrainian counter-offensive. So, it serves a dual purpose. One is to hold Ukraine back, but the other is to terrorize the country lest people consider changing their support. I mean, you know, not consciously considered.
HAYES: It also seems to be a message about commitment, right? It`s a commitment declaration in the sort of game theory sense of how the West and Ukraine react. Don`t you think for a second, we`re going to go wobbly.
GESSEN: Right. And so, that`s why in the same threat, he mentions the threat of nuclear weapons. He is willing to go that far.
HAYES: Well, it`s going to be a very brutal winter. And I hope that we get to have you back again soon to talk about something that looks better than how things look. Masha Gessen, it`s always such a pleasure. Thank you.
GESSEN: Thank you, Chris.
HAYES: That is ALL IN on this Thursday night. "THE ALEX WAGNER TONIGHT" starts right now. Good evening, Alex.
ALEX WAGNER, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris.