tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC July 5, 2021 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
financial officer allen weisselberg at this point just charges and indictment. they're allegations. it's not the sum total of what prosecutors know and we haven't read the defense response. but if the allegations are true in the context they are presented, it sure seems look a pretty black and white picture of tax fraud, not some incidental bookkeeping error, but a plan that was systematically engineered over the years to create a means of evading taxes. the smoking gun of tax fraud is the classic two sets of books, right? any time a business or individual has financial records you have found fraud because why would you need two. the cornerstone of fraud is telling one set of people like tax collectors lies about your finances while you were keeping an accurate set of records hidden. and you need to two sets of books. that is what prosecutors allege they have evidence of here, just
one example of many. prosecutors say, quote, the payment of tuition expenses for weisselberg's family. was treated as part of weisselberg's annual compensation in internal records. however, the indirect compensation in the form of tuition payments was not included on weisselberg's w-2 or otherwise reported to state or local or federal tax attorneys. so, the trump board have their own records how much are we paying allen weisselberg. they said one thing, part of that payment or tuition payment. while weisselberg and the company tells the tax attorneys something else. these charges were announced last week. and since then donald trump has been out doing the thing that he really benefitted from throughout the years, particularly in the presidency, which is publicly saving his crimes so they would not be
secret scandals that were uncovered. 2016 in front of cameras asked for russia to hurt his political opponent. russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. russia, please hack my opponent. russia did do that. after his call pressuring ukraine to investigate the biden went public. he's doing it again in a rally in florida admit lg, look, maybe he committed some crimes but people like us are not supposed to be prosecuted. >> they go after good, hardworking people for not paying taxes on a company car. company car. you didn't pay taxes on the car or a company apartment. you used an apartment because you need an apartment because you have to travel too far where your house is. you didn't pay tax. or education for your
grandchildren. i don't even know, do you have to -- does anybody know the answer to that stuff? but they indict people for that. >> weird how using the company apartment because you live so far away from the office doesn't quite land with the crowd. meanwhile his company was lying about the case saying it was about fringe benefits. >> they'll go after someone for fringe employment benefits. that's what they're focused on? they'll go after a corporate vehicle and a corporate apartment. >> they want to go after the cfo of trump organization for free parking or something like that. >> the best they could come up with was a corporate car for the cfo of the trump organization. >> they spent millions of dollars, they reviewed 3 million documents, countless number of grand jury hours, countless number of witnesses and they got a guy because he got a corporate car and didn't declare it on his
tax return. >> okay. keep in mind here amidst all this, right, they're not saying you have it all wrong at all. this is saying how dare you prosecute someone who is evading taxes on millions of dollars in income. that's nothing to us. people get prosecuted and go to jail for this all the time, i have news for you. you can ask pete rose who spent five months in prison after failing to report income for memorabilia sells. singer lauren hill spent three months in prison for failing to pay taxes. michael grim went to prison after going to prison, keeping two sets of records. that sound familiar? now, look, there is an inescapable political context to all this. people on both sides of the prosecution are politicians. everyone knows who donald trump is. but it's also the case that if what is alleged is true, the
politics should not mat tore the prosecution. law professor daniel wrote about this when he wrote being connected to a to a controversial shouldn't get you out of jail. his latest column on the prosecution of the trump board is title ld "trump one law for hungry pizza thieves, another for me" and he joins me now. david, let's start with this idea of the background context. you know, i think the argument that trump and his like are trying to make it like this is ridiculous, no one ever gets nailed for this. i've covered people getting nailed for less than this. what say you? >> we don't prosecute very many tax crimes in this country. 440 cases were actually accepted for prosecution by the justice department last year.
a country of 330 million people, that's not many cases. these are legal source cases, which is what applies here. this is not about drug dealing or bribery. having said that, the argument that, gee, this is nothing, $1.76 million is 34 year of income to the typical american worker, according to the latest data from social security. that's 34 years of working. but you don't have to report income on it. gee, you wish i hadn't had to report for the last 34 years when i made. >> exactly. there's also -- i mean, the sort of two sets of books part of this is intriguing to me because it speaks to some -- they have tangible evidence. it also makes you wonder what else they have access to. >> interestingly allen weisselberg didn't get a raise
for a number of years, km says a lot about donald trump, that he doesn't take good care of his cfo. but keeping two set of books, as you said, is the classic indication of a fraud. and i've said from the very beginning, this is a garden variety tax fraud case. and you'll notice there's no denying what's going on. i do think the most interesting thing that's been said so far is what donald said at his rally saturday night. does anybody the law here? donald trump claims to be the greatest expert on taxes in the history of the world. >> it's also the case, sri to say, that everyone knows -- everyone knows. you mean, if you are compensated by your employer with perks like that, you have to report it as income. this is a very obvious and basic thing, and obviously allen weisselberg knew that, obviously the trump people knew that, obviously everyone in the organization knew it. otherwise they wouldn't have gone to such links to hide it,
as alleged. >> the next question to ask is, okay, who else has not yet been indicted who could be indicted? there's an unindicted coconspirator in the indictment. he very likely is jeff connie, who was brought before the grand jury and testified. and under new york state law, if you come before a grand jury, you have immunity, transactional immunity for whatever you testify about. he's the controller of the organization, and logically would be a person involved in this criminal scheme. >> what do you think the stakes are here zooming out past this. we startrd with you talking about how few tax crimes get prosecuted. and one of the themes of the trump era to me is how much wrong doing has gone undeterred and uninvestigated and unprosecuted at the highest levels of american life for so long, and trump being the kind
of ultimate manifestation of that if you just let people get away with things forever. >> well, we just reported that your odds if you make $10 million or more of having a completed audit in 2019 were 1 in 700 down from 1 in 20 i think it was under obama in his first full year as president. >> wow. >> the entire amount of extra taxes found to be owed by this class of people who make a trillion dollars is $5.4 million. basically under donald trump, enforcement at the tax law at the top has largely stopped. and at the same time, as i write in my piece, there's a man serving -- who was sentenced to 50 years -- a hungry, homeless man, 50 years for stealing a slice of pizza, and u.s. supreme court has said sentences like
that are reasonable. donald is part of a group of people who think they're special. they're above the law. they don't have to play by these rules. >> "the new york times" points out there are echos of his father's tactics on taxes. the first criminal prosecution harkens back to fred trump's purchase of boilers in the 1990s which he had allowed other people to take a cut of as untaxed compensation and a whole bunch of corner cutting that was laid bear in the "times" investigation that appears to have been started long before donald trump took over the company. >> well, that's why it's important to recognize this is the first indictment. it is not the last indictment. and there are likely going to be others. and if allen was getting these deals, then what kind of deals were don jr. and eric and ivanka
and donald himself getting to underreport or misreport their income? and we just haven't seen those yet? >> david k. johnston, thank you so much for joining us tonight. >> thank you. rebecca roy, former manhattan assistant district attorney. she worked out of the same charges that brought these charges. she's now a professor of law at new york law school, and she joins me now. rebecca, i want to start with what yoir legal advise would be if you were retained by the trump family about how much you should be talking about the case, slash essentially conceding the underlying facts and violation of law in public utterances? >> you know, i would try. i would try to tell them to not speak out publicly on these issues. i think part of the problem is that trump and his family have done very well in the public at spinning things so that there's a legal case and there's a case
before the public. and the problem now is the legal case has proceeded to the point of an indictment. so, those words, the words of a top official within this company can be used against the company itself. and ultimately if trump himself were to be indicted, those words could be used against him. so, he needs to be very careful now in a way this rhetoric might really backfire in the court. >> i think it's worked more than public relations. i think it's worked in legal spheres as well. i think bullying and being intractable often has paid legal dividends. i think it did in terms of mueller and whether he would testify. also you have to recognize there's going to be a new manhattan district attorney and letitia james is a politician. i think he thinks you can rattle the cage as much as needs be.
there's no such thing as law. everything is power and politics. >> i think you're absolutely right. one thing that's effective is the constant allegation these things are politically motivated because then what happens is the people who are trying to follow the facts in the law have a really hard time because not only do they have to do that, but they also have to convince the public they are not doing this for political reasons. so, you are caught in this really, really difficult moment where you have to do two things, which is bring a really solid case and address this rhetoric. and in some ways i think this indictment is extremely clever. i have no idea if there was their intention, but one of the things that's really, really brilliant about it is it does address the question subtly that this is politically motivated. it doesn't seem to be politically motivated, one because it's so solid, and two,
it's not a tiny case. they can say that until they're red in the face and it isn't in those 25 pages. it's clearly, as you said at the beginning of this show, a very significant tax fraud. it may not be that these cases are brought very often. if prosecutors ran across this kind of evidence and didn't bring this case, they should be tossed out of office. this is exactly what the manhattan's d.a.'s office does. they're not going to audit books and records of every company. if they're pursuing something else and they find this kind of tax fraud, they have to prosecute it. that makes it such that it's very hard for them to credibly get out there and say this is being done because of who the president -- because of who the former president is rather than just what he did, these crimes and if they can be proved, the facts are interpreting damning. >> you raise the fact that these offices don't want to sort of be pulled into the political thicket here. and i can't help but think about the federal government here.
obviously if the facts, as alleged are true, if -- innocent until proven guilty -- there's massive federal tax evasion here that the federal government should not just, like, eh, do that to even though it's very clear to me from his actions and words that attorney general merrick garland and a huge part of the justice department want nothing less than to be in the position of prosecuting a former president. but it does seem there is a little bit of a problem for them as this case goes forward. >> oh, completely. it's like being thrown in their face. how do you ignore these kinds of facts? this is just federal tax fraud, alleged clearly in the black and white. and if this were brought to them by any complainant, any whistleblower, there would be no way they couldn't pursue it. i'm sympathetic with merrick garland because he has two jobs now. and he didn't want to sign on for both of these jobs, but he does. one is to prosecute crimes and
to treat all people equally, and no person is above the law. and the other is to restore the legitimacy of this office. how do you do these two things at the same time? it is difficult. i agree with you that faced with these facts, he probably should pursue thechlt but at the same time i'm very understanding of the desire not to. >> yes, they are clearly pulled in both directions over their main justice on this. thank you very much for your time tonight. >> thank you. as we try to get a full picture of how hundreds of rioters break into the capitol, a new investigation has provided by far the most detailed information so far, maps of the building to show how things went wrong. evan hill is going to join us to explain how they did it next. uo explain how they did it next for immunity support. plus 8 b-vitamins for brain support.
one a day and done. in this family, everyone does their own laundry, but they all do it a little different. honestly, i add a couple of tide pods and just stuff everything in. it works. and of course, everyone thinks their way is right. i stood in line for hours to get this. it has to be washed on delicate. it has to be cold water, it's better for the planet. the secret is, with tide pods it all works. of course it does. told ya! they're going to do it their way, and i get a break from the laundry. no matter how you wash, it's got to be tide. over four million people on medicare... made a choice... to take charge of their health care. with an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. medicare supplement plans help pay the out-of-pocket expenses medicare doesn't... giving you greater peace of mind. you could also see any doctor, any specialist, anywhere in the u.s. who accepts medicare patients. call today for your free decision guide. ♪
what's on the horizon? call today for your free decision guide. the answers lie beyond the roads we know. we recognize that energy demand is growing, and the world needs lower carbon solutions to keep up. at chevron, we're working to find new ways forward, like through our venture capital group. backing technologies like electric vehicle charging, carbon capture and even nuclear fusion. we may not know just what lies ahead, but it's only human... to search for it.
delicia: this is where all our recycling is sorted -- 1.2 million pounds every day, helping to make san francisco the greenest big city in america. but that's not all you'll find here. there are hundreds of good-paying jobs, with most new workers hired from bayview-hunter's point. we don't just work at recology, we own it, creating opportunity and a better planet. now, that's making a difference.
six months after the breach of the capitol, the clearest picture we have of what actually happened comes from this incredible "new york times" video investigation that takes us through the events of january 6th moment by moment. it shows how the insurrectionists got inside the building. >> reporter: the capitol is now surrounded. rioters haven't made it inside yet, but around the time that the mob on the east pushed forward, rioters on the west were making a pivotal move.
this scaffolding was erected for the upcoming ininauguration of joe biden. at ground level, officers are so overwhelmed that just a few cover this crucial access point. several proud boys see the weakness. >> stairs are right there. >> take the stairs! atake the stairs! >> proud boys start fighting the police and with others in the mob, they push through the line. over several minutes of the brutal fight on these steps -- >> he's got a hammer! he's got a hammer!
>> at one point the rioters are held back. but they make a final push up the flight of stairs. at the top they scuffle again with a small group of officers who give in after barely a minute. the mob now has direct access to capitol entrances. >> i can't believe this is reality. we accomplished this [ bleep ]. >> and hundreds more protesters below surged forward. it's utter mayhem and it's about to get worse. the scene has been filmed from countless angles, allowing us to piece together moment by moment what comes next.
proud boy dominic pezzola uses a police shield he stole to bash in a window. and at 2:13 p.m., the capitol is breached. michael sparks, trump supporter from kentucky, is the first person inside. a police officer seems unsure of what to do and backs off. sparks is followed by proud boys and other far right extremists, one carrying a confederate flag, another armed with a baseball bat. when rioters break open the locked doors, hundreds more rush in. >> one of the lead reporters of that incredible piece you really have to watch, evan hill of the "new york times" investigative team joins us now. it's exceptional work. i don't even quite understand how it exists. first just describe to me how
were you able -- you know, it feels like there was a documentary film crew that had deployed to film this. but that's not what happened. how did you get all this footage and then put it together? >> i think that what you said is true. it feels like we did have a documentary film crew there. and it's -- we called it the most well-filmed, well-documented insurrection in history. and we were just able to take advantage of the hundreds of different phones -- >> i think we may have lost evan there. evan's internet connection may have gone out there. we'll see if we can get him back. sometimes those flicker in and out. evan hill from the "new york times" visual investigations team. so, let's just roll tape for a second. i want to show another moment
from this documentary that was incredibly illuminating to me. it's very upsetting. it involves the death of the woman who was among the crowd. you may have remembered. her name was roseanne boy land. and you heard about folks that died in the crowd -- sounds like we have evan hill back. evan, are you here? >> yes, sorry, i'm back. >> if you can continue with how you got all this footage together? >> we call that basically the most well-documented insurrection in history, and we took advantage of the fact that never before had you really seen rioters, insurrectionists filming themselves in real time from hundreds of different perspectives. that amount of information actually was almost too much for us. and one of the big heeds of this project was how do we organize and put all of these pieces of footage together.
and documents that and spreadsheeting that logging it according to its time and where it was filmed was half of the project if not more. and then of course we have to start putting together a narrative of how this occurred . >> one thing that becomes clear in your documentary that wasn't clear to me before is that there real sli a relatively small organized coterie of folks who are at every key moment instigating and penetrating these defenses. and then that sort of swells the mob forward, who then get kind of imbued with this loss for conflict. but they're instigating at almost every key moment. >> yeah, that's right. i think that the make-up of the mob was one of the interesting aspects of this investigation, which was that, yes, there were very well-organized right wing extremist groups in this crowd
at the key moments pushing forward, identifying locations in the police line that were weak, stealing police shields but that actually the majority of the mob was made up of -- for lack of a better word -- radicalized trump supporters acting individually or making decisions individually but then becoming part of a mob and being rallied by extremist groups, such as the proud boys, the soegt keepers, three percenters. >> i want to show the footage of rosa boylan who lost her life that day. she was overrun. i never really understood what happened to her until this section of the documentary that you put together. take a listen. >> roseanne boylan, a trump supporter who has been swept up by qanon conspiracies is moving toward the door. amid the scrum, she collapses and is lying unconscious beneath the mob. as the crowd sarcastically
chants a black lives matter slogan, her friend tries to pull her to safety. he screams for help. >> i need somebody! i need help! >> but instead, fellow rioters trample over boylan and charge at the police again. boylan will be pronounced dead at a local hospital in the evening. >> i found that so profoundly upsetting to see her friend there yelling for help and also understanding the utter chaos and mayhem that would lead to that situation. >> yeah, i mean, i worked on that one, and it was one of the most upsetting things that i had to watch during this investigation. and you can imagine we saw hundreds of hours of pretty disturbing footage. roseanne boylan was a 34-year-old from georgia who had gotten into qanon and gone to the capitol. and you can see her there kind of just getting sucked into that tunnel, which became one of the
worst scenes of violence that day. and when she emerged, she was unconscious. the medical examiner's office said that she died of amphetamine overdose, and we investigated that as well. clearly the conditions of that mob contributed to it and the fellow rioters showed no effort to stop their attack on police while she was lying there on the ground. >> evan hill from the "new york times" visual team, thank you so much for your work and for coming on tonight. all right. is there still a glimmer of hope on voting rights, if democrats are willing to budge? we'll talk about a crucial stretch for extending the franchise for a broken senate next. g the franchise for a broken senate next from the world's number 1 selling nerve care company. as we age, natural changes to our nerves occur which can lead to occasional discomfort. nervive contains b complex vitamins that nourish nerves, build nerve insulation and enhance nerve communication.
hearing is important to living life to the fullest. that's why inside every miracle-ear store, you'll find better cheers with your favorite fans. you'll find a better life is in store at miracle-ear, when you experience the exclusive miracle-ear advantage. our team is devoted to your care, with free service adjustments and cleaning of your miracle-ear hearing aids for life. we're so confident we can improve your life, we're offering a 30-day risk-free trial. call 1-800-miracle today and experience the miracle-ear advantage.
roberts gutted the other provision of the act back in 2013. those two sections, section 2 and section 5 were the most important ways of voting laws before the fact or after the fact and they've been significantly weakened. now the need for federal voting legislation is stronger than ever. there's a question about whether there's any conceivable universe on which some grand voting is possible. republicans push to quote/unquote protect against fraud, like voter id, in exchange for guaranteed florida voter protections and access. a couple weeks ago we saw a glimmer of what it might look like when you saw joe manchin oppose a set of changes to the for the people act voter bill. and when voting rights advocates endorsed those changes, her endorsement itself was enough to kill the bill, which leads to the question, is there anything to negotiate here. marie teresa kumar is president,
"bigots have finally accomplished their goal of the act" airs on msnbc on sunday at 8:00 p.m. maria, let me start with you. i sometimes think if you could sit down in an abstract universe, you could consider a universe in which you could pencil out a big kind of grand bargain on national voting standards. but to me the manchin experience shows that in a practical matter it's not possible. do you think that's too pessimistic on my part? >> chris, you know, originally you're supposed to have two different partys that come at the table and negotiate in good faith. we already have mitch mcconnell saying he doesn't want to support any part of biden's agenda. sadly part of biden's agenda is to ensure the full franchise of all americans. manchin is trying to continue to
negotiate with the body that was very much in that state in the 1990s but that has dissipated into everybody's corner. and when it comes to voting rights, the republicans have demonstrated time and again that even in certified, fair, non-fraudulent elections, they want to gut someone to the booth. i'll take texas as an example. texas is the hardest place to vote, full stop, chris. they are just passing legislation right now to prevent students from voting. why? because just among latino youth you're going to have a quarter million more eligible voters in time to kick abbott out if we register them. this is so political and we're talking about the scaffolding, democracy with the little d, not the democratic party. and that is where we need republicans to come to the table. sadly manchin has to have a wakeup call and has to side with the party because we're talking about saving the institution,
not his party. >> it's also the case -- part of the madness here is because the score in 2013, they struck down section 4 of the voting rights act, making section 5 non-operative. all these changes have to be checked by the department of justice before they go into effect. in the absence of that then we have hand-to-hand combat fights about every change. and if you read the voting rights opinion about the arizona case which was after the fact under section 2, maybe there are some small changes that are not driven by animus. but the entire point of having that bureaucracy in place to check it was so that we don't have to have these fights. now that's gone, we do have to have these fights and i don't think republicans want us to stop having them. >> one important thing to remember about the arizona voting restriction laws that were upheld by the supreme court is that arizona admitted that the reason why they were doing this was to influence the
election. they admitted that these restrictions disproportionately affected people of color. the supreme court admitted that these restrictions disproportionately affected people of color, and they all said that's fine. and why did they say, that's fine? because they can't win if they let everybody vote. this is the -- the thing that people have to get about voting rights is that this is actually an existential crisis for the republican party because if everybody votes, the republicans can't win. the republicans have abandoned building any kind of coalition beyond their white supremacist base. so, if that white supremacist base is diluted in any way, republicans have no strategy to expand their base, have no policies to appeal to people beyond their white supremacist base. so, this is like -- this is their way. this is their only way to win elections, it's by keeping people away from the voting. >> well, but let me just respond to that and i'll come to maddie.
i think that the republicans think that about themselves, which i think is kind of hilariously a poor judgment on themselves if they think that. i keep saying this all the time. look at 2020. historically high turnout, right? the republicans didn't get blown out. there were four congressional seats in iowa. they few of those were supposed to tight seats and they kept them. in iowa they did the same thing they've done everywhere. they've rushed to put in restrictions. it's a fairly the competitive party even with less turnout. i think they have less faith in themselves than even the outcomes in the election should suggest. >> i've always said if republicans could just not be racist for four consecutive years there are a lot of black and brown votes for them. there are black and brown votes that support basic authoritarianism and a police state. they could get more votes if they want to try. maybe that's where the internal
self-delusion becomes reality. they don't want to get the votes of color. they just want to have to play within the box set by their white supremacist base. so, that's why they're doing these things that they're doing really effectively. >> and then when you step back, maddie, i mean the thing that's upsetting about the moment, and i think you and i are on the same page about the peril and the stakes here. you've got this for the people act. you couldn't get manchin on board. stacey abrams says it's great, let's do it. then mitch mcconnell turn around and say oh, it's a stacey abrams bill, we can't touch that. even if you get rid of the filibuster and pass this thing, the roberts waiting in the wings like hacking it to death. what are we doing here? >> indeed. let me just address one point with you ellie a moment ago. i think ellie is right that they can't win without changing these rules. you're right that they're more competitive than people think. but look the key factor is it's
been 31 years since a republican president won the white house with the popular vote at the first attempt, right? that is a long time. they know that. they're not stupid. they cannot win the house. forget the house and the senate. they know they can't win the top office. to come back to your point about manchin in the senate, number one the idea they're going to reject a compromise because stacey abrams' name son it comes back to ellie's point, could they stop being racist for four day plus let alone four years. number two, when is joe manchin going to have his own awakening? i said his name more times in 2020 and 2021 than i said my wife and kids' names. i'm fed up saying their names. i just don't understand when they will get it, what it will take for them to get it. we were told when they try and do a deal, when they bring something bipartisan and it fails they will see the light. well, we saw it on s-1 where
manchin got on board with a rrnl compromise. it was a building block for something better than nothing and yet he couldn't get a single republican on board. even the john lewis bill, he has one republican on board. i don't know when they're going to have their realization. they're never going to have a realization because it's never been a good faith argument on their part. i've mentioned this on the show before. kyrsten sinema in 2010, the video gone viral in 2010, she's saying we must forget about the false option of 60. we must use budget reconciliation for good as republicans did for evil. that's the kyrsten sinema i agree with 11 years out of date. one thing i would say important, joe biden. let's not let joe biden get away with it. sorry, the president has a responsibility here.
he has been four months since he spoke with george stephanopoulos and said he does not support the filibuster. >> if it's going to happen and again this is where this all comes down to is these procedural questions which are substantive ones. it's going to happen to manny's point and i agree with him, biden is going to have to take the reins on it. >> he's appointed and deployed the vice presidents to go from town to town. she was recently in las vegas and talking specifically about this. i will share with you, we are on the urge of losing our democracy if we do not see americans talking, calling the members of o-congress and filling up the town halls this august saying i demand it. most of oour legislators do not find purpose unless it's the people talking to them. this was the largest participation in our nation's history when it came to the
voting booth. why throw that to the wayside? they understand how the system works. get them involved because access to the voting booth is one of the view things that americans across the stripes agree with. >> it's true. >> well, recently, right? we've had -- we had 100 years of straight up ignoring the 15th amendment. >> if we have to be recent to recognize that majority of americans believe it. and that is a starting point. >> right. >> that is communicating that opportunity. >> well, and the worrying thing here is there's radicalization against it. you had the voting rights act reauthorized in 2006 with a unanimous vote by mitch mcconnell, robert strikes it down and susan collins saying we don't need things like federal oversight elections. yes, we do. thank you all. >> thank you. next up, the supreme court ruling that harkens back to our
very first night on the air, the new state of play for college sports after this. spor atsfter this. [john legend's i can see clearly now] ♪♪ make your reunion happen with vrbo. ♪♪ your together awaits. ♪♪ so then i said to him, you oughta customize your car insurance with liberty mutual, your together awaits. so you only pay for what you need. hot dog or... chicken? only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ (judith) in this market, you'll find fisher investments is different than other money managers. (other money manager) different how? don't you just ride the wave? (judith) no - we actively manage client portfolios based on our forward-looking views of the market.
(other money manager) but you still sell investments that generate high commissions, right? (judith) no, we don't sell commission products. we're a fiduciary, obligated to act in our client's best interest. (other money manager) so when do you make more money? only when your clients make more money? (judith) yep, we do better when our clients do better. at fisher investments we're clearly different.
with a fresh face for a fresh start. for a limited time get a 5th cartridge free. the scandal of college sports which earns billions of dollars while paying players nothing is very old scandal. did a commentary on the first edition of "all in" with chris hayes after kevin weir suffered devastating injury playing for the cardinals. player was not employee, not qualified for workers comp when injured on the field. so essentially they're uncompensated employees of the ncaa cartel. players who literally risk their limbs on the court to produce a product that's immensely profitable. >> that was over eight years
ago. took all that time and supreme court decision to finally force the ncaa to make some changes. last week they cleared the way for so-called student athletes to at least earn money off their college careers. still will not be paid for playing. joined by someone else reporting on this injustice as long as we have, sports editor for the nation. dave, walk us throughout changes. there's a supreme court decision which allowed some minor compensation through scholarships, and then the decision that ncaa made, just explain what those do. >> first of all, the supreme court decision which brett kavanaugh sounded like big bill haywood, laid it out. hoping for federal government to codify it greater but the head of the ncaa who makes $4 million a year, ncaa is listed as
nonprofit, they have said that players can basically accept compensation from outside sources. if you want to hire a player to be voice in your small town for auto parts industry. seeing already interesting things, player went viral with husky dogs doing pet products. it's wholesome. can make money based on name, image and likeness but at the same time put down restrictions, we're going to take a close eye to make sure it's not manipulated to bring recruits to particular area, no pay for placement that's key word that the ncaa says over and over again. no pay for placement of course this is pay for play. but it's always been. playing for the purposes of a scholarship, of getting to the pros. there's a lot of sophistry involved as you know.
but end of the day, gutter economy of college sports is out from under the table and on the table where everybody can see it. >> great point. there's been pay for play, payments routed through relatives and busted for it, disgraced and can't play. well, i have no money. my -- this was $5,000 my family member needed and i'm uncompensated while you're broadcasting this for billions of dollars. what i think of, i remember covering medical marijuana campaigns, right, and opponents would be this is a slippery slope. advocates just trying to get foot in the door, going to be marijuana everywhere. and they were right, that's exactly what happened. medical marijuana, then it was like, weed everywhere. feel like we're on that road now with player compensation, there's no going back and going to be hard to stop arriving at
logical end point. >> and college sports will still be college sports. world will not end. coaches like sweeney at clemson who makes $10 million a year said he would quit if it became rule of the land. recently asked for comments, said this looks great. no problem whatsoever. >> right. >> lot of chest chumping this would destroy the system but similar to medical marijuana, waking up next day, no difference but the world is a little bit more just than it was the day before. >> and just to get a sense. benefitting being able to sell likeness and endorsement, not paid to play. but working paper went through the numbers. given the totality of the numbers, if you compensated players in fair and equitable way. football and members basketball split 50% total revenue.
$360,000 per year for football and basketball would be half a million per year. that's the amount of money we're talking about here. >> and once you weigh all the confetti, what we're talking about is organized theft of black wealth. talking about the revenue producing sports of the ncaa, we're really talking about football and men's basketball. and these are the sports unlike other sports on college campuses that center the black body, black talent and black players. it has to be looked at from that particular lens. so we can understand exactly who is being cheated out of the money here and who is actually deserving of a fair share of the billions that come into what is from a ratings perspective second only to the nfl in terms of the revenue brought in. >> yeah. those numbers blew my mind when i looked at them. gives you sense of just how much money we're talking about. dave zirin, a new book called
"the kaepernick effect," taking a knee, changing the world. thanks dave. >> thank you. >> that's "all in" for this holiday evening. we'll be back tomorrow night. good night. ight plus 8 b-vitamins for brain support. one a day and done. in this family, everyone does their own laundry, but they all do it a little different. honestly, i add a couple of tide pods and just stuff everything in. it works. and of course, everyone thinks their way is right. i stood in line for hours to get this. it has to be washed on delicate. it has to be cold water, it's better for the planet. the secret is, with tide pods it all works. of course it does. told ya! they're going to do it their way, and i get a break from the laundry. no matter how you wash, it's got to be tide.
tomorrow will mark six months since the january 6th insurrection, the day donald trump incited a mob to attack the u.s. seat of government and prevent the peaceful transfer of power. they descended on to our capitol, hunting for the vice president and speaker of the house, intending to capture and assassinate elected officials. built a gallows and chanted hang mike pence. this also means we're six months into a vast republican undertaking to gaslight the american people into memory holing what went down that horrible day, a daysi