All in with Chris Hayes, Transcript 1/5/2017

Mo Brooks, Charlie Pierce, Nada Bakos, Evan McMullin

Date: January 5, 2017
Guest: Mo Brooks, Charlie Pierce, Nada Bakos, Evan McMullin

for being with us. ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES starts right now.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who actually is the benefactor of someone who is
about to become commander-in-chief trashing the Intelligence Community.

REID: An intelligence hearing for an audience of one.


REID: Intelligence chief, democrats and top republicans send a message to
the incoming President.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Espionage is an act of war.

REID: Tonight, the unprecedented spectacle on Capitol Hill.

think there`s a difference between skepticism and disparagement.

REID: Plus, an exclusive inside look into the top-secret report on Russian

JOHN MCCAIN, UNITED STATES SENATOR: Every American should be alarmed by
Russia`s attacks on our nation.

REID: Then the vice President`s harsh words for the President-elect.

to be an adult. You`re President.

REID: The democratic congresswoman refusing to attend the inauguration,
and why the President-elect spent today in a deposition.

TRUMP: I mean, do you want me to read it?

REID: ALL IN starts now.


REID: Good evening from New York, I`m Joy Reid in for Chris Hayes. In 15
days, Donald Trump will become the President of the United States, and
tomorrow, he`ll come face to face with a group he seems to choose – he
seems oppose more than anyone since Hillary Clinton, America`s Intelligence
Community. A senior U.S. intelligence official tells NBC news that the
director of national intelligence and the heads of the NSA, the CIA and the
FBI are all scheduled to be at Trump Tower tomorrow to brief the President-
elect on their finding that Russia was behind the election hacking of
democratic e-mails. President Obama received the same briefing this
morning, but it`s a conclusion that Trump still refuses to accept.
Appearing to favor the denials by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange,
delivered most recently in an interview with a very solicitous Sean Hannity
on Fox News over the evidence presented by American intelligence

And it`s leaving Trump increasingly isolated. Today, he turned to his
favorite medium, Twitter, to defend himself, tweeting, “The dishonest media
like saying that I am in agreement with Julian Assange. Wrong. I simply
state what he states. It is for the people to make up their own minds as
to the truth. The media likes to make it look like I`m against
“Intelligence” when in fact I`m a big fan!” Now, it`s tough to square that
claim with Trump`s repeated rejections of the Intelligence Community`s
conclusions with his reluctance to receiving his daily classified
briefings, citing his own smarts.

And with statements like this one from his transition team, “These are the
same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.”
Well, today, after weeks at the center of the back-and-forth over Russian
hacking, working mostly behind the scenes, top intelligence officials
finally stepped into the spotlight, putting faces on the faceless
Intelligence Community that Trump has been attacking. Appearing on Capitol
Hill, the Director of National Intelligence, the Undersecretary of Defense
for Intelligence, and the Director of the National Security Agency all
testified at the first congressional hearing on the election hack held by
the senate Armed Services Committee. The chairman, none other than Senator
John McCain.

Now, McCain is no ally of Donald Trump`s but he has remained studiously
silent throughout the campaign even as Trump did things like mocking
McCain`s time spent as a prisoner of war or insulting a Gold star family.
Today, it was finally McCain`s turn to talk, and he went straight for
Julian Assange.


MCCAIN: I believe that he is the one who`s responsible for publishing
names of individuals that work for us that put their lives in direct
danger. Is that correct?

CLAPPER: Yes, he has.

MCCAIN: And do you think that there`s any credibility we should attach to
this individual given his record of –

CLAPPER: Not in my view.

MCCAIN: Not in your view.


REID: Senator Lindsey Graham, McCain`s closest ally, has been a vocal
critic of Trump`s stance on Russia and he asked about the upcoming
intelligence briefing.


be challenged tomorrow by the President-elect. Are you OK with being

CLAPPER: Absolutely.

GRAHAM: Do you both welcome that?


GRAHAM: Do you think it`s appropriate?


GRAHAM: Are you ready for the task?

CLAPPER: I think so.



REID: In a pretty remarkable moment, Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper, who he noted, has served every President since Kennedy,
actually criticized the President-elect by implication for his attitude
towards the Intelligence Community.


CLAPPER: I think there is an important distinction here between healthy
scepticism, which policymakers – to include policymaker number one, should
always have for intelligence, but I think there is a difference between
skepticism and disparagement.


REID: This comes immediately after the Wall Street Journal reported based
on anonymous sources that Trump is planning to revamp the office of the
Director of National Intelligence, paring back both that agency and the
CIA. Trump`s spokesman strenuously denied that report on a call today with

SEAN SPICER, TRUMP`S SPOKESMAN: There is no truth to this idea of
restructuring the Intelligence Community infrastructure. It`s 100 percent

REID: But clearly, someone in Trump`s cabinet – I mean, in Trump`s orbit
thinks that the story is true. Both the associated press and CNN picked it
up citing anonymous sources of their own. Now, let`s not forget that Trump
has contradicted his team before and he`s claimed to know more about cyber
security than the professionals. Here he was at his New Year`s Eve party
last weekend.


TRUMP: I know a lot about hacking and hacking is a very hard thing to
prove so it could be somebody else and I also know things that other people
don`t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you know that other people don`t know?

TRUMP: You`ll find out on Tuesday or Wednesday.


REID: Well, today is Thursday and we have yet to hear Trump`s grand
revelation. Tonight, however, NBC news reports according to a senior U.S.
intelligence official that U.S. intercepts picked up senior Russian
officials celebrating Donald Trump`s election victory as beneficial to
Russia. The source also said the U.S. has identified Russian actors who
turned over stolen democratic materials to WikiLeaks. According to NBC
news, intelligence officials are so worried that Trump won`t accept their
findings tomorrow, CIA officials actually called the members of congress
asking them for public support in anticipation of a public drubbing by the

And joining me now is Congressman Mo Brooks, republican from Alabama and a
member of the House Armed Services Committee. And Congressman Brooks, I
want to start by sort of getting – taking the temperature of where you
stand. Are you a Julian Assange Republican like Sean Hannity or are you a
John McCain Republican and with DNI Clapper and the others who say that
Russia was behind the hacking?

MO BROOKS, UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN: Well, I`ve been on the foreign
affairs committee for a number of years and also House Armed Services
Committee my entire time in the United States Congress. And I think it`s
important to note that you do the best you can with the information that
the Intelligence Community gives to you, but nonetheless, there is almost
always some elements of doubt because the Intelligence Community rarely has
perfect information and they have to draw certain inferences from the
information that they have.

So I would agree with Mr. Clapper where he says that there is warranted
quite often a healthy degree of skepticism and caution, but ultimately, you
have to make decisions based on the best intelligence that you have.
Usually it is correct, sometimes it is not. Certainly, the decision to
enter into the Iraq War as one of those instances where it was questionable
resulted in a very significant decision on the part of the United States,
which has been questioned many years thereafter.

REID: And I`m not sure that I got an answer to my question. I mean, you
sit on the relevant committees. Who do you believe, Julian Assange and
Donald Trump or the Intelligence Community when it comes to Russian
hacking? Which one do you believe?

BROOKS: Well, I don`t think that is the right question to ask, because
sometimes I will agree with Donald Trump and sometimes –

REID: But on this specific thing –

BROOKS: I agree with-

REID: No, not in - not in general. I mean, on this, on whether or not
Russia was behind the hacks. Whose side are you on?

BROOKS: It is a pre – it is a premature question to ask and it`s not fair
to try to place a congressman on one side or the other. I need to be given
the kind of information from the Intelligence Community that makes me feel
comfortable with the conclusions that they have reached. This is a brand
new congress that just started this week. We have not yet had in the House
Armed Services Committee or the House Foreign Affairs Committee the kinds
of hearings that are necessary for me to have the information to reach the
kind of conclusion that you want me to make right now with incomplete

REID: Well, the senate had one of those such hearings today. They had all
of the top leaders of the Intelligence Community before them. I`m assuming
that you watched at least some of those hearings or were briefed on them by
your staff.

BROOKS: I did.

REID: And you have been a pretty big skeptic about Donald Trump. I mean,
during the campaign, you were quite, if not a Never-Trumper, you were
extremely skeptical. You said that he`s taken every virtual position on
everything that if people really knew that he`d been all over every issue
that people would be incredibly skeptical.

BROOKS: But if you –

REID: But, hold on a second.

BROOKS: Wait a minute. If you`d look at –

REID: But now you`re saying you are not prepared – that you are not
prepared to decide whether you believe Julian Assange more or whether you
believe the Intelligence Community more? You`re not prepared to decide
that right now?

BROOKS: The Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today was public
hearing. Classified information, the kind of information that you need to
look at to reach your own conclusions as to the veracity of the opinions
that are given. That`s a different thing. And so, what we heard today
were opinions given from the witnesses. I want to look at the primary
evidence. I`m an attorney by training. I`ve prosecuted many a case as a
District Attorney and as an Assistant District Attorney. I`ve also
defended people on the defense side, and you make decisions based on
evidence, not based on hearsay or opinions.

REID: I`m not sure that they were giving their opinions. I think they
were giving their considered judgment having investigation. You say they
were just giving their opinion?

BROOKS: Well, that`s – a considered judgment is an opinion.

REID: You think - OK. So let me just– before I let you go, we are out of
time. But who would you say on balance is more credible? Who would you
tend to believe more? Julian Assange or DNI Clapper?

BROOKS: Well, my default position is going to be to give the Intelligence
Community the benefit of the doubt because after all they do have access to
information that has not yet been shared with me as a member of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee or House Armed Services Committee.

REID: OK. Well, then we have gotten you closer to believing the
Intelligence Community over Assange and Donald Trump, so we will consider
that to make our conversation -


BROOKS: But to make – to make -

REID: Yes?

BROOKS: To have a final opinion, though, I need to see the evidence.

REID: Interesting. All right, well, Congressman Mo Brooks, thank you very

BROOKS: Thank you.

REID: I`m joined now by Charlie Pierce, writer at large for Esquire and
MSNBC Contributor Charlie Sykes editor of Right Wisconsin. So guys, I
don`t know if you are as surprised as I am that when you hear a republican
member of congress who sits on the relevant committee, that means on armed
services and foreign affairs, that he was not willing to definitively say,
Charlie Sykes, that he believes DNI Clapper more than he believes Julian
Assange. That is how far the Republican Party has gone. They are willing
to just come right out and say “No, I don`t believe Julian Assange over our
own Intelligence Community.”

CHARLIE SYKES, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah, that was extraordinary and
somewhat cringe worthy because you, you asked him the easiest question of
the year: who do you believe, Julian Assange, who is an anti-American
activist who`s hiding out in an embassy or do you believe – or tend to
believe U.S. intelligence agencies? And he really was struggling to give
you a straight answer. Look, I am old enough to remember when republicans
actually trusted and respected, you know, the U.S. military and our
intelligence agencies and actually were not willing to give the benefit of
the doubt to either to Vladimir Putin, Russia, or to toadies like Julian

REID: Yeah, and Charlie Pierce, what`s interesting is if it wasn`t a
question of do you believe Donald Trump more or the Intelligence Community
because that would have put them in an – sort of in an intractable bind,
right, because he is the guy who`s their President, he`s their guy. But
this is Julian Assange. This is not saying do you believe Trump more.
It`s saying Julian Assange or the Intelligence Community. He didn`t want
to answer.

colleague from Milwaukee, I expect nothing from modern republicans, so I
wasn`t – I wasn`t, you know, I wasn`t disappointed or not. I`ll tell you,
my favorite moment of the day, though, was Thom Tillis, the senator from
North Carolina, making the U.S. lives in a glass house therefore we -
therefore - and therefore the - virtually coming right up to the edge of
saying we can expect this because it`s karma because what we do – because
of what we do overseas. If any democrat had ever made that argument
they`ve have been barbecued on the White House lawn.

REID: It`s incredible –

PIERCE: Frank Church must have been just laughing his head off in senate
heaven after that.

REID: I feel that I have to - at that point, I think it`s a perfect point
to play this little montage that the great producers here at ALL IN have
put together, because it shows where it`s coming from. I mean, these are
republicans who are in fear that Trump voters are in their district, they
don`t want to walk away from Donald Trump who is with Julian Assange on
this, and who has said the following things bout Russia and Putin over lo
these many years. Take a listen.


JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST OF MORNING JOE: He kills journalists that don`t
agree with him.

TRUMP: Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe.

They say it wasn`t them, it may have been their weapon, but they didn`t use
it, they didn`t fire it, it was probably Russia, it was probably people
involved with on the pro-Russian side, but I think we have to straighten
our own problems out right now, Katy.

Look at it. Bu, you know, the people of Crimea from what I`ve heard would
rather be with Russia than where they were, and you have to look at that

said, “We`re going to murder somebody in America” then there`s all this
radioactive stuff all over America and you`re President–

TRUMP: Well, if he did it, fine. But I don`t know that he did it.


REID: Charlie Sykes. I mean, we kill plenty of people as the reaction to
Vladimir Putin has had journalists killed is extraordinary for a – someone
who`s going to be President of the United States.

SYKES: It is - it is extraordinary on so many different levels including
the moral equivalency that republicans used to dislike. Look, you know one
of the things that happened in that really rather remarkable hearing today
was there was kind of a bipartisan consensus that we`re not going to let
this go. That we`re not going to, you know, just roll over for Donald
Trump. I mean, you truly did get some strong rhetoric from John McCain,
who`s a Republican. You did get some strong rhetoric from Lindsey Graham.

So I do think that they`re trying to send a signal to him. Look, I know
that Donald Trump wants to live in his post-truth alternative reality world
but now that he`s going to become President, you know, there are some
reality checks here and, you know, the United States Senate, I think – I
thought that hearing did a good job in exposing exactly how thin his
position is and how outrageous it is for the President of the United States
to be carrying water for Vladimir Putin and the Russians.

REID: Yeah, I have to play this a little piece of sound from Joe Biden
today, Vice President Joe Biden, who had some advice for Donald Trump.
Let`s take a listen.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He said – he said just like – “Doing my best to
disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblocks.
Thought it was going to be a smooth transition - NOT!”

Donald. Grow up. Time to be an adult. You`re President. You`ve got to
do something.


REID: And Charlie Pierce, you know, I wonder if, you know, we laugh about
that and Joe Biden is always delightful to listen to, but there is a sense
that Donald Trump has the potential to become pretty isolated here, because
there is still a part of the Republican Party that`s with John McCain.
That still exists. We don`t know how large it is. The intelligence
community is not now some amorphous blob that Donald Trump is tweeting
about. It`s those guys with all those bars on their chest that now even
Trump supporters can look at those guys and say, wait, they`re not more
credible than Julian Assange? Does Donald Trump risk becoming more
isolated now?

PIERCE: I have no idea. I think for all intense and purposes in the
Republican Party as is presently constituted, John McCain and Lindsey
Graham might as well be lawn jockeys. I mean, they have no power. Nobody
listens to John McCain. I mean a lot – a lot of pundits do and some
democrats do, but not I mean, the real fire in that committee came from
Thom Tillis and Joni Ernst and Deb Fischer and Tom Cotton to an extent, who
are the future, and they were not quite – I mean Lindsey Graham was
incredibly amped up today, it was interesting to see. But those were the
people who were trying to make the serious argument that, among other
things, the current president hasn`t kept us, hasn`t kept our cyber
security the way he should have. That having – that having been said, I
think the Republican Party is Donald Trump`s right now.

REID: Charlie Pierce, last word.

PEIRCE: I don`t think he`s isolated at all.

REID: Charlie Sykes, last word to you.

SYKES: Yeah, well, I think that do not underestimate the fact that, that
Donald Trump only has a two-vote margin in the United States Senate, so it
is not true to say that John McCain and Lindsey Graham do not have a lot of
power. I do think that, you know, once you no longer have Barack Obama to
kick around anymore, he`s going to own this. And this is going to be –
he`s very, very off message. You know, a guy says, you know, I`m going to
fight for America, I want to make America great again. And what is he
doing? He`s had this self-inflicted problem again of appeasing Russia.

REID: Yeah. The Charlies, great tonight. Charlie Pierce and Charlie
Sykes, thank you guys both for being here, appreciate it.

All right, and coming up, the fight over Trump`s cabinet. Why top
democrats are demanding an ethics investigation into his pick to lead the
Department of Health and Human Services.

But first, NBC has exclusive new details from the top-secret report on
Russia`s hacking. Evan McMullin will be here to break down the
intelligence findings that Donald Trump refuses to accept. That`s just
after the break.



CLAPPER: The Russians have a long history of interfering in elections,
theirs and other peoples. But I don`t think that we`ve ever encountered a
more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process
than we`ve seen in this case.


REID: What exactly did Russia do to interfere with the U.S. election?
NBC`s Hallie Jackson has exclusive details.


HALLIE JACKSON, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Tonight, an exclusive inside look
at a top secret report on Russia, one that went directly to President Obama
today. So, what does it reveal? Two top intelligence officials with
direct knowledge of the report tell NBC news, a detailed Russian cyber-
attacks against not just the Democratic National Committee, but the White
House, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department, even American
companies. Some hacks successful, others thwarted. The report explains
Moscow`s motives, partly to disrupt the democratic process and partly as
payback. The intelligence analysts conclude, for the Obama
administration`s questioning of Vladimir Putin`s legitimacy as President.
It`s not just last year`s Presidential campaign either. The report tracks
Russian cyber activity back to 2008 and 2012. It does not speculate on
whether Russia`s interference affected the outcome of 2016.

While President Obama says today, he has full faith in the conclusions of
that report. President-elect Trump, who will get the same briefing
tomorrow, has seemed skeptical of the intelligence community so far.

The president of NBC Chicago`s Carol Marin –

President-elect receives his own briefings and is able to examine the
intelligence as his team is put together and they see how professional and
effective these agencies are that some of those current tensions will be

JACKSON: Hallie Jackson, NBC News, the White House.


REID: And Donald Trump has apparently, has already responded to that NBC
news report, tweeting “How did NBC get `an exclusive look into the top
secret report he, Obama, was presented?` Who gave them this report and
why. Politics.”

Joining me now to talk about what we`re learning in white manors is Nada
Bakos, a former CIA Analyst and author of the upcoming book “The Targeter”,
and Evan McMullin, former CIA Operations Officer and former Independent
Presidential Candidate. Thank you both for being here. And Nada, I`m
going to start with you on that, putting aside Donald Trump still
questioning, now questioning where NBC got the report rather than
responding to what`s in it. I was really interested in one piece of what
we just heard. The idea that part of this was payback by Vladimir Putin
for the Obama administration questioning his legitimacy as president. Is
it just me who sees constant mirrors in the things Vladimir Putin thinks
and the things that Donald Trump obsesses about?

NADA BAKOS, FORMER CIA ANALYST: Look, Russia has been playing this game
with the United States for close to 70 years, at this point, so most of
what Russia does should not surprise us. The spying game is what it is,
it`s true. But on the same hand, accepting that a foreign government could
possibly be, not only in the United States, within our election system, is
unfathomable to me. And to essentially pick the side of a foreign
government and a possible international criminal, Julian Assange, over the
men and women who work hard to keep this country safe. That to me, I would
not have expected.

REID: And Evan McMullin, I do have to throw it back to you because, you
know, in our previous segment we did speak with a republican member of
congress who was – he was never a pro-Trump republican during the primary
but he seemed to find it really difficult not even just to say he doesn`t
believe the intelligence services, which is shocking in and of itself, but
to even put distance between himself and Julian Assange, how we got into
the point where now the indemnified individuals include Vladimir Putin and
Julian Assange when it comes to republicans?

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yeah, it`s truly unfortunate, I mean in the
earlier segment when you asked a similar question to Charlie Sykes, I
thought he gave the excellent answer. I mean, it`s the easiest possible
question that you could have given the representative, and he botched it,
but it shows you just how unrecognizable elements of the Republican Party
are these days. It`s absolutely unfathomable to me that we have a – even
a question about whether we trust our intelligence professionals over an
anti-American activist supported by Russia.

REID: And Nada, I want to talk now about some of the things that we
actually heard today in that hearing. Some of which was actually quite
frightening, the idea of what could happen, what could go wrong. Let`s
start by playing DNI Clapper, who talked about what the response to such
cyber warfare could in theory be. Take a listen.


CLAPPER: When something major happens in cyberspace, our automatic default
policy position should not be exclusively to counter cyber with cyber. We
should consider all instruments of national power. Unlike nuclear weapons,
cyber capabilities are difficult to see and evaluate and are ephemeral.


REID: And Nada, is there anything that the U.S. has in its arsenal, sort
of in its kit bag, to respond to what has happened during our elections
right now that Russia would now already know about or be prepared for?

BAKOS: I think that`s a very good question. One that I would not want to
answer on live TV. However, I do think – and I agree with Senator Graham
today, he said in the Armed Services Committee hearing that there are other
things the United States should be doing besides the sanctions and
declaring the diplomats persona non grata. Someone like, you know, place
like Russia, Putin, authoritarian regimes don`t find that to be very
intimidating. I think there is more that we should be doing.

REID: And Evan, you know, one of the other pieces that`s come out of NBC,
you know, this is what journalists do, they, they obtain some advanced word
on what`s in this report, and one of the striking things is that they said
they`ve identified Russian actors who were involved in turning this
information over to WikiLeaks. Does it get more definitive than that or is
there still reason to consider that as Congressman Brooks said, just an

MCMULLIN: No, that`s pretty damming information, I mean, without seeing
the specifics. But I will say that it`s interesting that Julian Assange in
his interview with Fox News the other day when he was asked “did you
receive the information from the Russian government?” He was very careful
to answer the question in a particular way. He denied receiving the
information from the Russian government but did not say that he didn`t
receive it from a third party who could have been working for the Russian
government. If you go back and watch that interview, it`s – he`s very
careful in how he talks. So you know, I think the question that was posed
to him, you know, wasn`t - where was one that let him off the hook but it
seemed clear that there was a cut out, and it was interesting to hear that
from this report tonight.

REID: And you know, Nada, having been in the position of dealing with an
administration that was putting pressure on analysts to come to a
politically desirous conclusion, something they wanted, in your case during
the run up to the Iraq War, give us a preview of how difficult it could be
for analysts if they`re already hearing that the incoming administration
wants to somewhat, you know, take apart the CIA and other agencies. It
sounds like as punishment for coming to a conclusion they don`t like.

BAKOS: Well, it does sounds like that on the surface. Certainly, I am -
what Trump is saying in his tweets and what we`re reading in media. But
the difference between what we dealt with, with the Bush administration and
the questioning of our analysis, I think, is very different than what the
analysts are going to say to the Trump administration. Under George W.
Bush, there was a mutual respect, there`s a respect for the office in
addition from the intelligence work and there was an understanding of how
hard the intelligence analyst work. So I think facing a situation where
your job itself is diminished, is entirely different than what we had to
deal with questioning our analysis.

REID: Yeah, absolutely. Evan, I`ll give you the last word because you ran
for President. Did you ever thought you`d live to see the day when an
incoming President of the United States essentially set aside the joint
findings of all of our intelligence agencies in favor of you know, a guy
hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

MCMULLEN: No, but even more importantly, I never thought I would see a
President-elect in the United States or a President that would align
himself or herself with the very adversary that is attacking our democracy.
That`s the underlying source for the tension between the CIA and Donald
Trump. It`s his general threat to this country through his policies and
through his alignment with Vladimir Putin. That`s the deeper issue here.
It`s not you know, the capability of our intelligence analysts or anything
else really. It is – that`s the deeper issue. Donald Trump will blame it
on the Iraq War and a range of other things that he can point to, but that
is the deeper issue.

REID: Yeah, indeed. Nada Bakos and Evan McMullen, thank you both for
being here, appreciate it.

And coming up, flooding the zone, republicans staff hearings for six of
Trump`s cabinet picks on a single day – the same day Trump claims he`ll
hold his first press conference in over five months. That`s ahead.


REID: According to the New York Post, Donald Trump recently told the new
Senate Minority leader, Charles Schumer, that he likes Schumer more than he
likes republican leaders in Congress, but it sure didn`t seem that way this
morning when Trump unleashed a tweet storm that started off like this.
“The democrats led by head clown Chuck Schumer know how bad Obamacare is
and what a mess they`re in. Instead of working to fix it, they do the
typical political thing and blame.” Shortly after Trump`s tweets, Schumer
made the news regarding Trump`s pick to lead the Department of Health and
Human Services.

Representative Tom Price, who the Wall Street Journal reports, traded more
than $300,000 in shares of health-related companies over the past four
years while sponsoring and advocating legislation that could potentially
affect those companies` stocks. Trading stocks in companies while pushing
legislation affecting those companies, is not exactly draining the swamp
stuff. And this morning, Schumer, called for the non-partisan office of
congressional ethics, the group that the GOP recently tried and failed to
dismantle, to investigate. The senate hearing on Price isn`t scheduled
yet, but a bunch of hearings have been scheduled for next week on Trump`s
Cabinet picks and the schedule suggests team Trump is doing everything it
can to make sure the news that comes out of those hearings gets buried.
I`ll explain, next.


REID: The confirmation hearings for Trump`s cabinet picks kick off next
week, and while some hearings are yet to be scheduled. Have a look at
this, there are hearings for six different Cabinet members all scheduled
for the same day, next Wednesday. Including what would be day two of
hearings for Attorney General pick Jeff Sessions, who civil rights groups
oppose due to his past and allegations of racism. Wednesday will also be
the day for hearings for Secretary of State pick Rex Tillerson, the
ExxonMobil CEO with close ties to Russia; and Education Secretary pick
Betsy DeVos, who has long favored charter schools and vouchers over public
schools. Also, that day, Trump has claimed via Twitter, that he`ll hold
his first press conference since July, on Wednesday. Though it remains to
be seen whether he`ll actually do that, since he`s claimed he`d have press
conferences in the past and it never happened.

The packed schedule could ensure that the headlines from the hearings will
get buried, which may be the point. We should note that back in January of
2009, four of President Obama`s picks had hearings on the same day, those
picks were far less controversial. There were two fewer candidates and the
President-elect, hadn`t claimed he was holding a press conference. By the
way, it`s not just about what the hearing - when the hearings take place
but the kind of scrutiny that candidates will receive and there`s actually
more. And one of our next guests has broken some news on that front and we
will explain next.

And joining me now is MSNCB Contributor – next is now – Joan Walsh;
National Affairs Correspondent for The Nation and Professor Jason Johnson,
Politics Editor at the Root. Magic.

REID: All right, Joan.


REID: You have a scoop on, not just the what and the when, but the
mechanics of this upcoming hearings for Jeff Sessions.

WALSH: Yes. I mean, advocates - not just advocates – Senator Feinstein,
who`s now the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, he was the
past chair. They have asked for more time, because Jeff Sessions has not
completed his judiciary questionnaire. It`s woefully incomplete. And
there`s a lot to get through. I mean, the man had three days of hearings
when he was rejected for a Federal Judgeship.

REID: Right.

WALSH: It`s great that he got himself elected from the state of Alabama,
but that`s not the same as being prepared to be the top law enforcement
officer. So, they`ve been asking for more time, they`ve been asking for
more witnesses but Chairman Grassley has said no. Yesterday, came out with
a schedule. The democrats will get four witnesses.

REID: Only four witnesses?

WALSH: Only four witnesses, and it will be only two days and there will be
no delay despite the woefully inadequate disclosures that he`s made.

REID: And that Jason, that seems, first of all, shocking that you could -
could possibly limit the democrats to only four people, four witnesses that
can testify. Does that sound like it`s feasible to get through all of the
past that baggage, that Jeff Sessions is dragging with him to Washington?

JASON JOHNSON, POLITICS EDITOR AT THE ROOT: It`s - it takes a long time to
lay out how much of a bigot he is. And, you know, and so, I think that -
and here`s the thing that I think is important. Given the fact that,
again, this guy was rejected, you know, 30 years ago, he has statements
today. And I think that one of the things that any witness would want to
do is say; look, it`s not just that he may be a bigot. But there are
consequences to that attitude being in this position and that requires
time, that requires witnesses, that`s clearly not something the republican
congress wants to do, and there will be bad consequences for rushing this
through when he has to actually adjudicate on behalf of this nation.

REID: And Joan, do you have reporting on - now that it`s going to be a
scramble, the Civil Rights Groups and others that oppose Sessions are going
to have to choose, right? Because you got criminal justice reform issues
with him; you`ve got obviously direct race issues, but you also have voting

WALSH: You`ve got voting rights, you`ve got banking. You know, there`s
just - there`s so much. It`s going to be very hard to choose those four
witnesses. But you know, what people have told me, which is kind of
interesting, they`re very upset about this truncated hearing, but they`re
also saying they will push senators to bring some of this stuff up on the
floor. When this goes to a vote, assuming he`s going to get out of
committee, which he will. There is a lot of push for progressive
democratic senators to oppose him, to talk about his record and we`ll see
what they can get away with under Mitch McConnell, but the battle does not
end what the haring ends next Wednesday.

REID: Yeah. And we know there were - there were civil disobedience in
Alabama about Jeff Sessions. Have you got any reporting Jason, that
there`s going to be similar civil disobedience actually in Washington?

JOHNSON: There will be - there will be people that are talking about it
now. The issue is going to be this. It`s just like we saw with the phone
calls earlier this week, you`ve got to put pressure on these senators.
You`ve got to make that clear, because you know, Heidi Heitkamp, you know,
you got democrats where in red states, who were going to say, “I can`t
oppose Trump.” They need to get phone calls, otherwise, pretty much all
these nominees, all these confirmations are going to go.

REID: Yeah. Because Heidi Heitkamp mentioned some of those (INAUDIBLE).
Let`s talk about those six people all at one time. How are democrats
deciding how to apportion their time, if they`ve got to deal with
Tillerson, and DeVos, and Sessions, et cetera, all at the same time?

WALSH: They`re scrambling. I mean, you know, Senator Feinstein wants to
be able to grill Mike Pompeo as the CIA Director. She may have to choose
between her own hearing and going to talking to him about torture. I mean,
this is just unprecedented it`s given - as you made the point earlier,
Barack Obama`s Cabinet was, by and large, a lot of senators, lot of known
quantities – Eric Holder had just been confirmed for a job two years
before, so he`d been vetted already.

There are lots of people with a lot of years and years of vetting. These
people are brand new to the jobs they`re going to do, and in fact, a lot of
them want to dismantle the agencies they`re supposed to lead and protect.
So, there are a lot of questions, there`s a lot that remains unknown,
nobody to my knowledge has completed their Senate disclosures.

JOHNSON: Right, right.

REID: Yeah.

WALSH: So, you know, you`re supposed to have time to look at it, have your
staff look at it, talk it over, think about what you`re going to ask.
They`re going to get this stuff the night before, so, you know, democrats
are scrambling. They`re angry, but they`re hanging pretty tough. I`m kind
of impressed.

REID: Jason?

JOHNSON: Joy, you know, how many times can you apply for a job of
importance without filling out the application? Because half of these
people, they haven`t filled out the application. So, the democrats, you
know, they have to play whack-a-mole with all these different people who
are going through. And I`ll give you one example, you know - you know, the
education pick, right? This is some of their so many different issues
connected because now we have Criminal Justice with education. Now we
have, you know, school violence in education. She doesn`t have any history
on these issues and I know that some school choice advocates think that
you`re always going to end up in dead poets` society, and it going to be
nice, but this requires work. And I hope that the democrats can lay out a
plan where even if a lot of these people get through, they at least can put
out the message, “Hey, we stood tough, when some of these people didn`t
know the job.

REID: Yeah, yeah, then tough and fast. Because it`s going to be in two
days - two days` work. Joan Walsh and Jason Johnson, thank you.


REID: All right, and coming up, another democrat announces plans to
boycott Trump`s inauguration, and she`s here to tell me why. But first,
tonight`s cocktail-themed: Thing 1, Thing 2 starts just after this break.
Stay with us.


REID: Thing 1, news today that Donald Trump is scheduled to meet tomorrow
with the editors of the Conde Nast media empire. Surprisingly, one of the
people who`s expected to be included in that meeting is Vanity Fair Editor,
Graydon Carter, a man long considered one of Trump`s oldest rivals. Trump
and Carter have openly feuded with one another since the 1980s, when a
young Carter writing for Spy Magazine, first dubbed the real estate mogul,
“a short-fingered Vulgarian.”

You may remember that rivalry was reunited – reignited recently, when a
writer for Vanity Fair gave a scathing review of Trump`s midtown Manhattan
restaurant, the Trump Grill. That prompted Trump to tweet, quote, “Has
anyone looked at the really poor numbers of Vanity Fair Magazine way down,
big trouble, dead. Graydon Carter, no talent, will be out.”

Despite Trump`s attempt to discredit the magazine, other journalists showed
up at Trump Grill to confirm that the quality of the food and drink was
indeed horrible. Which is how we got this photo from The Daily Beast,
Olivia Nuzzi, of a Trump Grill martini. Apparently, served extra, extra,
extra dirty on the rocks and in a wine glass. Now, that doesn`t look
appetizing to you, maybe that you`d prefer this slightly less disgusting
looking drink from Trump`s cocktail bar in D.C. That is, until you hear
what it costs, and that, is Thing 2, in 60 seconds.


REID: Today, with just two weeks to go before he becomes President, Donald
Trump spent his day testifying in a lawsuit against a celebrity chef.
Trump, brought the lawsuit himself after chef Jose Andres backed out of a
deal to open a restaurant in Trump`s D.C. Hotel. Citing objections to
Trump`s anti-immigrant rhetoric. But not to worry, you can still eat and
drink at Trump`s D.C. Hotel, that is, if you can afford it.

The Washingtonian has discovered that the bar in Trump`s D.C. Hotel, has
raised its drink prices twice since opening last September. So that now,
the cheapest drink on the menu costs a whopping $24. Now, if you`re
wondering what`s the most expensive drink on the menu, well, that
distinction belongs to what is essentially a vodka oyster shooter, with
caviar that clocks in at $100 even. Very Russian. Not a cocktail fan?
Maybe you`d like to try a bit of their finest Hungarian wine, which they
serve by the crystal spoonful. Literally, by the spoonful. It prices
ranging from $15 to $140, not for a glass, but a spoonful of wine. Hard to
imagine anyone spending that much money at any bar but with inauguration
day just around the corner, I`ll bet there are a few people in Washington
who are badly in need of a drink.


REID: In 15 days, Donald J. Trump will become the 45th President of the
United States. And politicians are refusing to attend his inauguration,
risk flouting years of precedent. So, just this week, Bill and Hillary
Clinton announced that they would be going. The Clintons, will join George
W. Bush and his wife Laura, who cited the chance to, quote, “witness the
peaceful transfer of power, a hallmark of American democracy.”

And Jimmy Carter, with his announcement last month, was the first former
president to RSVP for the inaugural. But there are few prominent
politicians who are making other plans.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ve been to, let me see, two Clinton inaugurations.
I`ve been to two of them for Bush, been two of them for Obama. I`m not
going to this inauguration. I can`t go to this inauguration because he
continues to spew hatred, bigotry, and prejudice. Even after he said he
was going to bring us all together, he was going to unify us, but he`s not.


REID: Well now, today, a lawmaker from Massachusetts, with a history of
being a bit of a rebel, announced that she would also boycott the
inauguration. And she`ll be here to tell us why after the break.


REID: One member of congress won`t be attending Donald Trump`s inauguration
in 15 days. Massachusetts Congresswoman, Katherine Clark, and she joins me
now. Congresswoman Clark, thank you for being here tonight. Explain to us
why you are going to abrogate this tradition of both parties showing up for
the inauguration of the President no matter what party he`s in?

DISTRICT: Thank you, Joy, for having me. And let me tell you what my
thinking is on this. Since the election, Donald Trump announced, on
election night, that he was going to be a President for all Americans. And
over the past few weeks, we have continued to see him building on hateful
rhetoric of the campaign and I am hearing from my constituents, whether I
meet them in the supermarket, in their living rooms, at large gatherings
we`ve had at churches and universities, true fear about what is coming from
this administration.

So, for this inauguration, I believe in the peaceful transition of power.
I believe and respect the Office of the President, but the fear that I`m
seeing, the rise in hate crimes, and the really continuation of the
divisive rhetoric coming out of the President-elect, has led me to believe
that my place is not with the pageantry and it is not right at this time to
normalize this Presidency.

REID: And you joined on John Lewis in leading that civil disobedience on
the house floor for which the house speaker wants to fine you all nick
time. Do you expect that there`ll be more civil disobedience in – as
Trump takes office, and including from lawmakers?

CLARK: I think we are going to do whatever we can to fight for the
American people. I think, when we are looking at people losing healthcare,
when we are looking at their – the rise of hate crimes in our communities,
when we are seeing nominees who are diametrically opposed to the mission of
their agencies, there is so much fear and foreboding that I think we will
do what we can in the minority to make the American people`s voices heard
here in the Capitol.

REID: And what do you say to potentially – or have any of your colleagues
on the other side, I should just say, had any comment for you about not
coming to the inauguration.

CLARK: No. I think that people understand this is a personal decision for
me, that I think reflects what I`m hearing from my constituents. And I,
you know, I know that many of my colleagues across the aisle did not attend
Barack Obama`s. But I see this as very different because this is a
continuation of the divisive and hateful rhetoric, and I know that many of
us are concerned about what we`re seeing from the President-elect. Whether
it`s his unwillingness to divest from his business interests and put
America`s interest first, or whether it`s his critique of our intelligence
agencies and the public servants. The men and women who work for us so
hard and choosing foreign powers over our own intelligence agencies. These
are the issues that have led to my decision and it`s one that I have great
support from my district on.

REID: And very quickly, a lot of people have been, you know, saying to me,
I`m sure same to you, that they want to know what to do. Some action
items, things they can do for their own personal resistance that will make
them feel they`re at least doing something rather than just being sad about
the election. What would you advise them? Very quickly.

CLARK: This is the number one thing that I hear, and I think it`s remain
vigilant, remain engaged. Just this week, with the thousands of phone
calls that Americans put into the republican majority in the House saying,
“Do not do away with the independent ethics oversight.” The republican`s
changed course because of that public pressure.

REID: Right.

CLARK: And that`s what I`m urging all Americans to watch, remain vigilant,
and remain engaged.

REID: All right.

CLARK: This is your government.

REID: Indeed. Indeed. Congresswoman, Katherine Clark, thank you so much
for joining us and kudos on that great civics lesson for us. Thank you
very much

CLARK: Thank you, Joy.

REID: And that is ALL IN for this evening. “THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW”,
starts right now. Rachel, it`s a little bit of a tongue-twister at the
end. Katherine Clark was great.


Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>