All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 7/31/2017 WaPo: Pres. Trump on Russia Meeting

Philip Rucker, Margaret Talev, Chris Lu, Bob Inglis, Sherrod Brown

Date: July 31, 2017
Guest: Philip Rucker, Margaret Talev, Chris Lu, Bob Inglis, Sherrod Brown

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: - officers and even the boy scouts. Well,
weakness is the real problem to Trump Presidency, he can`t leave the
country because he can`t control himself. And that`s HARDBALL for now,
thanks for being with us. “ALL IN” with Chris Hayes starts right now.



obviously a difficult situation to be in.

HAYES: 11 days later.

SCARAMUCCI: I`m feeling the hook here. I can feel the hook -

HAYES: Anthony Scaramucci is out.

SCARAMUCCI: Thank you.

HAYES: Tonight as The Mooch era ends before it officially started.

role at this time in the Trump administration.

HAYES: Why the latest turn of the White House staffing carousel is a sign
of much deeper problems. Plus, Senator Brown on whether the Trump agenda
is already dead.


HAYES: And the new bipartisan push to fix not repeal ObamaCare.

SCARAMUCCI: I predict that the President will get a win in health care.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. Major story breaking
from the Washington Post just minutes ago relating to that now infamous
2016 meeting at Trump Tower in which Don Junior was told he could get dirt
on Hillary Clinton from a Russian lawyer via the Russian government in part
of its efforts to get his father elected. Washington Post now reporting
that original story broke about that meeting, President Trump dictated his
son`s misleading statement on meeting with the Russian lawyer. Joining me
now, Philip Rucker who just broke that story for the Washington Post.
Philip, my understanding from your reporting is the original plan when the
first news of the meeting broke was for Don Junior to get out ahead of it
and issue a statement that wouldn`t later be contradicted and then the
President intervened to do what?

right, Chris. The sort of advisers around the President and around Donald
Trump Junior thought he should offer a fairly fulsome and complete
statement acknowledging what happened in that meeting. And what happened
is the President overruled them. He took matters into his own hands,
almost acting as his own - his family`s own lawyer strategist publicist and
decided to offer a statement that was misleading at best and did not
include the complete information which as we now know is that this meeting
was set up under the premise of sharing damaging information about Hillary
Clinton from the Russian government which was trying to help Trump`s

HAYES: I mean, just to be clear, this was an - at the first breaking of
the story, there was this previously undisclosed meeting.

RUCKER: That`s right.

HAYES: And don junior releases a statement which we now know, thanks to
your reporting, if said reporting is accurate, that the President dictated
that statement. That statement said what?

RUCKER: That statement said that this meeting was about an adoption issue
for Russians, that it was set up by this Russian lawyer and that it didn`t
have anything at the time to do with the campaign. That`s a statement that
came out to New York Times which of course broke the initial story about
this meeting from Donald Trump Junior. It was in the name of Donald Trump
Jr but it was actually determined and written by his father, the President
of the United States. And I should tell you, Chris, that this has a lot of
- or some of the advisers to the President quite worried. There`s a
feeling that he, by taking matters into his own hands is potentially
exposing him to some problems.

HAYES: I want to ask you a follow up about that but the first let me just
read that statement because I think it`s important to get the significance
here. Here`s the statement that was released that we-that your reporting
indicate was actually dictated by the President himself. “It was a short
introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily
discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active
and popular with the American families years ago and was since ended by the
Russian government, it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was
no follow-up.” That is - “I was asked to attend the meeting by an
acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting
with beforehand. Some of that is not provably false but wildly,
astoundingly misleading given the fact that this is an e-mail that said we
want to set up a meeting so the Russian government can give you dirt on
Hillary Clinton so your father can get elected.

RUCKER: That`s right. It wasn`t a false statement there but it was
certainly not the full truth and it was intentionally misleading. And this
is a strategy that is in conflict with what a lot of advisers advising on
this issue had encouraged which was to be more forth coming, to be more
fulsome with this information. They knew that this story would eventually
become public in part because it`s in an e-mail but the President wanted to
be more conservative in approaching this and offer that misleading

HAYES: Conservative is an interesting term there because -

RUCKER: Conservative as in holding back.

HAYES: Right. I mean, I just think it - there`s a few things that strike
me as very significant about this story. One is there`s a lot of questions
about the President`s behavior. Here`s a case where it seems the President
is, (INAUDIBLE) well, they wouldn`t be acting like this if they knew they
were - if they were actually covering something up because they would get
found out. In this case, you have people saying come through with full
disclosure. The President, we don`t know if he knows there`s an e-mail but
he steps into issues a statement in contravention of the advice that people
saying you got to get this out there because it`s going to come out either

RUCKER: That`s right. And this happened at a particular moment. You`ll
remember he was in Germany for the Group of 20 Nations Summit, the G-20
Summit. He had those first meetings with Vladimir Putin the Russian
President and the statement was dictate aboard Air Force I as the President
left Germany to come home to Washington. Now on a sidelines of the G-20
Summit, some of the advisers had developed a strategy to be more fulsome
with this information, the President`s the one who overruled that as he was
- as he was leaving Germany and of course in a cabin on that plane on Air
Force I is where he dictated the statement.

HAYES: This is after the President met with Vladimir Putin for three hours
and then apparently according to reporting had a sort of one on one with
him at the dinner with only a single other person present, Russian
translator for as much as an hour more. We sort of - the timing is a
little unclear. Here`s to me is the crucial question in all this. It has
always been maintained by all-American parties to this meeting. Those
being Don Junior and the White House, Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, that
the President was never informed about this meeting as implausible as many
people find that. An e-mail out of the blue saying, hey, the Russian
government wants to give you Hillary - dirt on Hillary Clinton, they`ve
always said, the President didn`t know about the meeting. I got to say,
the fact the President would reach in specifically to dictate and an
account of it doesn`t make it more likely he did know about he meeting.

RUCKER: No, I do know if he knew about the meeting. I mean, he has said
he did not know about the meeting at the time. I do know that he knew
about the - about the situation, about the meeting in earlier July of this
year when the New York Times initially reached out to the White House to
seek you know, some information about this meeting following up on their
tip and their very fine reporting. So the President at the time that Don
Jr. statement came out, he knew about the meeting, but as the White House
said, he had only learned about it in the last couple of days.

HAYES: I guess - I guess the final question is, did he know that this was
not truthful? That to me is the key element here, right? I mean, what did
the President know about that meeting and how much was he affirmatively
choosing to be as aggressively misleading as that statement ultimately
ended up being.

RUCKER: I don`t know how fully he may have been briefed on the contents of
those e-mails or what exactly was communicated to Donald Trump Jr. I do
know that President decided that this would be the strategy that he
recommended which was to offer this misleading statement that did not
contain the full information.

HAYES: Well, this puts a lot of things at a very, very new light to me
that this sort of, the fact you have the President explicitly involved in
this is a really significant piece of reporting in all this. Philip
Rucker, thanks for your reporting and thanks for being on.

RUCKER: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: All right. On July 21st, this guy named Anthony Scaramucci,
remember him? He was named to post of Communications Director, portrayed
himself as a fixer who is intensely loyal to his new boss.


SCARAMUCCI: I`ve seen this guy throw a dead spiral through a tire. I`ve
seen him at Madison Square Garden with a top coat on, he`s standing in the
key, and sitting foul shots and switching them. He sinks three-foot putts.
I don`t see this guy as a guy that`s ever under siege. This is a very,
very competitive person. Obviously, there`s a lot of incoming that comes
into the White House. But the President`s a winner, OK? And what we`re
going to do is we`re going to do a lot of winning.


HAYES: That man is now the former Communications Director for the White
House. He was fired after just 11 days and firing is something he knows
something about because on his very first day, Sean Spicer resigned as
White House Press Secretary seemingly signaling Scaramucci`s power then a
few days later, Scaramucci went after then Chief of Staff Reince Priebus
calling FBI and Justice Department to investigate Priebus for allegedly
leaking Scaramucci`s financial disclosure form which had in fact been
publicly available. Scaramucci then called New Yorker Reporter Ryan Lizza
going on an (INAUDIBLE) tirade against other staffers including Priebus who
he memorably described as “F-ing paranoid, schizophrenic.” Now, President
Trump no stranger to “locker room talk” responded by firing not Scaramucci
but Priebus then named Kelly as his new Chief of Staff. And despite that
decision, the White House insisted today that President had in fact been
troubled Scaramucci words.


SANDERS: Look, the President certainly felt that Anthony`s comments were
inappropriate for a person in that position. And he didn`t want to burden
General Kelly.


HAYES: Kelly of course on his first day today as the new Chief of Staff
coming over who was the Head of the DHS, him coming in behind Reince
Priebus which Scaramucci had knocked out, Scaramucci now on Kelly`s first
day finding himself knocked out by Kelly. Now, Scaramucci had boasted he
reported directly to the President bypassing the Chief of Staff and a
source told reporter (INAUDIBLE) today that Scaramucci had told General
Kelly, I don`t report to you. And the General responded, you gone. After
his ouster, Scaramucci was reportedly escorted from White House grounds.
Kelly is being billed as the person who can finally impose order on this
White House just like Scaramucci himself was less than two short week ago.

While Kelly may be somewhat more successful, he has to contend with a
tremendous obstacle. That would be his boss, the President of the United
States as we saw from the Washington Post story just reported, he likes it
take an active role in all this. During his relatively short time in the
Oval Office, the President has ousted among others his Communications
Director, Chief of Staff, Press Secretary, FBI Director and National
Security Advice. Amid the turmoil and chaos, there has been one crucial
constant, a President whose temperament and behavior are entirely
consistent with what everyone saw on display on the campaign and largely,
as a result, cannot claim a single significant legislative accomplishment
more than six months after taking office.

And still, he insists he has it all under control. The President this
morning twitting a string of statistics and then adding, “No White House
chaos.” Joining me now, Margaret Talev, Senior White House Correspondent
for Bloomberg News, Chris Lu, former Assistant to President`s White House
Cabinet Secretary under President Obama. Margaret, Scaramucci, 11 days
ago, really lands on the scene. He`s the guy who`s going to be in charge
of everything. He says at one point there`s only two people whose heads
don`t stink, it`s me and the President. He lasted 11 days. What happened?

three things happened. Number one, that CNN interview and subsequent New
Yorker piece, he was kind of out over his skis. That was over the top and
that created shock waves really across the White House. I mean, in all
segments that people who already didn`t like him because he was trying to
get them and many of his supporters thought he had overdone it. Number
two, a victim of his own success, he was brought in to make sure Reince
Priebus exited. Reince Priebus exited, what`s the point of Anthony
Scaramucci anymore?

And point number three, and this is going to sound weird but it`s true, all
that page six coverage of personal things going on and at Anthony
Scaramucci`s life got a lot of the attention of folks inside the White
House. Well, it`s not what political reporters in Washington are
interested in delving into. I believe it was also a factor. And it`s
important - it`s important (INAUDIBLE) on Kelly`s first day.

HAYES: I should be clear about that just so we-re not - just so that
people don`t think there`s something - his wife filed for divorce, she had
a child that he was - whose birth he was not present for, according to the
reporting in the New York Post.

TALEV: It was just a lot of drama, more drama. I think a higher volume
of drama than folks who bargained for. And for General Kelly coming on in
his first day of job, it`s important for him to show decisiveness, send a
signal to the rest of the senior staff about the sort of infighting and
back biting and that sort of stuff. And so, it may have been destined
already but it was unavoidable today.

HAYES: But Chris, well, where to start. I mean, I guess the first
question to you is people are asking today, OK, well, this is a good sign
that Kelly came in and this is the first thing he did and can Kelly turned
this around. Is that the right question to be asking?

questions to be asking but let`s be clear, the problem here isn`t Anthony
Scaramucci, it is Donald Trump. And so before we start getting General
Kelly credit for turning the White House around, let`s give this a couple
months and see if the President changes hi ways. Let`s see if he stops
tweeting inappropriate things. Let`s see if he stops destroying Democratic
norms and giving blatantly partisan speeches to the boy scouts. There`s a
long way to go and the problems run very deep within this White House.

HAYES: Yes. I mean, Margaret, the thing that I find a little difficult to
swallow about this story that Scaramucci was brought in to fire Reince
Priebus is that the President of the United States can fire Reince Priebus.
Like, I don`t understand this bizarre machination that people are saying
now. Oh, no, no, no, they brought in Mooch to get rid of Spicer and then
Priebus. And then once he has done that, they got rid of him. it`s -
you`re the President, if you don`t think Reince Priebus is doing a good
job, you were in a show for seven years on air where you were firing
people, just fire your Chief of Staff.

TALEV: Well, that - so far, at least not in the kind of awkward of dynamic
inside the White House and I think part of the President`s M.O. is to see
whether kind of letting two camps have free run into each other creates
anything good in the process. Reince Priebus partly because from the
beginning he has weak leverage and penned in by limited, you know, limited
powers and such, was just completely powerless to do anything. I mean,
basically, once Scaramucci had said what he said, the fact that he himself
embolden enough to say it was you know, was the 99 percent of the problem.

HAYES: But Chris, this strikes me as - to get to your point, the issue
here. The President himself clearly enjoys and cultivate an atmosphere in
which there is constantly gladiatorial public combat between people that
work for him, for his favor, and he kind of reaches out and does this or
doesn`t walks away and let everyone interpret it. But that is the - that
is the mode of management that has been produced by the person at the top,

LU: Absolutely. In six months, we`ve gone from no drama Obama to captain
chaos. And it would be easy for us who served in the Obama administration
to mock what is happening right now. If it weren`t so frightening, we
have serious issues that our country and our world faces right now and
what`s been remarkable to me is that as many troubles as the Trump
administration has had, they haven`t really had to face a crisis like a
hurricane Katrina or a deep water horizon. All of these issues they are
dealing with are ones of their own making. And what is also striking to me
is that Republicans in Congress have basically enabled this incompetence
along way. They basically issued some statements of concern but they
really haven`t stepped in to try to protect the Democratic norms in our

HAYES: You know, Margaret, there`s another - there`s a breaking story from
the Washington Post which I imagine you at least saw the headline. The
President himself dictated the statement, wildly misleading statement that
in any other casual social interaction you would call false and lie. That
statement was dictated by the President himself which again relates to the
issue here, right? I mean, his adviser saying do one thing. The President
stepping in to do this thing which produces tremendous blowback and
embarrassment and humiliation. There`s some sense that the President is
hands off but then in certain things, he does not seem to be hands-off at

TALEV: Yes. And I think the Post good reporting would have been
absolutely an important story on any day but it`s particularly important
the timing of it today because it does represent this major test for the
new Chief of Staff, for General Kelly which is, what is his ultimatum to
the President? What are the circumstances under which he has accepted this
job and did President Trump, in fact, bring him in because he wants new
degree of discipline to apply both to himself and to his staff or was it
for other reasons because he felt that he was simpatico to his policies and
had represented him well? That answer is really important in terms of how
much influence General Kelly is able to exert on this incredibly important
person, the President, in terms of thinking through. Not tactical
responses but strategic responses and responses that will hold him water
over time.

HAYES: There`s another - finally Chris, another aspect to this. You know,
all White Houses are intense from the standpoint of office politics. It`s
a high-stress job, it`s a high stake one. People do knife each other,
people leak to the press. That happens in every office down the House
Representatives Offices and politics everywhere. Here you have a different
situation though where you got the sort of - these organizations and people
around the President who are sort of one step in, one step in, Ivanka and
Jared, family members, the Trump organization now a set of associated
lawyers. I mean, those are interest that exacerbates what is already going
to be a very fraught and intense environment.

LU: Yes. You`re absolutely right. Even in the calmest of White Houses,
it is one the most tense work environment you can imagine. I worked under
all of President Obama`s Chiefs of Staff and they - a representative of
what the President represented for which was no ego, no drama, no work here
to serve the American people. And believe me, having worked under Rahm
Emanuel, you did not crossed Rahm Emanuel. You never went there and said
hey, I report directly to the President as apparently Scaramucci and others
said. But I work for Chiefs of Staff who knew how to manage people, who
respected facts, respected process, and knew that the job there was to
serve American people, not to serve each person`s individual interest.

HAYES: All right, Margaret Talev and Chris Lu, thank you both for being
with me. Joining me now, former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis out of
South Carolina. What do you - what do you think when you watch all this

He`s a chaos candidate that we elected to the Presidency.

HAYES: He seems - Olivia Nuzzi on the program said something I thought
very interesting the other night. She says the President is easily bored.
And in some ways, it seems that the President`s attention span, the
President`s desire for (INAUDIBLE) and turns and constantly new thing
happening, whether in furtherance or not of his punitive agenda is primary.
That he has almost a kind of deep - I don`t even know if he`s aware of
conscious sense that he wants keep things unraveling in a kind of way.

INGLIS: Well. I can only observe what you`re observing and that is a man
who seems not to have a real solid grounding and respect for the truth for
one thing. But also, not having any philosophical grounding and not have
any personal commitments that that he really makes. I guess, David Frum
well put it months and months ago. Donald Trump has betrayed everyone who
trusted him. Why would any supporters think they are so special to think
they would be different? And of course, the great risk that anybody takes
in accepting a job in the administration is that what will happen to one`s
reputation if you collaborate with this man.

I mean, if you think about it, John Kelly is taking a huge reputational
risk. He`s a very distinguished General. If he is able to get order over
the people underneath him that would be great but his problem is the guy
above him who for example the other day tweets in 140 characters a policy
that the Pentagon had to say, this is not the policy of the United States
when it came to transgender Service Members. This - I don`t know how to
say it other than this, absolutely unacceptable as an American to have the
Pentagon having to say that President in his tweets is not setting policy.

HAYES: I`m glad you highlighted that because to me the rubber hits the
road there on that particular story when you talk about - you talk about
chaos and great kind of abstract but here is an example where the President
tweeted policy, and then the Department of Defense basically was caught off
guard. You have folks serving across this country and the world in harm`s
way who don`t know if they going to be pulled out of their barracks because
the President has tweeted it and then the Department of Defense decides
because they have some deference (INAUDIBLE) we`re going to wait for
further guidance form the White House and this is the quote on that.
“Pentagon is still awaiting the White House direction on transgender policy
change.” So, we don`t know if it was a policy or not.

INGLIS: Right. And so, in steps, John Kelly to try - a distinguished
General to try to bring order to that chaos, but his problem is not the
people underneath him as to say it, it`s the guy above him. And that guy
seems to either - I don`t know, Chris, you`re positing perhaps that he
enjoys it. I don`t know - I don`t know whether he enjoys it or needs it or
can`t help it, that he is just a scattered person who does things that are
very unexpected. And if you`re - if you`re a general that`s trying to
establish order in the White House, I don`t know how you do it. I don`t
know how if you`re Rex Tillerson and you`re Secretary if State, you`re used
to running a great big company called ExxonMobil, how it is that now you
respond to the tweets when you`re trying to set rational policy for a great
big country.

HAYES: All right, Bob Inglis, thank you for your time tonight.

INGLIS: Good to be with you.

HAYES: Ahead, after six months of White House turmoil is the Trump
legislative agenda already dead? Senator Sherrod Brown on that crucial
question after this two-minute break.


HAYES: All right, I`m joined now by Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. He`s a
ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee. And Senator, because it`s
a day ending in why we got a little breaking news. I just want to start
and get your reaction. I don`t know if you have seen it but the contours
of the Washington Post reports that it was the President himself personally
who dictated the statement that his son gave the very wildly misleading
statement about the nature of that infamous meeting with the Russian
attorney and others in the campaign that he stepped in even though advisers
around his son said we should get everything out so it doesn`t drip, drip,
drip. The President stepped in to get that statement and said it was
primarily a discussion of adoption which of course left out a lot of
crucial details. Your reaction to learning the President himself
intervened in that way?

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D) OHIO: Well, I guess no surprise. I mean, the
President, I wrote the President two days after the election, the
President-Elect and asked him, offered to help on renegotiation of NAFTA
and later offered to help on infrastructure and doing tax reform right.
And they can`t focus on anything because they`re playing such defense and
they are so fearful, the President clearly is fearful of not just the other
shoe dropping but as Senator McCain said, the centipede shoes dropping of
one after another after another. At it just means, he`s not able to do
what we or what this country elected me to for, in Ohio, or elected him for
to create jobs and fix trade agreements and do infrastructure and do the
things that affect people`s lives directly every day.

HAYES: To that point, I mean, when you got a President who is right now,
he`s pulling even at (INAUDIBLE) 39 percent. We just had this incredible
moment. I want to show this moment of you reacting to John McCain when he
came out, just a few days ago, though it seems longer than that, to give
thumbs down on the health care bill in the Senate. You`re in the upper
corner and you slam the desk. I want to show folks that moment your





HAYES: Can you believe it? Here is the question for you. Is that thing

BROWN: I think it - you know. I think it`s dead because the American
public so much doesn`t want it. We were - we saw - we got so many calls,
so many e-mails, so many stories. It`s not the 51 Senators that defeated
this. I mean, we cast the votes on their behalf but it was the story after
story after story, the woman with the child with the preexisting condition,
the 26-year-old that was on her parent`s health care plan that was getting
opioid treatment. It`s funding children`s hospitals, it`s rural hospitals
would close if this - if this were repealed and replaced. I mean, there
were - it was they speaking out that did this.

And they`re going to try again on Medicaid in the fall. They may use the
very popular bipartisan program, CHIP, Children`s Health Insurance Program
to - for the vehicle to go after Medicaid again but it`s a - fundamentally,
it`s a bunch of elected officials with really good titles with really good
health insurance willing to take it away from millions of Americans who
have jobs making $12 and $15 an hour and they`re willing to take their
insurance away and it`s just immorally reprehensible, that`s why 51 members
of the Senate voted no and it may be more next time.

HAYES: Well, that`s the question. I mean, you got this crazy thing now
happening. The president has got a whole bunch of tweets, that you got to
stick to it. He even threatens that there should be no votes on anything
until you take another run at it. He`s saying that he is getting Mitch
McConnell process advice saying the very outdated filibuster rule must go,
budget reconciliation killing ours in the Senate. Go to 51 votes now and
win. It`s time. At the same time, you`ve got other people saying on like
we were moving on a tax form. I guess the question is, do you, as you
watch this unfold and you and your colleagues, also a Republican, do you
even know what is next? Like what are - what are they going to the lineup
next to try to even do next?

BROWN: Well, I think it changes every day and I hear every day grumbling
from Senators, Republican Senators, about this President. They no longer
fear him but they want what he can do for them. They want weaker
environmental laws. They really want this selling out to Wall Street on
the forced arbitration giving the good government (INAUDIBLE) to Wells
Fargo for what they did causing repossession of a whole bunch of people`s
auto loans and didn`t even know they were getting the auto insurance? You
know, it`s one thing after another and that`s why it`s also disjointed.

And it`s fighting back on all these. It`s fighting back against Wall
Street, it`s fighting back against the drug companies it`s fighting back
against when the Trump administration goes off like that and in part of
that fighting back is people organizing like they never have been before.
And I asked people to come to, help me on this fight on
forced arbitration where Wells Fargo, has abused so many of their customers
with the fine print on this forced arbitration clauses. That`s another
fight we`re about to have.

HAYES: But that`s - so that`s a great example thought. Those are the
things that - there`s a sort of what the Republican Party is doing
irrespective to Donald Trump. That fight on forced arbitration fights
around overtime and labor law fights about environmental regulations.
Those things will be happening and I think you would agree whether it was
Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. But the big kind of sign post legislative agenda
where the President says, you know, George W. Bush when he came in 2001, he
signed the No Child Left Behind Act, obviously President Obama signed The
Recovery Act, that big sign post legislation, that usually flows from the
White House and it seems to me that they are really at a crossroads and in
danger of that. The big sign post thing that President puts his signature
on, not actually happening.

BROWN: Well and it changes everyday. I mean, it`s tax reform, and I know a
lot of senators want new tax reforms. But, if I read this right, what
President Trump and the Republicans and the Senate are going to try to do
is just cut taxes for rich people and call it tax reform and blow a hole in
the budget that my grandsons Clayton and Leo and Milo have to pay for in 20
and 30 and 50 years.
HAYES: All right, Senator Sherrod Brown, thanks for your time tonight.

BROWN: Good to be with you. Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Next, the President explicitly threatens to sabotage Obamacare at
the expense of millions of Americans. That, coming up.


HAYES: The Affordable Care Act is in fact not in a death spiral. Whatever
the President often says, the law still has some very real problems,
primarily cost are too high for many, millions of people remain uninsured,
but right now, lawmakers like Mitch McConnell have two paths before them.
They can either stick a crow bar into those very real flaws and try to pry
the law apart and millions of people`s health care coverage in the process,
or they can work to fix the law`s problems and hope to improve health care.

Unfortunately, the President is explicitly advocating the former option,
tweeting today, “If Obamacare is hurting people, and it is, why shouldn`t
it hurt the insurance companies and why
shouldn`t congress pay what public pays?”

Part of his threat targets insurance subsidies for members of congress. The
more significant threat, though, addresses the so called cost sharing
reduction payments, that`s money the government
uses to keep costs down for low income Obamacare enrollees. That`s just
ordinary citizens and not people in congress and not the insurance

If the President cuts off those payments, which he may do, he will
deliberately be spiking the
health care cost of many of the most vulnerable Americans. And while he is
threatening that, others are showing it is possible to make the current
health care system more sustainable, not less.

State of an example, of Ohio for example, under Republican governor John
Kasich, worked with insurers to make sure that 19 counties that were losing
coverage under the federal exchange next year will now be covered. And in
congress now that efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare have yet again
failed, some lawmakers are now looking for bipartisan solution to
strengthen the law.

Politico reports their proposal includes funding, those cost sharing
subsidies to help low income Americans, as well as easing insurance
requirements for smaller employers.

And two of those lawmakers join me now. Democratic Congressman Josh
Gottheimer of New Jersey, and Republican Congresswoman Martha McSally of

Congresswoman, let me begin with you. Do you think it is appropriate for
the President to be
essentially threatening to take away that money and spike peoples premiums
as a means of gaining
political leverage over the law?

REP. MARTHA MCSALLY, (R) ARIZONA: Well, Chris, thanks for having us on.
Let me be clear, this is a hot button issue, and we still have sincerely
held different beliefs about what is a sustainable health care system. But,
what Josh and I and our colleagues have been able to do is over the last
several weeks really come together to laser focus on one issue, which is
stabilizing the individual market, which is starting to fail. In Arizona we
have 14 or 15 counties with only one choice last year, costs were up over
100%, 40 counties in the country, 40% of counties in the country only have
one choice, and many now have no choices.

So, we said, can we come together in the problem solvers caucus and find
common ground
and solutions on this issue while providing a little bit of relief for
small businesses so that they can have some additional economic growth.

So, we released our plan today. It includes a bunch of things. It was give
and take. We had rigorous debate. But, we`re here to say this isn`t about
the rhetoric or all the political scoring. This is about solving the
problem for real people, about 7% of Americans get their care on the
individual market, and it is not working right now.
HAYES: Wait, what percentage of Americans?

MCSALLY: About 7% on the individual market.

HAYES: Oh, I thought you said 70.

MCSALLY: No. 7. 7.

HAYES: So, I hear that and I want to follow-up with you, congressman,
about that targeting.
One of the things that was so strange, of course, about what we`ve watched
play out, congresswoman, is that the real acute problems which are fixing
the individual market, a lot of the bills being passed doesn`t have
anything to do with that?

But, I just want to come back because I did ask you a question, whether you
think it is appropriate for the President and not just to threaten, but a
thing he might do which is to hold back the money– you talk about costs
are too high for people and people are having problems, that would
explicitly making that problem worse. He shouldn`t do that, should he?

MCSALLY: As you can see from our plan that we released, 43 members of
congress nearly equally on both sides aisle, one of the elements is to fund
those cost sharing reductions, those CSRs. But not just throwing money at
the problem and not being fiscally responsible because structurally it
needs some changes. So the Stability Fund is absolutely critical to address
those with the highest expenses and most complex medical needs so we can
help drive down premiums and provide more options so the that young healthy
people are in the market.

So, we can`t just throw money at issue but part of our plan is to fund CSRs
because choices are
being made here shortly for the 2018 markets and we`ve all got constituents
who are running out of options, and we`ve got to find some bipartisan
solutions to stabilize that, and that`s what this plan does.
I`m proud to be a part of it.

HAYES: Congressman Gottheimer, your college just said it`s not throwing
money at the problem. Mitch McConnell, however, sort of in waving towards
this, right, one of the things right now is getting money to essentially
back stop ring short in certain ways the way insurance companies induce
them more into the markets where they are fleeing or aren`t enough of them.

McConnell called that a bailout. Rand Paul called it a bailout. In fact
there was already that money in both the House and Senate bills, but, if
you just focus on that, are you just essentially bailing out the the
insurance companies like a lot of people are going to accuse you of doing.

REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER, (D) NEW JERSEY: No, I disagree with that. I think
what we`re doing is actually stabilizing the marketplace. What we are
trying to do is hear how families and small businesses
and the best way to do that is actually getting premiums down.

We have seen that in last months, especially as there`s been lack of
certainty and with things in
turmoil, premiums are way up,15 too 20% nationwide. If we can get the cost
sharing– get those dollars to the states to actually help them deal with
low-income folks, with others who need healthcare, people with high risk
diseases and others that really need support, if we can do that, Kaiser
and others state that premiums would come down 15 to 20%.

I tell you, in states like New Jersey where I am, we have a lot of people
hurting, and that`s the kind of help we need. So, I don`t really look at
that as anything but helping people and stabilizing things. And that`s the
urgent problem that Martha was talking about that we`re trying to deal

And dealing with the high-risk pools and with people with preexisting
conditions is the answer. We can`t keep having the same fight of trying to
kill it versus fix it which is to me what we need do here.

HAYES: Congresswoman is there any interest among the leadership in your
party? I mean, they control the House, you know how the House works. The
House floor agenda is set by the speaker, that would be Paul Ryan.

Is there any interest in something like this?

MCSALLY: Well, we`ve kept them informed that we were working on something.
We are going to follow up with specific details now that they are public.
But if you look at things that have been in most of our bills, repealing
the medical device tax, there are dozens of Democrats on that bill and we
found common ground to repeal that. To provide relief, by removing employer
cap from 50 to 500 and work week from 30 to 40 hours, this is really going
to allow some economic growth and people to start hiring again, while
breaking down the firewall so some individuals could go on the individual
market that will help steady it.

These are things that have been in our proposals and from our view we have
to suddenly address it.

GOTTHEIMER: What I would say and add it to that is the big break through
with Democrats and Republicans sitting in a room, 43 of us, who actually
are trying to find a solution here versus just screaming at each other
about health care.

As you`ve seen over last months, there`s been no attempt, no attempt to
really cooperate, to try and fix the problem, to stabilize things and get
them under control and provide certainty to people instead of having them

That`s what we are trying to do here and I think we took a huge step. It`s
just the beginning, it`s not the end, but I think it is a very important
step forward.

HAYES: Alright, Congressman Josh Gottheimer and Congresswoman Martha
thanks for joining me.

As Anthony Scaramucci joins the ranks of those cast aside from Trumps inner
circle, now a cautionary tale from Chris Christie, on what could be in
store for the Mooch and and those inside
the White House.

Plus, Congresswoman Maxine Waters reclaiming tonight Thing 1, Thing 2,


HAYES: Thing One tonight, House Financial Services Committee hearings
don`t often
produce viral moments, but one exchange between Congresswoman Maxine Waters
and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin caught fire.


REP. MAXINE WATERS, (D) CALIFORNIA: Is there some reason why I did not get
a response to the letter that I sent May 23?

STEVE MNUCHIN, TREASURY SECRETARY: So, Ranking Member Waters, first of
all, let me thank you for your service to California, being a resident of
California I appreciate everything that you`ve done.

WATERS: Thank you very much. I don`t want to take my time on how great I

MNUCHIN: I also have appreciated the opportunity to meet you…

WATERS: Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming our time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The time belong to the gentlelady from California.

WATERS: Let me just say to you, thank you for your compliments about how
great I am, but I don`t want it waste to waste my time on me. I want to
know about the May 23 letter. You know about it. Why did you not respond
to me and my colleagues?

MNUCHIN: I was going to answer that.

WATERS: Just please go straight to the answer.

MNUCHIN: And Mr. Chairman, I thought when you read the rules, you
acknowledged that I shouldn`t be interrupted and that I would have…

WATERS: Reclaiming my time. What he failed to tell you was, when you`re
on my time, I can reclaim it.


HAYES: That exchange continued for another minute with Secretary Mnuchin
continuing to dodge that basic question about the letter.

But the moment not only spawned hashtags and memes, it led to a gospel
tribute you absolutely have to hear. And that is Thing Two in 60 seconds.


HAYES: The many memes and remixes created from Congresswoman Maxine Waters
viral reclaiming my time moment last week. This gospel tribute from
Michael Killgore (ph) takes the cake.



HAYES: It seems like just about everyone who works for Donald Trump
eventually end up in some fashion abased. And perhaps no one exemplifies
that pattern more than failed presidential candidate, current governor of
New Jersey Chris Christie. After he endorsed Donald Trump, he found
himself ridiculed while he stood behind Trump as super Tuesday victory
speech at Mar-a-Lago. Christie even having to come out to explicitly deny
he was being held hostage.

Then two months later, Donald Trump used Governor Christie as a food punch


TRUMP: When Carrier and Ford and Nabisco leaving Chicago with their big
plant, they`re moving to Mexico. I`m not eating Oreos any more, you know

But neither is Chris. You`re not eating Oreos any more, no more Oreos for
either of us, Chris. Don`t feel bad, for either of us.


HAYES: For awhile, it looked like there was a potential payoff for
Governor Christie`s prostration, his name was floated for attorney general.
He was vetted as a possible vice presidential pick. He got neither.
Instead, he was put in charge of transition, but then quickly fired from
that job when Donald Trump actually won the election.

Eventually, he was put in charge of the White House commission on opioid
addiction, which released an interim report today. His public profile,
however, continued to decline. He was photographed relaxing on a state
beach after he closed them to the public. He approval ratings dropped to
absolutely historic lows for a New Jersey governor. And then this weekend,
Christie went to Milwaukee to take in a baseball game between the Brewers
and the Cubs, and to the delight of the internet, he was he was videotaped
berating a Cubs fan who apparently called him a hypocrite, while cradling a
bowl of nachos.



CHRISTIE: You`re a big (inaudible)

UNIDENITIFIED MALE: Appreciate that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`d he say to you?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t care. There`s the Secret Service right


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know – you want to act like a big shot?


HAYES: It`s as if everyone who gets drawn into the president`s orbit is
susceptible to abject humiliation. Today, that Trump effect claimed
another victim. We`ll talk about it, next.


HAYES: Joining me now, we`ve got Rick Wilson, Republican strategist, Erin
Gloria Ryan, who is a senior editor at The Daily Beast. There we go.
There you are.

So, we were going to talk about the sort of – Josh Marshall has this great
term when he says dignity wraith to describe Donald Trump. That he`s sort
of – like, will suck the dignity from those in his orbit, which is
something that tends to happen time and time again.

And I want to talk about that, but I want to start with a reaction to this
Washington Post story, which says that the president himself, and it`s
related in certain key ways, the president himself dictated that wildly
misleading statement by his son on the plane back from meeting with
Vladimir Putin at the G20, that ended up causing so much trouble, because
it was so wildly misleading. What do you make of that, Rick?

RICK WILSON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: This is absolutely what I expected.
The stilted nature of the text alone was sort of a tell that president
unindicted co-conspirator was involved. And the fact that he put himself
into this jeopardy means once again he does not listen to his attorneys, he
does not listen to political advisers. Everything is shoot from the lip,
everything is impulse, everything is whatever`s in Donald Trump`s brain
that moment, he believes to be the smartest thing in the world. And so he
saddled his own son with this terrible piece of convoluted and, frankly,
deceptive rhetoric, that he forced him to put out. So then they had to
walk it back day after day after day after day. And it once again – my
rule, is simple, everything Trump touches dies. This is a guy who – he`s
got a curse on him. And he hit his own son with it. And it`s astounding.

I was speaking to an attorney friend of mine earlier tonight, and she was
just mind boggled that he would do that. It just means he`s not listening
to counsel at all.

HAYES: That`s why it does relate, right?


HAYES: Because he`s doing this, which is reckless in certain ways,
particularly because there`s an email, but also because the person at the
center of this is his own son, who then has to be humiliated, over the
course of the week, as this misleading statement his dad wrote, becomes

RYAN: Right.

Well, two things. First of all, you know, Rick I think was being a little
bit harsh, because this statement was actually a better writer than I
expected Donald Trump to be. It refrained from using intensifiers that
only make things larger or smaller. But I would say this, like, I`m pretty
sure Donald
Trump doesn`t take public transportation very much, but he has never met a
single person he won`t throw under the bus. And his son is among those
people now. He`s a person that like, you know, Rick was saying, that…

HAYES: Right, like he sacrificed – like, very clearly, he sacrificed Don

RYAN: This is like getting into biblical territory. It`s just like,
somebody trying to defend themselves by resorting to these biblical, crazy,
over-the-top means.

And the fact that he thinks he`s untouchable is something that means that
like to me, it conveys that he doesn`t understand how big of trouble he
could be in.

HAYES: That`s one way of thinking about it, but then I sometimes think
it`s the opposite, which is, again, I keep coming back to this, that the
only person that really knows what he may or may not be covering up is the
president himself, what he did or did not do. The president knows that
definitively. And when you look at his behavior, Rick, it seems to me that
this behavior seems wildly reckless, at some level, but maybe he thought it
would work, and he doesn`t want people to know about the truth nature of
the meeting.

WILSON: The phrase “cognizance of guilt” is one that I think we`re going
to hear a lot more of in the future. And this attempt by him to shape the
entire government right now, so we can fire Bob Mueller, and stop the
Russia investigation so that he can throw – again, look, no – he`s never
shown any loyalty to any human being in his life, whether in his marriages,
his business partners, his family. All of these people now are ancillary
to trying to get rid of the Russia investigation, trying to stop it, trying
to put a speed brake on it. It`s not working, of course, because he`s not
as bright as he thinks he is. And the attorneys around him obviously are
going to run for the hills, if he keeps doing this.

But the fact of the matter is, he is not – he`s not – he`s not
accomplishing the goal he`s setting out to accomplish by throwing his son
under the bus or by trying to blame everyone else under the son.

But you`re right, he knows what the truth is. This is why he`s hiding the
tax returns. This is why he`s doing everything he can to get rid of Bob

RYAN: Do you think he knows what the truth is, though?

HAYES: That`s the other question.

RYAN: I think he might be a person that has lied to himself so much, that
he believes his version of the truth. Like, there`s the truth that
happened, and then there`s the truth that Donald Trump thinks is the truth.
And he`s like bought into his own version of reality, that`s been of his
own making.

HAYES: I think to Erin`s point, I think it is entirely possible that when
all is said and done, that the president himself and people in his campaign
did actively collude with the Russians, and that Donald Trump would pass a
lie detector test being asked, did you collude with the Russians?

WILSON: Oh, well he`s a…

HAYES: I think both those things are true.

RYAN: Yeah.

WILSON: The raging narcissistic personality disorder and the raging sort
of Donald Trumpian
sociopathy that defines this guy, I think he could absolutely not – he
wouldn`t flutter a bit on a lie detector. He would believe his own BS, as
long as it was coming out of his mouth, right up until the cuffs go on.

HAYES: There are people that keep choosing to – I mean, the Scaramucci
was – he burned very brightly. He flew too close to the sun. He was out
in 11 days. But people keep – now Kelly is
choosing – the psychology is sort of amazing. People continue to
associate and put themselves in the position of having to watch what
happened to everyone else.

RYAN: Right. I think that people are also a little bit overconfident when
it comes – that`s the American way, right, is to think that whatever
happened to the other people will not happen to me. I will be fine exactly
following this path, and it`s not going to be fine.

HAYES: And Donald Trump has played on precisely that instinct in people
for the duration of his career, it will be different this time.

Rick Wilson, Erin Gloria Ryan, thanks for joining us.

RYAN: Thank you.

HAYES: That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts now
with Joy Reid in for Rachel. Good evening, Joy.


Copyright 2017 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the