“Adult day care” Transcript 10/12/17 All In with Chris Hayes

Guests:
Maxine Waters, Ben Howe, Lanhee Chen, Andy Slavitt, Xeni Jardin, Max Read, Molly Crabapple
Transcript:

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
Date: October 12, 2017
Guest: Maxine Waters, Ben Howe, Lanhee Chen, Andy Slavitt, Xeni Jardin,
Max’s  Read, Molly Crabapple


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on ALL IN.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will not rest until that
job is done.

HAYES: Three weeks into the disaster in Puerto Rico, why is the President
now threatening to pull federal support?

TRUMP: We will be there all the time to help Puerto Rico recover.

HAYES: Plus –

TRUMP: Where`s John Kelly? Stand up, John.

HAYES: A “unraveling President” sends his Chief of staff To go after the
media.

JOHN KELLY, CHIEF OF STAFF, WHITE HOUSE: One of his frustrations is you or
maybe develop some better sources.

HAYES: Then –

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mr. President, you need
to sign it.

HAYES: Understanding the effects of the President`s executive order to
Undermine ObamaCare. And Facebook meets the press.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does Facebook owe the American people an apology?

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. Days after a senior
Republican Senator referred to the White House as adult day care, the man
that many believe is in charge of supervising the President, Chief of Staff
John Kelly, was sent out before the press to shoot down reports that the
President`s tantrums are causing big problems. The day began as it often
does with a Presidential outburst on Twitter. This one aimed at the
struggling people of Puerto Rico who three weeks after Hurricane Maria are
still suffering through an acute deadly crisis, many lacking access to safe
water and food, and urgent medical care. We`ll have the latest from the
island coming up later this hour.

Today, the President appeared to blame Puerto Rico for its current
situation, threatening to cut off federal recovery efforts. I quote him
here. “Electric and all infrastructure were disaster before hurricanes.
Congress to decide how much to spend, we cannot keep FEMA, the military,
and the first responders who have been amazing under the most difficult
circumstances in P.R. forever.” That drew an implicit rebuke from FEMA
itself. An agency spokesperson tweeting this, FEMA will be with Puerto
Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, every state and territory impacted by disaster
every day, supporting throughout their response and recovery. Asked about
Trump`s tweets, the Chief of Staff put a kinder, gentler spin on the
President`s core message.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does President Trump believe that the people of
Puerto Rico are American citizens –

KELLY: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: – who deserve the same access to federal aid as
people who live in Texas and Florida?

KELLY: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What is his tweet about, then?

KELLY: Which tweet?

TRUMP: The tweet where he says we can`t be in Puerto Rico forever.

KELLY: I think he said the U.S. military and Fema can`t be in there
forever, right?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He did, yes, first responders –

KELLY: First responders. This country, our country, will stand with those
American citizens in Puerto Rico until the job is done. But the tweet
about FEMA and DOD, read military, is exactly accurate. They`re not going
to be there forever. And the whole point is to start to work yourself out
of a job and then transition to the rebuilding process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Kelly went on to deny a series of reports this week suggesting his
efforts to contain the President, as Senator Bob Corker put it, are cut
putting Kelly`s own job in jeopardy. According to the L.A. Times, he and
the President have engaged in shouting matches in recent days while Vanity
Fair reported Kelly is miserable in his job, isn`t remaining out of a sense
of duty to keep Trump from making some sort of disastrous decision. None
of that is true, Kelly said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: Although I read it all the time, pretty consistently, I`m not
quitting today. I don`t believe, and I just talked to the President, I
don`t think I`m being fired today. And I am not so frustrated in this job
that I`m thinking of leaving. I would tell you this is the hardest job
I`ve ever had. This is, in my view, the most important job I ever had.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The chief of staff adopted the President`s latest attacks on the
press directed specifically at NBC News over a couple of damaging report in
the last week, first that the Secretary of State Rex Tillerson openly
disparaged the President, referring to him as a “moron.,” and then that the
President wanted a ten-fold increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. And the
President reacted with what was even, for him, a fairly astonishing assault
on the core concept of the first amendment, threatening to revoke the
network`s broadcast license, which doesn`t exist by the way, and shut down
unwelcome coverage. Today his own Chief of Staff took his own swipe at the
press.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: My only frustration, with all due respect to everyone in the room,
is when I come to work in the morning and read about things I allegedly
said or things that Mr. Trump allegedly said or people who are going to be
fired or whatever, I think – and it`s just not true. It is astounding to
me how much is misreported. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that
you are operating off of contacts, leaks, whatever you call them. But I
would just offer to you the advice, I`d say – you know, maybe develop some
better sources.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: And amid looming confrontations with both North Korea and Iran and
growing concerns about whether the President`s aides can restrain him from
lashing out, Kelly insisted the President doesn`t need babysitting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: I was not sent in or was not brought to this job to control
anything but the flow of information to our President so that he could make
the best decisions. I have found that Mr. Trump, from the day I met him,
does not – is a decisive guy, he`s a very thoughtful man I should say.
Again, I was not sent in or brought in to control him and you should not
measure my effectiveness as a Chief of Staff by what you think I should be
doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Heidi Przybyla an MSNBC Political Analyst who covers the White
House for USA Today was at the briefing today. What did you make of that
today, Heidi?

HEIDI PRZYBYLA, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: We have had a brutal cycle, he
being the President, and John Kelly. Because if you remember, when Kelly
came in, the headline was that all that`s leaks were going to go away, that
he would instill discipline in this White House. And yet you have all
these stories coming out about shouting matches, about Kelly possibly even
leaving. And so just like they did when NBC`s story came out about Rex
Tillerson, immediately he`s pushed out to talk to the press and to shoot it
all down and to deny it. And he can do that. He can deny it because these
sources are on background.

But I will tell you, and you know this already, Chris, that there`s no way
we would get this reporting unless these sources were speaking on
background because they would be fired for talking like this. It doesn`t
make that information untrue. In fact, it`s-highly unlikely that the
information is untrue and I guess it`s good at least that Kelly said, I
give you the benefit of the doubt that you have sources instead of like his
boss who just calls it all fake.

HAYES: His boss actually, the President of the United States, his – the
theory that he says is that it`s entirely made up. He accuses the press of
totally fabricating this when he`s not threatening to shut them down or
revoke the licenses of newspapers, which also don`t exist. We should note
here, I mean, Kelly is also doing, it strikes me, a similar job to what
Sean Spicer had today on the first day – had to do on the first day of the
administration, which is to come out in the face of a set of circumstances
people can see pretty clearly and essentially deny the evident right in
front of their face.

PRZYBYLA: He did. But I would say at least he didn`t go so far as to say
outright untruths. And he was actually quite charming in his engagement
with the press in terms of at least keeping a pleasant demeanor, not coming
out there angry and scowling at us, calling us the disgusting media, and
essentially threatening the first amendment. He basically, you know, is I
think trying to make a bridge to a certain extent with the media. It was
also interesting today that I was in this health care executive order
announcement with the President and he actually turned around and thanked
us all. Which I guess is not usual. So I think there is a certain part of
this that they`re trying to immediately address some of these stories when
they come out and put these people out in front of the media.

HAYES: You know, one of the things that Kelly said says, he called the
President very thoughtful. And it struck me that there`s so many things
you could say about the President, many adjectives. And even if you wanted
to praise the President there`s lots of things you could say, he`s canny,
he has great political instincts, he has an incredible way of capturing
people`s attention, he`s not a very thoughtful person by basically the
determination of every single person around him who`s ever talked about
him.

PRZYBYLA: Well, that`s an opinion. And he`s welcome to his opinions. And
I guess after having dealt with some of the previous individuals who have
come out there and actually said outright untruths, like verifiably untrue
things that are not factual, at least he`s not going –

HAYES: You`re going to say that`s in the – that`s in the territory of a
characterization, as opposed to just like you know, it was the most-watched
inauguration. Heidi Przybyla, thank you for joining me.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters is a Democrat from California. And
Congresswoman, there`s been a story that Kelly is a sort of restraining
force, that he – that people should be happy that he`s there if they`re
worried about the President`s temperament or worried about the President`s
current condition, and that he`s – it`s good to have him there. Is that
your opinion?

REP. MAXINE WATERS (D), CALIFORNIA: My opinion is it won`t last for long.
This President will not get along with him for very long. This President
has the kind of disposition that would cause him to confront, argue with,
fight with, shout at, those people around him. And they`re only going to
take it for so long. If you notice what Kelly was saying, he was saying he
was not fired today. He was not leaving today. And I don`t know if he was
qualifying that or not, but I think that was instructive. That even he
knows it can`t last very much longer.

HAYES: At some point, Kelly said something about the views of Democrats on
security and what he called open borders. And I wanted to play that for
you and get your response to it because he was characterizing the
immigration views of folks like yourself and members of your party, take a
listen.

WATERS: All right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: I believe that honest men and women can disagree on anything,
politically or otherwise. The one thing I draw a little bit of a line to
is on the security of the nation. There are certainly people in our
country that have the opinion that open borders, near open borders, are
fine, people should be able to come and go. There are others, myself
included, you can bet the President, but I think the majority of Americans
feel as though security on the borders is important.

HAYES: Do you think that`s – open borders is an accurate characterization
of a large view of folks in Washington, for instance, on immigration?

WATERS: Oh, absolutely not. And if he`s truly concerned about security,
he should be concerned about the way the President is goading with the
North Korea situation. He and Kim Jong-un are basically talking to each
other in ways that Corker has said could lead us into third world war. And
so if he`s really concerned about security, he should be concerned about
whether or not this President is going to continue the kind of talking and
goading that he`s doing that would cause this Kim Jong-un, who we consider
to be unstable, to launch a very devastating missile into our country with
perhaps a nuclear war ahead.

HAYES: There`s reporting indicating that the President, the decision which
we`re expecting forthcoming tomorrow in which he decertifies the Iran Deal,
that was essentially born of a kind of fit of pique. The President was
angry that he felt cornered, that the experts had come to him and told him,
no, they`re actually complying with the terms of the deal, we should
certify it because that`s the truth of the matter. And then the Washington
Post reporting he threw a fit, he was furious, really furious, it`s clear
he felt jammed and that`s why the White House Security Adviser, H.R.
McMaster, and others, (INAUDIBLE) this plan to kick it to Congress. What
do you make of that? What are the consequences of making policy on
something like this in this fashion?

WATERS: Well, it`s just unseemly that the President of the United States
would be making policy on his own. He`s been advised by everybody,
Republicans, and Democrats, that he should not be undoing the Iran Deal.
We have other nations, six other nations, that are involved with us in this
deal. And so for him to have America look as if it wants to undo the deal,
people want to decertify them, he basically is saying he knows better than
anybody. But of course, during the campaign, he said he knows more than
the generals. He really believes that and it`s dangerous. And for members
of Congress to sit back and watch what he`s doing and watch the damage that
he`s doing in this country and to watch him just guide us into a possible
war, and not speak up because they`re concerned about their re-election, is
not responsible. I believe it is time for Republicans especially to walk
over to the White House and tell him enough is enough. As a matter of fact

HAYES: What do you mean by that though?

WATERS: I think he should be impeached

HAYES: Yes, well, Al Green was going to introduce a resolution yesterday,
I was going to ask you if you would vote for impeachment just knowing what
you know now. But when you say Republicans go in over and say enough is
enough, what do you mean by that tangibly?

WATERS: What I mean is Republicans should step up to the plate and
confront the fact that this President appears to be unstable that he
appears to be taking us into war, that he has openly obstructed justice in
front of our face, and that increasingly we`re finding that there`s more
and more lies about the connection with Russia. I believe that there
really has been collusion and I do think that our Special Counsel Mueller
is going to connect those dots. But I think there`s enough now that we all
know, and we all see, and we all understand that we should be moving on
impeachment.

HAYES: All right, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, always a pleasure.

WATERS: You`re welcome. Thank you.

HAYES: Ben Howe is a Writer for RedState conservative political blog, and
Lanhee Chen, an Adviser for Marco`s 2016 Presidential Campaign. Lahnhee
what did you make of Kelly`s performance today?

LANHEE CHEN, ADVISER TO MARCO RUBIO`S 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: You
know, I thought that it was a sincere performance. You know, I think he
did fine. But I thought the most interesting thing Chris, about the
exchange was, you know, this is a guy who has commanded large forces of
soldiers. This is a guy who`s been in war multiple times. He`s been shot
at no doubt. And he said the hardest job he`s ever had, the hardest job is
being the White House Chief of Staff. That to me is indicative, I think,
of the challenges that face this Presidency and this White House. And the
fact that Kelly`s still in there, I think is a testament to John Kelly.

HAYES: Ben, the sort of going after the press which has been a kind of
constant theme here. There`s an exchange where Senator Ben Sasse sort –
of Nebraska rapped the President for his you know, decertification, de-
licensing. Do you think there`s broad conservative revulsion at that or do
they generally feel like yes, these people are our enemies?

BEN HOWE, WRITER, REDSTATE: It`s been interesting to watch, actually
because I think a lot of conservatives in previous administrations, if a
President was going to go after the press, one of the first things – after
their license specifically – I think they would have said, why is the
government involved in licensing media anyway? And they`d talk free
markets and things like that. I mean, that`s what I would have done. But
instead, they seem to play by what a lot of them call the new rules which
is the liberals made the rules and now we`re going to play by them. So
even though it might conflict with what should be their conservative point
of view, they`re going to end up taking the position, yes, let`s take their
license away because we`re just following their new rules anyway.

HAYES: There is a great story, Lanhee that to me epitomized part of the –
part of the problem that`s to the core of this Presidency and particularly
in domestic politics (INAUDIBLE) of Republican Party which is this. The
President is trying to get this tax proposal done, he`s been sort of
working on that while this sort of awful news cycle has swirled hem with
Corker comments. And this is what Bloomberg reported. Months after the
White House proposed ending a tax break for people in the high-tax states,
President Donald Trump grew angry when he learned that the change would
hurt some middle-income taxpayers. He keeps finding out what the actual
substantive agenda is and keeps getting angry about it. What do you make
of that?

CHEN: Well, tax reform is complicated and as it turns out health care is
complicate too. I mean, look, all of these issues have multiple
dimensions. There`s a reason why we haven`t done a big tax reform since
1986. And it`s going to be challenging in any situation. You know, when
the White House has had to answer this question about the impact of their
tax plan on middle-income taxpayers, they`ve had to say, look, we can`t
guarantee that every middle-income taxpayer is going to get a tax cut and
we can`t guarantee that there won`t be a single middle-income taxpayer that
won`t see a tax increase. But that`s the reality. These are really tough
issues and I think now as they dig into it they`re finding out how
difficult that could be.

HAYES: Well, but Ben, Ross Douthat made this point that I thought was very
good. He said, Trump is a terrible President who nonetheless has sounder
political instincts than anyone from the GOP leadership, which is him
responding to the story from Bloomberg. You`ve got Trump at one level who
does have in some ways political instincts about this stuff that I think is
sounder than, say, Paul Ryan`s. But you`ve still got the Ryan agenda at
the core but – and they cannot make the whole thing work.

HOWE: I think he`s got great salesman instincts. And being a good
salesman works well with the American people if you go past the media, go
straight to Twitter and things like that. I really think this whole
administration would do a lot better if the people like Kelly wouldn`t come
out and try to translate for him and make it seem as though he`s just this
reasonable guy and has all these reasonable positions, when we`ve all got
eyes, we can see how he is. And you know, if they would just be a little
more honest and – when they say he`s a straight talker, I mean, he is a
straight talker, so embrace that and just say, look, I wouldn`t have said
it but I`m not the President.

HAYES: Well, he`s – I would say he`s a weird mix of a sort of shockingly
honest in some moments and then just like incredibly, incredibly in your
face deceptive in others. They`re sort of all mixed – all mixed together.

HOWE: I think some people call that diarrhea of the mouth but yes.

HAYES: So, Lanhee, do you think – you know, the Kelly is clearly out
there because of the Corker comments and because of the kind of reporting
about the background and because of Tillerson, et cetera. I mean, do you
think Republicans are behind closed doors saying, like where`s this guy
going and concerned about that?

CHEN: Well, I think Republicans feel like there are a number of folks in
the administration who are playing very important roles. I think Rex
Tillerson is one of them, Jim Mattis is another, certainly, John Kelly and
the question becomes if those individuals end up leaving the administration
for some reason, then what? So I think there is certainly concern about
the future of those individuals because I think a lot of folks feel like
they`re the people who are there promoting – you know, in some ways I
guess more traditional conservative viewpoints on a lot of these issues.
Without them, the question is, well, what comes next? There`s more
uncertainty and that worries people.

HAYES: All right, Ben Howe and Lanhee Chen, thank you both.

CHEN: Thanks.

HOWE: Thank you.

HAYES: Tonight, fed up with Congress, the President signs an executive
order as part of a continued and sustained effort to dismantle ObamaCare.
What his latest effort actually accomplishes in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: After nine months of being thwarted by his own party in the effort
to repeal and replace ObamaCare, President Trump today decided to sign an
executive order to undermine the law. Except when the time came to sign
the order, he forgot.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We will have great health care in our country. Thank you all very
much. I appreciate it, thank you. Thank you very much, thank you. Thank
you, everybody.

PENCE: Mr. President, you need to sign it.

TRUMP: Oh, the most important thing. I`m only signing it because it costs
nothing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: After that momentary lapse, the President did get around to signing
the order which allows skimpier plans in some circumstances and could erode
health care exchanges by drawing away healthier enrollees. The new order
only part what was has been a brought campaign against the ACA. With
Congress repeatedly trying and failing to pass repeal and replace
legislation, the administration has worked to chip away at the law however
it can. That includes gutting the advertisement budget for enrollment,
slashing outreach funds to help people navigate health care exchanges and
enroll, shutting down the ObamaCare sign-up site for 12 hours and almost
every Sunday of open enrollment, and cutting that open enrollment period.
My next guest calls Donald Trump`s actions synthetic repeal has been
tweeting extensively to how the new executive order is yet another sabotage
campaign, Andy Slavitt, former Acting Administrator for Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services. Good to have you here.

ANDY SLAVITT, FORMER ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND
MEDICAID SERVICE: Great to be here.

HAYES: You`re a must follow for me on all this. You got – you know this
inside and out. Let`s start with what do you mean by – I love the term
synthetic repeal, what`s that mean?

SLAVITT: Look, the Republican Party and Trump ran seven years of raising
nine figures of money on a promise that they would very simply repeal and
replace the ACA. So going back as we go into 2018, an election year and
telling their donors, oh, we can`t do it, it`s just not a possibility. So
I think left to his own devices, they`re coming up with everything they can
do to say, forget John McCain, you know, he`s a rhino. We are going to be
able to do everything that we promised to do through this executive order
and by cutting some Medicaid through the tax bill.

HAYES: So I guess what does that mean for people, right? So the executive
order today combined with what they`ve been doing, like, what does that
mean for the landscape of health care?

SLAVITT: Well, think about the major pieces of repeal. One of them was
that they were going to remove the federal protections against pre-existing
conditions. According to the American Academy of Actuaries who looked at
the executive order as it came out today, that`s exactly what this does.
The other thing they`re going –

HAYES: So it removes protections for pre-existing conditions?

SLAVITT: Well, and it does it by essentially creating a second plan as you
– as you described to your viewers earlier, and that plan sitting
alongside the ACA essentially, with no rules, no regulations, is basically
designed to allow young, healthy people – so this is great by the way for
28-year-old males, 28-year-old males can find cheaper policies as long as
they don`t get sick, (INAUDIBLE) for everybody else. It brings their costs
up and if you have a pre-existing condition, that not only mean it brings
your costs up but according to the actuaries they think many insurers are
going to leave entirely and there may not be the availability of coverage.

HAYES: So, I saw a wide variety of health care groups today across the
sort of spectrums of interests and stakeholders coming out against this.
You`ve talked about a few. There`s a question how long this will take and
if they`ll actually do it. They have had a record of issuing executive
orders and Dave Dayen of the Intercept did a great job of tracking this,
where they issue an executive order and then no one does anything on it, it
just sits there.

SLAVITT: Well, that`s a really great point. Because if this scratches the
President`s itch to have done something, and then these orders go to
Treasury and to Human Services and Labor and they – and they take their
time and put out some regs and they water them down from here, we could
actually – and let the country move on to other issues, that would
actually be a good thing. I think what people are fearful of, if you
listened to his press conference today, what Trump said was, this is the
beginning of the dismantling of the ACA. And I think we`re going to have
to figure out whether he means it or whether this is just his rhetoric.

HAYES: So the theme here for all this stuff is that the ACA sort of tried
to create this marketplace where you had healthy people and sick people and
old people and young people, everyone pooling the risk together, you smooth
out the risk, and you can charge premiums that are acceptable, subsidized
by the government. The theme it seems to me, everything they`ve done on
this legislation in terms of what they`ve done at the executive level is
hiving off those healthy people, right, stopping the outreach to get them
in, giving them other options.

SLAVITT: Right. And I think that`s just a function of it just not being
the ACA. I don`t think that`s actually his political philosophy. I don`t
think that`s anyone`s political philosophy.

HAYES: There`s no political philosophy.

SLAVITT: Right. I think you`re going to do conservative think tank. In
1993 when they`re battling Hillary Care, they said hey, why don`t we create
an exchange with one risk pool? That would be the best idea possible. So
I think you`ve just got essentially a man who feels like he needs to
deliver something and hopes his donors forgive.

HAYES: And there`s this fundamental also conceptual you know, sort of
promiscuousness here where you know, Cassidy-Graham, three weeks ago, the
bill they`re going to pass which would be 50 different state regimes, which
is the opposite of like take the lines off around the states, which is
different from what the E.O. is today. There`s no like, unifying
principle here.

SLAVITT: Right, you know, I think if they would have given Graham another
few months, he`s so good at the Sunday shows, he might have come up with
kind of a unifying sounding theme. The problem is in reality when they say
we`re going to give states more authority, and you look at what happened,
Oklahoma, Minnesota, they submitted waivers to the Trump administration and
they didn`t get them approved.

HAYES: They didn`t even get answers.

SLAVITT: They didn`t even get answers.

HAYES: Because they would like – they literally wrote to them and said,
what`s up, and got nothing.

SLAVITT: It`s only federalism. I mean, you know, that`s really what we`re
dealing with.

HAYES: All right, Andy Slavitt, thanks for joining me.

SLAVITT: Still to come, as desperation mounts on the numbers of Americans
dying on the island continues to rise, why on earth did the President of
the United States threaten to pull federal emergency response out of Puerto
Rico? That story is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Three weeks after Hurricane Maria ripped apart Puerto Rico, the
government puts the official number of people dead at 49. But two
Democratic members of Congress want a federal audit on that number citing
recent reports suggesting the death toll is much higher than is being
officially acknowledged. And while hundreds of people remained unaccounted
for, the President implied that he`s already ready to abandon the federal
recovery effort saying in a statement released on Twitter, “We cannot keep
FEMA, the military, and the first responders who`ve been amazing under the
most difficult circumstances in P.R. forever.” White House Chief of Staff
John Kelly later explained the comment was “exactly accurate,” which in a
certain sense is correct. FEMA and the U.S. military won`t be in Puerto
Rico doing disaster recovery for literal ever. But that also seems to miss
the point.

And the President suggested this 22 days after the storm made landfall in
Puerto Rico to put that in some context, FEMA was present in New Orleans
for six years after Hurricane Katrina. And if the President does pull
recovery effort on 3.5 American million – 3.5 million American citizens,
he`ll be leaving more than 85 percent of the island still without power,
roughly 40 percent without clean drinking water. a Few days ago, a CBS
reporter captured images of cars lining up in the town of Montai (ph)
Puerto Rico to get fresh water from a PVC pipe that tapped into a hillside
stream.

And here`s a picture of a FEMA flyer instructing resident of Punta Santiago
(ph), Puerto Rico, an area without internet or cell phone coverage, to call
or register online for disaster assistance.

The journalist who snapped that picture joins me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JASON MADDY, FRM. ARMY CAVALRY SCOUT: We`re currently in Nasci (ph),
Puerto Rico. We have an urgent message to get out about what`s really
going on here in western Puerto Rico.

Right now we`re only giving out to the people in the mountains one small
meal and six bottles
of water per family. That is all they`re getting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That was former Army Cavalry Scout Jason Maddy on the ground in
Nasco, Puerto Rico, a town of about 30,000.

Molly Crabapple is a contributor for BuzzFeed and contributing editor at
Vice, just got back from Puerto Rico and joins me now.

It`s good to have you here. I know your dad is from the island. You have
friends there.

You got outside San Juan. Where were you?

MOLLY CRABAPPLE, CONTRIBUTOR, BUZZFEED: I was in Barrio Mariana, which is
a small village in the municipality of Umacao (ph), which is the first
place on the island that the hurricane hit.

HAYES: And what was – how much federal presence did you see there in
terms of military or
FEMA or federal officials?

CRABAPPLE: I personally saw zero presence. When I was there, the only aid
that people in Mariana had received was a municipal truck that gave people
two small bottles of water, a pack of
tropical-flavored Skittles, a Nutrigrain bar, and a pack of Virginia
sausages.

I do know that the military and the FBI came about three weeks after the
hurricane and they did
distribute MREs and water, but that was pretty much it.

HAYES: And in terms of how people were living their lives there, I`m
assuming there was no
electricity.

CRABAPPLE: None.

HAYES: And how were people – how are people getting the basics, which is
water, electricity,
and food?

CRABAPPLE: Some people had generators. But if you have a generator, your
life becomes an endless wait on six-hour lines for diesel. To get water,
you either waited for hours and hours at Costco using your scarce reserves
of gasoline, or you went to a creek on the side of a mountain and you
collected it in a jug.

HAYES: So people were just getting rainwater off a creek?

CRABAPPLE: Yeah – or the spring water off a creek, that`s what I did.
And then we would – I brought a filter, and we`d purify it.

But this is very dangerous because disease is spreading on the island,
because there were all of these animal corpses that were left to rot, and
it`s getting into the water.

HAYES: So, I mean, how – it sounds to me like a nonfunctional situation.
So it`s like – it sounds like what`s happening is people`s days are taken
up with the basics of survival. There`s nothing – no one`s going to work
or doing the things that you would normally do.

CRABAPPLE: Exactly.

Communication is so bad that even pharmaceutical companies, which are the
biggest industries there, are calling into the one radio station to tell
their workers whether or not they should come to work.

So people, most people don`t have the ability to get to their jobs. Their
credit cards don`t work. Their EBT cards don`t work. Huge lines to access
the ATM. And you have a $200 maximum. And you know that cash will run
out.

So it`s the struggle for survival. But the thing about Puerto Ricans is
that this is a very,
very close-knit culture, this is a culture of family, it`s a culture of
friends, it`s a culture of barrios, of neighborhoods. And so people are
taking care of each other. It`s not the federal government that`s taking
care of people ,and it`s not FEMA, it`s people taking care of each other.

In Barrio Mariana, the couple that I stayed with, Christine Nedez (ph) and
Luis Rodriguez Sanchez, actually set up a community kitchen that`s
currently feeding hundreds of people. And these community kitchens are
happening all over the island. As people give up on help from FEMA and
decide to take caring for themselves and their neighbors into their own
hands.

HAYES: How aware will people of this sort of – the president`s comments,
the president`s perspective towards Puerto Rico, over the feelings about
the federal government and its involvement?

CRABAPPLE: One older woman I spoke to said, oh, Trump came into the
richest town in Puerto Rico and threw toilet paper at people`s heads. He`s
trying to humiliate us.

In general, it`s viewed as an extension of the same sort of racist,
colonialist, and stereotypical
thinking that America has had for Puerto Rico since it colonized it in
1898.

HAYES: Do you think – do folks have hope that things are going to change
in the short-term? Or is there this sense that this – adjustments we`ve
made to just eke out survival, which is food, water, electricity, diesel,
that that is going to be the status quo for a while?

CRABAPPLE: Some people have accepted that that will be the status quo for
a while and are trying to build on it with these community efforts. Other
people are just sort of hanging on. One woman that I met, her mother who
has Alzheimer`s and dementia and can`t speak, was – she is kicked
out of her nursing home because there was no electricity and doesn`t have
access to medicine. And she`s trying to keep her mother alive in this
crushing heat with no access to clean water. Someone like that needs help
as soon as possible. They can`t just adjust.

HAYES: All right, Molly Crabapple, thank you for your reporting. Thank
you for joining us.

CRABAPPLE: Thank you so much.

HAYES: Still to come, why a senior Facebook executive says they owe the
American people an apology ahead.

Plus, tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two, it`s a good one next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Thing One tonight, Senator Lindsey Graham gave a 33-minute
interview to Golf magazine to defend his claim that during a round of golf
on Monday, President Trump shot a 73 in windy and wet conditions. That
contention raised plenty of eyebrows because it would mean the 71-year-old
president would rank among the best senior golfers in the entire world.

For some context, consider hall of fame golfer Hale Irwin, who turned 72 in
June, has a scoring
average of just over 73 in the seven champions tour events he`s played this
year.

But in the course of attempting to justify his claim, the president shot a
73, Lindsey Graham perhaps inadvertently gave away Trump`s secret for
success on the course – he cheats. And that`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: In defending his implausible claim that President Trump shot a 73
on the golf course Monday, Senator Lindsey Graham admitted to Golf magazine
the president likes to take gimme putts
instead of finishing out the hole. But we know what the president
considers a gimme and it is, shall we say, generous. Sports Writer Rick
Riley told The Washington Post that Trump once called a gimme on what
should have been a chip shot, adding when it comes to cheating he`s an 11
on a detail 1 to 10.

Indeed, the president seen here driving his golf cart onto the green is a
notorious cheater on the
course. And there are plenty of stories illustrating just how he does it.
Reportedly, Trump will sometimes respond to a shot he duffed by simply
playing a second ball and carrying on as if the first shot never happened.

TMZ reporting in 2006 that after Trump shanked his shot from the tee out of
bounds he drove down the course, then turned his golf cart to block him as
he took a ball out of his pocket, looked over at his partners to make sure
the bat into the rough.

Trump has been called a cheater by rockstar Alex Cooper, actor Samuel
Jackson, and boxer Oscar de la Hoya, who said Trump hit a ball into the
bushes and then just dropped another one three feet from the hole like it
was there the whole time.

The president denies all this, of course. And in February he forced former
GE CEO Jeff Immelt to tell a very different story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Jeff actually watched me make a hole in one, can you believe that?
Should you tell that story? Actually said I was the best golfer of all the
rich people, to be exact.

JEFF IMMELT, FRM. GE CEO: That`s what you said.

TRUMP: So, it was sort of cool.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: You`ve probably heard about the Russian-linked Facebook ads
purchased to influence the presidential election. But what did that
actually look like?

Here`s one from a group calling itself Defend the Second. And you can see
there a woman holding a gun. The question, why do I have a gun? It is
one of at least 3,000 ads believed to be linked to a particular Russian
troll farm. And reporting indicates the ads were targeted to certain
groups, often focusing on hot-button issues like gun rights or border
security.

If you look carefully at this ad, there`s an immediate clue it may have
been sponsored by a Russian-linked account, quote, “why do I have a gun?
Because it`s easier for my family to get me out of jail than out the
cemetery.” The New York Times notes the spelling often a mistake by
Russians speaking English.

With 3,000 Facebook ads believed to be linked to these reportedly reaching
10 million people in
the run-up to the presidential election, Facebook`s chief operating officer
Sheryl Sandberg went to
Washington this week to meet with the House intelligence committee and the
Congressional Black Caucus to address mounting concerns about these ads and
how they were used.

The House Intelligence Committee plans to release the 3,000 ads to the
public after the tech
companies Facebook, Google, and Twitter testify before congress in the
coming weeks.

But it`s increasingly clear that Facebook, in particular, has created a
system it`s struggling to control. And for the first time Sandberg
addressed it. What she said after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARA SWISHER: Everyone in the Silicon Valley, everything is a benign
platform. We`re just making these tools. We don`t know how they are used.
If you sit with them, it`s exhausting to talk to them about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: There`s a genuine and serious question about whether something as
big as Facebook can ever be, as Kara Swisher called it, the nine platforms,
today Facebook`s Sheryl Sandberg spoke with Axios` Mike Allen for the first
time since revelations about Russian-linked ads on Facebook in the run-up
to the election.

While she offered an apology for the way Facebook handled Russian
interference, the benign
platform defense was also on full display.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERYL SANDBERG, FACEBOOK: We are a platform where people express
themselves every day and keep our platform as free of abuse as possible.
We`re a new kind of platform. In our heart, we`re a tech company, we hire
engineers. We don`t hire reporters. No one`s a journalist. We don`t
cover the news. But when we say that, we`re not saying we don`t have a
responsibility. In fact, we`re a new kind of platform. With our size, as
our size grows, we think we have more responsibility.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Xeni Jardin is co-editor of BoingBoing, it`s a platform in some
ways, Max Red, senior editor of New York magazine and they join me now.

This is the fundamental conundrum, I think. It`s like, what are you? What
are you? What is Facebook?

MARK READ, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: It`s a platform, sure. It`s also a
community about 2
billion people. It`s also a publisher. It`s also an advertising company.
It`s also the most advanced surveillance system on the entire planet, and
it`s all of these things at once. And some of these things have very
mutually exclusive incentives and responsibilities.

HAYES: Well, Xeni, it strikes me that one of the things Max said there is
key, which is that it`s an advertising platform. I mean, the way that they
make money is through surveillance and advertising, which is they figure
out who you are and then they sell ads to target you, and whatever they`re
going to do is they are not going to want to do anything that cuts into
that.

XENI JARDIN, BOINGBOING: Bingo. I mean, more than anything, Facebook
monetizes your attention and mind, the users. There was a time on the
Internet when we didn`t have to go to these walled gardens to connect with
our friends when we had websites and blogs and stuff that were – they were
just sort of more independent. But we all know that half of Americans are
so – get their news through Facebook.

What people don`t know is that news publishers, in order to get the news to
you, or to get their
political campaign to you, typically have to pay Facebook. And that`s –
when we talk about ads in this context, which Sheryl Sandberg mentioned,
even as she brought up a red herring with Twitter`s handling of Marsha
Blackburn`s campaign ad, remember she mentioned that in this Axios
interview, she talked about how Twitter made a bad call in essentially
banning a political ad.

But what she said right after that was a big tell. She said Blackburn and
everybody else, essentially people know – everyone knows that in order to
reach your audience on Facebook, you have to pay. My site Boingboing.net,
if we want to ensure that we`re going to reach a certain number of
eyeballs, MSNBC, BuzzFeed, anyone, you have to pay.

So, here`s the thing, Sandberg said in that interview that it was
traceable, that the Russian psy ops campaign, the active measures that
Russia blitzed our internet with during the last election, so that was paid
ads as well and they were paid for in rubles. So like show me the
receipts. If they`re in rubles, it shouldn`t be that hard to track down.
And why not have Facebook return that money, like everybody`s saying that
Hillary Clinton ought to do with Weinstein`s money and everybody talking
about the donations that Harvey Weinstein made, and that the political
beneficiaries of those donations should return it.

I say Facebook ought to return that, because Facebook is profiting off of
this and they knew it when it was happening.

HAYES: Did they know it when it was happening? I mean, that`s the
question, right? Like, I think a lot about the parallel – because I`ve
spent a lot of time covering the financial crisis. And there`s a big
question about the financial crisis was like were they dumb or avaricious,
like did they not realize what they were doing? Was it hubris or was it
avarice. And it was, of course, both.

Here with Facebook, it`s like, do they not know? Do they not care? Do
they just want to make a lot of money?

READ: I think it`s all three. I think they`ve created a system that`s so
big and so widespread and also so automated that they don`t – they can`t
look at all of it all the time.

HAYES: This is the key. It`s like buying an ad on Facebook is like
getting a candy bar off a vending machine, you know what I mean? It`s
like you just go and you fill out the form and then you`re running ads.

READ: You don`t have to talk to somebody for it. And that`s been great
for small businesses and small groups that need it, but it`s also great for
Russians, for example, who might want to buy ads on Facebook and not have
anybody know that they are Russian.

HAYES: Do you think that the platform in its current incarnation, at the
current size, can continue in this way with the changes that someone like
Sandberg promises? Xeni?

JARDIN: Sorry – absolutely not.

I think – look, I think what we`re seeing right now is Sheryl Sandberg on
the most earnest charm offensive, crisis PR tour of all time.

I think Sheryl Sandberg and Mark Zuckerberg both know that what they are
staring at is the
possibility of government regulations. And they`d very much like to avoid
that.

As I heard yesterday earlier today on MSNBC, this is not about re-
litigating the 2016 elections alone, although the result of that election
is something that feels very unstable and very scary to a lot
of us adults.

HAYES: Right.

JARDIN: But this is also about moving ahead. So if Facebook, as I believe
they did, was essentially identified by Russian intelligence as having some
big, gaping security holes that could be exploited by Russia for their own
purposes, that has to be addressed in a much bigger way than just this sort
of super well rehearsed PR event that happened today.

It`s not like questions were even rehearsed. And I didn`t hear an answer.
I didn`t hear real answers, for instance, about she was asked by Mike Allen
at Axios, is it possible that the Russian ad buy targeting and the Trump
campaign ad buy targeting overlapped? She didn`t answer it. She deferred
to the government releasing that information in due time. It just felt
seemed so disingenuous so not genuine and like a real insult to a lot of
Americans who have trust in Facebook as a platform
that doesn`t profit off of pushing misinformation at us.

And that`s the thing, it`s not – this is not about free speech in the way
that Sandberg kept punting to in that interview. They are not a nonprofit,
and this is about constitutional or first amendment issues alone, this is
about are you free to profit off of something that harms America when you
know it`s harming America?

HAYES: The free – they want – the free speech argument seems like sort
of almost imbued in a lot of the kind of tech culture…

READ: Yeah, absolutely.

HAYES: …at Silicon Valley and very present at Facebook, too.

READ: Yeah, and they like the free speech argument because it`s one that
we all sort of intuitively understand and support.

But it`s important to recognize that Facebook is not a government, you
know, it might sort of seem like a state or like a government, but free
speech works in the United States because we have a very lengthy history of
judicial body of law and judicial rulings and ways to hold the government
accountable and to fight back and to appeal rulings, and Facebook is a
giant black box with a few people at the very top and their ideas about
what should be allowed and what shouldn`t be is somewhere in there and sort
of filtered out into a bunch of moderator contracts that live in Bangladesh
and the Philippines and wherever else.

And that`s not – they`re not like the U.S. government where we can say,
yes, we have a right to free speech on this.

HAYES: Xeni Jardin and Max Read, thank you both.

That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts now. Good
evening, Rachel.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.

END

Copy: Content and programming copyright 2017 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
content.