Trump moves to throw health care system into chaos. TRANSCRIPT: 3/26/19, All In w/ Chris Hayes.

Guests:
Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Walter Dellinger, Ed Markey, Natasha Bertrand
Transcript:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST:  So it`s now up to the Supreme Court to take

action.  People shouldn`t be robbed of their representation in Congress by

political sleight of hand.  As the Washington Post warns every day,

democracy dies in darkness.  And that`s HARDBALL for now.  “ALL IN” with

Chris Hayes starts right now.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST:  Tonight on ALL IN.

 

STACEY ABRAMS (D), FORMER GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE, GEORGIA:  I intend to

think it`s like having your brother summarize your report card to your

parents.

 

HAYES:  New reporting on what America can expect to see the Mueller report

as the President begins a new attack on Medicaid, coverage for pre-existing

conditions, and the health insurance for millions.

 

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  The Republican party will

soon be known as the party of health care.

 

HAYES:  Tonight Donald Trump`s stunning assault on ObamaCare with 2020

candidates Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg.  Then the biggest questions

that still need answers as we get our first timetable for the release of

the Mueller report.  And why Republicans forced a vote on the Green New

Deal.

 

SEN. MIKE LEE (R), UTAH:  There was no battle with or without

Velociraptors.

 

HAYES:  When ALL IN starts right now.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Good evening from New York I`m Chris Hayes.  The President may not

have been exonerated by Robert Mueller, in fact, he explicitly wasn`t, but

he sure is acting like it.  Two days after the release of a four-page

letter from Trump`s hand-picked Attorney General William Barr selectively

quoting a Mueller report that almost no one has actually seen which Trump

falsely claimed amounted to a “total exoneration,” the President is now

adding a flourish to his victory lap.

 

He has instructed that hand-picked Attorney General to do just about the

most destructive thing possible, move to strip health care coverage from

more than 20 million Americans and throw the entire healthcare system in

this country into utter and immediate chaos.

 

Trump`s Justice Department filing a brief letter indicating it now agrees

with a December ruling by far-right District Judge Reed O`Connor striking

down the entirety of ObamaCare in response to a lawsuit from a group of

conservative attorneys general.

 

Now that ruling, the original ruling of the District Court was seen across

partisan and ideological spectrum as very far outside the legal mainstream. 

So far outside the mainstream that even the Trump administration itself did

not initially support it, but now just like that they do setting up a legal

battle that is expected to reach the Supreme Court.

 

And here`s what it would mean if Trump gets his way and ObamaCare is struck

down as the Department of Justice is now calling for officially.  More than

20 million people covered through the Medicaid expansion and the exchanges

will be stripped of their coverage, taken away.  There will no longer be

protections for people with pre-existing conditions.  And a health care

system that has changed dramatically in the nine years and ObamaCare has

been law will be thrown into chaos.

 

It would have hugely dire consequences for tens of million people even

those not covered by ObamaCare.  The health insurance industry says the

government`s position puts covered at risk for more than 100 million

Americans.  Those are the real-world implications of this move.

 

And then there are the political repercussions.  Democrats won big in 2018

by running in large part and primarily on health care.  Polls show a clear

majority of Americans want ObamaCare to remain law and overwhelmingly

opposed eliminating protection for people with pre-existing conditions.

 

In fact, just this morning, Democrats unveiled a new bill to strengthen

protections for those with pre-existing conditions while lowering premiums. 

And they took the opportunity to spotlight the difference between the two

parties.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:  The GOP

will never stop trying to destroy the Affordable Health Care of America`s

families.  In this House, with the Democratic majority we`re here to

strengthen those protections and to lower health care costs further because

this house, this Democratic House is for the people.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Nine years after ObamaCare became a law, Republicans still have yet

to produce a workable ObamaCare replacement bill when they`ve promised for

so, so long.  What they have done is develop a new strategy which is to lie

to people`s faces, to insist they actually support for instance, protecting

people with pre-existing conditions while actively working to destroy them

and to make meaningless pronouncements like the Republican Party will

magically become the party of health care no explanation needed.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

PELOSI:  Is this an inconsistency if not a hypocrisy here.  Why would you

mislead the American people that way?  Why would you say you support the

benefit of a pre-existing condition when you voted to eliminated and now

overwhelmingly are part of a lawsuit to eliminate it and support an

administration who want to do away with the whole bill.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Joining me now with his reaction Vermont Independent Senator and

2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders.  Senator, surprised

at all by the move by the White House to do this and or the timing?

 

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT:  Nope, not surprised at all.  Nothing

Trump and his friends do are surprises me.  The idea however that they

would ask the courts to say that the Affordable Care Act is

unconstitutional and throw up to 30 million people off their health

insurance they have, do away – do away with the protections we have for

pre-existing conditions, do away with the fact that young people 26 or

younger can have the insurance that their parents have, raised drug prices

for seniors.  No.  I mean, it`s a tout outrage but we`ve seen this movie

before.

 

HAYES:  Do you think – I mean, one of the things that`s always been

bizarre here and sort of maddening about this is the President said he was

for universal health care.  It was going to be great health care and

cheaper and everyone was going to get it.  People really believed him.  If

you looked at the polling, you talked to people the campaign trail.  He`s

at it again today.  Do you think that message sells or do people see

through?

 

SANDERS:  Well, I`m going to do everything that I can to tell the American

people including the many people who voted for Trump that he is an absolute

fraud as you`ve just indicated.  He talked in his campaign about health

care for everybody and then supported legislation that would throw over 30

million people off the health care that they have.

 

So we have got to expose him for what he is and we have got to talk about

where we should be going as a country.  I don`t know, Chris, how many

Americans know that we`re the only major country on earth not to guarantee

health care for all people, that we spend almost twice as much per capita

on health care as through the people of other nations, that our health care

outcomes in terms of life expectancy are not as good as many of the

countries, that the cost of prescription drugs in this country is far, far

higher than any other nation earth.

 

That`s the message we`ve got to take to the American people.  The function

of health care is quality care for all, not to make billions in profits

with the insurance companies and the drug companies.

 

HAYES:  OK, so you talk about where we should go.  So I want to talk about

that now.  The Democrats introduced legislation in the House today that is

focused on some reforms and modifications to ObamaCare, particularly people

who are in the exchanges who have very high premiums.  Do you support the

legislation the House produce today?

 

SANDERS:  No.  I support the Medicare for all single-payer program.  Look -

-

 

HAYES:  Wait, wait, I just want to be clear.  So you don`t support that

incremental reform?

 

SANDERS:  No.  The incremental that I support is phasing in Medicare for

all first year, we would lower the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to

55 and cover all of the children, and by the way expand Medicare coverage

for elderly people to include dental care, eyeglasses, and hearing aids. 

That`s the incremental four year program that I wrote and that I support.

 

HAYES:  Right.  But I just want to be clear about this.  So if that House

bill were to come over to the Senate, you would vote against it right now?

 

SANDERS:  Look, right now it`s – right now we are working on what I have

fought for my entire life.  Health care is a right.  It has to be publicly

funded, it has to be comprehensive.  The current system, Chris, is

dysfunctional.  It is enormously wasteful.  We spend hundreds of billions

of dollars every single year on administrative cost, outrageous

compensation packages for the CEOs of the insurance and drug companies.

 

Ultimately we have got to do it every other major country does and that is

guaranteed health care to all, do it through public funding, save huge

amounts of money, and administrative costs.  That`s Medicare for all. 

 

HAYES:  OK.  So there`s lots of people running on Medicare for all but

there`s been some interesting sort of debate about what it means, and

there`s sort of two different ways that people are talking about it now. 

One is what your – you`ve talked about a four year phase and you lower it

and you get Medicare for all, the other is the idea of sort of a Medicare

buy-in, right?

 

So you don`t say everybody is in the Medicare system, you just say everyone

has the option two, you can actually buy in a Medicare rates, that`s called

Medicare for America.  There`s a bill with that name of the House.  That is

polling very well right now 51 to 30 percent whereas the sort of more

traditional medical for all the you support is even.  What do you what do

you think about that as an alternative?  Why not sort of slide towards the

system in an optional way?

 

SANDERS:  Because ultimately we have to recognize that the current system

is incredibly dysfunctional and wasteful.  Its goal is to make profits for

the insurance companies and the drug companies.  You are not going to be

able in the long run to have cost-effective universal health care unless

you change the system, unless you get rid of the insurance companies,

unless you stand up the greed of the drug companies and lower prescription

drug costs.

 

That`s the only way that you could provide quality here or people.  I look

at healthcare, Chris, the same way as I look at public education, the same

way look at police protection, fire protection, all people get it

regardless of their income.  It is publicly funded.  That is the most cost-

effective way to provide care for all.

 

HAYES:  So you – and you`ve been very clear about that and very consistent

about that through the entirety of your career.  But I guess the question

is about A, the path to get there and what is an incremental improvement

right?  So I mean, for instance, you voted for the ACA because that was an

improvement upon the status quo.  Would you vote for say Medicare for

America if that came up in the Senate?

 

SANDERS:  Right now – right now, it isn`t going to come up in the Senate.

 

HAYES:  Unless Mitch McConnel wants to troll you guys like he did to the

Green New Deal, it might.

 

SANDERS:  Yes.  You know, look, you got a Republican President Trump and

you got Republican leadership who want to throw 30 million people off of

health insurance.  They don`t want to add anybody on to health insurance. 

I think we`re going to stay focused on – keep our eyes on the prize.  And

the prize is health care as a right regardless of income, that we need

doctors to be in places where they aren`t right now, we need more nurses,

we need to take on the drug companies.  That`s what we have to do.

 

And look, let me be very clear about it.  You know, I just spoke to I think

35,000 people in California over the weekend at three different rallies,

and the point that I made Chris is this is not going to be an easy fight.

 

HAYES:  Right.

 

SANDERS:  When you have health insurance at 18 percent of our GDP, when

we`re spending about $11,000 a year, when the profits for the insurance

companies and the drug companies are incredible, they are going to fight us

tooth and nail.  They`re going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in

terms of lying about what Medicare for all is in buying and selling

politicians.  They an enormous number of lobbyists that spend a huge amount

of money on campaign contributions.

 

This is going to be real fight.  And the only way we win it, Chris, to my

mind this is not a debate over health care, this is a political fight that

the American people stand up and take on these very powerful special

interests or do we not.

 

HAYES:  Although ironically I would say those drug companies and health

insurance companies are not psyched about the idea so the Supreme Court

striking down ObamaCare one day and everyone waking up with the system in

total disruption the next.  Senator Bernie Sanders, thank you for being

with me tonight.

 

SANDERS:  Thank you, Chris.

 

HAYES:  I want to turn now to another potential 2020 Democratic

presidential contender South Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg.  Mayor,

I`ll ask you the same question.  Were you surprised at all by the move by

the Department of Justice which is fairly irregular or the timing to go

full in on calling for the ACA to be entirely struck down?

 

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG (D), SOUTH BENT, INDIANA:  There`s a matter of policy

I`m not surprised because this seems to be the position they hold deep

down.  Just take this health care coverage away from millions of Americans. 

As a matter of political strategy, I`m a little bit surprised because you

know most Americans want this.  And so at this moment when they were going

to take a victory lap around what was happening in Washington, suddenly

they`re reminding us why so many of us are Democrats.

 

You know, one thing I`ve been thinking about is the amazing shift between

2010 when I was a young nominee for state treasurer and watching as a

Democrat on the ticket how we were getting absolutely beat up.  I mean,

health care, the ACA, there`s a toxic issue for Democrats.  And then by

2018, it was the winning issue for Democrats.

 

What happened in those years?  Well, it`s very simple.  The bill was

actually implemented and people liked it.  You know, back in 2010 they`re

talking about all these theoretical things that might be like death panels. 

By 2018 in the town halls that happen then, you had regular Americans

getting in the faces of members of Congress saying this is what this bill

has done to make my life better.

 

And it turns out it`s just harder to lie to somebody about their everyday

life.  So the idea that they would want to do this is a little strange to

me politically but again this is their policy.  They call themselves

mystified that the president thinks this will help them become the party of

healthcare.

 

I don`t know how you can become the party of healthcare when you`re now

making it abundantly clear that your position on healthcare is to take it

away from millions of Americans.

 

HAYES:  You know, it`s interesting you bring up that 2010 race in which you

were running statewide on – for treasurer and lost that race.  There`s two

ways to think about that right?  So one is that people didn`t know what it

was and they saw ObamaCare and liked it, the other is that voters are

extremely risk-averse with respect to health care no matter what right? 

They don`t like changes and they are worried about it.  And how much does

that factor in your thinking about where the health care system should go

next?

 

BUTTIGIEG:  Well, it`s one reason that I think the glide path toward a

Medicare for all or single-payer environment should be what I would call

Medicare for all who want it not just because it might be easier for people

to swallow but also just practically.  You know, anybody – any politician

who goes around raising hopes about Medicare for all and I believe in

Medicare for all, but any of us who allows those words to escape our lips

ought to have a very credible, very clear path and plan about how we`re

supposed to get from here to there.

 

The way I would do it would be to take a version of Medicare, make it

available on the exchanges as a kind of public option, and then if people

like me are right that this is not only going to be more widespread

coverage but also better more cost-effective than this corporate patchwork

system we have now, then people are going to very quickly gravitate toward

it.

 

HAYES:  I`ve heard that argument, I`ve heard a lot more people.  Kirsten

Gillibrand the other day on a town hall making a similar argument.  They

saw that as a glide path.  But if you`re right and if Kirsten Gillibrand is

right and others who support this plan are right, won`t the health

insurance industry fight that just as hard as they would fight just

outright Medicare for all if they know that`s eventually where it`s going

to go?

 

BUTTIGIEG:  Well, if they fight it by actually coming up with something

better, that would be nice but that`s not what we`re seeing.  We have a

system now that is better than the system ten years ago but still not good

enough.  Too many Americans are underinsured and the American – this

system is just unbelievably inefficient.  We`re paying more for worse

outcomes.

 

So, of course, they`re going to fight it from a profitability perspective. 

I think they`re making a lot off the status quo.  But if it`s the right

thing to do, if most Americans get that it`s the right thing to do, then we

should find the courage of our convictions and go out there and talk about

it especially when this is not a matter of competing plans.

 

It`s a bit like climate.  You know and they`re picking on the Green New

Deal framework.  But it`s not the Democratic plan versus the Republican

plan, it`s a Democratic plan versus no plan at all.

 

HAYES:  You`re – you`ve been the mayor of South Bend now for I think this

is your eighth year if I`m not mistaken.  It`s a relatively small city. 

It`s considerably smaller than my home borough of The Bronx.  The U.S.

healthcare system is 330 million people inordinately complex, far more

complex than I can get my arms around.  Why should someone trust that you

with the experience you have would be able to actually navigate the

complexities of that system?

 

BUTTIGIEG:  Because we need leadership that speaks for the communities

including industrial Midwestern communities like mine, and for that matter

rural communities that have felt left out of the process politically in

policy-wise for a long time.  I`m not applying to be the director of CMS. 

I`m talking about the political leadership that is needed in this country

and in this party in order to move us out of the situation we`ve been in.

 

And I would argue that a mayor of a city of any size especially in the

strong mayor system we have here in South Bend.  Somebody who has to

alternate hour by hour from dealing with an economic development puzzle to

responding to a racially sensitive officer-involved shooting has skills

that are certainly a lot more relevant than the current president`s skills,

but also I would argue no less relevant than even a senior member of the

Senate who perhaps has never in their lives managed more than a hundred

people.

 

HAYES:  I want to ask you a slightly off-topic question.  I`ve been reading

these anecdotal accounts of your language ability.  You speak if I`m not

mistaken French, Italian, Spanish, Arabic, Dari, and Maltese.  Your father

is Maltese so that that was early on.  You taught yourself to speak

Norwegian because you liked a Norwegian book.  I don`t believe that or I am

not sure.  Like is that – is this actually true?  Like what level of

proficiency are we talking here or is this like hello, goodbye, good

morning, good night.

 

BUTTIGIEG:  Yes.  I`m not going to claim to be fluent in these languages

especially because it`s been a while since I`ve had a chance to practice

most of them.

 

HAYES:  There are native speakers behind me and all of them were actually

run a test here so.

 

BUTTIGIEG:  No, let`s do it.  We could try it.  You know, I can read a

newspaper article in Italian.  I can do in a halting way, I can do

interviews in Spanish here in our Spanish-language radio station.  A

Norwegian news carrier I guess heard that story and came to interview me in

South Carolina.  We lasted a little while before I kind of ran out of

Norwegian because I wasn`t expecting it.

 

But look, I`m not selling myself as a linguistic genius.  I do think it`s

not a bad thing for us to have leaders who are curious about other parts of

the world, who`ve taken the time to learn other languages and learn about

other cultures especially knowing that America is going to have a lot of

work to do to reestablish our credibility in the rest of the world.

 

HAYES:  I couldn`t agree more.  Anyone that could speak more than one, I

have in awe of.  Peter Buttigieg, thank you so much for your time tonight.

 

BUTTIGIEG:  Thank you.

 

HAYES:  Next, there is now apparently a timetable for the Department of

Justice to release some actual version of the Mueller report.  The fight to

make the Special Counsel`s findings public in two minutes.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

HAYES:  Weeks, not months.  That`s the timeline that a Justice Department

official just laid out for Attorney General William Barr to make a version

– and we say version here of the Mueller report publicly available.  But

there`s an odd situation brewing around the Special Counsel`s

investigation.  Everyone ostensibly is in agreement we should see the

report.

 

The House, for example, voted 420 to 0 for its public release.  Republican

Senators like Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst have said they support release

of the report.  Even Donald Trump said he was fine with it.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Do you want the report to be completely released?

 

TRUMP:  It would be up to the Attorney General but it wouldn`t bother me at

all.  Up to the Attorney General, but it wouldn`t bother me at all.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  When Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tried to get a resolution

passed in the Senate similar to the one the house to make the report

public, the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked him.  So what is

it that Republicans really want here?

 

Here to talk about what`s going on Walter Dellinger former Assistant U.S.

Attorney General and Head of the Office of Legal Counsel under President

Clinton.  Walter, first I guess the question is what do you see as the

process if it were being done entirely properly, the process by which this

report would be made public?

 

WALTER DELLINGER, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL:  Well, you would

– you would assume that they would look for sources and methods,

revelations that you would want to redact so you don`t finger someone in

Vladimir Putin`s inner circle.  But that was not relied upon by Attorney

General Barr in his letter.  He mentioned just reviewing it for secret

grand jury material and for effects on ongoing litigation.

 

Now, the process would – you would assume that it shouldn`t take that long

because Mueller and his team would have already identified the material

that is included in his report that comes from grand jury information and

they also would have perhaps alluded the Attorney General earlier to any

material that may affect other ongoing investigations.

 

I`m a little bit troubled by the tone of the Attorney General`s letter

about grand jury material because he seems to say it`s a strict criminal

law without acknowledging that there are exceptions that might well be

applicable that would here that would allow the release of grand jury

material.  And you know, if you wanted to put all hands on deck on

reviewing this material, you ought to be able to do it in a matter of days,

not months, not weeks, but days.

 

HAYES:  You think days would be a realistic timeline and it was something

that you were prioritizing having worked the Department of Justice?

 

DELLINGER:  Absolutely.  If you made this a priority, you could – you

could do it.  Now, you`d have to ask why would they want to slow it down

and I think there`s every good reason why they would want to continue to

bask in the – in what they preceded me the glory of the Attorney General`s

a synopsis of the of the report.

 

But you know, I think they may be spiking the ball you know a little early. 

I mean, think about this, Chris, the first third of that report is almost

certainly going to be a comprehensive review of Russian military

intervention in America`s election, probably the first really comprehensive

review we will have seen.  And that is going to give the lie to anyone who

suggests that it wasn`t warranted to have this investigation. Of course we

want to know these things.  And it`s going to also raise the question of

why there was no pushback.

 

Secondly, even on the question that where there was more arguably an

exoneration, where it was good news for the campaign that no officials of

the campaign are being charged for what Mueller said would be being an

actual you know, co-conspirator with an understanding with the Soviets,

doesn`t mean that that section of the report won`t indicate the knowledge

that the campaign had about the Russia desire to intervene in the election. 

And the fact that no one in the campaign apparently did anything about it

like calling the FBI. 

 

The third part of the report could be by far the most damning.  I think

people have totally misunderstood what Robert Mueller was up to.  He may

well be laying out all of the facts about the president`s involvement in

interfering with this – with this ongoing investigation.  He did not reach

a conclusion about whether it should be criminally prosecuted because

that`s a hypothetical counterfactual.

 

HAYES:  Right.

 

DELLINGER:  Since the Department believes that you can indict a president,

why would you answer a counterfactual rather than submit a report which you

assume, I think Mueller would have assumed is going to Congress after the

Attorney General had an opportunity to you know, to review it and suggest

redactions.

 

It`s the Attorney General who says the Special Counsel`s decision leaves it

to I would have thought Congress.

 

HAYES:  Right.

 

DELLINGER:  But the answer is leaves it to the Attorney General.  And I

think what you may find is – it is perfectly consistent with everything an

Attorney General Barr`s letter that there`s a devastating account of the

president`s utterly improper well and perhaps even criminal interference

with the investigation.

 

HAYES:  Yes.  I mean, we did – one of the parts quoted is that he goes out

of his way to say this does not mean he`s exonerated which makes one wonder

what exactly the facts found were.  Walter Dellinger as always, thank you

so much for making time.  I appreciate it.

 

DELLINGER:  Thank you, Chris.

 

HAYES:  Coming up, the many unanswered questions about what Robert Mueller

found in his investigation including the events of one exceptionally

notable day during the campaign that I still keep thinking about.  I`ll

explain why it sticks out to me.  That`s next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

HAYES:  As I said yesterday, my primary interest in the Mueller report from

the beginning has

been fundamentally factual.  There is just a lot, a whole lot, that is

obscure and confusing and confounding, and I would like to really know what

happened.  The longer we sit here without the report, the more confusing

things become.

 

Here is just one thing at random that has always stuck with me, the worst

day for the Trump candidacy, by unanimous view, looking at polling or

insider accounts in the campaign was October 7, 2016. The afternoon, the

Obama administration officially accused the Russian government of

interfering with the election process.  Just an hour later, The Washington

Post published the now infamous Access Hollywood tape.

 

We know that was the low point.  Reince Priebus told Trump to drop out. 

Paul  Ryan said he was sickened.  Jason Chaffetz, a man of sterling

consistency and integrity paraded around, talking about he couldn`t look

his daughter in the eye. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

FRM. REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, (R) CA:  I can no longer in good conscience

endorse this person for president.  It is some of the most abhorrent and

offensive comments you can possibly imagine.  And my wife and I, we have a

15-year-old daughter and if I can`t look her in the eye and tell her these,

I can`t endorse this person.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  That lasted about five days.

 

I don`t know if they`ve ever made eye contact since.

 

But there was one little silver lining for Trump that day, it just happened

to be the day that WikiLeaks published their first hacked Podesta emails,

that included the first and biggest headline, which was transcripts of

portions of some of the speeches that Hillary Clinton had given to wall

street.

 

It was by far the biggest, newsiest thing in the entire bunch, nothing

afterwards even came close.

 

But if you`re a publication wanting to get publicity for your very big

scoop, which WikiLeaks ostensibly is, why would you it put this on a Friday

at 4:30 p.m. into a completely overwhelming news cycle as opposed to

waiting until Monday to make a big splash?  If you`re a de facto oppo arm

for a campaign hoping to release whatever chaff you can, then it makes a

lot more sense.

 

What we know from the Stone indictment that someone connected to the Trump

campaign texted Roger Stone, “well done” after that WikiLeaks dump.  Like

way to go, dude.

 

So, did someone reach out to WikiLeaks and say, hey, we could really use

some help.  Did Julian Assange sit there in the Ecuadoran embassy thinking

this is a good time for our big feature?

 

I just want to know.  There are so many questions like these that are

unanswered.

 

Joining me now are Jill Wine-Bank, former assistant special Watergate

prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst, and Natasha Bertrand, staff writer at

The Atlantic, covering the Trump investigation and national security.

 

Natasha, that has always been my number one question of what like happened

on October 7.  What are ones that you`re thinking?

 

NATASHA BERTRAND, THE ATLANTIC:  Oh, my god.  So many questions, Chris. 

And I think that that is the most important thing to remember here is that

we still don`t know what the Mueller

report actually contains.  Does he have a mountain of evidence about

collusion between the campaign and Russia that simply didn`t rise to the

level of a criminal standard, or does he have no evidence, which would be

very unthinkable given everything that we already know about the campaign`s

ties to Russia.

 

But, you know, among my biggest questions are the Manafort campaign data,

the polling data that he gave to Konstantin Kilimnik in August of 2016? 

Why did he do that?  What was he hoping to get in return?  And was that

sanctioned by the Trump campaign?

 

Things like Carter Page`s trip to Russia.  What was that about?  And why

did he send an email back to the campaign congratulating them for changing

the Ukraine platform that essentially helped Russia in that instance.

 

You know, again, the WikiLeaks connection, what was Roger Stone`s ties

there, and was that dump October 7 coordinated in any significant way? 

 

And then of course who is Joseph Mifsud, this shady Maltese professor, who

apparently had knowledge of the Russian`s hack on the Democrats, told a

member of the campaign about it, George Papadopoulos and then virtually

disappeared.

 

HAYES:  Who is he?  Like, exactly, like how does he know?  Was he lying?

 

I mean, again, part of it, Jill, is that you can actually in each

individual case, you can actually come up with some exculpatory set of

facts, right, like, that in the case of WikiLeaks it was just a coincidence

and Assange actually did want to take attention away, but he did it by

himself.  Or in the case of Mifsud, he was like BSing, or maybe he was

lying, or maybe Papadopoulos misunderstood him. 

 

There`s also – that maybe there`s a bunch of exculpatory facts.  I would

also like to know those.

 

JILL WINE-BANKS, FORMER WATERGATE PROSECUTOR:  Right.  Exactly.  And I

think that that`s why we have to reserve all judgment until we actually see

the Mueller report in its entirety, because we don`t even know how long it

is at this point, which is very perplexing in and of itself.

 

I mean, the fact that Barr also did not quote a single full sentence from

that Mueller report, and the fact that he did not say in his report that

there is classified information in there that needs to be

redacted before it`s released to the public, tells me a lot about the

level, perhaps, of detail in the Mueller report that can be released to the

public.  And also, you know, what is Bill Barr and the Justice Department

trying to conceal here by not including more of Mueller`s report in his

summary?

 

HAYES:  What are you sort of thinking of, Jill?

 

WINE-BANKS:  I think there are a number of questions.  I`d like to see all

of  Rachel Maddow`s 15 questions answered, but I think the two key ones for

me are, one, what was Mueller actually saying in the report in terms of not

making a decision?  Was it simply that he thought that he was following the

Watergate road map process, where he was turning over the evidence so that

the congress could make a political decision, since the legal decision has

been taken away from him by the office of legal counsel, saying you cannot

indict the president.  Then there`s no point in making a recommendation on

indictment, but there is a reason to give the information to congress, and

so that`s my first question, is that what he was thinking.

 

And the second is why is William Barr taking the attitude that he has to

study this for a long time.  It`s only to help the president the longer

this is delayed in becoming public.  And it would not take very long to go

to the court, the district court, and ask the chief judge to acknowledge

that there is a public interest in releasing the grand jury testimony –

that`s again what we did in Watergate – and it didn`t take long for the

judge in that case to say, yes, it is in the public interest and there is

an exception to the grand jury, which Walter Dellinger referred to, that

allows the public release of Grand Jury testimony, and every American has a

right to know in the case of Watergate whether the president was a crook,

as he said he wasn`t, and in this case whether the president has done

something that is really so terrible that he cannot be trusted to head the

American government.

 

And so I`d like to know what those two questions are and get going with

that.

 

HAYES:  Quickly, Jill, do you think what Walter Dellinger just said that

with a committed team you can get this ready in days, not weeks or months? 

You agree with that?

 

WINE-BANKS:  Yes.  I think there are easy questions of classified

information.  That`s easy to identify and remove.

 

In terms of of grand jury testimony, it can all be released unless it in

some ways endangers an ongoing investigation.  Since all of Mueller`s

investigations are done, it`s only if it effects something that has been

handed off to another prosecutor.  And those are easy to identify.

 

So the rest of is is – there`s no reason not to release.  It can be

released, it certainly can be released to congress.  But, again, I think

the public needs to know, and congress needs to have public hearings.  It`s

not enough to read the report, we need to see the witnesses, and that`s

something that only

congress can do now.

 

HAYES:  We`ll see if congress pursues that.

 

Jill Wine-Banks and Natasha Bertrand, thank you both.

 

Coming up, Republicans reveal their answer to deal with climate change and

it features Ronald Reagan riding a dinosaur, firing an automatic rifle. 

The stunt vote in the Senate on the Green New Deal ahead.

 

Plus, tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two starts next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

HAYES:  Thing One tonight, we`re not into sports gambling here, but when a

championship team is going to visit Trump in the White House you can bet

the farm that awkwardness will ensue.  I mean, often it begins long before

they get there.  Remember he fought with the Super Bowl champion

Philadelphia Eagles over the National Anthem protest until he eventually

revoked their invitation.  He did the same thing with Golden State Warrior

star Steph Curry. 

 

But teams do actually show up, like the Patriots who got an outdoor

celebration in 2017, and the Cubs who hung out in the Oval Office. 

Recently, Trump has been going through a room temperature fast food phase

and so both the Clemson Tigers and the North Dakota State Bison were

treated to those Happy Meals.

 

Yesterday, the latest championship winning team to visit, let`s say he

hasn`t had this many Russians in the Oval Office since the day after he

fired James Comey.  And that`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

HAYES:  The 2019 NHL hockey season is literally over in about a week, and

yesterday, nine months after they won last year`s Stanley Cup, the

Washington Capitals were finally able to make more than the five block trip

to visit the White House – better late than never, I suppose.

 

As we`ve seen before, there were some notable players missing, including

the only two players of color that played on the Capitals` championship

team, and not ably star goalie Braden Holtby who in support of those

teammates said quote I got to stay true to my values and I`m going to

respectfully decline the offer.

 

But most of the team was there, including the captain of the team and a

friend of  Vladimir Putin, Alexander Ovetchkin, who appears to have gotten

a shave and a hair cut for the occasion – perhaps he didn`t want Trump to

confuse him with Captain Ramis (ph) of The Red October.

 

In the end, it wasn`t the hair cut that captured Trump`s attention.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

TRUMP:  This guy, I have no choice but to be his fan, because he is

something special.  Look at those hands.  Special guy.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

HAYES:  Amidst massive record flooding in the Midwest, and one of the worst

weather-related

disasters in entire history of the continent of Africa in Mozambique, ideas

as ambitious and controversial as the Green New Deal would seem to warrant

some serious consideration, but not for Republicans like Senator Mike Lee

who is determined to make juvenile, wickedly unfunny jokes in stead.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REP. MIKE LEE, (R) UTAH:  Tontons, Mr. President.  Well, perhaps not as

efficient in some ways as airplanes or snowmobiles.  These hairy, bipedal

species of space lizards offer their own unique benefits. 

 

All residents of Hawaii would be left with is this.  This is a picture of

Aquaman.  I draw your attention, Mr. President, to the 20-foot impressive

seahorse he`s riding.

 

Under the Green New Deal this is probably Hawaii`s best bet. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  I think they edited out the laugh track in that one.

 

What`s happening with the Earth`s climate is actually a challenge to

civilization the likes of which human beings have never seen.

 

Global carbon emissions hit a record last year, according to a newly

released report.  Senator Lee and his Republican counterparts in the House,

and basically the entire party, still insist that Democrats want to take

away their cows.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

LEE:  We could grow from 94 million cows to zero cows.  No more milk.  No

more cheese.  No

more steak.  No more hamburgers.

 

Every cow I spoke to said the same thing, boo.

 

REP. DUSTY JOHNSON, (R) SOUTH DAKOTA:  In this dream, there are no South

Dakota dairy cow.  That means there are no – there`s no South Dakota milk

and that means there are no South

Dakota milkshakes.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Are they just bringing along the drums for the rim shots?  Do they

have an audience in place?  Their approach would itself be laughable but

for the fact that there are literally hundreds of millions of people`s

lives on the line, here, in this country, around the world.  Republicans

have not suggested any meaningful alternative in the face of the bold and

polarizing policy called the Green New Deal, but put forward by

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey.

 

Today, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell`s ploy to have a show vote in

the Senate backfired.  We`ll hear from one of the Green New Deal sponsors

next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R) KENTUCKY:  The proposal addresses the small

matter of eliminating, listen to this, eliminating the use of all fossil

fuels nationwide over 10 years.  Get rid of it all.  Might sound like a

neat idea in places like San Francisco or New York, the places that the

Democratic Party seems totally focused on these days, but the communities

practically everywhere else

would be absolutely crushed.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  That was part of Mitch McConnell`s gameplan today dismiss the Green

New Deal as some socialist daydream that will devastate the livelihoods of

the country`s middle class, middle Americans, and then hold a procedural

vote aimed at getting Democrats on the record about their support for said

proposal.

 

Democrats overwhelmingly voted present when the resolution came up for a

vote, though four Senators joined Republicans in voting explicitly against

the Green New Deal – Doug Jones, Joe Manchin, Kirsten Sinema, and

independent Senator Angus King.

 

To get a better understanding of what happened today, I`ll joined by the

Senate co-sponsor of The Green New Deal, Senator Ed Markey, Democrat from

Massachusetts.

 

Senator, did you vote – how did you vote today?

 

SEN. ED MARKEY, (D) MASSACHUSETTS:  Well, I voted present…

 

HAYES:  Why would you do that?

 

MARKEY:  I voted present because Mitch McConnell and the Republicans, who

are making a mockery of the legislative process.  They gave us no hearings. 

We could have no expert witnesses.  We could have no scientists.  We could

have no people from the states, which have been affected by the massive

climate related damage, which has occurred from forest fires in California

to the storms across the Midwest, the hurricanes sweeping through Texas and

Florida, none of that was allowed to be  presented as part of a hearing

process

 

So, they were just making a mockery of the process, a sham to bring it out

so they make a political point for the Koch Brothers and for the Exxonmobil

and the rest of their polluting buddies.  And we just decided that we would

not participate in anything that was such a disgrace in terms of how it was

treating the severity of this problem which is in climate change.

 

HAYES:  Today illustrated to me the enormous gap.  I mean, I think the

Republicans by and large, your fellow colleagues, they see it all as a

joke, as a stunt.  I mean, the gap between what the actual physics are,

what the science says, what the scale of the challenge is and where the

Republicans are, it almost seems unovercomable to me.  Does it to you?

 

MARKEY:  It is pretty big.  I mean, the United Nations and their scientists

at the end of 2018 said that climate is warming so rapidly that it now

poses an existential threat to the planet.  The 13 federal agencies with

jurisdiction over climate issued their own report at the end of 2018.  They

came to a conclusion that said this is very serious a we had to do

something about it.

 

Standing on the other side is the Republican Party, led by the denier in

chief Donald Trump  who believes that it`s a hoax perpetrated by the

Chinese, that doesn`t believe in the science, and is pretty much putting a

coal lobbyist to head the EPA, an oil lobbyist to head the Department of

Interior.  They have made a complete and total joke out of this. 

 

But unfortunately, it is not a joke.  It is a real threat to this planet. 

And that is why the Green

New Deal that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and I introduced has now triggered

nationally an incredible response that we haven`t seen in 10 years on this

issue.  We`re having the first debate on it in ten years.  And it is now

injecting itself into the presidential race and to congressional and

senatorial races all across this country and it is not going to go away.

 

HAYES:  So the 22nd elevator pitch for the Green New Deal on Trump TV, and

among Republicans is, you know, no cows, no burgers, no milkshakes, no

planes, everybody is out of a job.  What is your response?  What is your,

essentially elevator pitch for someone that says what is this thing?

 

MARKEY:  Well, first I would say not true, not true, not true.  In fact,

Alexandria and I actually took a picture eating ice cream, which we both

love saying…

 

HAYES:  That will show them.

 

MARKEY:  And saying we need cows in order to get the ice cream. 

 

So it`s not true.  We`re not banning airplanes.  We`re not banning cows. 

What we`re calling for is a response to an existential threat.  And we`re

saying that what we need a green revolution – renewable, clean, non-

greenhouse gas emitting technologies in our country.  And what we`re

calling on is for this country to respond the same way President Kennedy

did when he said that he was going to send a mission to the moon and return

it safely within 10 years.

 

He said in his speech we would have to invent technologies that did not

exist, alloys that did not exist, propulsion systems that did not exist and

we would h ave to bring it back through heat, half the intensity of the sun

and we would do so because we are bold.  We are going to do it because it

is hard and not because it is easy.

 

We can do this.  We now have 350,000 wind and solar workers in the United

States of America.  There are only 50,000 coal miners.  We are going to

create millions of jobs in the clean energy sector.  We can actually save

all of creation by engaging in massive job creation. 

 

This Green New Deal, it`s not just a resolution, it`s a revolution.  It`s a

technology revolution that young people in our country that people of all

ages want to see happen, because they know that it

is the national security, economic, environmental health care and moral

issue of our time.  And that`s why it`s not going away, and it`s polling at

the top in states around the country, and along with health care, as an

issue to be dealt with in the 2020 election cycle.

 

HAYES:  That was a long elevator ride, but it was good.

 

Senator Ed Markey, one of the sponsors of the Green New Deal, thank you for

taking the time.

 

MARKEY:  Thank you.

 

HAYES:  I`m going to be talking with the other sponsor of the Green New

Deal, the aforementioned freshman congresswoman, maybe you`ve heard of her,

she`s a sort of local figure here.  No one is really paying much attention.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez this Friday as part of a special event in my home

borough of the Bronx.  We`ll be talking about what is in the Green New

Deal, how you can achieve it, if you can achieve those incredibly ambitious

goals, what it takes to combat the crisis of

climate change.  Don`t miss it this Friday right here at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

 

That is ALL IN for this evening.  “THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” starts right

now.  

 

Good evening, Rachel.

 

 

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

BE UPDATED.

END   

 

Copyright 2019 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.>