Show: MTP DAILY Date: January 2, 2017 Guest: Richard Painter, Norman Eisen, Chris Kofinis, Robert Traynham, Anne Gearan
ARI MELBER, MSNBC`S CHIEF LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: -- I`m in for Chris Hayes and I want you to know if you like watching around this hour, Steve Kornacki will be right back here tomorrow. Now MTP Daily with Hallie Jackson starts next.
HALLIE JACKSON, MSNBC ANCHOR: If it`s Monday, Donald Trump promises a big reveal this week on Russia. Tonight, in the know--
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT-ELECT: I don`t know either. They don`t know and I don`t know. I also know things that other people don`t know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JACKSON: Decoding the President-Elect`s cyber strategy and his way forward with Russia. Plus, lasting legacy. As the president tries to save Obamacare from repeal, republicans have a new plan to undo a lot more than just healthcare. And it`s all in the jeans. Why denim is hitting a political high as we welcome the New Year. This is MTP Daily, and it starts right now. Hi everyone, I`m Hallie Jackson in Washington in for Chuck who is back tomorrow. Welcome to MTP Daily. We begin tonight, the first show of the New Year with a bit of a strange question. When the President-Elect speaks on a matter of national security, do you take him seriously or literally?
What about the U.S. Intelligence community? Do they take him seriously or literally? What about congress? And what about voters? Trump is meeting with members of the intelligence community this week where he`ll be briefed on the most sensitive elements of Russia`s interference in the U.S. Election, ahead of that meeting, here`s what he said this weekend on the topic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don`t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Like what do you--what do you know that other people don`t know?
TRUMP: You`ll find out on Tuesday or Wednesday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACKSON: So what does Donald Trump know? There`s one guy who you`d think would know, especially in that information is about to be made public as early as tomorrow. We`re talking about Donald Trump`s incoming White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer. He`s crisscrossed the airwaves in the wake of Trump`s comments, but it seems like maybe he`s not sure or maybe he doesn`t to want say.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Has he shared this information with the CIA? With the rest of the intelligence community? Because he would be talking about information that would be vital to national security if it involved the hacking of our national election. Has he shared it, and if not, is he holding it out there like some tease for a reality show?
SEAN SPICER, CHIEF STRATEGIST AND COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, RNC: No. I think--look, the President-Elect is briefed business I had security team, by the current security team, and intelligence community. I think he does know things. That`s why he`s the President-Elect.
JACKSON: Actually, Spicer seems to think we`re talking too much about what Trump might know when we should be asking Hillary Clinton what she knows.
SPICER: Why aren`t we talking about the influence--other influences on the election? Why aren`t we talking about Hillary Clinton getting debate questions ahead of time? That`s pretty valid attempt to influence an election. No, no, no. It`s not hey. We haven`t--no one`s asking those questions. And the fact is that everyone wants to talk and make Donald Trump admit to certain things, when are we going to talk the other side of this which is what did Hillary Clinton do to influence the election? Is he being punished in any way? What are we doing to make sure people don`t get the debate questions ahead of time because I can tell you this, if my boss at the time Reince Priebus had gotten a debate questions and handed them off, he would have been driven out of this town I think if Donald Trump would have been vilified.
JACKSON: So, what does President-Elect Trump know? When did he know it? And how is that different from what the intelligence community already knows? At this point, the answer seems to be, who knows. And that is an interesting place to be. Just three days ahead of the first congressional hearing on Russian interference in the election. Top republicans on Capitol Hill seem convinced they know plenty. And some are raising the possibility of punishing Putin`s Russia with even tougher sanctions. Hawks like John McCain aren`t talking about intelligence anymore. They`re talking about potential combat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: When you attack a country, it`s an act of war. And so we have to make sure that there is a price to pay so that we can perhaps persuade the Russians to stop this kind of attacks on our very fundamentals of democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JACKSON: I am joined now by Ken Dilanian, intelligence and national security reporter for the NBC news investigative unit. Ken, thank you, and a lot to talk about here on this holiday Monday. You`re plugged in. What is the reaction now from the Intel community to these Donald Trump remarks that he has inside info and he`s going to share it?
KEN DILANIAN, INTELLIGENCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Well, you know, it`s always dangerous to talk about the Intel community, that`s like saying the media. There`s different points of view within the community. But a lot of--I`ve talked to several people who have said, "Look, we understand that Trump views this as an assault on the integrity of his election victory. So we`re taking it with a grain of salt all his resistance to our findings." I mean, nobody was happy when he mentioned the CIA`s mistake in WMD in Iraq. That was a cheap shot. But, there is sort of a sense of like when he becomes the president and starts being briefed by his own people that he`ll come around on this stuff. Hallie.
JACKSON: So, ken, our unit here as you know, our team has reported that since mid-August, the President-Elect had been receiving briefings on the links between Russia and its potential interference with the U.S. election. Why does he need another briefing this week, what`s the difference?
DILANIAN: Well, you know, our reporting has suggested that these briefings have not been very detailed. The President-Elect has the opportunity to get deep dived briefings where the experts from the intelligence community come in and tell him everything there is to know about a certain topic. He--they could be combining a deep dive cyber briefing where they explain how they attribute cyber-attacks. And it`s not as simple as the forensics, as Sean Spicer and Trump himself keep saying. It isn`t about proving who hacked. Our understanding is U.S. Intelligence Community has other intelligence beyond the ones and zeros.
Human sources, communications intercepts, I mean, they`ve named specific Russian officials as being responsible for this operation. They don`t do that lightly or without evidence. Now, many people are saying they need to show some of that evidence and they say they will before Obama leaves office.
JACKSON: Okay. I take your point, Ken, that the Intel community is not one sort of monolithic blob, right? But in the folks that you`ve talked to over the last 24, 48 hours or so, is there any concern or sense of concern inside that community that the well has been poisoned basically after months of leaks, months of attacks, et cetera?
DILANIAN: Yeah, not that the well has been poisoned, but there`s definitely--there`s definitely a concern. I think a lot is going to depend on how he--whether he ultimately turns and accepts their unanimous conclusion, you know, that Russia was behind the hacking. I mean, you know, the Intel community has a long history of president`s treat them in different ways. I mean, Clinton famously ignored the CIA and the CIA director at the time, you know, couldn`t get a meeting with Clinton. Bush paid careful tension on his briefings, every president deals with the intelligence community on his own terms. And there`s still a lot of people I talked to have an open mind with Trump and I hope that he`s going to come around but there is concern with some of his comments and, you know, it isn`t every day you get a consensus view of the intelligence community. That something like this happened.
JACKSON: I`m told bay transition official, Ken, that the briefing will be with the "full spectrum" members of the intelligence community. Is that your sense, what do you think the President-Elect is going to hear this week that he hasn`t yet heard? You talk about perhaps more detail. Is it going to be a higher level of classification?
DILANIAN: I`m not clear about that. I mean, I think he`s already--he`s briefed with the high-- as President-Elect, he gets--he can ask any question he wants and he gets the highest level of classified briefing. But, you know, there could be more context. There could be more explanation of not just how we--how they attribute the hacking, but the communications intercepts, the full picture, the history of Russia`s involvement with hacking elections. The context, you know, this isn`t just about the forensics, it`s also about motive, means, and opportunity. If it wasn`t the Russians, I mean, Trump and his people seem to suggest, "Hey, it could have been the Chinese masquerading as the Russians. That`s certainly possible, technical, but is it realistic? And you may hear from intelligence analysts who will talk about that.
JACKSON: Ken, quickly before I let you go, Sean Spicer in that interview we played you earlier, raises the question of the Russian hack versus the China OPM hack. Why two different public responses from the white house on those?
DILANIIAN: Well, very simply because the Chinese hack of federal personnel data was considered by officials a legitimate intelligence target. That they would have done and probably have gone after in China. The difference with this--and so by the way is hacking the DNC, if they just hacked the DNC and kept the information. The difference was the information was weaponized, it was leaked in an effort to influence the election. And that`s where U.S. Intelligence officials say Russia crossed the line.
JACKSON: So, it`s the idea to you of sort of fair game espionage if you will.
DILANIAN: Exactly. James clappe, the DNI himself said, I--something to the effect if I take my hat off to the Chinese, you know, that was a good get for them. You know, but damaging for us, but a legitimate espionage target on the OPM stuff.
JACKSON: Ken Dilanian, great perspective there, I appreciate you joining us. I want to bring in now tonight`s panel, Anne Gearan, a veteran reporter with the Washington Post, Chris Kofinis, a democratic strategist, now the CEO of Park Street Strategies, and Robert Traynham, a former Bush/Cheney advisor, now a VP with the Bipartisan Policy Center and MSNBC Contributor. Lady and gentlemen, thank you for being with us.
ROBERT TRAYNHAM, BPC VICE PRESIDENT: Happy New Year.
CHRIS KOFINIS, CEO OF PARK STREET STRATEGIES: Happy New Year.
JACKSON: Happy New Year to all of you guys.
ANNE GEARAN, THE WASHINGTON POST POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Happy New Year:
JACKSON: Listen, a surprising amount of things to talk about today.
GEARAN: If you will
JACKSON: I know, okay, I want to start with the Russia interference in U.S. Election and the news from our NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that only 29% of republicans and we can pull it up here are bothered a great deal or quite a bit by Russia`s interference in the election. So like, fewer than one in three republicans here. How hard are Capitol Hill republicans going to fight on this issue given where their bases is if they are in fact more concerned about it? And we have heard concern from republicans on Capitol Hill?
GEARAN: I mean, I think there`s actually something of a crisis of faith among a lot of congressional republicans on this point. I mean, here is something that has been taken as absolute gospel by--for conservative national security republicans. That, you know, Russia is not to be trusted. Russia is not our friend, and that there is a long history of tit for tat of mutual spying and all the sudden the leader of their party, the President-Elect of the United States is saying things that make them uncomfortable.
And I`m thinking of the John McCain and Lindsey Graham and--right, exactly. And they are saying so publicly that this makes them uncomfortable. But what do they do with that? How certainly the--this hearing this week is going--their--promises to be a full board investigative hearing where they will go hard at the evidence. What do they do with it afterward?
TRAYNHAM: What`s concerning about this is that the poll (INAUDIBLE) partisan because it obviously has republicans and democrats. The real question is this, Americans being frustrated and very concerned about what the Russians allegedly did. The good thing about this is that senators hopefully have the long view regardless of what your partisan affiliation is. Is that they will get to the bottom of this because this is a threat allegedly to our democracy and to who we are as a country. I don`t care whether or not you`re a republican or democrat. I care that you`re an American and that you care about our democratic system and things allegedly got hacked.
JACKSON: So you believe just--the Capitol Hill, members of congress are going to push this, they`re going to push this investigation, despite perhaps maybe a lack of an outcry from, for example, republicans and the rest of the country.
KOFINIS: Well, l I think they`re going to push it because I think it goes- -it goes to their own personal preference for these issues. I think the problem here for establishment republicans, you know, when you`re talking about John McCain and others like him, is I`m not sure they have yet and we`re all going to find out here in about a few weeks, the Trump reality. And the Trump reality is he is not going to shy away from challenging people in his own party. It is how he became the nominee.
TRAYNHAM: But Chris, it doesn`t matter.
KOFINIS: It is--I--no, I agree with you. And I`m not questioning that we shouldn`t be doing this. And I under-- and I personally believe this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. I`m looking at it from the politics of it too which is to the poll question, I think where the republicans are going to be in a box here is as much as they`re unified in terms of the control all the chambers and the white house, there is divided as ever in some respects because they have someone in the White House who is going to look at the same facts that they`re going to look at and come to a completely different conclusion. That has not happened before.
JACKSON: Anne. So, I mean, that`s exactly what I mean. You--this hearing could result in a finding, essentially a congressional finding won`t be like a, you know, written determination, but the evidence presented at the hearing and the way congress approaches is that agrees with the intelligence community unanimously that this broad and targeted hacking happened in a different way than has happened in any previous election where the information was selectively leaked and essentially as you say weaponized. And then what? Then you have a republican-led congress, agreeing with the intelligence community and we do not yet know what the republican president will do with that information.
KOFINIS: And then--and then think about it, you know, over the next four years. Think of the potential foreign policy crisis that we may have. That we may need to get involved that effect America`s national interest. Where the intelligence community is saying one thing and the president of the United States is simply choosing to ignore it. All right. Where you create this battle between republicans and democrats in congress saying one thing. The intelligence community saying another. And the president of the United States saying, "I just don`t agree."
JACKSON: So you heard Sean Spicer is going to be pressed about this, not just yesterday, but today as well. This morning in the today show on our network elsewhere. I want to play a little bit what have he said. We played it earlier but I`ve got to replay it again and I want you to listen to the comparison he makes here. Play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPICER: Why aren`t we talking about the influence--other influences on the election? Why aren`t we talking about Hillary Clinton getting debate questions ahead of time? That`s pretty valid attempt to influence an election.
JACKSON: Chris, your head was in your hand as I was playing--
TRAYNHAM: This is what he recovers.
JACKSON: But is that the (INAUDIBLE)
TRAYNHAM: Of course not. Of course. Here is--here e is what we know. We know that WikiLeaks got the information from a Russian hack with the DNC. We know that, okay? So, to suggest and Sean is my dear friend. I`ve worked for him with many, many years but to suggest that a planted question by a CNN Analyst that went to secretary Clinton is on the same level as trying to influence a national election, it`s like me comparing--
JACKSON: For an hour.
TRAYNHAM: It`s like--it`s like me comparing, you know--I can`t even come up with a comparison. It`s ridiculous and laughable, but it`s also very, very sad.
KOSINIS: Well, I mean, listen, I, you know, Sean Spicer is clearly trying to spin his way out of a fundamental PR problem.
JACKSON: Or making a media argument, right? Like a media--
KOSINIS: (INAUDIBLE) but here`s the--here`s the real simple reality. Hillary Clinton lost. It is over, right? Whatever happened in the election is done. In terms of what they think influenced or didn`t influence on the democratic side.
TRAYNHAM: It didn`t help.
KOFINIS: Yeah, no joke. The question here is, you have clear Russian influence according to the intelligence agencies in an American election. What are we going to do about it? If the question is nothing, then we sit as a nation, forget about politics, forget about partisanship. We set a dangerous precedent going forward.
JACKSON: We have a ton more to talk about and we are out of time in this segment which is why I`m making you hang out the later of the show. So thank you. We`ll be back with Anne, Chris, and Robert. I appreciate it. You should stay with us too because coming up, we`re going to turn to international events now. An update on the manhunt for the gunman in this weekend`s attack in Istanbul. Plus a closer look at the investigation and possible connection to terror groups. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JACKSON: --hits the ground running when it gets back in the session tomorrow when he gets back in the session tomorrow. President Obama makes a trip to the hill Wednesday for a strategy session with democrats and how to protect Obamacare and by the way, we learned late this afternoon, Vice President-Elect Mike Pence set to meet with house republicans the same day. And of course, the senate is gearing up for those big battles over Trump`s cabinet nominations. We`ve got more MTP Daily in 60 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JACKSON: Welcome back. The manhunt for a terrorist who opened fire on a nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey, continues right now. 39 people were killed in that attack. Dozens more hurt. It started in the early hours of New Year`s Day when a gunman shot his way past security and into the nightclub. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement today, but there`s no indication about whether the group orchestrated or directed the shooting. Police are trying to identify this person, right here.
The suspect. From photos taken from security footage. Turkish police release these images via Turkish media and investigators think they have his fingerprints. Eight people have been held in connection with this investigation, but the search for this is still happening right now. NBC`s Richard Engel has the latest from Istanbul.
RICHARD ENGEL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Hallie, Turkish officials say they are getting very close to identifying this gunman. The question is, finding him. Throughout the day, Turkish media have been broadcasting increasingly clear images, also video. They show him clean shaven, but we don`t know anything about him, where he`s from. Only the claim that he was an ISIS fighter. ISIS through its official media channel say that he was one of their soldiers of the brave caliphate. But, what we saw and what we heard from survivors of this attack was that it was anything from brave.
The gunman was running through this club shooting people, some of whom were already on the ground pretending to be dead. Witnesses said that the gunman was going up to people on the ground, shooting them as they lay, moving to the next one, shooting them. We spoke to an American who was hiding under a table. His legs sticking out, the gunman actually was on top of the bench, and was shooting down, shot him in the leg, and this American, Jake Raak who`s--who was suffering from a gunshot wound when we spoke to him and he`s now on his way back to the United States, said, even after he was shot, he had to pretend that nothing had happened.
Because he didn`t to want scream, he didn`t to want flnch so that he didn`t give himself away to the gunman. Horrific stories, 39 dead, 27 of those foreign nationals, tourists from primarily the Middle East but really all over the world.This country is--I wouldn`t say in shock however, people here are increasingly angry. Angry that terrorism is becoming common place. Terrorism coming from ISIS as it appears to have been in this case. Terrorism coming from Kurdish militants. Also, a crackdown from the government against the opposition. So people in turkey are feeling that maybe at their wit`s end, they don`t feel safe, they don`t feel safe to protest, they don`t feel safe to speak. It is really, Hallie, a very dark period for this--for this country.
JACKSON: Dark and certainly terrifying for so many people. Thank you, Richard. I want to bring in now former U.S. Special Ops Intelligence Officer and NBC Terror Analyst, Malcolm Nance. Malcolm, thanks for joining us. Let`s start with this manhunt. What are the chances this guy`s still in Turkey?
MALCOLM NANCE, NBC TERROR ANALYST: Well the chances are pretty good that he`s still in Turkey. Turkey is set quite a tight perimeter these days on the Turkish/Syrian border ever since their forces supported operations inside of Syria. It`s very interesting, right after--a few hours after the manhunt began, there were journalists inside of Turkey who were noting there were no checkpoints anywhere around Istanbul leading out of the city to other major cities and even to the east where it`s pretty much a hinterland.
So, the Turkish effort is now concentrated on putting this person`s image out to the public. He appears to be--was Pakistan or Kyrgyzstani origin, the same type of origin of the attackers who attacked the airport in Istanbul earlier in 2016. So, they hope that that will get them this man in the manhunt.
JACKSON: So it`s all gets through what a manhunt looks like, right? At this point after the attack, a day, day and a half after something like this were to happen. Is it just, you know, you assume they`re just sort of all hands on deck spread everybody out.
NANCE : Well that depends on which jurisdiction you`re in and who`s got control of it. Here in the United States, yeah, that`s what we would do. We would have state police, local police throwing out these rings of steal, the rings of manpower. However, we did notice that Turkey and the United States appeared to have had some intelligence indicators that an attack of this capacity was going happen.
And within hours of this attack, Turkish police actually worked their way back to eight accomplices of this person. Which means that they may have had some sort of electronic intelligence indicating where this originated but not the name of the individual. That person got out, carried out the attack and now they`re probably trying to run down those leads based on what information they had prior to the attack.
JACKSON: You heard my colleague Richard Engel just couple of moments ago say this is scary for people in Turkey but necessarily surprising. They`ve had a dozen terror attacks in the past year. ISIS as you know has made calls to target the country. So, what do Turkish authorities need to do now to try to bolster security or give some measure of reassurance to people there after what you`re seeing on your screen. This laundry list of terrifying attacks?
NANCE: Well, people that I know in Istanbul over the last year, after every attack, I call my associates in Istanbul and Ankara and they`re frustrated. They`re frustrated, one, because for a few years, the government of Turkey, Erdogan, allowed ISIS to infiltrate and not even infiltrate to allow thousands and thousands of people to come into Turkey legally, than cross the border and go in there and provide manpower to the Islamic state. And they were making money off of the refugees who were coming out by profiting, you know, them coming in, selling them food stuffs and getting them on boats.
So they`re very frustrated because it`s a problem of their own making. Is has little bastions in the major cities of Istanbul, Ankara, Gaziantep . Places like that. And they`re very well-known. However, the Turkish have been emphasizing intelligence, but on the other hand, whenever they have a terrorist act of this magnitude, they tend to use it as political cagle to go after their opposition inside of Turkey.
JACKSON: Malcom Nance, thank you for that perspective and for being here to talk us through this. I appreciate it.
NANCE: It`s always a pleasure.
JACKSON: Still ahead--sure thing. Still ahead this New Year. New questions about the President-Elect`s potential conflicts of interest in office. We`re going to take a look at the latest international issue making headlines. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JACKSON: Welcome back. My fellow road warriors traveled tens of thousands of miles covering the presidential election but we were not the only NBC news reporters on the road covering the 2016 campaign. We couldn`t have done it without our embeds. An incredible group of young journalist who covered all of the candidates who were running for president, all of the time in all of the states where they were running. It was quite literally a 24/7 job. So now that we`ve had a chance to get a little bit of sleep, we asked our embeds to reflect a little bit on their journey through 2016. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JORDAN FRASIER, 2016 CAMPAIGN EMBED: The hardest part about the campaign in so many ways is that it`s sensory overload from morning to night, there is just so much information coming at you.
ALEX JAFFE, 2016 CAMPAIGN EMBED: It was non-stop for seven days, a different city every night, sometimes three different cities every day.
KAILANI KOENIG, MSNBC REPORTER: One of the things I liked best about the campaign trail was watching candidates get grilled by voters in places like New Hampshire where people would just be able to walk right up to them and ask them the most pressing questions of their lives.
DANNY FREEMAN, MSNBC REPORTER: The kindness of Iowa voters was one of my favorite parts about the campaign trail. There was one time I remember, I was at the Iowa state fair, very much lost and confused, and a farmer came up to me and showed me around. Helped me understand where I was inside the big barn at the time, and he said, I want to do this for you because I hope if my son ever goes to New York, someone will be kind enough to do the same for him.
ALI VITALI, MSNBC PRODUCER: My most memorable interaction with Donald Trump was when I was taken into the buffer area around the stage over a rally during Christmas, and asked to shoot cuts of the candidate up close which is a normal piece of being an embed on the campaign trail.
And as I got up there, I was holding my camera and Donald Trump in the middle of his speech turned and pointed to me and said.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES: Look, here we have NBC, they`re supposed to be back there, but that`s OK.
VITALI: That was probably the most memorable and definitely the most bizarre interaction.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of my favorite moments from the campaign trail happened in New Hampshire as Governor Bush was on a bus tour, and it was in the middle of a snowstorm. And I`m outside the bus with my camera raised, ready to film him. And as he`s walking by me, he bends down and forms a snowball and throws it at me and gets this big laugh out of it. It was this moment that I`ll always remember his personality really shining through.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can`t do anything about it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s not fair actually.
VAUGHN HILLYARD, MSNBC REPORTER: The night that Mike Pence`s plane goes off the runway, New York City, La Guardia Airport, rain coming down, the plane lands, it veers, you kind of smell the rubber come up. And it`s one of those moments where it`s still like, you`ve still got a job to do. You pick up the camera. You have to start filming. And you realize, you can`t believe this is happening.
SHAQUILLE BREWSTER, NBC NEWS REPORTER: Having a roomful of voters who are there to see Dr. Carson at a campaign event in Iowa, a break out in a happy birthday song for me at a staffer`s direction. It was one of the most memorable moments on the campaign. You know, you`re going so many places and sometimes you`re giving up your birthday and you know, that really just made it special.
MONICA ALBA, NBC NEWS REPORTER: This was absolutely the best year and a half of my life, both professionally and personally. And I think what will make it so special is that I probably will never do it again. At least not this way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HALLIE JACKSON, MSNBC HOST: Welcome back to MTP Daily.
Donald Trump will be sworn in as president in 18 days. But before then, he said he`d hold a press conference to answer questions on how he`ll untangle himself from his big business empire which includes extensive and unprecedented dealings all over the world.
All of it leading to potentially countless conflicts of interest. It all came up again over the weekend when we learned guests at a New Year`s Eve party attended by Donald Trump and his family paid more than $500 each to ring in 2017 with the president-elect.
And the New York Times, did you see this, reporting now two Trump projects in Indonesia are moving forward, even though he promised no new deals while he`s in office.
The president-elect has repeatedly pointed out that federal conflict of interest laws do not apply to the president and he`s right, but international deals like the ones in Indonesia could violate the Constitution from the very second that Donald Trump is sworn in.
Joining me now to talk about all of this, Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, they were both chief ethics lawyers in the White House. Richard served under President George W. Bush, Norm under President Obama, they`ve written -- done talks and speeches about Trump`s conflicts extensively since election day pushing the president-elect to divest completely from his business.
And you guys have a new paper out published up on Bookings, I believe too. Norm, I want to start with you. You said the president-elect is basically cording disaster here with his businesses, 18 days away from becoming president. It is fairly clear he has not going to fully divest, right? So, is Congress obligated to hold him accountable here?
NORMAN EISEN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ETHICS LAWYER: Well, Congress is obligated, the courts are obligated, Hallie, your profession, journalism is obligated, and all of us as American citizens are obligated to do all we can, because the president-elect is on a collision course with corruption.
This is not just a matter of what looks or smells good. And it doesn`t look good. It doesn`t smell good. It is the Constitution. There`s a constitutional conflicts cause. Though...
(CROSSTALK)
JACKSON: The Emolument Clause.
EISEN: The Emolument Clause, it`s just a fancy 18th century word, all it means is no foreign government money, cash, or other benefits to an American president. He`s collecting those all over the world.
JACKSON: So, let me just to clarify this here, to sort of explain this, right? If he hands over his business as expected to Donald Trump Jr., to Eric Trump, his sons, if Ivanka Trump removes herself from her brand and the president-elect says I`m not going deal with it for the next at least four years, that doesn`t satisfy you?
EISEN: It does not. It is a break with what presidents with far lesser conflicts have done for the past four decades. They go to a trustee, an independent trustee, not a family member, they turn over ownership interests to be liquidated, to be sold. Donald Trump has much more profound conflicts issue. It`s going to put a paw all over everything he does. He`s got to divest.
JACKSON: Richard, I want to play something, President-elect Trump said last week at Mar-a-Lago. I want to play this and I want to get your response on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It`s a much bigger business than anybody thought. It`s a great business. But, I`m going to have nothing to do with it. I`m going to just - - I don`t have to because as you know, I wouldn`t have to do that by law. I want to do that because I want to focus on the country. It`s actually a very simple situation. It`s not a big deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JACKSON: So, Richard, he`s going to have nothing to do with it, it`s simple, the end. Case closed, right?
RICHARD PAINTER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ETHICS LAWYER: Well, he`s going to own it. And if it owns it, he has a conflict of interest because of it. Including the foreign government, moneys that comes in a violation of the Constitution.
So, the only way to solve that problem is for him to divest, and so far we`re not hearing about that. We`re just hearing about new business deals in Indonesia and everywhere else. And as for Congress they`re showing no interest in monitoring the president`s conflicts of interest. Indeed, they`re just going to make their own conflicts of interest worse.
The latest news we`re hearing now is they want to take the office of congressional ethics which has some independents.
JACKSON: Yes.
PAINTER: And rain in its independence and put under the House ethics committee which I call the Fox in charge of it chicken coup committee and the American taxpayers are the chickens here.
You know, this is a situation that has become absurd. When members of Congress are just saying, well, me too on the conflicts of interest, I want my own rather than reigning in the president-elect and letting him know that both members of Congress and the president as elected officials, hold positions of trust where they must be free of conflicts of interest.
We need independent ethics oversight. Both executive branch and the Congress. And we see that our elected officials are moving at exactly the opposite direction. And they`re not serving the American people at all with this kind of attitude.
JACKSON: Richard, I want to go back on the Emolument Clause. But I want to get Norm to kind of set it up for us here first. Because these projects of the New York Times is waiting about in Indonesia, elsewhere. Moving forward, is that in violation of this clause in your view?
EISEN: Hallie, not only in my view, but the founders of our country and the framers of the Constitution had exactly this situation in mind. They saw in the time of the Constitution, in the 17th and 18th and 19th centuries, it was very common for foreign sovereigns to try to give things of value to American and other elected officials to get them to favor the interests of the foreign sovereigns. So these...
(CROSSTALK)
JACKSON: But Donald Trump could say well, I have nothing to do with my businesses now, right?
EISEN: Well, but it doesn`t seem like he`s headed in that direction because he`s resisting turning over the ownership interests. Doing what all the other presidents have done for the past four decades so people all over the world will see, hey, when -- and diplomats are saying it. They`re going to his new hotel and they`re saying to reporters, of course I want to tell the president when I see him, what a great hotel you have.
JACKSON: Richard, it`s not just the Emolument Clause though, talk about the perception, even just the appearance of a conflict of interest with foreign leaders. He can say, you know, I`m not going to have a conflict, but will that create lasting damage internationally, potentially from a perception standpoint?
PAINTER: Well, of course it could. And it could also be a global strategic risk when you have the president of the United States have properties and business deals all over the world and countries that are undergoing a lot of difficulty where the important United States strategic interests and there could be terrorist attacks.
We had a president`s name up on a building. That`s an invitation to an attack. There are lots of problems here that need to be addressed. And thus far, we`re seeing that the president-elect is not addressing them, and the members of Congress are just busy feathering their own nests rather than focusing on congressional oversight of executive branch.
So, unless things change quickly we`re going to have a lot more than bad perception. We`re going to have bad policy and potentially a strategic national security risk for the United States because of this.
JACKSON: OK. So, Richard, what should Congress do? What do you recommend?
PAINTER: Well, first, the Congress ought to make sure that their playing by the rules in their hand instead of retreating from independent ethics oversight of the members of Congress. Second, the house oversight committee which was very interested, of course, in spending hours and hours going through Hillary Clinton`s e-mails ought to continue it supervision of ethics and executive branch.
And in fact, that the executive branch is controlled by the same political party as controls the Congress shouldn`t mean that the House oversight committee says, well, we`re just not going to worry about, the fact that the president is just receiving unconstitutional payoffs from foreign governments. Or if other people in the executive branch are misbehaving.
JACKSON: All right.
PAINTER: It`s up to Congress to do its job of congressional oversight of the executive branch.
JACKSON: OK. So, Norm, is Donald Trump doing anything right? Is the Trump family doing anything that you see as a positive. I think back to that fundraiser issue that came up a few weeks ago and Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. removed from it. The transition officials will say hey, we`re working on it basically.
EISEN: There have been some positive signs, the procrastination. There have been several times now where the president-elect said I`m going to make an announcement. He has, and he`s putting it off, he sees how hard it is. There is some unwinding of foreign deals as of Brazil, the republic of Georgia, they have taken down some of these auctions of access to get access to the family.
Baby steps, Hallie. We need a giant leap. I want to give a shout out to one other congressional effort. Senator Warren has announced that this week she and her democratic colleagues in the Senate are going to put in a bill requiring the president to do a blind trust, putting teeth into the Emolument Clause making clear what it means, the kinds of benefits we`re talking about.
So there are some in the Senate who are taking some positive steps as well. But on the other hand, then you hear that the House wants the House leadership wants to go...
(CROSSTALK)
JACKSON: The IOCE...
EISEN: They are independent office of congressional ethics. It`s like a cancer that is starting to spread. We don`t have to follow ethics rules. It`s the opposite of the Obama approach. It`s very worrying.
JACKSON: Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, a very spirited conversation as always. Thank you both for being with us.
EISEN: Thanks, Hallie. Happy New Year.
JACKSON: Happy New Year, too.
PAINTER: Thank you.
JACKSON: But still ahead, President Obama will spend his final days in office trying to protect the legacy of the past eight years. So could he and the democrats really save Obamacare? Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JACKSON: Welcome back. President Obama announced he`s going to be delivering that farewell address a week from tomorrow in his hometown of Chicago. Saying in the e-mail, he wants to say thanks to the American people and offer some thoughts on where to go from here.
Up next, in the lid we`re taking a look at how the president and democrats will be working to cement his legacy in those final 18 days in office. Keep it here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JACKSON: Welcome back. It is time for the lid. President Obama making a rare trip to Capitol Hill later this week to meet with House and Senate democrats. The focus, the future of his signature Affordable Care Act and how to keep republicans from repealing it.
Meanwhile, the republican-led Congress is planning to try to roll back more than just the health care law. Even of that of course is at the center of the republican legislative target. But when the 115th Congress begins tomorrow, they`re expecting to take up two bills that would give Congress more control over regulations including the ability to repeal some rules put in place by President Obama.
Our esteemed panel is back with me now, Anne Gearan, Chris Kofinis, Robert Traynham. Thank you very much. Let`s start with the discussion about the Affordable Care Act. There`s a lot of action this week, right. You`ve got Wednesday the president heading to the Hill. And by the way, Mike Pence on the same day, the big liaison to members of Congress.
I would ask what kind of deals the democrats would need to make in order to make sure the Affordable Care Act doesn`t get repealed. It`s not even possible though, is it, Chris? I mean, this thing it`s a matter of when not if.
CHRIS KOFINIS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: It depends on how the republicans try to do it and what`s their strategy. If there`s an argument that can try to do this through budget reconciliation.
JACKSON: Right.
KOFINIS: That allow them only and would require 51 votes. Otherwise, they may try to do in a different legislative way, it could require 60 which then allows the democrats to filibuster it.
Politically, I think the problem for republicans is clearly, they are clearly going to push to try to repeal it. But there are -- there are aspects of the Obamacare act for obvious reasons have incredible appeal for people, in particular this, you know, this pre-existing conditions, portions, you know, providing young people to be on their parent`s health care.
JACKSON: Right.
KOFINIS: You start going after that you now create a political problem that I`m not sure they fully appreciate until you see some mother talking about her child who has cancer and now their inability to have health care.
JACKSON: But is that an overly optimistic view in your view?
ROBERT TRAYNHAM, FORMER GEORGE BUSH SENIOR ADVISOR: Yes. I mean, let me just talk this back for a second. So, yes, it will probably through reconciliation. That`s all my sources are telling me that. But what I also think is that what they are probably going to do is would symbolically vote to repeal this.
KOFINIS: Again?
TRAYNHAM: But they`re not going to replace it. But they`re not going to replace it with anything. In other words, they`ll just vote and just with straight face is they actually voted to repeal. They may be is trying to win it with a divide -- when they`re divided.
But there`s one thing that`s really important that we never talk about and that is how high the premiums are for many, many Americans out there. There are tens of thousands, Chris, and you can`t deny this of Americans that got their premium bills the week before the election who said, oh, my goodness, this is something I cannot afford.
JACKSON: But can they realistically repeal it and not put anything out to replace it fundamentally?
ANNE GEARAN, CORRESPONDENT, THE WASHINGTON POST: I mean, I think there`s a real practical problem here, which is those popular elements then would have to be reenacted.
JACKSON: Elements of the president-elect have acknowledged that he likes.
TRAYNHAM: Exactly, which is part of the bill.
GEARAN: Right. I mean, so he can take credit for him. He can go ahead and do it over again. I suppose that there has to be a mechanical process that takes time, and I think would be sort of a giant, you know, pain in the neck for the new Congress but they probably don`t want to take on.
KOFINIS: To me the key political question is, do the republicans now that they control basically all leaders of government. Do they want to go to war, right? Or do they actually want to try to make government work, right? And that is, you know, that is I think is a really important distinction.
Because if they decide to go to war on this then what you`re going to see is basically everything that the American people hated in a lot of respect between the dysfunction between the two parties is going to continue.
If they actually want to try to solve some of the issues with Obamacare that even democrats admit there are.
TRAYNHAM: Right.
KOFINIS: Then I think we can actually have something productive. I`m just not convince that that is where they are going. I think this is much more ideological, much more political than it is about solving or creating good policy.
JACKSON: So, it`s not about the Affordable Care Act, right, because you are seeing and the president-elect in that video that just came out today speaking at New Year`s Eve said he wants to, you know, enroll that these regulations, he`s going to do a lot of it through executive orders, some of it Congress will do as we were just talking about during the break, you called the kabuki theater a little bit, putting regulations in place and then rolling them back right away.
TRAYNHAM: This is what happens every time with the new president, an incoming president especially...
(CROSSTALK)
JACKSON: This is business as usual then. I mean, this is...
GEARAN: Well, except on immigration. Right, I mean, here`s another huge field of battle and we just don`t know how that is going to play out, make a...
(CROSSTALK)
JACKSON: With the political appetite for that.
GEARAN: Right, exactly. I mean, Trump can undo the executive -- Obama executive orders very quickly but then what.
TRAYNHAM: But this is about putting the president-elect or any incoming president-elect on the defense. So, in other words, if President Obama with a sign of a pen could put millions of acres and put it into protective wildlife preserve do you want a new president to undo that.
So, in other words, there`s a lot about President Obama for his own legacy purposes. I get that. But it`s also to my point about really making people on the defenses they are going to the White House.
KOFINIS: I think what`s going to be really interesting to watch over the next many months and years is usually -- and you saw this with President Bush. You know, President Bush kind of went away, right, when President Obama came in. He wasn`t out there, he wasn`t making comments. He really wasn`t engaging or being critical in any way, shape or form. I do not believe you are going to see the same thing from President Obama.
JACKSON: He did just say though, that he was just going to maybe stay silent, right? And only speak on the big moment.
KOFINIS: I do not -- I don`t believe that for a moment and probably because there`s no other...
(CROSSTALK)
GEARAN: Right.
KOFINIS: But there`s no other leader we have to his level in the Democratic Party right now. He is it.
TRAYNHAM: What President Clinton has said and also what President Obama has said, they were on the record, they are saying is that they were given space to be able to govern the country as they see fit.
And what I mean by that is that President Clinton ironically said President Bush, meaning his predecessor was fairly quiet. President Obama said quote, "I want to go somewhere warm and drink out of a coconut for a couple of months. I suspect that he`s probably going to speak out or we just look in his eyes, I suspect he`s probably going to speak out for Black Lives Matter.
JACKSON: Criminal justice system.
TRAYNHAM: And criminal justice issues. However, if in fact his signature issue, the Affordable Care Act is jeopardize or threatened I think thoughtfully he may say something, but I don`t envision him going out and...
(CROSSTALK)
KOFINIS: I don`t think the president...
JACKSON: There is a lot of pressure on him to do so.
TRAYNHAM: Yes, exactly.
JACKSON: Well, I mean, to your point, I mean, he is the...
TRAYNHAM: Well, there`s a lot of pressure -- well, there`s a lot of -- go ahead.
KOFIIS: I just don`t believe that given where the Democratic Party is right now and the need for a real powerful voice that here you have an incredible dynamic charismatic and popular president who is simply just going to go away. I don`t think that`s going to happen.
JACKSON: All right. Anne Gearan, Chris Kofinis, and Robert Traynham, thank you, guys so much for hanging out.
(CROSSTALK)
TRAYNHAM: Thank you. Happy New Year.
JACKSON: Happy New Year. I appreciate it. We`ll see you back here sometime soon. After the break we`re bringing in the new year with some new laws. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JACKSON: (AUDIO GAP) New Year means new laws. In addition to big changes like minimum wage hike in 20 states, and new gun laws in multiple states. Here are some other new rules in the book you may have missed.
In California, the official state fabric is now denim. Legally, it`s not much you need to know about it. Crimes of fashion have the same punishment as in 2016. But, hey, useful piece of trivia if nothing else.
In Illinois, you can now legally catch a catfish with a spear gun or a pitch forks or a bow and arrow. And if you do post it to YouTube immediately so I can watch it.
And something every good road warrior should know. People in Ohio can now drive their golf carts on roads where the speed limit is 35 miles per hour or less. But there is a catch. It has to be a tricked out golf car. You got to have turn signal, tail lights, or windshield or horn. It could be fun to take on the golf course, as well.
And in Pennsylvania now freeing the six pack, meaning it`s starting in a couple of weeks, beer can be sold in any quantity. Get your growlers ready, and by the way, our cameraman giving thumbs up right now.
In Tennessee it`s not how much beer you`re buying but how strong it is. Tennessee brewers can make higher alcohol content beers without special license for it, so clearly rounding out my bucket list for the year. Spear catfish in Illinois from a tricked out golf cart while wearing a pair of jeans from Cali before celebrating with a single extra strong beer bought in Pennsylvania but brewed in Nashville.
That is it for us tonight. Chuck is back tomorrow with more MTP Daily. Right now, my colleague Ayman Mohyeldin picking up our coverage from 30 Rock.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END