IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

All in with Chris Hayes, Transcript 3/8/2017

Guests: Mo Brooks, James Carville, Bernie Sanders, Britney Cooper, Jess McIntosh, Michael Hayden

Show: All in with Chris Hayes Date: March 8, 2017 Guest: Mo Brooks, James Carville, Bernie Sanders, Britney Cooper, Jess McIntosh, Michael Hayden 

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HARDBALL HOST: - out of politics. Let`s hope the leaders of congress today will have the stuff to tell Donald Trump to take his bugging accusation and stuff it back where he got it. That`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN" Chris Hayes - "ALL IN" with Chris Hayes starts right now.


SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are out in full sell mode all around the country.

HAYES: A White House in sell mode raises the stakes.


HAYES: Tonight, as defectors grow, can President Trump close the deal on a healthcare plan that hospitals, seniors, and now doctors oppose? Plus -

TRUMP: This will be a plan where you can use your plan. And you know what the plan is. This is the plan.

HAYES: A compelling case that Trumpcare will hurt Trump voters most with Senator Bernie Sanders. Then -

SPICER: There is no reason that we should - that we have to think that the President is the target of any investigation whatsoever.

HAYES: Another deluge of questions over the President`s baseless wiretap claims with former CIA Director Michael Hayden. And the anti-Trump protests return on International Women`s Day.

TRUMP: You know what? The women get it better than we do folks.

HAYES: As the President dines with the Cruz family.

HALLIE JACKSON, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Heidi Cruz is coming too and I`m wondering if the President has any plans has to apologize to her for the insinuations he made on the campaign trail.

HAYES: Well ALL IN starts right now.

Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. Tonight President Trump is in the words of his Press Secretary, in full sell mode trying to push what many in his own party think is a bad product on some skeptical buyers. He`s already done it with Trump steaks, he`s done it with Trump University, now he`s got to do it with Trumpcare.


KELLYANNE CONWAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP`S COUNSELOR: I`ll call it the Trumpcare if you want to but I don`t - I didn`t hear President Trump say to any of us, "hey, I want my name on that."


HAYES: The President met at the White House today with representatives of conservative groups who oppose the bill and is set to sit down next week with members of the House Freedom Caucus, many of whom are vowing not to vote for it. Tonight he was scheduled to have dinner with Senator Ted Cruz who said the current version of the bill cannot pass as well as Cruz`s wife Heidi whose appearance Trump insulted during the campaign prompting Cruz to deem Trump a quote "sniveling coward." More on that in a bit. People trying to sell the bill have repeatedly fallen back on a crucial claim that their bill must pass regardless of any flaws because ObamaCare is on a path to implosion.


PAUL RYAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Obamacare is collapsing under its own weight right now. Plans are pulling out right now. ObamaCare, to quote an insurance - head of an insurance company, "is in a death spiral."

SPICER: ObamaCare is going to collapse on its own weight very soon.

TRUMP: ObamaCare is collapsing and we must act decisively to protect all Americans.


HAYES: Trumpcare proponents are doubling down on that claim amid massive resistance to the bill. It already faces opposition from many conservative groups, dozens of congressional republicans and every democrat on record as well as a hugely powerful AARP, the American Hospital Association and, as of today, the American Medical Association which deemed the bill, and I quote "critically flawed." Meanwhile, analysts say millions risk losing their health insurance in the republican plan and a healthcare CEO says it could push individual plan premiums up by 30 percent or more next year and more in the future. Then there`s the polling that shows that 63 percent of American want ObamaCare to stand as is or be changed to do more. Only seven percent want to change the law to do less which is effectively what Trumpcare is offering. Faced with these facts, Trumpcare proponents are making the case that even if you don`t like their law you should accept it because otherwise a dystopian health care hell scape will soon be upon us.


RYAN: Now we have a collapsing marketplace. We really believe we`re in a rescue mission here to step in and prevent this collapse from occurring.

ObamaCare isn`t staying. If we did nothing the law would collapse and leave everybody without affordable health care. We are doing an act of mercy.


HAYES: There are genuine problems with ObamaCare. Premiums have gone up in many places. There are counties where there`s only one insurer left in the exchange. It is undeniable, as democrats themselves have said over and over, there are parts of the law that need to be fixed. But the claim that ObamaCare is collapsing, that it`s in a death spiral, that it has failed, that an act of mercy from President Trump and the republicans is need to save American health care, that just doesn`t hold up.

Put aside the fact the polls show, the law is more popular than it`s ever been, that the growth of health care costs has dramatically slowed and that more than 20 million people have gained coverage. The Associate Press reports that quoting "Experts agree that the law is not currently in a death spiral." Those experts include the American Academy of Actuaries, people who would actually know. In addition, Congressional Budget Office Data shows that while insurance marketplaces are smaller than it had initially expected, they are not in CBO`s view anywhere near collapsing. So, next time you see republicans insisting you must accept their plan which will almost certainly mean less coverage, higher cost and a massive tax cut for the rich, remember, just because they say ObamaCare is collapsing does not make it true.

Joining me now, Republican Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama. Congressman, I want to start on the process here. It`s been interesting to watch folks in your party, colleagues of yours, friends of yours object to the process House leadership is using. Do you feel, as Mike Lee and others have contended, that they are moving too quickly and basically trying to jam this down your throats?

MO BROOKS, UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN FROM ALABAMA: Well, I have some reservations about the process. I would have preferred that the drafting of this legislation be much more open than it has been. But nonetheless, there are going to be public hearings and committees. There will be some time for the public to be able to digest this legislation and contact folks like me, Senators, House members, to share their insight. And if we have two to three weeks from the time this bill first becomes public to the time that there is a House floor vote, that`s plenty of time for the public to digest it and get back to their elected officials.

HAYES: You - Congressman, you really think two to three weeks for reorganization of one-fifth of the American economy is sufficient time for public input?

BROOKS: Well, it`s more than I`ve seen in other instances. By way of example, the Fiscal Cliff Bill that was introduced January 1st early in the morning and --

HAYES: Right. But why do we compare it to the Affordable Care Act? Why do we compare it to the affordable care act which is the apples-to-apples comparison? That passed the House - do you recall when that passed the House?

BROOKS: Well, when it passed the House is not important. When it passed the Senate is important and how much time the House had afterwards to then work on the Senate version.

HAYES: Right. But it was -

BROOKS: And I don`t remember right off hand. I wasn`t in congress when that transpire.

HAYES: It was nine months - it was nine months and 11 months respectively and republicans complained that it had been jammed down the throats of an unwitting public and that it had been passed too quickly. This argument was being made 14, 15 months after the President was inaugurated. You`re talking three weeks here.

BROOKS: I wasn`t here in 2009 and 2010 when ObamaCare passed.

HAYES: Right.

BROOKS: But I am here now and in my experience three weeks is or has been more than has often been given for other major pieces of legislation so it`s not inconsistent with what has been done over the six years that I`ve been in Congress. Might more time be better? Of course.

HAYES: Right.

BROOKS: But I`m trying to put it into perspective.

HAYES: I want to - Rand Paul said something interesting in the Washington Post. He met - he is been meeting with folks in the White House, I believe he met with the President himself and he`s been a vocal opponent of this bill. He says that "Leadership is selling a bill of goods and has mischaracterized to the President the amount of opposition," "The speaker keeps saying the votes are there and the President could end up being annoyed." Do you agree with that?

BROOKS: By and large I agree with what Senator Rand Paul is saying. By way of just one example, we committed to the American people that we were going to repeal Obamacare. And repeal is a very simple bill like H.R. 175 that`s about two sentences long that says the act that created ObamaCare -

HAYES: Right.

BROOKS: - is hereby repealed. This so-called repeal effort is not a repeal. It`s an amendment of ObamaCare, and it`s over 100 pages long. So if we were going to stick to our word and simply repeal, we would have a one or two page piece of legislation that would state ObamaCare is repealed, set a date at which the repeal is effective and in the interim work on whatever the replacement is going to be, which from what I understand was speaker Ryan`s first game plan. Somehow or another he shifted off of that. I wish he hadn`t.

HAYES: So, let me ask you this. Because this gets to whip counts and whether leadership is misleading the President or not. I mean, Steve Scalise is reported, showed a picture of Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump and basically said, you guys are going to walk the plank, and you got to choose which team you`re on. Is it Donald Trump`s team or Nancy Pelosi`s team. And what he`s counting on is that individuals like yourself are going to roll over. That you may - you know, complain and whine and say this is not what I wanted but ultimately you`re going to vote for what they tell you to vote for. Is that true?

BROOKS: Well, that kind of comparison, you`re either with Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump, that doesn`t work with me. I`m with the American people. And it`s my job as a congressman to do my best to help convince the President of what is in the best interests of the American people if the President and I disagree. But I`m going try to do what the people in my district elected me to do. And that`s best represent the interests of America. Sometimes, usually, I`m on the side of other republicans but that`s not always the case, because republicans are not perfect. Sometimes we collectively make an error. My job under those circumstances is to correct the error. Same thing if you`re a democrat not always with your democratic leadership.

HAYES: All right. Congressman Mo Brooks, thanks for your time. Appreciate it.

BROOKS: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: I`m joined by Democratic Strategist James Carville. Well, you`re laughing because this is what -- there was a ways and means markup today.


HAYES: And one of the things that happened was democrats on the Ways and Means Committee were introducing old republican amendments from 2009 like the read the bill amendment and my colleague Benjy Sarlin had a great point. He said something tells me it`s cathartic for democrats to go through this process on the other side. Are you finding this cathartic having been through the health care wars?

CARVILLE: I find that there`s a kind of a political rollout that is almost absolute. To move on health care is to lose. Whoever tries to change what exists - politically, I`m talking about politically, loses and remember also the CBO has not come in yet with a score.

HAYES: We don`t have a headline yet saying 10 million to lose coverage -

CARVILLE: Right. It would -

HAYES: - or whatever it`s going to be.

CARVILLE: But the suspicion is it`s not going to be thought of very favorable. But what the House Leadership - by way, Congressman Scalise is coming to my class in Tulane, I think we`ll have 100 percent attendance at that class. This just -- it`s - the situation is - the truth is the only way to get past it is make people walk the plank.

HAYES: Right.

CARVILLE: So they have to put the bill out there and say, all right it`s either - you know, you`re either with us or against us.

HAYES: And Congressman Brooks, we should note, that was not a definitive -


HAYES: That was not definitive. That`s sounds like leaving a lot of wiggle room to walk said planks.

CARVILLE: Mo Brooks is in for a lot Mo-squeezing. He`s going to get a lot of phone calls from his company. But at the end of the day, it`s going to be substantially different. You have the AMA, which is I think the largest lobby - largest lobby in Washington in terms of the campaign dollars, at least it was at one time, the Hospital Association, they`re enormous. The AARP, other people have not weighed in. Whatever it is that they vote on is - by the time the senate and it goes back to the House it`s going to be substantially different from what we`ve seen.

HAYES: So you - you think the most likely outcome is that they - you pass something in the House and it then it slows down the senate? Is that - is that what you would predict?

CARVILLE: I mean, I guess I would predict it because - you know, we`re going to see (INAUDIBLE) - the President has never done this before. He`s got to make a lot of phone calls. He doesn`t like being on the phone a lot and - you know, they have to control people, they have to threaten people. They`re going to have to do a lot of things and House Leadership is going to have to do the same thing, then it gets to the senate. You can`t lose with three people -

HAYES: Right.

CARVILLE: - in the senate and the democrats are almost certainly going to be united in their opposition, so, I mean, there`s a long, long way for Trumpcare, or as i call it "Trump court care" or whatever the - whatever the word is. I mean, we`re in a - you know, we`re in a top of the first inning.

HAYES: Right.

CARVILLE: The CBO - and the CBO number is going to carry through the entire weekend and it also set - the polling on this will be pretty ironclad come middle of next week.

HAYES: I was thinking about this today. So, 1992, `93 President Clinton elected. He has sworn in. Makes a run at health care, fails, democrats get whooped in the midterms. Barack Obama, elected, makes a run at health care, succeeds, democrats get whooped in the midterms. Is there any way out of a whooping.

CARVILLE: I don`t know what (INAUDIBLE). I think my history is right on this. I think Lyndon Johnson and the democrats passed Medicare in 1965 and got whooped in -

HAYES: They got whooped in `66.

CARVILLE: OK. I think that also happened, too. Look right in the start, that was bad polling. And the polling is pretty unanimous here that people want to keep it or expand it. And not by -

HAYES: 63 percent. Yes. Right.

CARVILLE: And so he`s got - we`re going to see - you know, how good a President Trump is in terms of being effective and dealing with the congress and selling this to the American people. Because he`s got a much more skeptical public than he has republican party.

HAYES: Although one of the - one of the dynamics here that`s so interesting about watching the Trump Presidency unfold is that he is not particularly popular with the American public. He`s near 40, 42, 44 percent. He`s extremely popular with republicans. In fact higher favorability than Reagan or George W. Bush, right? Extremely popular and particularly in the House, right? That`s where most of where - got 22 members of the House who were in districts Hillary Clinton won.

CARVILLE: Yes. And - but, look, if that thing fails, that`s a huge statement. In 1994 we lost a rule on the crime bill and our numbers were plunged south. Eventually came back and pass the crime bill but if it looks like you can`t pass something -

HAYES: Right.

CARVILLE: - then you lose the aura that you`re effective and can govern. I mean, I don`t - I don`t -

HAYES: Defeat begets defeat.

CARVILLE: And I don`t think that Ryan and McConnell have any other choice but strategy not to engage yet. It may not work but that`s the only way that they`ll going to get this through is to jam it and they know that. This is -- there`s no plan "B" here. They`ve got to get this thing through or weakness breeds more weakness.

HAYES: Do you think there`s a clock ticking, basically? Do you think the longer the process draws out, the more this - the detriment of those trying to get this bill passed?

CARVILLE: It`s not going to get any better. The situation - the political situation is likely not going to improve. I actually think politically they`re doing - the only - that`s the only choice they have -

HAYES: Right.

CARVILLE: - is to put it out there and force these members to vote. You know, it`s dicey and they`re going to have to spend a lot of time and break a lot of bones. And if they don`t change public opinion on this, it`s going to be really, really hard because public opinion is really trending against them.

HAYES: Not to mention the fact that if they successfully pass it, and it actually produces negative tangible consequences in people`s lives, that will be substantively terrible and also one would imagine politically -

CARVILLE: It`s almost - and wait until the CBO comes out. And you know, like, I don`t know what they`re going say, I have no idea

HAYES: Right. Yes.

CARVILLE: But I can`t believe it`s going to be very favorable.

HAYES: All right. James Carville.

CARVILLE: Thank you.

HAYES: Thanks for joining me.

CARVILLE: You bet. Absolutely.

HAYES: Still to come. Former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden joins me. Why he says the Trump administration`s ties to Russia deserve to be looked and what he says is beyond curious about President Trump`s behavior. That candid interview ahead.

And up next, Senator Bernie Sanders on Trumpcare and why Trump voters stand to lose the most if it`s passed. I`ll talk with Senator Sanders right after this two minute break.


HAYES: A lot of people have been tabulating the winners and losers from the GOP health care plan, Trumpcare, but if you were to pick the demographic group that takes it most squarely on the chin, it would be the following. Rural, 60-year-old Americans making $20,000 to $40,000 a year. And you know who rural, 60-year-old Americans making $20,000 to $40,000 a year votes for in the election? Donald J. Trump overwhelmingly. Look at this graph. It shows tax credits from the GOP plan Trumpcare versus ObamaCare. The green or greenish areas show where the Trumpcare scheme is better out of pocket than ObamaCare. The reddish areas are worse than ObamaCare. The top row is 27-year-olds and as you can see, that if they make more money, they see more benefits which itself is kind of perverse. For instance, the upper right, the one highlighted. If you`re a 27-year- old making $75,000 a year, which is doing quite well, you get more money out of pocket under Trumpcare. In fact, anyone making $75,000 a year of any age, those green maps on the far right, they get a bigger credit under Trumpcare. Now, for the 27-year-old making $50,000 a year, still pretty green, still seeing benefits of tax credits under Trumpcare. But look at that lower left, the one highlighted. That`s a 60-year-old making just $20,000 a year. That is the portion of population that is going to be crushed, the one that does the worst under Trumpcare compared to ObamaCare. And that whole bottom row shows how bad it is for older Americans in general. Under Trumpcare, until you get to the upper incomes. And joining me now, Senator Bernie Sanders Chair of the Senate Democratic Outreach Committee. And Senator, I cannot help but obsess a bit over the fact that the demographic group that seems to take it on the chin the hardest are rural, older voters in their 60s, 55, 60, making $20,000 a year, precisely the kinds of folks that went so heavily for Donald Trump.

BERNIE SANDERS, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM VERMONT: Well, that`s right, Chris. What the AARP has estimated that if you are 64 years of age and have an income of $25,000 a year, you`re likely to pay up to $7,000 a year more under this Trump plan, the republican plan, than you presently paid. And those are, in fact, many people in rural America who are struggling right now economically. I kind of think that when you look at what the republicans are doing, look at it not as a health care plan, because it really is not. Look at it as a tax plan with $275 billion in tax breaks for the top 2 percent, people earning $250,000 a year or more. It`s a massive transfer of wealth from working families, low income people, middle-class, to the top 2/10 of 1 percent, higher deductibles, higher premiums for those people in need, massive tax breaks for those who are the wealthiest in America.

HAYES: And those - we should be clear, the reason those tax cuts are there is because ObamaCare had a bunch of taxes put in place to fund the program, all of which were folks making over $250,000 a year. Here`s my question to you. It seems to me if the republicans want a tax cut so bad and democrats want to leave the structure of the ACA intact, isn`t the half a loaf solution to let the republicans cut the taxes and just charge it to the deficit and leave the program intact?

SANDERS: Well, I don`t think that`s quite the way it works here. I don`t - I think those people who want tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country will also at least ostensibly tell us they don`t want to add to the deficit. They`re not going to go on record as saying "hey, no problem, we`re increasing the deficit by $275 billion over the next ten years. But I think what our job is right now, and interestingly enough, why the republicans are moving this thing as quickly as possible, here you have a major transformation of health care, the largest part of our economy. Do you know how many hearings are being planned in the United States Senate, Chris? Zero.

HAYES: Yes, that was my sense.

SANDERS: Zero. They want to do their work very quickly in the House and then they want to vote on the floor of the Senate. I`m on the Health Education Committee and I can tell you that when we worked on the Affordable Care Act, we spent week after week, hearing after hearing trying to figure out the best way forward. Now, let me also say, that while this effort on the part of the republicans, which we`re going to fight tooth and nail, is an absolute disaster and will severely weaken health care in America, let us never forget for one second that we remain the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all people as a right and we spend far more per capita with outcomes that in many cases are not as good.

HAYES: Let me ask you about that. Because obviously you`re probably the most full-throated supporter of single payer in the United States Senate. But here`s my question, you`ve also been a critic of many of the features of the ACA because you feel they don`t go far enough. Short of single payer which I think given a Republican Senate - Republican House is not in the cards in the near future, short of single payer, what could be done to make the ACA actually better if that`s what you wanted to do?

SANDER: Well, first of all, I am. You know, I just met the other day with some very strong experts on health care. It is so clear, Chris, it is so clear that single payer is the most cost effective way to go forward in providing health care to all because it eliminates so much of the administrative and bureaucratic waste that we currently experience. And it`s important that we look at other countries around the world. What can we do where we are right now is your question. Well, for a start, it is while ObamaCare, the ACA added 20 million more people to health insurance - and by the way many of those people will lose their insurance under the republican plan - there are still 28 million Americans who have today zero health insurance. And it is important that we join other countries in guaranteeing health care to all of our people. Second of all, millions and millions of people are paying deductibles and co-payments that are so high that it effectively denies them the opportunity to go to the doctor, they can`t afford to do that. Those are the areas I think we should be focusing on.

HAYES: Finally, McDowell County in West Virginia is a county that has the lowest life expectancy in the country, if I`m not mistaken, the poorest county in West Virginia. It is also a place where folks have sort of weathered a lot of storms, a lot of transformations to the economy and it`s a place you and I are going to be going to on this - the end of this week and it`s also the kind of place where these issues are going to be at the forefront of everyday folks.


HAYES: What is the message of the democratic party to folks in McDowell County, West Virginia?

SANDERS: Well, let`s be clear. You know, while the republicans tell us that ObamaCare and the ACA are not perfect, here`s the truth, that in states like West Virginia and in states like Kentucky, they have had a massive impact in lowering the rate of uninsured. I think in West Virginia, if my memory is correct, it has gone from 17 percent uninsured down to 7 percent. That is pretty good.


SANDERS: So I will - this is an area, obviously, that has to be discussed and I look forward to discussing it on Monday.

HAYES: That`s what`s so amazing and interesting about this fight, it`s so concrete. It`s one of the most concrete policy fights we`ve had in a long time. Senator Bernie Sanders, thank you very much.

SANDERS: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: As I mentioned, we`re going to West Virginia for another edition of ALL IN AMERICA, BERNIE SANDERS IN TRUMP COUNTRY. That`s coming up this Monday at our normal time, 8:00 p.m. Eastern. You do not want to miss it.

Still ahead, former CIA Director Michael Hayden on the President`s accusation against the Intelligence Community and the network of relationships between the Trump administration and the Russia. Stick around.



SPICER: I just want to be really clear on one point which is there is no reason that we should - that we have to think that the President is the target of any investigation whatsoever.


HAYES: Not the thing you want to say from a White House podium, but the White House today appearing to grabble with the serious implications of the President`s own claim that he was wiretapped. Either the former President, President Obama, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to bugged his political opponents, an incendiary claim that`s frankly, well, pretty unthinkable, or a federal judge found sufficient evidence of wrongdoing by the President`s team to issue a warrant for surveillance which would raise itself some alarming questions. Of course, a third option is that it`s all just completely made up. The former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper denied any warrants were issued as did FBI Director James Comey, according to reports. And now two senators are calling the President`s bluff, Republican Lindsey Graham, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, together wrote a letter to the FBI and the Justice Department demanding copies of any court orders related to possible wiretapping of the President.


LINDSEY GRAHAM, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA: First things first, I want to find out was a warrant issued against the Trump campaign for illegal activity. That`s not too much to ask. The answer is either yes or no. If the answer is no, then I think we can move on.


HAYES: Graham said he`d issue subpoenas if there`s a failure to comply. Amid continued fallout from the President`s wiretap tweets, we`re finally learning what President Obama thought of his successor`s baseless claims and we`ll tell you how he reacted next.


HAYES: A source close to the former president told our own Peter Alexander that President Obama, and I quote here, "rolled his eyes" at the current`s president`s unsubstantiated tweets about having been wiretapped. According to the source, President Obama believes the claim undermines the integrity of the office of the president.

But he believes they don`t affect his own integrity because they`re blatantly false.

Retired General Michael Hayden was director of the CIA and NSA. He`s the author of "Playing to the Edge: American Intelligence in the Age of Terror" now out in paperback. And I asked him how he reacted to the president`s wiretapping claim.


MICHAEL HAYDEN, FRM. DIRECTOR OF THE CIA: It started with anger, Chris, And I tried to get over that, tried to be a little bit mature about it, and then it moved more into sadness, because I`m very much afraid that what the president did and how he did it really made it even more difficult to establish that essential relationship he needs to have with my old community, the intelligence folks.

Now, look, I understand there are a whole bunch of larger political and legal issues involved here. But my focus was once again the president, frankly, accused my old community of abetting a felony by the former president and then he seems to have offhandedly rejected the opinion of his outgoing DNI, Jim Clapper, and his current FBI director Jim Comey once again, kind of making it a line of confrontation rather than a zone of cooperation between himself and the intel guys who exist only to make him and American policy more wise than it would otherwise be.

HAYES: Well, let me ask you about that, because there`s a theory that`s developed I think among Trump folks -- and not just among Trump folks, other observers -- that there is a kind of -- some have referred to it as soft coup, some have used the term deep state which is imported from analysis of Turkish politics in which members of the intelligence community are selectively leaking classified information, in some cases talking to reporters about the contents of a wiretap that General Flynn and the Russian ambassador had in order to undermine the president.

Is that a concern for you?

HAYDEN: Of course it`s a concern. And I had to live with the consequences of leaks during my entire time in government and particularly my time at NSA and CIA.

So, a couple of general thoughts about this, Chris, and without getting too defensive. Number one, I would not automatically assume that all of these are coming from the intelligence guys. A lot of it comprises intelligence but, you know, we have clients and customers inside the government and very often my life experience has been it`s not the intelligence people that leak but these other folks who get the information.

So that`s, I think, one very important thing to point out. It also, again, kind of reinforces that confrontation between the community and the president.

I had problems with the leaks when I arrived at CIA. My first talk to the work force there, Chris, was we are getting out of the news as source or subject. But the way I then approached the problem was not to make war on my own community, not to make war on my own agency, but to be as open as possible with them and to open the gates for rich and meaningful dialogue.

You know, one thing that the president could do, I think, that would undercut any of the leaks that are coming from the intelligence community is to be more inclusive of that community, to give them what is and appears to be a meaningful role in the development of policy. But right now it`s a line of confrontation, as I`ve suggested before.

HAYES: And I want to just follow-up on this, because there`s some way to interpret this as the following: if you don`t play nice with the intelligence agencies, if you don`t play nice with the intelligence community, if you don`t cooperate with them and solicit them, they are going to have their revenge upon you.

But that also seems sort of troubling from a democratic standpoint.

HAYDEN: Of course it`s troubling. And I`m not quite saying that, Chris. What I`m saying is the intel guys are professionals. They`ll work for Republicans or Democrats. They want to get their job done. But they`re also human beings. And when the kinds of things that have been happening over the last 45 -- well, actually beyond that, while the president was president-elect, while those kinds of thing happened, human nature being what it is, human beings do things they might later regret.

So, look, I`m not trying to forgive anybody here. I`m trying to propose a way forward where it actually might make this better. And my life experience tells me the best way forward is not vengeance but creating a zone of cooperation.

HAYES: You have said the following, you said there`s a lot of smoke around the Trump team`s ties to Russia. What do you mean by that?

HAYDEN: Well, look, it`s a very unusual relationship.

Look, we have to step back, Chris, and I know you know this, but let me repeat it. First of all, we now know that the Russian Federation interfered with the American election and one of their objectives was to help Donald Trump get elected. That`s a high confidence judgment of the American intelligence community that Mr. Trump and his entourage have now stopped denying. They at least accept that.

Beyond that, you`ve got Mr. Trump`s behavior who throughout the campaign and a way that`s hard for me to explain, Chris, never criticized Vladimir Putin even though lord knows the man deserves an awful lot of criticism.

And then finally you`ve got this network of relationships between the Trump campaign or more fairly people in the Trump campaign and people in the Russian Federation.

Chris, let me be really candid with you here, that may have absolutely no meaning whatsoever. But those three realities -- the Russian interference, the comments of the president himself, and these extended relationships -- it`s something that`s beyond curious, something that deserves to be looked at, actually deserves to be looked at for the benefit of the current president so he can put this behind him and have it not be a distraction as he tries to govern.

HAYES: Final question here about the new documents that have been published by Wikileaks. They purport to be internal CIA documents about the means of essentially hacking various electronic devices to turn them into tools of surveillance.

HAYDEN: Right.

HAYES: And here`s my question for you, can you assure any American watching that no device they have has been compromised by these features without some kind of warrant or court authorization?

HAYDEN: Yeah, Chris. I mean, we alluded already to the president`s claim over the weekend that President Obama wiretapped his phones, and we`ve all rehearsed now for the last three or four days, the only way you get to target a U.S. person, even if you`re the president of the United States, is to go to a court, get a warrant and prove that that person is either a criminal or an agent of a foreign power.

HAYES: So you can make an assurance -- we`re talking about malware here, right, so malware can sometimes get out of the control of the people that propagate it. You can assure people that malware is not present in any system in absence of a warrant for an American who`s watching this?

HAYDEN: No, what I can assure you, Chris, is that my life experience tells me that the laws, the policies, the procedures, the people and the culture of the American intelligence community tells me I`ve got high confidence that no one in that community intentionally targeted someone who is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

HAYES: Intentionally is key there.

General Michael Hayden, I appreciate it, thank you for your time.

HAYDEN: Thank you.


HAYES: Ahead, protests around the country for International Women`s Day. How the president marked the day, coming up.

Plus, before Sean Spicer was the face of the White House, he was more of a behind the scenes kind of guy. I`ll explain in tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two after the break.


HAYES: Thing One tonight, an important scheduling announcement from the White House.


SPICER: Today, the president and first lady announced the initial details for 139th White House Easter Egg Roll taking place on Monday, April 17. They are honored to continue the traditions of the past while creating new ones that will play a lasting role in the fabric of our nation`s history.


HAYES: In continuing past tradition, the question is whether this administration will employ the same Easter Bunnies as in past years since this is a perfect reminder that the press secretary is not the only job Sean Spicer has held at the White House. A hop down memory lane to Sean Spicer`s furry past. That`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.



SPICER: That was the largest audience to ever witness and inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe.


HAYES: Thing Two, that guy and the famously ill-fitting suit was once this guy wearing a rabbit suit. Yes, for two years during the Bush administration, Spicer was the man beneath the ears. After his second appearance in 2008, the veteran bunny spoke with Politico about the job. Asked if he met any famous kids, Spicer said, quote, "I can`t see too much and the bunny does not talk but every child is special on this day."

Later in 2013, he reflected on his time behind the fur saying the costume heats up and advising, quote, "early morning is key."

This year`s White House Easter Egg Roll will take place on April 17 and, given Spicer`s much elevated status since 2008 I`m sure he can secure an early-morning slot.


HAYES: Today is International Women`s Day and all across the country women walked out of their jobs and marched in the streets. The holiday isn`t usually celebrated this particular way, but this year with Donald Trump as president, thousands of people are taking part in protests organized by some of the leaders of January`s women`s marches, which they`re calling a day without a woman.

Earlier this morning President trump weighed in on the importance of the day tweeting, quote, "I have tremendous respect for women and the many roles they serve that are vital to the fabric of our society and our economy. On International Women`s Day, join me in honoring the critical role of women here in America and around the world."

Any time Donald Trump is tweeting about women, a certain amount of cringing is understandable. After all, this one from last year is still up on the old Twitter feed, retweet of a side-by-side photo of Melania Trump and an unflattering one of Heidi Cruz which famously led to Ted Cruz railing against Trump and calling him a sniveling coward while staring into the camera.

But that was then and this is now. On this Woman`s Day President Trump and the first lady are having the Cruzes over for dinner at the White House, Ted and Heidi both.

Again, a certain amount of cringing is understandable. Our Hallie Jackson asked Sean Spicer about it today.


HALLIE JACKSON, MSNBC WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I`m just curious about this meeting with Senator Cruz tonight. As you mentioned, Heidi Cruz is coming, too, and I`m wondering if the president has plans to apologize her for the insinuations he made on the campaign trail.


HAYES: Good question. We`ll show you how Spicer responded to that question right after this break.



HALLIE JACKSON, MSNBC WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I`m just curious about this meeting with Senator Cruz tonight. As you mentioned, Heidi Cruz is coming, too, and I`m wondering if the president has plans to apologize her for the insinuations he made on the campaign trail.

SPICER: They`re looking forward to a great dinner. He`s had - he had dinner with the Rubios a couple of days ago, maybe a week ago. He had lunch yesterday with Senator Graham. This is, as I stated, weeks ago the president is going to continue to have outreach to members of congress from both parties.


HAYES: Press Secretary Sean Spicer wouldn`t answer whether President Trump will apologize to Heidi Cruz at dinner tonight for his disparaging, sexist retweet last march that he still hasn`t taken down inexplicably. But Trump has of course said incredibly offensive things about women on numerous occasions, the most notorious of which was this.


TRUMP: I`ve got to use Tic-Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I`m automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them, it`s like a magnet. You just kiss.

And when you`re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.

BILLIE BUSH: Whatever you want.

TRUMP: Grab them by the (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

You can do anything.


HAYES: Joining me now, Brittany Cooper, assistant professor of women`s and gender studies at Rutgers University, author of the forthcoming book "Race, Women, Gender and the Making of a Black Public Intellectual Tradition." Jess McIntosh, executive editor at Share Blue, anti-Trump media company, formerly of the Clinton campaign.

So I want to start with talking about that clip. And the reason is this, we were debating whether to play it or not, because at one level it feels so gratuitous, there`s something uncomfortable about it.


HAYES: There`s a degree to which there`s a kind of collective willful amnesia that that happened and that that man is...

MCINTOSH: I`m glad you played it. I was going to bring it up tonight if you hadn`t played it. I think that women are making sure that we don`t normalize Trump and it is largely because of that tape and his feelings about women.

I thought the most compelling ads of the campaign were the ones that used his own words calling women all kinds of names, and especially being on the Clinton campaign like just hearing that play, pigs anddogs and fat slobs over and over again it was tough to actually, like, be in a work space where that was as much a part of it as it was because of the man we were running against.

And then the Access Hollywood tape came out and all of a sudden we had to hear that over and over again. And I think maybe naively thought that it was worse being in the Clinton bunker than it was for women all over the country and I think nationally we all felt it.

HAYES: But is there some - I mean, part of what I think has been interesting to me that women have been so centered in the -- in this resistance, right, intentionally so. And, you know, partly because it felt in a weird way like the election for multiple reasons was a referendum of the country being like, "that`s fine."

BRITNEY COOPER, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: Well, I think it`s about where you being the narration.

So, let`s be clear that it`s women of color who are leading the resistance, and so then if you look at the election then it makes more sense. Women of color by and large voted for Hillary Clinton.

MCINTOSH: 94 percent.

COOPER: Exactly, right.

And so now then it`s like white women all of a sudden saw oh, my goodness, this can happen and they gotten on board. But all of these actions that are happening from the women`s march to today, the day without women, have had women of color at the forefront saying get out in the the streets, it`s time to fight back.

This is not a thing that just white women have been doing, and it`s really important that if we`re not going to erase Donald Trump`s own kind of participation in creating this culture of misogyny or advancing an existing culture of misogyny, then we also don`t erase which women stood up first and said this is a problem.

MCINTOSH: No, I think it`s really important.

HAYES: Yeah, so let`s talk about that, because there`s been an interesting debate, right, about this movement and about sort of dissension within it and about what the parameters of inclusion are.

So there`s this question of marrying together opposition to racism, opposition to scapegoating of immigrants, bigotry towards Muslims and women. And so there`s that as a sort of principle, right. And there are people who also say, well, don`t we want a big tent?


MCINTOSH: The only way to get a big tent is to break down the silos. And the things that white women have done wrong like from the suffragette movement on is by throwing over women of color every time they had a chance to advance feminism for white women. That meant that we never actually got anywhere because the truth is, it`s about the oppressive structure we have to fight against, which means you have to deal with the intersection of racism and sexism if you`re going to make advancements for everybody.

COOPER: But at the same time, I`m actually saying the women of color, right, that we can`t let white women`s own history of egregious racism keep us from being in the streets around women`s issues. So there`s this -- so there was a bit of hesitancy among some women of color today saying we don`t know if we trust y`all, we`re not sure if we can trust this solidarity.

HAYES: This is privilege that you can not go to work. I saw that critique as well.

COOPER: It was a really ahistorical critique, because this movement comes out of labor strikes from the early 1900s, from immigrant women all across the country, but it also comes out of black women`s history of critiquing capitalism.

HAYES: OK, so here`s what I find fascinating at this moment, right. It`s like all the language that you guys are using is - grows from a vocabulary that`s been built up over time, but is quite specialized as vocab. It`s like people learn new terms like intersectional, et cetera.

It seems to me there`s a challenge, there`s an organizing challenge of someone who is like I don`t like Donald Trump, I don`t know what intersectional means, I don`t know the history of this struggle, et cetera, but I`m kind of feeling like I want to be out on the streets, but I also feel like maybe you`re judging me because I don`t know the vocabulary. Does that make sense?

COOPER: No, it is such a challenge in this moment. I mean, we`re in what we call the woke Olympics, right? What is the most radical woke sort of politics?

And so, look, we have to start speaking in language...

HAYES: Supporting Donald Trump, if you go all the way around, that`s the most woke.

COOPER: Absolutely not. I will fight you.

HAYES: But that is -- that strikes me as a real challenge.

MCINTOSH: I think it`s about having personal conversations. It`s about talking - like, you don`t have to engage on a gender studies level to talk to the people in your life about. It`s about your own lived experience and whether other people`s might be different from you.

COOPER: Or we can - look, we can say to people, look, having Trump means that we might defund Planned Parenthood.

HAYES: It`s out there. It`s in writing.

COOPER: We have a veritable crisis of black - of infant deaths among black children. The Nation had a great piece about this two weeks ago and the new replacement for Obamacare takes away funding for maternity care.

So, that`s the kind of stuff...

HAYES: The stuff that`s tangible.

Great point. Totally. It`s a great point.

Brittany Cooper, Jess McIntosh, I like the red.


HAYES: Finally on this International Women`s Day I wanted to share a few phenomenal works on race, democracy and policing written by some incredible female authors. Books like Ghettoside by Jill Leovy, The Warmth of Other Sons by Isabel Wilkerson, The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, there`s a full list of them. And they`re on I recomment you check them out. I drew on them in the book that I`m writing, or wrote. On our Facebook page, you can find tour dates for that book, my book, A Colony in a Nation, which is out in less than two week.

And I`m going to be coming around the country, and events are filling up fast. So, if you watch a show and you want to come see me, go check out those tour dates and get in there.

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


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