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

All in with Chris Hayes, Transcript 5/1/2017

Guests: Don Berwick, Tammy Baldwin, Evelyn Farkas, Jason Johnson, David Jolly, Gabe Sherman

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HARDBALL HOST:  Thanks for being with us.  "ALL IN" with Chris Hayes starts right now.



DONALD TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA:  Pre-existing conditions are in the bill and I mandate it.

HAYES:  Pre-existing problems for the White House.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  People with pre-existing conditions will continue to get access but not at the same price as other people. 

SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY:  Well, the idea is actually they would create a high-risk pool.

HAYES:  Tonight, as the administration spins a bill that reduces protections for pre-existing conditions, is Trumpcare about to pass the House? 

Then, why the President says he would be honored to meet with North Korea`s dictator at the backlash against his White House invitation for another strong man grows. 

Gabe Sherman on yet another high profile departure of Fox News and American history Trump.

TRUMP:  People don`t ask that question but why was there the civil war.

HAYES:  Andrew Jackson, Donald Trump and the dangers learning on the job.

TRUMP:  Why could that one not have been worked out?

HAYES:  ALL IN starts right now.


Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes.  Confronted with his baseless charge that President Obama have him wiretapped today, President Trump offered up what looks at this juncture like a good clear and concise articulation of his governing philosophy insisting quote, "I don`t stand by anything" then dodging the question and ending an Oval Office interview.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Do you stand by that claim about -

TRUMP:  I don`t stand by anything.  I just - you can take it the way you want.  I think our side has been proven very strongly and everybody is talking about it.  And frankly, it should be discussed.  I think that is a very big surveillance of our citizens.  I think it`s a very big topic and it`s a topic that should be number one and we should find out what the hell is going on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I just wanted to find out that - you`re the President of the United States.  You said he was sick and bad because of the attempt -

TRUMP:  You know, you can take anyway, you can take it any way you want.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  But I`m asking you because you don`t want it to be fake news, I want to hear it from President Trump.

TRUMP:  You don`t have to ask me.


TRUMP:  Because I have my own opinions, you can have your own opinions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  But I want to know your opinion.  You`re the President of the United States.

TRUMP:  OK.  It`s enough, thank you.  Thank you very much.


HAYES:  I don`t stand by anything, those are the President`s own words and they`re useful.  They explain how, for instance, Trump camp without batting an eye insisted in the campaign trail, he wants to increases taxes on the rich and then, as President release a tax plan that instead offers the wealthiest a tax cut.  And that`s easy when you don`t stand by anything.  For the past 24 hours the President has given a flurry of interviews in which he did everything from compliment North Korean leader Kim Jon-un to offering his, shall we say, his unique take on the civil war - much more on all that in a bit - to suggesting out of nowhere that he might break up the Wall Street banks and raise U.S. gas taxes.  We`ll see about those.  Trump also spoke to CBS News John Dickerson, about the latest version of the health care bill that republicans keep trying to push to the House, his comments suggesting he either does not know what`s in the bill or has decided to willfully misrepresent what it does.


TRUMP:  I just watched another network than yours, and they were saying pre-existing is not covered.  Pre-existing conditions are in the bill.  And I mandate it, I said, it has to be.


HAYES:  All right.  It is absolutely technically true that people pre- existing conditions cannot be denied insurance under the latest version of the House bill, but the problem is that doesn`t mean much since it would change current law to allow health insurance companies in certain states to charge people with pre-existing conditions vast sums for coverage.  Now, for most people, it doesn`t matter if you can technically get insurance if it cost you say $50,000 per year to get it.


TRUMP:  When I watch some of the news reports which is so unfair and they say we don`t cover pre-existing conditions, we cover it beautifully.  I`ll tell you who doesn`t cover pre-existing conditions, ObamaCare, you know why, it`s dead.


HAYES:  The entire interview was like that.  Trump making misleading statements and throwing out claims that don`t bear any relation to reality such as the GOP bill as currently drafted will lower deductibles.  That despite nonpartisan analysis showing it would actually, significantly increase them.


TRUMP:  We`re going to drive down deductibles because right now deductibles are so high, you never - unless you`re going to die a long hard death, you never can get to use your health care because the deductibles are so high.


HAYES:  At this point, increasingly what the health care debate comes down to this.  Do you trust the President or do you trust say the political march of dimes, which is one of the groups that says the latest version of the bill doesn`t work.  That it will deny millions of pregnant women, babies and their families the affordable coverage and quality services they need.  It`s just some of the groups from across the ideological spectrum opposed now on the record to the current iteration of the bill.  Among them, the AARP, and American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, all these groups say that what the President and his republican allies are pushing is fundamentally bad for the country for patience.  Despite that, republicans are moving to hold a vote on the bill this week with House leaders feverishly trying to secure the votes they need for passage.  The President, meanwhile, is doing what he does, having insisted yesterday the health care bill does effectively cover people with pre-existing conditions.  He seems to suggest today that no, actually, it doesn`t, but at some point eventually it will.  "I want it to be good for sick people.  It`s not in its final form right now."  The President said.  "It will be every bit as good on pre-existing conditions as ObamaCare."  Joining me now, MSNBC Political Analyst Michael Steele, former Chair of the Republican National Committee and Dr. Don Berwick, former Administrator at the Center for Medicare Services now Harvard`s Institute for Healthcare Improvement.  Michael, I`ll start with you, and let`s just start on the politics for a moment.  It`s a kind of through the looking glass scenario for the House Republican Caucus, is always the House Freedom Caucus and right flank that is cocking things, that is threatening to defect.  Now they`ve gotten them on board and instead they`re negotiating with the sort of so-called moderates, that - a group called the Tuesday group and others.  There`s about 20 in the latest whip count or 21 that are a no on this bill.  They`ve only got wiggle room of 22.  What`s your read on the politics for those members right now?

MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  Well, the bottom line is the politics on this sucks for the GOP.  The reality of - the reality of it is, you`ve wasted seven years and in that time, not gotten the moderates and, you know, traditional republicans on board with the conservatives in the House to fashion the kind of bill that they would not stand in embarrassment of each other right now -

HAYES:  Right.

STEELE:   - negotiating publicly.  It is, in my view, a failure and unfortunately for the administration, they fell into that trap at the outset.  You know, to the credit of the President, his instincts were not to lead with health care, it was to lead down the road on taxes and then on the business side of the equation, but now they are stuck and the president is having to have a conversation about a bill that it is clear, he is not - have been fully apprised of what it ultimately does and how it works and what`s included and what`s not included.  You cannot, on the one hand, say that you`re giving everyone, you know, the benefit of a certain type of service, but in the next breath say, hey, it`s a waiver for the states.

HAYES:  It`s a - that`s very well said and, Don, there`s another wrinkle here, that is - it`s a little bit of policy minutiae, but it`s a really important one for the politics and Michael talking about.  This was something I didn`t realize until on my show we had Dan Donovan who represents Statin Island he`s in New York republican who says no on this.  That in states like New York and California where you`ve got strong regulations that basically require insurance plans to offer - to cover abortion, that the refundable tax credit that you get from the government can`t go to any of those plans.  The New York Times summing it up this way, the law, if passed, would all but make it impossible for Californians, that`s, you know, 50 million people (INAUDIBLE), to use the new tax credits to buy health insurance and you`ve got just in the California delegation alone, you`ve got a whole bunch of republicans, Paul Cook, Jeff Denham, Duncan Hunter, Darrell Issa, you know, in the New York - between those two states, you know, that`s a bunch of people who are going to have to vote for a bill their own constituents can`t use the credits for.

DON BERWICK, CENTER FOR MEDICARE SERVICES FORMER ADMINISTRATOR:  Yes, that`s right.  A bad bill got a lot worse with this McArthur Amendment, the AHCA, the bill that did not get voted on a couple of months ago.  It was take away a support for getting health insurance, took away subsidies, took away Medicaid expansion or limited it.  It basically - it made it harder for people to get insurance.  This amendment, this improvement of the bill reduces guarantees to people about the insurance that they do get.  So as Mr. Steel said, it gives to the states the right, for example, to define essential health benefits.  And if a state wants to take out maternity care or wants to take out cancer care or autism care, they can do it.  And what that means is that the guaranteed issue that you can actually get insurance doesn`t apply to those -

HAYES:  Right.

BERWICK:  It only applies to the essential benefits.  And the lifetime limits that limit the amount of money - that limit the insurance companies` ability to say, will not spend more than a certain -

HAYES:  Right.

BERWICK:   - amount in you in your lifetime, that only applies to the essential benefits.  So this is a massive takeaway of guarantees to the American public including the people you mentioned.

HAYES:  Now, Michael, we`re talking about the sort of ideological fissure, Mo Brooks, who we`ve had on the show, I really enjoy having him on the show and talking to him because I think he`s very honest about sort of his world view.  He gave an interview in which - he made an articulation that to me was the really the only sort of defensible ideological case about this, which is basically, the sick should pay more for insurance.  Take - I want both of you to take a listen and react to it.  Here is Mo Brooks.


MO BROOKS, UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN FROM ALABAMA:  My understanding is that it will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher healthcare cost to contribute more to the insurance pool that helps offset all of these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who live good lives, they`re healthy, you know, they`re doing the things to keep their bodies healthy and right now, those are the people who have done things the right way, that are seeing their cost skyrocketing.  Now in fairness, a lot of these people with pre-existing conditions, they have those conditions through no fault of their own and I think our society to those circumstances needs to help.


HAYES:  Well, that last sentence his intention comes before it.  But - you know, I mean, do you think it`s sellable message to the American public that pre-existing condition are kind of sign of some kind of a moral turpitude, right?  It`s like, there`s the virtuous folks who are taking care of their bodies and then there`s the sick people and it`s ok those sick people pay more.

STEELE:  Well, what it boils down is to affordability.  What you can afford.  I mean, if you`re poor, there;s more than just not having cash.  It`s lifestyle.  It`s environment.  There are a lot of things that contribute to your bad health.  Some of it is hereditary.  You cannot help the way you were born.  Your family has predisposition towards heart disease, what do you do about that?

HAYES:  Diabetes, breast cancer,

STEELE:  Right.  Exactly.

HAYES:  I mean, there`s a million things we could list here.

STEELE:  Exactly.  So, this notion that you`re somehow going to, you know, suddenly have them pay more for that, that`s ideal, ok, fine, we can do that, but how do you mitigate against the poverty.  I mean, what do you - what do you do to address the fact that they cannot necessarily afford more, so we need to rethink this whole proposition and stop putting people in boxes and saying that because, well, Chris, you did a good job with your health, you should pay less and because I was unfortunate and not being able to do for my health, I have to pay more, it makes no sense.

HAYES:  That would - Michael just said - I mean, in some ways, when you talk about technical policy terms, guaranteed issue and community rating which are technical policy terms done, are the ways in which the regulations and the marketplace of ObamaCare capture that essential insight, right?  That we`re just going to say, you know, just because you happen to be, you know, diagnosed with juvenile diabetes you`re not going to have to pay ten times as much for your premiums, that`s the whole game.

BERWICK:  Yes.  That assertion is offensive about ten ways.  The idea that if you`re sick, you made yourself sick isn`t true epidemiologically.  And by the way, if they really care about that, why would they remove prevention funding from the law.  I mean, don`t you want to help people stay healthy if you actually believe that.  But mathematically, it unwinds the whole idea of insurance, we have insurance, the way insurance exist is to take people of different risk and put them in the same pool.  And the amendment that`s now being proposed gives to the state the right to take that logic away.  They`re violating laws and mathematics.

HAYES:  All right.  Michael Steele and Don Berwick, thank you both for joining me.

STEELE:  All right.

HAYES:  Up next the President celebrates his first hundred days in office by effectively launching his 2020 campaign.  Trump`s basic strategy and the Democratic Party response in two minutes.


HAYES:  To commemorate his 100 days in office, Donald Trump skipped that White House Correspondents dinner in favor of spending the evening in a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.  Rally attended by nearly 7,000 people including at least one person wearing a keystone united or keystone state skinhead t-shirt which, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is a white supremacist hate group.  President Trump spent the evening assuring the audience that as the banner read behind him, promises made or promises kept and then proceeded to rehash the greatest hits from the campaign trail.


TRUMP:  Anybody remember who our opponent was?  Huh?  Don`t worry, we`re going to have the wall, don`t worry about it.  Media outlets like CNN and MSNBC are fake news, fake news.   We are going to keep radical Islamic terrorist the hell out of our country.

We`ll build a wall, folks, don`t even worry about it, go to sleep.  Go home, go to sleep, rest assured.

That`s right.  Get them out of here.  Get them out.

Thank you for that sign.  Blacks for Trump, I love that guy.

Is there any place like a Trump rally, in all fairness?


HAYES:  For the President, Pennsylvania`s clearly Trump country, a state he won by some 44,000 votes.  But the last time he visited Harrisburg, he had a slightly different view of it.


TRUMP:  I flew into Harrisburg, Pennsylvania yesterday and I looked down and I looked at - it looked like a war zone where you have these massive plants you could see 25 years ago vibrance.  It`s all in Mexico now.


HAYES:  Trump was asked to clarify that observation when he returned to Harrisburg this weekend.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Do you think the city looks like a war zone?  Can you clarify your comment from your last visit?

TRUMP:  What?  What did you say?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Do you think the city looks like a war zone?  Last time you were here you mentioned that -

TRUMP:  Any other questions?


HAYES:  And joining me now is Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.  And Senator, I wanted to talk to you because when we think about what the democratic party message is, it could be a little abstract or this is a party that does not have control of the government.  But you`re in a Trump - a state Trump won.  You`re going to have to try to win statewide in less than two years and I wonder what you, your message to your voters is about what you stand for and what the democratic party stands for in this moment.

TAMMY BALDWIN, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN:  Well, it`s never changed since I first was elected to public office and certainly since I ran for the Senate in 2012.  It`s about how we help hardworking people get ahead, recognizing the dignity of worth - of work over the -over rewarding wealth and I`ll get back to that in terms of our tax reform conversation because we do reward wealth more than reward work in our tax code.  But, it`s standing up to a rigged system so that that the working class in my state and across America can get ahead again.

HAYES:  So that`s an interesting, that term, rigged system and working class.  Those are two words, I was thinking about that and the context of this really interesting set of focus groups with Obama-Trump voters, right?  These are people that voted for both of those people in Macon County Michigan which is not Wisconsin but not super far from the experience that I think a lot of voters in your state.  And a lot of this about that he was pro - that the democratic party was pro the wealthy, richer people, the big wigs, the lobbyist, that they didn`t help the lower class, they didn`t help the middle class.  What do you do about that perception out there?  Is that fair and how do you counter it?

BALDWIN:  Well, first of all, I hope to be judged on my record because I`ve been fighting for by America policies, I`ve been fighting to change the tax code so that it does reward work over wealth.  And so there`s a track record on which I can demonstrate to the Wisconsin voters that I am fighting for them.  And I have to say, I didn`t get to see the focus groups that you`re describing but I do think that working class voters in Wisconsin heard trump return over and over again to issues of trade and by America -

HAYES:  right.

BALDWIN:  - but if they have been watching me over my career, they have seen me fight against unfair trade deals since day one.

HAYES:  So here - I want to talk about unfair trade in a second.  So let`s put a pin on that for a second.  I want to talk about taxes, too because you know, part of the question here, right, is about - is about perception and reality, right?  How much of voters are getting signals that someone is fighting for them and how much the policy details matter, trickle down to them in terms of the tax proposal that the White House has put out, you know, it`s a fairly standard republican party deficit finance tax cut for the very wealthy, largely.  Is that - do you think that`s landing with voters in your state or does the perception matter more than what`s actually in the details?

BALDWIN:  Well, they must think it`s the perception because this is the Trump tax plan that`s on one sheet of paper.  It has no details and so, he`s all about perception right now rather than getting into the substance.  But what is frustrating to me is so many of the promises he made on the campaign trail, some of which I agree with -

HAYES:  Right.

BALDWIN:   - aren`t evident in this plan, including the carried - closing the carried interest loophole, which I have championed in the Senate ever since I got here.

HAYES:  So the President favored on the campaign trail closing what`s called the carry interest loophole, which hedge fund managers could declare what`s essentially their ordinary income as capital games get a tax to the far lower rate, save lots and lots of money taxes.  Basically, everyone I`ve talked to who`s an unbiased expert think it`s a ridiculous loophole and wants to close it but it never happens.  Do you think it`s going to get closed now?

BALDWIN:  Well, if he`s really about draining the swamp, this is one of the best pieces of evidence that our system is rigged.  Why I have doubts and caution is that this tax plan, so to speak, was written by two Wall Street bankers, Cohen and Mnuchin and - so that gives me great concerns.  But we are going to continue to focus in on this particular provision.  I`m reintroducing the bill to close the carried interest loophole with colleagues tomorrow.  And we also have to understand that if he does ultimately include that in his tax plan, that he doesn`t give a whole bunch of other handouts to the very wealthiest to you know, take away its effect.

HAYES:  Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin, thank you for your time.

BALDWIN:  Thank you.

HAYES:  Coming up, the authoritarian that President Trump says he`s a smart cookie that he`d be honored to meet.  That story after the short break.



TRUMP:  If you look at - if you look at North Korea, this guy, this - I mean, he`s like a maniac.  OK.  And you got to give him credit.  How many young guys - he was like 26 or 25 when his father died - take over these tough generals and all of a sudden, you know, it`s pretty amazing when you think of it that, how does he do that?  Even though it is a culture and it`s a cultural thing, he goes in, he takes over and he`s the boss.  It`s incredible.  He wiped out the uncle, he wiped out this one, that one.  I mean this guy doesn`t play games. 


HAYES:  Donald Trump has changed his mind a lot of issues.  He has been quite consistent in his admiration for the leadership style of North Korea`s Kim Jong-un.  Man who rules one of the world`s most repressive, violent regimes.  The President expresses admiration on the campaign trail and again in an interview this weekend.


TRUMP:  He was a young man of 26 or 27 when he took over from his father when his father died.  He`s dealing with obviously tough people, in particular, the generals and others.  And at a very young age, he was able to assume power.  A lot of people, I`m sure, tried to take that power away whether it was his uncle or anybody else and he was able to do it.  So, obviously, he`s a pretty smart cookie.


HAYES:  Asked about those remarks he said, White House Press Secretary stood by the President`s words about Kim Young-un.


SPICER:  He assumed power at a - at a young age when his father passed away and there were a lot of potential threats that could have come his way, and he`s obviously managed to lead a country forward, despite the obvious concerns that we and so many other people have.  The - you know, he is a young person to be leading a country with nuclear weapons.


HAYES:  Now, the President says under the right circumstances, he`d be eager to meet the North Korean dictator telling Bloomberg news, if it would be appropriate for me to meet with him, I would absolutely, I would be honored to do it.  But Kim Jong-un isn`t the only strong man that President open to meeting with.  This weekend, he spoke on the phone the leader who`s regime has murdered thousands of citizens and that leader got an invitation to the White House, that`s next.


HAYES:  Since Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte took office last summer, police, and vigilante groups have carried out over7,000 extra- judicial killings as part of the widely condemned crack down on drug users and distributors, at least that`s what they say it`s for.  And not only has Duterte urged civilians to kill any of their fellow citizens with a drug problem, he has personally bragged about having himself murdered people as the Mayor of a city in the Philippines.

Now, Duterte has received a personal invitation to the White House direct from the President of the United States came during a phone call between two leaders on Saturday, which the White House described as very friendly conversation.  Today, the President defended the invite and interview with Bloomberg Politics, saying of Duterte, "he`s been very, very tough on the drug problem but he has a massive drug problem.  Perhaps most importantly, according to this President, in spite of global condemnation, Duterte retains support at home.  Quoting again, "You know, he`s very popular in the Philippines," Trump said.  "He has a very high approval rating in the Philippines."  White House says the effort to (INAUDIBLE) Duterte is part of a broader push to isolate North Korea, a claim that left many experts on the region scratching their heads.  So, it may just be that it comes out of President`s often expressed affinity for authoritarian strongman or possibly it has something to do with this. 


TRUMP:  Trump Tower Manila is going to be something special.  It won`t be anything like it in the Philippines and actually even going beyond the Philippines.  This is going to be something that people love, that people respect as a structure.  The service, everything involved is going to be first rated.  We really look forward to it.  It`s going to be great.


HAYES:  Trump`s Trump Manila, scheduled to open sometime this year.  And Donald Turmp`s partner on that project is now the Philippines trade envoy with the U.S.

I`m joined now by MSNBC national security analyst Evelyn Farkas, former deputy assistant secretary of defense.

Evelyn, there`s this reporting from my colleague Andrea Mitchell that State Department and NSC blind-sided by Donald Trump`s off the cuff invite to Duterte.  I`m told that was not on the talking points for the call.

How big of a deal is it to get a personal invitation from the president of the United States, particularly in the midst of the widespread condemnation of the extrajudicial killings there?

EVELYN FARKAS, MSNBC NATIONAL SECUIRTY ANALYST:  It`s a pretty big deal.  And I think, Chris, this gets back to the whole issue of Trump selectively praising these leaders who have very checkered, if not horrendous, human rights records.  So, Duterte is pretty much in the category I would say with Vladimir Putin in terms of having a bad human rights record.  And President Trump goes out of his way to praise these men and then reward them.  I mean, Duterte, if he would be invited actually come with a formal invitation to the White House.  That`s a gift. 

And, you know, most presidents they are generally silent.  I guess worst case scenario when it comes to human rights and foreign leaders, the worst case scenario is they`re silent.  This guy is going out of his way, our current president, to actually praise these individuals.  And we`re not getting anything in exchange.

HAYES:  Well, I`m glad you raise that, right, because there`s a question about how much of a break this is.  I mean, obviously the U.S. government would invite Saudi crown prince to the U.s. while that regime was doing all sorts of things that are violations of human rights, the government of Bahrain, which we have invited the leaders of.  Sisi, who shows up at Davos where he`s applauded after massacring and slaughtering 1,000 protesters.  I mean, how much of a break is this, really?

FARKAS:  I think it`s -- I think it`s pretty bad.  Again, because of what he says.  It`s not necessarily inviting the Philippine president, per se, although again, in this case, it`s odd because I don`t really know what we would get from him.  I have been to the Philippines.  I`ve been actually to North Korea.  There`s very little linkage between the two.

Where where there is linkage between the two.

Where there is linkage, and this worries me, is with China.  And, you know, in the same meeting that Duterte came out of that Trump and he were discussingon the phone, that same summit that Duterte headed, the ASEAN summit, he was the honorary titular chair.  At that summit, Duterte came out and said, there`s nothing we can do about the Chinese build up in the Spratly Islands.  He was basically saying that the U.S. position, which is we want freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, therefore China cannot build up these islands militarily and keep other countries from navigating there freely.  Duterte was saying, oh, we don`t back you United States.

So, it`s very odd to me -- I think we have to pay attention not just to what Trump said about inviting him over, but what was it that Duterte said.

HAYES:  Well, and then then he responds by saying he may be too busy for the White House visit.  So, after this - I mean, I also just want to be clear, there`s been incredible reporting, there`s great reporting in the New Yorker, there`s an incredible photo essay.  I mean, what is happening in the Philippines right now is a moral abomination.  I mean, you are talking about people being murdered willy nilly by vigilantes and the police with absolutely no justice.

These are people who are not convicted of anything, sometimes they`re drug addicts, sometimes they`re not drug addicts, they`re just people.  I mean, it is really horrible what`s happening there.

FARKAS:  Yeah.  Yeah.  I mean, it`s basically vigilante, shooting, drugs, people who are taking drugs, people who are in the place at the wrong time.  There`s no due process.  It`s clearly human rights violation.  Thousands of people have died as a result of this.  And I don`t think that President Duterte should be getting praised by the U.S. president.

Again, in the worst case scenario a President Bush or something would have kept silence.

HAYES:  That point is important, because not only does he praise him.  He praises specifically when he doubles down today, he says the way he`s dealing with the drug problem, that is an affirmative endorsement of essentially spate of thousands of extrajudicial killings.

FARKAS:  Right.  And in December he said the same thing.  But in December he was not yet the president of the United States.

And, again, the other point this gets to, Chris, and I think you made it, is that it`s kind of off the cuff.  This is not how the president should operate when he`s dealing with foreign leaders.  He needs to have a briefing.  He needs to have a piece of paper that tells him what points he needs to make with the president of the Philippines.  And again I get back to this, what are we getting in exchange of this?  We`re getting a Philippine president who was saying, oh, I`m going to side with China, and that`s partly probably why he`s hedging on whether he`s coming here, because in general, this Philippine president Duterte is hedging in his relationship between China and the U.S., frankly I think not just at the expense of U.S. national security interests, but at the interest of his own country, because the Philippines has a dispute over some of the islands in South China Sea with China and other countries.

HAYES:  All right, Evelyn Farkas, thank you.

FARKAS:  Thank you very much, Chris.

HAYES:  Still ahead, a huge resignation from Fox News amid the growing scandals of the network.  Gabrielle Sherman broke the story.  He joins me ahead.

Plus, the first campaign out of 2020 in Thing One, Thing Two, after the break.


HAYES:  Thing One tonight, the  Trump campaign announced a $1.5 million TV ad buy today.  That`s right, the president`s campaign for an election happening three-and-a-half years from now is buying national ad space.  But they`ve hit a snag, their ad included video of the president shaking hands with National Security Security Adviser H.R. McMaster who is in uniform.  You see there.

A member of the watchdog group, the Campaign Legal Center quickly noted that this seems to violate intent of intent of military policy against members engaging in partisan political activity.

So, Donald J. Trump the president inc removed that video, posted a re- edited version shortly after.

Now, in the first three months of this year, Trump raised $13 million for his re-election.  We know over a million dollars went to TV ads, which is not surprising.

Tonight, we know where a whole bunch more is going, which is also not surprising but it`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.


HAYES:  President Trump`s 2016 campaign spent a whole lot of money on Donald Trump`s personal businesses.  Politico put the final tally at $12.8 million according to FEC reports.  And now it appears the habit of spending campaign cash at Trump businesses will continue while Donald Trump is the president.

An analysis by the Huffington Post  found that Trump`s re-election campaign has $274,000 in rent to Trump`s office building during the first three months this year.  Now that total works out to monthly average of $91,000, which is more than half of what Trump`s campaign was paying Trump Tower each month at the height of the presidential race.

Back then, though, the campaign had 168 employees compared with just 20 now.

Also report that tens of thousands of dollars have been spent by the campaign on Trump hotels, Trump restaurants, even Trump water.  As a reminder, that is the spending now, 7 percent of way into the president`s first term with election day three years and six months away.


HAYES:  First, it was Roger Ailes, then Bill O`Reilly, now yet another Fox News VIP is out.  Bill Shine, the long-time deputy of Roger Ailes, who became co-chairman of Fox news when his boss was forced out just handed him his notice.

Fox News co-founder Rupert Murdoch emailing employees, sadly Bill Shine resigned today.  I know Bill was respected and liked by everybody at Fox News.  We will all miss him.

Joining me now, the report who first broke the news of Shine`s resignation, Gabe Sherman, national affairs editor at New York Magazine, MSNBC contributor.

What led to Shine`s departure?

GABE SHERMAN, NEW YORK MAGAZINE:  Well, really this was the culmination of just the whole snowballing of scandals, lawsuits.  Bill Shine was the subject of negative press reports.  Rupert Murdoch took him to lunch last Monday.  And as of the middle of last week, Rupert Murdoch had decided Bill Shine had become a distraction, a liability to the network.  They decided to pull the trigger.

HAYES:  The allegations against him, which he has denied, I should say, are that he was intimately involved in the kinds of covers up, settlements, payments pertaining to accusations of sexual harassment by both Roger Ailes and Bill O`Reilly.

SHERMAN:  Yeah, I know Bill Shine is a behind the seens figure.  But for your viewers it`s hard to over state his centrality to Fox News.  He was Roger Ailes right hand man, for years.  He was in all of those meetings, was intimately aware with Roger Ailes`s operation and the culture.

And so the idea that he was not aware of this misogyny and sexual harassment really just strikes a lot of people as unbelievable.

And so women at Fox News who I have been talking to in recent weeks and months i have been talking, how is he still in this job if the Murdochs were intent on cleaning up the culture, they would have removed him long ago.

HAYES:  So, Sean Hannity is a big defender of Bill Shine.  He says, "Gabe, I pray this is not true.  When you broke the news saying it was unclear whether he was going to say.  If it is, that`s the total end of FNC as we know it."  And then you have an article saying that other people are reporting that he`s eyeing an exit from Fox News.

SHERMAN:  By all accounts that`s not true.  Hannity is likely going to stay at Fox.

HAYES:  That`s good to know.

SHERMAN:  But that tweet is so striking b ecause it shows the loyalty Hannity has to Shine.

We should point out that Bill Shine was, for years, Sean Hannity`s executive producer.  So they both go way back.  They`re both from Long Island.  So, this is a blow to loyalist like Hannity who see their rabbi in Shine leaving.

HAYES:  There`s also just - I can`t keep track of all of the lawsuits.  There`s been a set of new lawsuits and a woman who said that she was demoted after writing about her (inaudible), which is a really difficult.

SHERMAN:  Personal issue.

HAYES:  ...very personal, difficult illness, hard to talk about, that she wrote about it and she was essentially demoted after.

SHERMAN:  And got approval from her supervisors to write about it. And so, you know, this is a case where women were sort of alleged that they were harassed not just sexually, but also just in their gender as women.

And so this case, and others, which will be coming that I understand in the weeks to come, is a scandal that`s just not ending.

And for me, as a reporter, you wonder where the story goes.

HAYES:  Where does it go

SHERMAN:  And it`s hard to know how the Murdochs really get themselves out of this, because Roger Ailes for 20 years created a culture that was reflection of him.  And you can`t remove a few pieces and think that it changes.  I mean, this has to be a wholesale housecleaning and a reformation of a culture that was very entrenched.

HAYES:  And I mean, and first of all, it feels like the flood gates are open now, right.  I mean, we`re seeing - every day there`s a lawsuit.  It also seems like, the question is to what degree is the connection of the personality of Roger Ailes his politics and the politics that showed up on the network and how severable is that entire continuum?

SHERMAN:  I mean, I don`t think you can sever.  I think the one saving grace that the Murdochs have is the audience.  And I think you and I have talked about this before.  With all of this, through all of this turmoil, the audiences are incredibly loyal.  The ratings have not gone down.  It`s almost like they audience can learn almost anything they want about Fox News and they`re still going to turn it.

HAYES:  Do you think that -- how much of this is being driven by concerns by the Murdoch enterprises more broadly about their business as they think about Sky News acquisition in England, as they think about particularly the Murdoch sons about their sort of public profile and brand?

SHERMAN:  I think that`s very clear, because this is not, this is sort of a moral question, the Murdochs would have cleaned house in the immediate wake of Ailes`s departure, because...

HAYES:  Right.  I mean, Shine is sort of losing -- it`s somewhat odd, because Shine is kind of losing his job now for things that were already on the record and were knowing awhile ago.

SHERMAN:  Exactly.  I mean, in that sense you could sort of see, understand Bill Shine`s frustration, this is not new news, per se, but this is a case where the Murdochs only act when they sort of have to, it`s not necessarily about doing the right thing, it`s about doing the business thing.

HAYES:  Gabe Sherman, thank you.

SHERMAN:  Thank you.

HAYES:  Up next, Andrew Jackson, Donald Trump and why nobody stepped in to stop`s American`s civil war.  An unbelievable White House interview after the break.


HAYES:  Among the many head scratching moments of President Trump`s 100 day media offensive, this one might stand out the most.


TRUMP:  They said my campaign is most like -- my campaign and win -- was most like Andrew Jackson with his campaign.  And I said, when was Andrew Jackson?  It was 1828.  That`s a long time ago.  That`s Andrew Jackson.  And he had a very, very mean and nasty campaign, because they said this was the meanest and the nastiest, and unfortunately it continues.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE;  He`s a fascinating...

TRUMP:  I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn`t have had the Civil War.  He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart.  And he was, he was really angry that he saw what he was happening with regard to the Civil War.  He said there`s no reason for this.

People don`t realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why?  People don`t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War?  Why could that one not have been worked out?


HAYES:  For the record, Jackson`s presidential term ended 24 years before the start of the civil war.  Jackson died 16 years before the start of the war, the nation`s seventh president was a proud slave owner. 

People do in fact ask why was there the Civil War?  And most historians agree the cause was slavery, which it was.

Joining me now, Jason Johnson, politics editor at The Root, journalism professor at Morgan State University, and former congressman David Jolly, Republican of Florida.

All right, Jason, I`m going to -- I mean.  Where to start?  I guess the first position is just like, does it matter he sort of screwed up the history?  I think to be honest I think he read something about the nullification crisis of 1832 in which Jackson stood strong for the union against actually an anonymous pamphlet written by his VP John Calhoun, who is one of the great villains of that period, and got it garbled so what`s the big deal?

JASON JOHNSON, MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY:  Yeah Frederick Douglass must have told him the wrong thing when they were talking, because not a lot of people know all the work he`s doing.

Look, to be honest with you, Chris, I`m less concerned about the fact that Donald Trump doesn`t know basic 5th grade history, than I am about the fact that he has such admiration for Andrew Jackson.

I went and looked it up.  If you look at the kinds of presidents that presidents admire, right, Nixon liked Abraham Lincoln.  Ronald Reagan liked Calvin Coolidge, the fact that Trump admires a man who forced 100,000 native Americans across the country, 15,000 died, he was responsible for the Trail of Tears.  He was a proud slave owner, the fact that that`s who Trump admires is a greater crime than him not realizing the guy was dead before the civil war.

HAYES:  Daivd, there`s also something that is really key here, which what the president knows and who teaches him new things he knows.  Because it seems like the powerful thing to be able to tell the president of the United States a new thing, because you can see him process it and internalize it, and in that is great power.

So, the best example of this is him talking about the president of China, Xi Jinping, explaining North Korea to him where he says after listening for 10 minutes I realized it`s not so easy.  I felt strongly they had tremendous power over North Korea, but it`s not what you would think.

If you get to explain something to the president first, you have a tremendous advantage.

DAVID JOLLY, FRM. CONGRESSMAN FROM FLORIDA:  Chris, I think you should ask for five minutes with the president.  He might back off the AHCA.

Listen, you asked does it matter when he says these things?  It does for two reasons. First, he`s sober when he does that, right.  It was pointed out at the White House Correspondents` Dinner, he`s sober.  This is a sober president saying these things.

But it also matters for this reason, when you lose credibility, you lose the benefit of the doubt.  And he has lost his credibility.

Look, when he intimates to April Ryan that perhaps and all black journalists or all black people might know each other, when he refers to Elizabeth Warren in a racist term, when he talks about Frederick Douglass still alive, he talks about the civil war, he has lost his credibility, and so he`s lost the benefit of the doubt.  It`s why Billy Long in a district, Congressman Long, who Trump won that district by 40 points today said Mr. President, I don`t believe you on pre-existing conditions.  It`s why his tax plan was greeted with a yawn.  It`s why the budget doesn`t include border wall money, because McConnell doesn`t think the president needs it.

He`s lost credibility.

HAYES;  Long - that point about long, David, is a really interesting one because I am still working through how much it does matter what the president does and doesn`t say.  And what I"m hearing - what you`re saying there is that`s where it matters because you can`t offer assurances to wavering members - we`ll fix this in conference or et cetera, the kinds of things where you could generally give a member your word, a member of of your own party, who is going to be disposed to believe you, you are saying that you think that has tangible effects for the ability to whip votes?

JOLLY:  Of course, because what Billy Long said today said is basically, Mr. President, i don`t believe you.  I don`t trust you that you`re actually going to resolve this.  And so if a president loses his credibility on capitol hill, look, we`re steps away from him losing his political agenda, his legislative agenda, and we know what that means for `18 and `20.

I think you`re going to see a primary against this president from the Republican Party in the next  presidential election.

HAYES:  Well, Jason, this question about what, you know, everyone learning to understand the president often says things that are just sort of just speaking off the top of the dome.   And what that means for the way that -- I mean, you saw John Dickerson at the top of the show in that interview saying well I want to hear from you, the president of the United States.

What effect do you think it has on the way we`re used to understanding the dynamics of power and politics to have a president who will say things that everyone understands is essentially just trash talk?

JOHNSON:  Well, it`s not just that it`s just trash talk, right.  That works for the Cavs tonight.  But he`s hostile, he`s rude, he`s dishonest.  We know when he`s being dishonest.

But what it also says is this, and this is a problem if you`re a member of congress, if you`re international trade agreements have to be worked through.  He seems like a president who is incredibly gullible who will believe whatever he hears.

I feel, Chris, that if you point the Man in the High Castle in front of him he would think it was a documentary, we lost World War II.

HAYES:  The point about the gullibility, David, is it`s such a great point because at one the level entire persona of this president is as a kind of hard bitten cynic that he`s done the tough deals and he`s been watching people get sold snake oil for so long, finally he`s there, and then listen to this.  This is the president today saying he`s willing to consider a gas tax hike to fund infrastructure.  It`s something I would certainly consider if we ear marked money towards the highways.

Now listening to Sean Spicer explaining why apparently nowhere he said this.  Take a listen.


SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY:  He did not express support  for it.  He expressed that a group that had met with him expressed support with it and that he out of respect would consider their request.  That`s it.  There was no endorsement of it, or support for it, he was just relaying what another industry group had shared with him.


HAYES:  But this is point, an industry point that has a specific agenda met with him, and the next thing you know he`s floating it, David.

This, I mean, as a member of congress, even, not president, you get lobbied all the time.  Part of the skillset you learn is basically filtering that information, understanding that people have an agenda.

JOLLY:  Well, and you have to trust the consistency and the judgment of the people you`re working with.  And a Republican Congress now can`t trust the president.

Listen, what it comes down to, Carl Bernstein talked about this several times this weekend.  We have a president who lies.  And this is tough job for folks like you, Chris, in the media.  How much do you cover the lies?  Because here`s what`s going to happen through the long lens of history.

The president is going to be judged on what he does.  And that`s going to be a much harsher judgment, his policies, than actually lying.  Because we`ve had presidents that lie, but he is weakening the presidency.  That`s going to be a harsh judgment.

HAYES:  I continue to operate with the belief substance matters.  Ishoudl say the president just tweeting President Andrew Jackson who died 16 years before the Civil War started, saw it coming and was angry.  Would never lever it happen."

I don`t - that`s a tough counter factual.  I don`t think there`s a ton of evidence.  A lot of people did try to work out compromises.  None of them worked for a reason.

Jason Johnson.

JOLLY:  Chris, understand, he also said Abraham Lincoln must have been a failure as a president if he didn`t negotiate a better deal than the Civil War, that`s also what he was doing when he made that comment.

HAYES:  Also true.  Jason Johnson, David Jolly, Thank you.

That is All In for this evening.