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

All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 6/9/2017

Guests: Rick Wilson, Jason Johnson, Bob Inglis, Maxine Waters, Jennifer Rodgers, Jill Wine-Banks

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: June 9, 2017 Guest: Rick Wilson, Jason Johnson, Bob Inglis, Maxine Waters, Jennifer Rodgers, Jill Wine-Banks

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: I think we may be a point lower than we even imagined a week ago. And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN" with Chris Hayes starts right now.



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No collusion, no obstruction. He`s a leaker.

HAYES: Under siege and under oath.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said those things under oath, would you be willing to speak under oath to give version of these events?

TRUMP: 100 percent.

HAYES: The President agrees to testify.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So if Robert Mueller wants to speak with you about that --

TRUMP: I would be glad to tell him exactly what I just told you.

HAYES: Tonight the President`s angry response to the Comey testimony.

TRUMP: I hardly know the man. I`m not going to say, I want you to pledge allegiance. Who would do that?

HAYES: And the big question. Which one of these men is lying?

TRUMP: A dinner was arranged. I think he asked for the dinner.

SEN. ANGUS KING (I), MAINE: Did you in any way initiate that dinner?


HAYES: Then the gaping hole in the novice President defense.

REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WI), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: He`s just new to this.

HAYES: New scrutiny for the Attorneygeneral.

DAN RATHER, AXS TV MANAGING EDITOR AND ANCHOR: The Attorney General Sessions is now a marked man.

HAYES: And what republicans are trying to get away with while Trump and the Russians block out the sun.

SEN. Claire McCaskill (D), MISSOURI: You couldn`t have a more partisan exercise than what you`re -- what you`re engaged in right now.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes, and tonight someone is lying. And you don`t need to be a Special Counsel to form an opinion as to what it o it is. Either the former Director of the FBI, James Comey, in an historic appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday lied under oath that the President tried to disrupt the Russia investigation, or the President of the United States lied at a press conference this afternoon when he denied doing any such thing.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He did say under oath that you told him to let the Flynn --you said you hoped the Flynn investigation -- he could let go.

TRUMP: I didn`t say that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So he lied about that?

TRUMP: Well, I didn`t say that. I mean I will tell you I didn`t say that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did he ask you to pledge his loyalty --

TRUMP: And there`d be nothing wrong if I did say it according to everybody that I`ve read today, but I did not say that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did he ask for a pledge of loyalty from you? That`s another thing he said.

TRUMP: No, he did not. I hardly know the man. I`m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. Who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? I mean think of it. I hardly know the man. It doesn`t make sense. No, I didn`t say that, and I didn`t say the other.


HAYES: Now, the President`s own troubled relationship to the truth is well documented. And in his Senate testimony yesterday, Comey himself repeatedly accused the President of lying, citing Trump`s untrustworthiness as reason for documenting their conversations in a series of memos.


COMEY: I was alone with the President of the United States, or the President-elect, soon to be President. The subject matter I was talking about, matters that touch on the FBI`s core responsibility and that relate to the President-elect personally, and then the nature of the person. I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, and so I thought it really important to document.


HAYES: At his press conference today, the first since Comey`s blockbuster testimony, the President committed to testifying himself under oath before the Special Counsel.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of those events?

TRUMP: 100 percent.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So if Robert Mueller wanted to speak with you about that --

TRUMP: I would be glad to tell him exactly what I just told you.


HAYES: It`s worth noting calling Comey a liar is a new tactic for the Trump team. On Wednesday, you`ll remember, after Comey`s written testimony was released, the President`s personal attorney, Marc Kasowitz, did not dispute a single one of the former FBI Director`s claims. Instead, issuing a statement that read, "the President is pleased that Mr. Comey has finally publicly confirmed his private reports that the President was not under investigation in any Russian probe. The President feels completely and totally vindicated. He`s eager to continue to move forward with his agenda." It was not until yesterday that Kasowitz tried to contradict Comey`s account while still claiming Comey`s testimony exonerates the President. Today the President continued to try and have it both ways.


TRUMP: Yesterday showed no collusion, no obstruction. We were very, very happy and frankly James Comey confirmed a lot of what I said. And some of the things that he said just weren`t true.


HAYES: I`m joined now by Jason Johnson, Politics Editor of the Root and Republican Strategist and Daily Beast Contributor Rick Wilson. Rick, you know, I thought it was notable that after the Comey testimony was released, they did not try to get into a he said/he said, basically a credibility battle between James Comey and the President. Now they have entered into that. How do you think that will play?

RICK WILSON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Look, we`ve got one guy with a sterling record for integrity and honesty in Washington for the last 40 years, and you`ve got another guy who is a pathological liar, who is a chain of abuses, lies, deceptions, adulteries, tax frauds and every other damn thing under the earth -- under the sun and I think there`s no competition here. And I think the Trump people are legitimately going to out and try to smear Comey as quickly and as deeply as they can because they recognize that when it comes down to these two men, you know, basically one is the sketchy guy hanging outside the elementary school staring at people, and the other guy is the crossing guards.

HAYES: Jason, I want to play an amazing moment that happened at that same press conference. This is -- at issue is who is telling the truth about interactions between the President and James Comey and the President has just had a private meeting with the Head of State of Romania and a question is asked, and something remarkable happens. Take a listen.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Were there any discussion about the Visa waiver program for Romania? Is there a time frame for including our country in this program? Thank you.


TRUMP: We didn`t discuss it -- we didn`t discuss it, but there would be certainly -- it would be something we will discuss.


IOHANNIS: I mentioned this issue, and I also mentioned it during other meetings I had because this is important for us. It`s important for Romanians.


HAYES: He literally right there says, we didn`t discuss it as the other person in the room says, yes, I mentioned it.

JASON JOHNSON, THE ROOT POLITICS EDITOR: It is -- it is hilarious to -- like if this were an episode of Veep, it would be so much easier to stomach but unfortunately this is the leader of the free world. And so his incompetence has serious consequences for people in this country right and left and all over the planet. Here`s the thing, Chris, what`s disturbing about this is not just that Trump lied, but it`s the fact that world leaders clearly realize that the emperor has no clothes and they`re talking about him in any sort of way possible because they know that he has no integrity.

HAYES: Right, and the point there about credibility and its broad applicability or lack thereof is really important in terms of communicating with world leaders. It also strikes me, Rick, and this is another great tidbit about the President of the United States. This is a headline, Buzzfeed. Trump`s lawyers met in pairs to avoid lies. He was -- they had to meet in pairs because he was so difficult with the truth. Is the approach to go after Comey and villainize him, it strikes me as essentially their only play at this point and will be able to consolidate some part of the base that`s still there with him.

WILSON: Look, they`ll have the cuckoos and they`ll have the weirdoes that believe in that Hillary Clinton ran a child cannibal sex ring and all this other crazies. They`ll get those people walked in but the fact of the matter is this isn`t a battle of perception that he really can win one key audience member, and that`s Robert Mueller and who trusts James Comey, who knows James Comey, who has relied on James Comey for many things in the past and vice versa. And he`s going to look at this and a lot of things that Trump has now said, walked himself into the trap in the rose garden today, opened himself up to being questioned on a lot of these things. And this isn`t some real estate litigation. This isn`t some Trump University scam litigation. This is the real deal. These are the big boys. These are the guys where you end up in an orange jumpsuit if you lie.

HAYES: You know, Jason, this is a really important point, I think, because this is -- you know, Trump has been under deposition many times. We`ve got -- you know, there`s tape, it`s sort of remarkable to watch him. He`s sort of a different figure under deposition, under oath. But this is also someone very familiar with civil litigation, but this is not -- there is no -- you can`t settle here.


HAYES: And I think that -- I think it is, to Rick`s point, it is -- he is in a different legal environment. Even someone as used to legal exposure as he is, he is now in an extremely different legal environment.

JOHNSON: You know, Chris, this goes back to what republicans and democrats and everybody were saying before he got into office. He doesn`t understand government. And this isn`t the Paul Ryan excuse. It`s Donald Trump still thinks that he can bully or argue or sue or pay his way out of anything, and that doesn`t work when people are defending the constitution. You can`t pay off the constitution. So whatever kind of deals he thinks he can negotiate with Robert Mueller, it won`t work. But I`ll promise you this, I doubt he`ll ever sit for Mueller unless they drag him kicking and screaming to do it because he doesn`t want to get caught.

HAYES: We should note the President has a history of using locution 100 percent and using it to mean absolutely no chance. So I`m not sure that we should keep100 percent as its usual meaning. Jason Johnson and Rick Wilson, thank you both.

JOHNSON: Thanks, Chris.

WILSON: Thanks Chris.

HAYES: Joining me now, Former Congressman Bob Inglis. He`s a republican from South Carolina. And you`ve sort of been watching all of this as you think as a republican, as a republican who was there for the last impeachment that happened. What do you make of the developments over the last day or so?

BOB INGLIS, FORMER REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN FROM SOUTH CAROLINA: Well, I think that Director Comey did an excellent job of testifying, laying out some questions for real serious inquiry and serious investigation. And my hope is that fellow republicans will say yes, let`s pursue this with full vigor, get to the bottom of it and if it goes to the President or members of his family or his campaign, so be it. But this was an attack by a hostile country at the heart of our democracy and therefore it really does matter to all of us, republicans, democrats, independents alike. And I hope that we can really decide to put country first here and say, we`re going to investigate this wherever it goes.

HAYES: But do you think -- I mean Paul Ryan, you know, sort of somewhat famously said, look, the President just doesn`t -- essentially said he`s not -- he`s too naive to have obstructed justice was essentially what his argument was yesterday. I`ve seen a lot of republicans today basically saying that James Comey is a liar, and he can`t be trusted. The GOP put out talking points today along those lines. I mean, do you see evidence that people are taking this seriously or were the folks on the committee yesterday heartening to you?

INGLIS: Well, by and large I was happy with the way the Senate Intelligence Committee handled it. Particularly Chairman Burr, I thought did an excellent job and Ranking Member Warner was excellent. The thing that worried me a little bit was people like Marco Rubio sort of minimizing the importance of it, saying, for example, well, he didn`t order you. He said he hoped so. It will be so like me saying to you Chris, that`s a nice car you got. Hope nothing bad happens to it while you`re having dinner inside. That`s not me saying hope so. That`s me threatening you. And what was happening there is I think from the context of the situation as laid out by Director Comey in such a compelling way, is that he`s being threatened with his job.

HAYES: Right.

INGLIS: If he didn`t pledge loyalty and if he didn`t toe the line and thank goodness for America, he seems to be to be quite an honest and upstanding law enforcement officer, and he -- some people criticized him for not saying right then and there, you know, this is inappropriate. But I think what was going on there is a very talented investigator was saying, I got somebody talking, talk to me.

HAYES: Right.

INGLIS: Let me hear what else you`re going to say to me, Mr. President.

HAYES: Paul Ryan said that he -- that he would not try to impeach a democrat if they were accused of the same actions. And you had a -- and you had a response to that today.

INGLIS: Yes, and really Paul is my friend. I want him to do well. And as a friend, I would say to him, Paul, we know that`s not true. I mean if Hillary Clinton -- if Hillary Clinton had won the race and if Director Comey had reopened the server investigation about her e-mails and if Hillary had not liked that and if she had fired Director Comey, my party, the republican party, would be howling right now.


INGLIS: We would be asking questions and heading toward investigations that might end up with articles of impeachment because that would really upset us. Well, the shoe`s on the other foot. It`s very important for the country that we go after this. And by the way, this -- the substance of this would be actually more serious than the scenario I just described because Hillary would have been revealing some secrets potentially and being careless with classified material. But the substance of this investigation is the possibility, as Comey kept saying over and over, that Americans may have participated with a hostile government --

HAYES: right.

INGLIS: -- in an attack at the heart of our republic. That`s a very serious matter.

HAYES: All right, former Congressman Bob Inglis, thanks for your time tonight.

INGLIS: Good to be with you.

HAYES: Still to come, Congresswoman Maxine Waters will be here with her reaction to the Comey testimony, the Trump response and what she wants to see happen next. And next, top criminal law expert is joining Mueller`s expanding Trump-Russia probe, what that means and a preview of what a Trump deposition would look like after this two-minute break.


HAYES: Big news today in Special Counsel Robert Mueller`s Trump-Russia investigation. Mueller enlisting a top criminal law expert, long time Justice Department Attorney Michael Dreeben, to assist in the probe. It appears to be a sign that Mueller is looking more deeply at whether the targets of the investigation broke criminal law. Under oath yesterday, fired FBI Director James Comey confirmed there had been an open FBI criminal investigation into the President`s former National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn. Comey also saying he believes Mueller is examining whether the President committed obstruction of justice in pressing Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. At a joint press conference with the Romanian President in the Rose Garden today, President Trump said he would be willing to testify under oath that he never asked Comey to let the Flynn investigation go, although he added it would have been fine if he did.


TRUMP: I didn`t say that. I mean, I will tell you if I didn`t say that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did he ask you to pledge loyalty --

TRUMP: And there`d be nothing wrong if I did say it according to everybody that I`ve read today, but I did not say that.


HAYES: Now, it may be true that everyone the President read today is saying that, it certainly not what everyone is saying. I`m joined now by Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Democrat from California. Congresswoman, we had this sort of battle of credibility between the fired FBI Director James Comey under oath and the President of the United States. Now, you at one point had said about Comey in regard to briefings about how he handled the Hillary and Trump investigation, he has no credibility left. I know your views on the President`s credibility, so I was curious which of these two you believe.

REP. MAXINE WATERS (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I do think that Comey has a tendency to fumble, and it seems as if he has a difficult time really making a decision and using the best judgment. However, the President is lying. The President absolutely asked him to discontinue his investigation into Flynn in the way that he did. Also I don`t believe that there are any tapes, and that`s why the President is saying he is willing to come and testify and to tell his version of what took on. But don`t forget in that one meeting, he put everybody out of the room, and he did that for a reason. He didn`t want other people to know exactly what he was saying, and the fact that he was interfering in the investigation. And so if there are tapes, you can believe they won`t see the light of day because now what the President is setting up is he said/she said. And it`s a matter of trying to get to who is telling the truth. But I believe on this one, Comey is telling the truth, and the President is absolutely lying that he tried to get him to back off of the investigation of Michael Flynn. I believe that.

HAYES: Are you -- are you confident? There are a lot of -- you know, there`s a sort of reputation that Comey has, and there is lots of frustration, anger at him at the handling of the election. Robert Mueller is another person who`s widely viewed in a positive light, I would say. Do you have confidence now that there is so much riding on Mueller`s judgment and at his access and his persistence and ability to get to the bottom, do you have confidence in Mueller?

WATERS: Well, I have to have some confidence in him because I`m desperate to really get to the meat of this investigation. And we cannot rely certainly on, you know, on any of the other people in this administration. And Jeff Sessions, of course, you know, failed to disclose. He lied when he was being vetted by the Senate Committee. And so we don`t have a lot of places to turn. Nunes is absolutely out of his mind, you know, in the House Intelligence Committee. And it seems as if Burr and some of the Republicans are trying to redefine exactly what the President said. But I`m optimistic in several ways. Number one, I think some of the Senators - - and I think Dianne Feinstein, my Senator, is one of them, is going to want to dig deeper because they do believe that there has been some interference and perhaps some obstruction of justice. And so Mueller, I don`t know exactly where he`s going to take all of this, but I`ve got to have hope that we`re going to get to the bottom of this. This country is in a crisis. We have a President that`s a liar, that cannot be trusted, who is causing a lot of heartache to many Americans because they`ve never seen anything like this man before. And so we`ve got to keep trying in every way that we can, and I hope Mueller is going to rise to the occasion.

HAYES: Let me ask you also about what I just asked to former Congressman Bob Inglis, who served as a republican from South Carolina, about Paul Ryan`s statement. That if the same fact pattern had come about with a Democratic President, say Hillary Clinton, that the republicans would not be drafting articles of impeachment. Do you believe that?

WATERS: No, I don`t believe anything. Again, Paul Ryan has, you know, been someone that`s been caught in between, you know, the Freedom Caucus and the so-called more moderate ones, and the ones in the center. He`s treading water. He doesn`t know what to do. And so when he comes on to talk, he`s trying to find a way to sound credible but absolutely he too has lost credibility, and it`s just a matter of time for him.

HAYES: All right. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, it`s always a pleasure. Thank you for coming.

WATERS: Thank you.

HAYES: Joining me now, former Federal Prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers, executive Director of the Center for the Advancement and Public integrity and former General Council of the Army Jill Wine-Banks, who was one of the prosecutors in the Watergate scandal. Jennifer, let me start with you. You`re a former federal prosecutor, right? You worked for James Comey, am I right?


HAYES: OK. Now, there`s this question about obstruction, and it`s been interesting to watch. Alan Dershowitz is very prominently been saying it`s preposterous. There`s no case. He said we should stop talking about obstruction of justice. This is a tweet of his. No plausible case, we must distinguish crime from political sins. What is your thinking on this matter?

RODGERS: Well, I disagree with that. I mean I`ve been saying that I didn`t think we were there yet in terms of the evidence for obstruction. I think we`re much closer now. I mean honestly I think at this point with the testimony, we could make out a prima facie case of obstruction. No reasonable prosecutor would proceed today with those charges. You`d want to know a lot more. But in terms of actually meeting the elements of the statute, we`re there.

Hayes: OK. That`s a key distinction and it`s a key distinction because I recall basically that exact language used by Comey, right? So when Comey was talking about Hillary Clinton, there was sort of whether it met the statutory bar and whether a reasonable prosecutor would actually bring the case. You don`t think as of now the information; even if there`s a prima facie case, would be one that a prosecutor would bring.

RODGERS: I think that`s right. I mean, you have the testimony of course but there are a lot of things you don`t have even from Comey`s side. You don`t have the memos. You haven`t corroborated that they -- you know, when exactly were written. You haven`t talked to the people who got them at the time to insure that they were as contemporaneous as he said they were. And you certainly haven`t collected evidence from the Trump side. Who Trump was talking to about the firing, about the reasons for it, about the conversation he had and the meeting he had with Comey, so there`s still a lot of digging to do.

HAYES: So then my question to you, Jill is, when you were working Watergate, what power did you have to get people under oath because I mean, today the President says, I`ll go under oath, and we`ll see if that happens. And obviously having that power is incredibly important particularly because under penalty of perjury, people, you would think, tell the truth, and it`s a sort of important tool. What power do you have, what power do you think Mueller has here?

JILL WINE-BANKS, WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: Well, he has the same power that we had, and that is the part of subpoena, the use of the Grand Jury. He can subpoena documents, he can subpoena witnesses, and anyone who testifies will be doing so under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury. And that`s a significant issue for him. I think credibility is something Grand Juries can easily assess, and it would be interesting for a Grand Jury, which is different than voters -- voter may believe Donald Trump, but I think when they are sworn in as Jurors and listen to testimony, they may come away with a different conclusion and that in terms of credibility, James Comey will be found more credible. But I agree completely with Jennifer of all the things that still need to be put together.

HAYES: So -- yes, things still needs to be put together. So I just wanted to ask you this. Can -- the President -- President Clinton was under deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit, and there was a Supreme Court case that allowed that to go forward, which is how he ended up under a deposition. Could you just subpoena the President of the United States if you`re Robert Mueller and get him under oath? Can you do that?

BANKS: Well, this is a criminal matter, not a civil matter.

HAYES: Right.

BANKS: And so it`s not a question of getting permission to do it. Yes, you can subpoena the President and obviously one wants to be very considerate of the time because he has important matters of state to attend to and should not be bothered frivolously. But this would not be a frivolous matter, and he has offered himself. He said he would testify under oath. So there`s nothing left to be done but to subpoena the tapes and the President.

HAYES: So, is that -- would you agree as a prosecutor? I mean obviously this is not a normal set of circumstances.


HAYES: So you can`t really just apply necessarily the normal procedures. But it sounds like, yes, you would want to talk to the President under oath.

RODGERS: You would, but not yet. I think you first want to collect some additional information. You really want to get everything that you can before you talk to the President.

HAYES: Why is that?

HAYES: Why is that?

RODGERS: You always talk to your target last because when you question your target, you want to ask him all the questions that you`ve gathered through your other investigation, right? So you`re going to get all the evidence, you`re going to get the documents, you`re going to talk to everybody so that you can question him thoroughly about everything that you`ve learned in the course of the investigation. And so that`s why.

HAYES: And it also seems to me that underneath all of this as something Jill and I was talking have spoken about, there`s a sort of -- there`s a prima facie case for obstruction. That`s part of the purview of Robert Mueller. There`s just so much of the underlying matter that still has to be established. Like what happened on the Russia front, who talked to who?

RODGERS: It`s a huge case. There will be tentacles going every direction, it will take a long time and I`m sure there`ll be a lot of avenues of investitgation.

HAYES: Jill, how long -- I mean, I get the sense this is -- this is going to be happening for a longtime. I don`t see this going anywhere. Am I wrong about that?

BANKS: Well, the Watergate case from the time we were appointed in May of `73, we had a verdict on new year`s day of `75. So it can go -- I mean that`s still a year and a half, but it`s nothing compared to the seven or eight years that the Starr investigation took. And Jennifer is right. The target would be the last person. You need to establish a lot of baselines to cross examine that person on, and I would say Coats and Rogers are people I`d like to have on the Grand Jury right away because if they corroborate what we`ve read in the paper, if they say, yes, the President asked them to talk to Comey and get him to back off, that is very dramatic evidence in support of Mr. Comey.

HAYES: And we should say they gave carefully worded testimony under oath the other day. They never felt pressured and they never felt like they were asked to do something immoral. So that`s not quite the same thing. Jennifer Rodgers and Jill Wine-Banks thanks to you both for being with me.

RODGERS: Thank you.

BANKS: Thank you.

HAYES: Ahead, the trouble with claiming the President didn`t know better is that the President campaigned on the fact he knew better. That after this quick break.



RYAN: The President`s new at this. He`s new to government. And so he probably wasn`t steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between DOJ, FBI, and White Houses. He`s just new to this.


HAYES: One of the GOP`s primary defenses following James Comey`s testimony yesterday was that President Trump didn`t actually seek to commit obstruction of justice. It`s just that he doesn`t understand the ways of Washington. But the truth is that the President is well acquainted with the concept of improperly impeding a federal investigation. In fact, it was a primary theme of his campaign. For months at rally after rally, then-candidate Trump effectively accused Bill Clinton of seeking to obstruct justice in the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation when he met with then Attorney General Loretta Lynch on an airport tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona.


TRUMP: I mean, you see what happened today where Bill Clinton goes in the other day, into an airplane.

He just happened to be there.

Oh, there`s the Attorney General`s plane riding down the runway.

There`s the Attorney General. Let me go say hello.

He`s going to play golf. There she -- oh, let`s go see her.

Let me go say hello to the attorney general.

You know, I`ve had a plane for a long time. I`ve never had anybody walk off the runway into my plane, ever.

So, they spent 39 minutes in the back of the plane. They talked about two things, golf and their grandchildren.

I love my grandchildren so much, but if I talk about them for more than about nine or ten seconds. He talked about -- how long did he talk about them.

Here`s a picture, here`s a picture, here`s a picture. I love them. Aren`t they the greatest? They`re so smart.

After about a minute, what can you talk about?

He was never there to play golf, folks. Don`t be foolish.

I would think he probably talked about appointing her as the attorney general if Hillary wins this election. And you`re not allowed to do that.

That`s what happened. That`s called real life.

Nobody has ever seen anything like this. She is a corrupt person. She should not be allowed to run for the presidency. She`s a corrupt person.


HAYES: The way Donald Trump made such a big deal out of that plane incident makes it a little hard to believe that he`s just new to this.

Now, there`s another member of the Trump administration for whom the ignorance of the law argument would be an even tougher sell, the renewed scrutiny on Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the wake of Comey Day after this.



RATHER: One of the things not to be overlooked, you may deal with it later in the broadcast for all I know, is that Attorney General Sessions is now a marked man. Comey day today kind of got overlooked in everything that came out.

HAYES: 100 percent.

RATHER: But he put -- if you will, he put a dagger pretty near the heart of Sessions.


HAYES: Dan Rather`s assessment that the FBI`s investigation seems to be heading toward Attorney General Jeff Sessions is based not on what James Comey said in public yesterday, but more on what he could not say, which is something Comey appeared to be hinting at yesterday when Senator Ron Wyden asked him why decided to keep Sessions, who was the attorney general, in the dark about his interactions with the president.


COMEY: Our judgment, as I recall, was that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. We also were aware of facts that I can`t discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic.


ANDERSON: In a closed door meeting with senators that followed, according to reporting, Comey confirmed that he had been talking about a story about classified intelligence suggesting an undisclosed meeting between Sessions and the Russian ambassador in April-May 2016 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.

Now, although Sessions said during his confirmation hearing he had no meetings with Russians during the campaign, under oath, and later had to change his testimony when The Washington Post reported in March that Sessions met with the Russian envoy twice last year, the Justice Department spokesperson maintains, quote, the facts haven`t changed, the then Senator did not have any private or side conversations with any Russian officials at the Mayflower Hotel.

Joining me now, Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent and MSNBC contributor.

Naveed, the sessions -- this question of Sessions` possible third meeting, which is the contested third meeting, there`s been folks suggesting that people think that there`s intelligence suggesting it might have happened, Sessions denies it. What do you make of it?

NAVEED JAMALI, FRM. FBI DOUBLE AGENT: I think every pun intended, it`s odd that they would keep referring to discuss this in closed sessions. There must be something there. I mean it`s clear we`ve heard about this alleged Mayflower meeting. This was when President Trump had his foreign policy -- I`m sorry -- at the time candidate Trump had his foreign policy discussion at the Center for National Interest, and the ambassador was there. So there was a discussion and there`s a theory that perhaps there was a longer discussion between Mr. Sessions and perhaps even Mr. Kushner.

So this is at the heart of it I think what we`re discussing here.

HAYES: Yeah, and I keep coming back to this. And this is, to me -- this is the core set of facts that I am the most focused on right now, and I want to get your feedback on it. There are three individuals who are not the president of the United States who have all, under penalty of perjury, lied, deceived, not told the truth, omitted meetings with Russian officials. Flynn lied to fBi investigators, which is a big no-no, this is a guy who presumably knows better about, his conversations with Kislyak on sanctions day. He also lied to people in the White House, but lied under -- you know, you can be indicted for that. People have been.

Sessions lies under oath in front of the senate about meeting with Kislyak.

Jared Kushner omits a very memorable secret meeting with Kislyak where they talked about setting up a back channel from his form, a form you filled out, I know, that under penalty of perjury you cannot omit things. What are we to make of this?

JAMALI: well, that is -- that is the big question. I think there`s two ways to look at this. And it`s important to remember, you know, Comey submitted this letter before he actually testified. And one of the interesting parts there was he discusses a little bit about what the FBI`s role is in terms of counterintelligence. and their primary role is to understand, detect foreign threats, and sometimes they prosecute.

So the reason I say that is when you fill out this form, part of the thing that they say on this SF-86 is that the information there can be used for counterintelligence investigation.

Now, from a legal standpoint, you know, we`ve gone down this road quite a bit. The question of if they knowingly intended to mislead an investigator, that becomes a crime.

Now, that`s a pretty wide swath, right? Someone can make an honest mistake. But what you`re seeing here, Chris, as you mentioned, is a pattern where there`s not just one person who is forgetting to do this once, you have three people who are forgetting to do this multiple times. That is a pattern that is highly suspect, I have to say.

HAYES: I mean, would it -- as someone who worked as a double agent with the Fbi in counterintelligence, if someone presented to you this about someone, that they omitted a meeting, for instance, in Kushner`s case with the ambassador that was a secret meeting and they just didn`t put it on the security clearance form, like that would pique your suspicion, right?

JAMALI: Absolutely, and I`ve said this before. You know, the process is that they will come back to you and say, OK, there`s -- did you mean to do this? And if you answered it wrong or you omitted it, let`s amend it, and you have to give me a justification as to why you answered it wrong or omitted this. And there has to be a clear, you know, reasonable, logical explanation.

So, so far, I don`t know if that`s happened. I don`t know if investigators have actually have had that conversation, and perhaps in that discussion, you know, if you present an answer that doesn`t make sense, it gets forwarded on to the next step. And this is at the core of the investigative part.

But, Kristie, the other part of this is what were the Russians trying to do? I mean, clearly we have this angle of Trump, but the Russians were clearly trying to do something. We know they`re trying to interfere with our elections. What were they trying to do with these meetings? I mean, it is -- it makes you wonder.

HAYES: And to bring it back around, this meeting that is denied by Sessions, the possibility of one existing, it`s very important to establish whether that did or did not happen. We`ll be looking for that. Naveed Jamali, thanks for joining us.

JAMALI: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: Coming up, using Comey day to block out the sun. How Senate Republicans are using Trump`s Russia problems to advance Trumpcare in a completely unprecedented fashion.

Plus, the other election night surprise. What happened immediately after this picture was taken in tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two next.


HAYES: Thing One tonight, while all eyes were on Washington yesterday, it was also a huge day in British politics. A snap election triggered by Prime Minister Theresa May three years ahead of schedule, in the hopes that her Conservative Party would gain seats in parliament and have a mandate for the Brexit negotiations that start in just 10 days. That plan backfired on her big time. And while there were plenty of colorful metaphors for just how surreal the election got, from a man called Mr. Fishfinger running against the leader of the Liberal Democrats to a monster raving Loony Party member standing behind Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, to a candidate called Lord Buckethead on the same roster with the prime minister, the same Lord Buckethead who ran against Margaret Thatcher 30 years ago and managed to get 249 votes last night.

Perhaps nothing summed up the actual results of the election more than this moment. That`s Thing Two in 60 Seconds.


HAYES: The president had just one word to describe his thoughts on last night`s election in Britain.


TRUMP: Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.



HAYES: Surprising is an understatement. The entire reason there was even an election was because the president`s buddy, Theresa May, thought she could increase the number of Conservative Party members in parliament, perhaps even get a whopping 100-seat majority.

Instead, the rival Labour Party surged. And with an unabashedly Socialist platform and a leader who is inspired Bernie Sanders comparisons, they gained 30 seats while the Conservative Party lost 13 and their majority in parliament, prompting calls for Theresa May to step down in favor of someone like this guy.

But despite the catastrophic loss, right now Theresa May is still in charge, having struck a deal with the anti-gay procreationist Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland to form a government.

So in the end, while Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn did surprisingly well in his attempt to become the new prime minister, much like his attempted high five with the fellow Labour MP last night, he didn`t quite pull it off.


HAYES: While the president`s obstruction of justice scandal and widening Russia inquiry commands almost all the media attention, the Republican Party is working behind closed doors to pass major legislation with a truly stunning lack of transparency.

Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, are right now crafting a health care bill that they want to move in, quote, the near future, but nobody else -- no one -- has seen what they are coming up with or knows what they`re doing. There have been no hearings, no amendments, no public discussion on a bill that affects a sixth of the entire U.S. economy.

There`s been no real precedent for this unless, of course, you count the fact that House Republicans did more or less exactly the same thing with their health care bill. And one of the reasons Republicans are getting away with it is because everyone`s attention is focused on the presidential scandal instead.

The very morning that Comey was testifying on the Hill, one Democratic Senator was calling out the Republicans for their health care bill behavior.


SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL, (D) MISSOURI: I heard you, Mr. Secretary, just say we`d love your support. For what? We don`t even know. We have no idea what`s being proposed. There`s a group of guys in a back room somewhere that are making these decisions. There were no hearings in the House.


HAYES: We`ll play you the long version of that moment, it is quite something, after the break.



MCCASKILL: Will we have a hearing on the health care proposal?



HATCH: I think we`ve already had one.

MCCASKILL: No, I mean on the proposal that you`re planning to bring to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Will there be a hearing?

HATCH: What?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --invited to participate in (inaudible), and we are open for ideas and suggestions.

HATCH: Well, I don`t know that there`s going to be another hearing, but we`ve invited to you participate.

MCCASKILL: That`s not true, Mr. Chairman. You couldn`t have a more partisan exercise than what you`re engagements in right now. We`re not even going to have a hearing on a bill that impacts one-sixth of our economy. We`re not going to have an opportunity to offer a single amendment. It is all being done with an eye to try to get it by with 50 votes and the vice president. I am stunned that that is what Leader McConnell would call regular order, which he sanctimoniously said would be the order of the day when the Republicans took the Senate over.

Give me an opportunity to work with you, that`s what is so discouraging about this process.


HAYES: Joining me now are Ben Howe, senior contributing editor at Ed State, and Eddie Glaude, the chair of the Center of African-American Studies at Princeton University.

Eddie, it is remarkable that this process is happening. And I just to give you a context, I mean, I sat through months of hearings on the Affordable Care Act. I sat there, and I was covering it at the time. The House process was truncated. What`s happening now is, I think, completely unprecedented.

EDDIE GLAUDE, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: I think we need to be clear it`s not just simply Donald Trump who is trashing Democratic norms, there are a lot of folks who are complicit. And we see it particularly in this process. This is Claire McCaskill. She`s not like on the left, left, left. So, she`s simply calling attention to the fact that basic norms that in some ways define the Senate`s way of behaving have been just tossed out the window.

And what`s interesting here, too, Chris, is that they`re doubling down on neoliberal policies at a moment when we see the world rejecting it.

HAYES: You know, Ben, here`s what I find crazy about this moment. Generally, the way you try to get through big legislation, domestic legislation, is the president takes the lead and everyone sort of rose in the same direction. And what they figured out with the AHCA is that is toxic. What`s best for them is let the president travel the world and maybe start crises in the Middle East or fight with James Comey. Everyone just pay attention over there and we don`t want anyone to cover our signature legislative achievement, because we think it will be massively unpopular. That is perverse, isn`t it?

BEN HOWE, RED STATE: Well, what`s really disturbing to me as a conservative and somebody who was a Tea Partier back in the day, this is the kind of stuff that we were saying we didn`t want to happen that we were saying wouldn`t happen. We talked about transparency. We talked about not doing things behind closed doors. That was our whole argument.

So for them to say that the full realization of the Tea Party has happened and now we have got a Republican congress and a Republican Senate and Republican president, and they feel they need to do things in such a way that we railed against just a few years ago, so disappointing, I don`t even know where to start.

HAYES: And I should also say that I would love to be talking, Eddie, I would love to be talking about the substance. And we spent a lot of time on the substance of the AHCA. What is making this so difficult is we have got some plans they are looking to phase out Medicaid expansion over seven year time horizon. We`re getting sort of different things through reporters. But there isn`t a thing -- you can`t talk about the substance. You can analyze or critique it or even debate it, or even -- Ben, you can`t advocate for it. Conservatives can`t say it`s good because it isn`t there.

GLAUDE: Right. I mean, so what do we see? We see, in terms of what they`re doing with regulation, we see what`s going on with the Department of Education with DeVos. We see what`s happening with EPA with Scott Pruitt. We see what`s going on with Department of Justice with Jeff Sessions.

In some ways, we have a person who -- in Donald Trump, who would make George Costanza proud in terms of the way he lies. So, it`s very difficult for us to kind of look at what`s actually happening. What`s actually happening is that they`re deconstructing the administrative state.

HAYES: That is a quote from -- we think Steve Bannon. It is, I guess a Steve Bannon, quote, right. Is that one of the anonymous ones we knew was him, but he actually said it.

And the other thing about this is the role, Ben, that the president has come to play in all of this. And I think it`s really fascinating, is he`s kind of a heat shield. I mean, it really is the case that he -- in a weird way, he sort of attracts all the fire. He`s embroiled in a possible obstruction of justice scandal. He fired the FBI director. He`s calling him a liar. And it gives space for this domestic agenda.

HOWE: He`s a dumpster fire and I think that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have tried to figure out the best way for them to still do things and accomplish things in spite of that. But the way that they`re doing that is to throw away stuff that I fought for and that I fought against for a long time, that a lot of us fought against. I think they really have to figure out where they`re principles are beyond even defending this guy but also having a process that they claimed they wanted.

HAYES: Although, in defense of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan I`ll say this, Eddie, they`ve understood faster, I think, than Democrats that the way partisanship works is that this is how things are going to be now. Everything is -- the old model of legislation of bipartisan, co-sponsors, yadda, yadda, that`s.

And to Mitch McConnell`s great credit as a sort of innovator, in a descriptive sense, he understands that.

GLAUDE: Right, so we can talk about the innovation and the success of their undrestanding of the politics, but if we focus on the substance, what we do know is that nothing that they`re doing behind the scenes, nothing that they`re doing under the cover of Donald Trump`s chaos, will in any way impact the life chances of everyday, ordinary folk, in any way improve the life chances of working people, will any way improve the bottom line of people who are working their behinds off every single day.

HAYES: And that is part of the reason that the AHCA has been so unpopular when it`s polled. Of course, we don`t have polling for this bill, because it doesn`t exist.

Ben Howe, and Eddie Glaude, thank you for joining us.

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