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

All in with Chris Hayes, Transcript 6/21/17 WaPo obtains draft of secret GOP Health Care Bill

Guests: Brian Schatz, Sarah Kliff, Michael Burgess, Michael Isikoff

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: June 21, 2017 Guest: Brian Schatz, Sarah Kliff, Michael Burgess, Michael Isikoff

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HARDBALL HOST: Struck with how Trump got his allegiance in the first place and manages against all kinds of attack and personal bad behavior to keep them. And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN" with Chris Hayes starts right now.



SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D) MASSACHUSETTS: We can whimper about it, we can whine about it or we can fight back. Me, I`m fighting back. Are you fighting back?

HAYES: Just one day before the public finally gets to see the secret Senate Health Care Bill, the Democratic resistance ramps up.

SEN. AL FRANKEN (D), MINNESOTA: Fight this bill.

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D), MICHIGAN: It is outrageous. No hearing, no vote.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`ve got to be all in all the time.

HAYES: Tonight, just what is in the bill and what is the plan to stop it? Plus, new details on Russian interference in the election, 21 state systems targeted while the White House still pre barricades.

MARK WARNER (D), VIRGINIA: The one individual in America that still seems to not accept this basic fact is the President of the United States.

HAYES: Then the Special Counsel hits the Hill as Republicans confront the investigation into possible obstruction of justice.

CHUCK GRASSLEY (R), IOWA: I think that everything is on the table.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. Tonight, hours before Republicans are set to unveil finally a draft of their secret plan to overhaul American health care, the secret may be out. According to a draft in the bill obtained by the Washington Post, Senate Republican will propose a bill that tracks very closely to the same House bill that the President called mean and cold hearted, and that is polling at 17 percent. The Post reports that the Senate bill largely mirrors the House measure that narrowly passed last month but with some significant changes crucially. While the Senate proposal cuts off Medicaid expansion more gradually than the House bill, it would enact deeper long-term cuts to the health care program for low-income Americans. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell will formally release the discussion in draft tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. during a closed-door meeting with only Republican Senators. Most of whom have not seen the bill themselves even though it has been circulated among Washington lobbyists. By Monday, Senate Republicans expect to get a CBO score that will indicate among other thing show many Americans would lose coverage in exchange for the massive tax cut for the nation`s wealthiest households. Days after that, sometime next week, they plan to vote on the bill in an unprecedented timeline for a proposal to remake 1/6 of the U.S. economy. The White House says that President Trump who is about to hold a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa has been briefed on the Senate bill in an op-ed welcoming the President ahead of his campaign-style event. The Cedar Rapids Gazette wrote that with tens of thousands of Iowans worried about losing their coverage, now is not the time to rally. Adding, you promised a terrific ObamaCare replacement but we haven`t seen anything resembling a terrific plan. Behind closed doors, the President reportedly described the House bill whose passage he celebrated in the Rose Garden as mean, cold hearted and son of a B and said that the Senate version needs quote "more heart". In March, the President admitted the House version would hurt his own voters but argued that the Senate would fix everything.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A Bloomberg analysis showed that counties that voted for you, middle class and working class counties, would do far less well under this bill than counties that voted for Hillary.

TRUMP: I know.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It seems like maybe this is inconsistent with the message of the last election.

TRUMP: No, a lot of things are inconsistent, but these will be negotiated. We`ve to go to the Senate, we`re going to see what happens in the Senate.


HAYES: But it appears that at least in some ways, the Senate bill will be even meaner, as the President would say, than House version. In front of the Capitol today, Senate Democrats rallied against the GOP health care push and promise ad vigorous fight against the passage of the Senate bill.

STABENOW: We have a very simple message. No hearing no, vote.

SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D), WASHINGTON: We`ve only got a few days left. We`ve got to stop this bill.

WARREN: We can whimper about it, we can whine about it or we can fight back. Me, I`m fighting back. Are you fighting back?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D), VERMONT: Our job is not to throw 23 million more Americans off health insurance, it`s to guarantee health care to all as a right.

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D) CONNECTICUT: I don`t think they have the votes yet. Now, they might get them, but we are going to lie down on the train tracks if that`s what it takes in order to stop this from happening in this country.


HAYES: At this hour, Steve Bannon and other White House officials are at the Capitol trying to sell GOP Senators on the Senate bill. I`m joined now by Democratic Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii. Senator, I guess my first question is, do you have a reaction? Have you seen any of the bill? Do you know what`s in it yet?

SEN. BRIAN SCHATZ (D), HAWAII: No. I don`t know what`s in it but I`ve seen the reporting and it confirms what we`ve been saying all along. The House bill and the Senate bill are essentially the same structurally. This thing cuts Medicaid massively. And Chris, as you mentioned, it may phase out Medicaid expansion a little more slowly. I`m not sure if they think that gives them cover or not but what I does is something even more draconian, even more, right wing that used to be totally a third rail in American politics which is, they`re trying to cut Medicaid overall as a program. They`re trying block grant which means, essentially giving each state a certain amount of money, capitating it and saying, this is what you have regardless of how many people are on Medicaid and how much money each state has. So this is going to be extremely cruel. I`m frankly a little surprised that in the fight between the so-called moderates and the right wing in the Senate Republican conference, that the right wing won. They got their wishes. This is Paul Ryan in college around a keg, imagining a bill. This is that bill.

HAYES: Yes. Paul Ryan had made this comment earlier of the AHCA that it was something that he dreamed about sitting around kegs in college, capitating Medicaid basically. The other question I have for you is, how do you - how do you game out the next week as a member of the Democratic minority?

SCHATZ: Well, it`s in - it`s in two or three increments but the first increment, we have to be focused on just one task which is to find three no votes. There`s a lot of gaming out to sort of end of the process but that end of the process is only if we lose and it is not a foregone conclusion that we lose. I will tell you that the rumors are flying and they`re flying in every direction even the most knowledgeable people within the United States Senate. Some people think there are seven or eight people leaning no. Some people think Mitch McConnell already has the votes. What that tells me is that this is a very fluid situation that lots of members on the Republican side are feeling tons of pressure and that we should ratchet up that pressure. For my part, I`m trying to do everything I can. On the floor, off the floor, directly with Republican members, through the media, through the internet and I think everyone has to throw everything they got at this one task which is to find three people who will vote no. And they may vote no for different reasons. You may have a couple of people who are pro-choice who vote no for that reason. You may be a couple of people like Rand Paul who think this isn`t quite cruel enough. I don`t care. We just have to cobble together three no votes and we can save health care for tens of millions of Americans.

HAYES: You know, it seems to me that it`s a likely scenario and I would like to hear what you think of this that they`ve sort of left some obvious things in the bill that moderates are not going to like, conservative are not going to like. And they`re going to tweak it in some ways so that people can go away with their sort of symbolic victory. Dem Heller can - have some victory on Medicaid and Rand Paul, Mike Lee, maybe on the subsidies. And then - and then everyone can sort of - it seems to me that it`s set up for a kind of Kabuki theater.

SCHATZ: That`s possible. You know, I just don`t know. Because that`s a - that`s a heck of a thing to try to orchestrate. You know, the Senate is not quite that organized, even on the Republican side, even with Mitch McConnell who`s obviously very skillful in his work. That is - that may be how it is set up and I think you`re right generally speaking. That what they`re going to try to do is give some members cover. Those who pretend to care about opioids but want to cut Medicaid in $800 billion, maybe they`ll set up a $10 billion opioid fund. You know, 10 percent of what`s really needed. So I think you`re right. They`re going to try to sort of sweeten the pot for some of these members but a lot of them are a little more serious than that. And the other part of the politics here is hometown politics. It is not enough to say, hey, I voted for opioids. We are hearing from community health centers, we are hearing from groups that advocate for research and treatment for specific diseases. And we`re really - you know, people are feeling the pressure. So don`t give up. We`re still in a very strong position. We don`t know what`s going to happen but we do think we might be able to kill this bill.

HAYES: All right, Senator Brian Schatz, thank you for joining me.

SCHATZ: Thank you.

HAYES: And joining me now is Republican Congressman Michael Burgess of Texas, Congressman, you are one of the people that worked on the AHCA in the - in the House and I remember Rand Paul came over from the Senate and sort of made fun of you guys with a copier because you wouldn`t let him see the bill. He was - he was sort of poking fun at the secrecy of the House process. Shouldn`t you be over in the Senate with a copier now since you aren`t allowed to see this piece of legislation?

REP. MICHAEL BURGESS (R), TEXAS: Well, look, can I just say a couple things? First up, it`s good to be on with you again. It`s been a little while since we`ve had a chance to converse on things. You know the other thing I do need to say is a week after the terrible shooting at the baseball practice, I don`t know if Steve Scalise watches your show or not but I do know that his condition was upgraded to fair today and we miss you, Steve. And if you`re watching, speedy recovery and we`ll see you back here in the Halls of Congress. Now, look, you know, we all say things from time to time. I don`t know that that was particularly helpful on the part of the Senator before when the House was working on their bill. I would not expect it would be helpful for me to behave in the same way so I probably not going to do that.

HAYES: Well, but there`s been a lot made about the process (INAUDIBLE). I want to get the substance but - and I note here that sort of situational hypocrisy is an occupational hazard in the line of work you`ve chosen. I do want to play you some of your -

BURGESS: Sure. But I used to be a student of medical irony a long time ago and that sort of branched out into legislative irony. So I have the full gamut.

HAYES: I want to - I want to play you some of your comments on the ObamaCare process and this was in 2010 since a year into that process. Take a listen.


BURGESS: The White House has no interest in being transparent in this process because they have so much to hide about this bill. We probably have a day or two to look at the shell bill. A day or two to look at the phantom bill and virtually no time see what`s in the real reconciliation bill. My committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is completely bypassed to this process, no respect for the oldest standing committee in the United States House of Representatives. Very difficult to pass this large that affects many people without at least some input from both sides. That`s never been done before to my knowledge in this country and that`s what we`re trying to do tonight.


HAYES: Now, that was after a year and there were have been committee hearings, there have been amendments, you were objecting specifically to the way that reconciliation process came together at the end.

BURGESS: Well, it wasn`t reconciliation process, it was the way the Senate passed bill had come back over to the House where we literally could have no input because if anything changed, as you recall, if anything changes, then it has to go back to the Senate but they lost a Senate seat along the way. And (INAUDIBLE) he couldn`t do anything else -

HAYES: Of course. And everyone knew what kind of bill was that though, right? We have seen the text. Right now, as you and I are speaking -

BURGESS: Can I - can I correct you? And that people do know - I mean, we`ve had a reconciliation bill in the process for over two years` time. Everyone knows what the moving parts are.

HAYES: No we don`t. But Congressman, respectfully, we do not - I do not have - in front of me, I do not have legislative language and there are lobbyist on Capitol Hill right now who do.

BURGESS: Well, we read the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee if you were watching our -

HAYES: No, no. I`m talking about the Senate - I`m talking about the Senate legislation that will be voted on in a week.

BURGESS: And what you - what you heard from your previous guest is that it likely will track close to what the House passed bill. Because honestly Chris, the moving parts are pretty well defined by reconciliation process.

HAYES: Right.

BURGESS: Do I wish we had 60 votes and we could do something in the Senate like they did? Of course, I do. They ended with reconciliation. We will be beginning with reconciliation. I do want to stress, this is the beginning of this process, not the end. So we know what the moving parts are, something with taxes, something with mandates, something with Medicaid expansion. All of those are going to be part I suspect of the Senate bill when it is released tomorrow.

HAYES: So here`s my question to you. I want to sort of put aside the exchanges, right? So there`s problems in the exchanges, those are very clear, there`s problems with premiums, there`s problems (AUDIO GAP). Those are facts on the ground in many places and you have been critical of that and a lot of people across the ideological spectrum. Let`s take it out of the equation for a second.

BURGESS: You can`t.

HAYES: The two big parts - the two big parts - you can though for this reason, right? Which is that when you - to get back to your point about the budgetary implications here, there`s two big moving parts, right? There`s the tax cuts that are going to happen for the wealthiest households. If you make a million dollars, you`re going to see about $50,000 tax cut, that`s about $600 billion and then $800 billion in Medicaid cuts. When you - when people look at that -

BURGESS: No. You keep doing this -

HAYES: Why is that -

BURGESS: - it is not a cut in Medicaid. There is a reduction in the growth of Medicaid but it is still going to grow faster than the population of the United States. And we`re actually implementing a policy Bill Clinton wanted in 1997.

HAYES: But Congressman, if you`re taking -

BURGESS: Going back to Paul Ryan`s college days, this was Bill Clinton`s plan in 1997. He said give states the ability to put a cap on federal spending and don`t make them come crawling to the federal government to get permission.

HAYES: But Congressman -

BURGESS: That was a per capita cap that Bill Clinton proposed. The New York Times extolled the virtues of Clinton`s plan in1997.

HAYES: Congressman, I didn`t extol it. You know, either way - whoever and extolled it in 1997, the point is that the money has got to come from somewhere. If you`re saying it is not a cut, there`s $800 billion that would be in Medicaid that is going to come out. That is a budgetary necessity, otherwise, the thing doesn`t pass reconciliation musters. You can call it whatever you want but there`s going to be $800 billion less going into people`s health care through the program than there would be if you didn`t pass the bill.

BURGES: The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President Obama said the single greatest threat to our security was our debt. And honestly, Chris, you know this, there is something that is going to have happened on spending control, deficit control, that is part of the discussion that`s going to be going on over the next several months. This is common sense -

HAYES: But if that`s the case, why $600 billion in tax cut?

BURGESS: This is a common sense approach to the vast increase in the expenditures of Medicaid. It`s going to go from $550 billion a year to a trillion dollars a year in less than ten years` time but the country is not growing that fast.

HAYES: But Congressman, if that`s true, and let me - let`s just say, arguendo, conceding that, OK? You`re concerned about the deficit and you want to bring down the spending, then why are there $600 billion in tax cuts for people making lots of money including millionaires and billionaires who are receiving like $50,000 a year added to their salary?

BURGESS: Well, here`s the other part of the equation. The growth of the economy, the United States over the last seven years has been 1 to 1.5 percent, maybe some years, a little over that but not much. That`s the other thing that has to change. You do have to have growth of the economy of this country or we`re stuck in here.

HAYES: And the tax cut is going to get you there?

BURGESS: We`re mired in this stagnation and we`ll never see the light of day.

HAYES: OK. All right, I always appreciate you coming on. Let`s keep doing this, Congressman. I appreciate it.

BURGESS: All right, thank you, Chris.

HAYES: Thank you. I`m joined now by Sarah Kliff, Senior Policy Correspondent for and Josh Earnest, MSNBC Analyst and former White House Press Secretary under President Obama. Sarah, I just really do feel like they`re being dishonest about what`s going on in Medicaid. It is true, they will continue - the program will continue to expand but the - it`s a cut because there`s going to be less money in it, right? I`m not crazy.

SARAH KLIFF, VOX.COM SENIOR POLICY CORRESPONDENT: You are not crazy, Chris. It is definitely a cut and I think it is a cut because a lot less people will be getting Medicaid benefits. One of the key numbers from the last CBO report is that 14 million Americans would no longer have Medicaid coverage. And I think if you wanted to find a cut, one of the easiest ways to do it is just look at who is covered under the program. And with the big changes that are being proposed in the House bill, it sounds like it will be quite similar in the Senate bill, you just can`t cover the same number of people. It is true that Clinton did endorse a per capita cap method like Representative Burgess was talking about, but one of the key, kind of wonky things is how quickly you grow that cap.

HAYES: Right.

KLIFF: How quickly you grow the amount of money for each person. And under the Republican bill, it is a very small amount that states would be getting for each Medicaid enrollee.

HAYES: So, Josh, the politics of this are in flux. What is your sense of how this next week plays out once this thing actually comes public? Because it seems to me, it is the riskiest part of the whole process.

JOSH EARNEST, MSNBC ANALYST: Well, Chris, we definitely have Senate Republican in a position where they`re taking a huge risk. And that risk is, they`ve been deployed a pretty cynical strategy here to prevent people from understanding exactly what they`re voting on. But the thing they haven`t count - accounted for is that after they cast the vote, people are going to have some pretty tough questions about what exactly they voted on. And we - here`s the thing, this is not a theoretical exercise. We actually saw how this played out in the House. The House on this second time around when they were trying on repeal ObamaCare actually did the same thing. They tried to ram it through. They did ram it through without any hearings, without even a CBO score hoping that people wouldn`t pay attention to what they were voting on. Well, it turns out that since they cast that vote and since they voted to repeal ObamaCare in the House, the bill that they voted has only become less popular even among Republicans. And those Republican members of Congress who are counting on the President of the United States to have their back and explaining and defending that vote, well, now he`s out there calling the bill mean.

HAYES: Right.

EARNEST: So this is - this does put Republicans in a pretty tough position where they`re taking a big risk.

HAYES: It also seems to me Sarah, that the sort of high leverage approach of McConnell here is keep it secret, drop it, push it through, also means that you`re sort of putting all of the spotlight on it for this period of time, right? This can`t grind in the background. Like they`re going to have to be able to withstand that.

KLIFF: Right. At some the point, it comes out of secret. At some point, you have to talk about it. There are a lot of reporters up on Capitol Hill who have a lot of questions and we will see if they can weather the storm. I mean, I do think one thing that Senator McConnell has actually been quite successful at is keeping press coverage away from this bill. It is a lot harder to cover a story where you can`t write about the details of the bill, where you can`t write about you know, the hearing that happened. And you don`t - when we write about a lot of hearings during the ACA process, you can`t really do that now. But I think there will be a week of intense focus. You know, we have the vote that`s likely going to happen on Thursday. But I think it`s still an open question of if we get there, or if we see something like we saw in the House where there is a vote scheduled pulled a few hours before. But then a few months later they kind of take that time to get the votes together and get something passed.

HAYES: Josh, do you think we`ll hear from President Obama?

EARNEST: I don`t know if we`ll - if we`ll hear from President Obama. I think there`s a chance that we`ll hear something from him. But you know, Chris, there are a lot of Democrats across the country and even Independents and even some Republicans who are disappointed in the outcome of the congressional race last night. But I hope they`re not feeling discouraged because there still an opportunity for people across the country to make their voice heard. There still are members of Congress - Senators who are about to take a tough vote. And after the CBO score comes out, after we get the details of the legislation, which may be tomorrow, there will be an opportunity for people across the country to weigh in and to make their voices heard. And it`s important for people to remain engaged in that process. And look, it`s not just going to be Democrats who are making their voices heard. There are a lot of people in counties that supported Donald Trump who stands to lose significantly from this bill. And I think they`re going to make their voices heard too and I think there are - there are still some more you know, cards to play here before we have to settle up the score and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

HAYES: All right, Sarah Kliff and Josh Earnest, thank you both.

Still to come, even as the White House refused to accept it today, we got new sinister details in the scale and scope of Russia`s attempt to affect the outcome of last year`s election in two minutes.


HAYES: In hearing today before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Members of Congress heard a chilling account of the Russia`s interference in the 2016 election and the continued vulnerability of America`s election infrastructure. An official at the Department of Homeland Security confirmed publicly for the first time, election systems in 21 states were targeted by Russian hackers. There`s no evidence that any actual ballots were changed crucially, but here`s the thing. Witnesses warn that hackers will be back. Appearing before the House panel today, President Obama`s former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said he personally contacted the Associated Press before election day to review the security of their vote counting operation. Johnson defended the Obama administration response to Russian hacking last year maintaining they wanted to avoid the appearance of political interference - appearance of political interference and pointing to claims by then candidate Trump the election would be quote "rigged." But Johnson was unequivocal about who was responsible for the hacking and the urgency of doing something about it.


JEH JOHNSON, FORMER DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: The Russian government at the direction of Vladimir Putin himself orchestrated cyber- attacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election. That is a fact plain and simple. Now the key question for the President and the Congress is, what are we going to do to protect the American people and their democracy from this kind of thing in the future?


HAYES: That testimony came less than 24 hours after the White House declined to confirm whether the President actually believes Russia was behind the election hacking. I`m joined now by Michael Isikoff, Chief Investigative Correspondent for Yahoo! News, and Michael, I saw your write up of this hearing today, there was a lot of pretty stunning moments. To have it confirmed that election vendors and the systems were being targeted is really something.

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, YAHOO! NEWS CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Right. These was actually - these are both sort of fairly informative hearings that did advance the ball about what happened, the core issue of the Russian interference in the election. I thought it was also interesting that Jeh Johnson sort of made the point that he made two efforts to try to sort of help out and protect security in the election and was rebuffed both times. First, by the DNC, he said he offered - Department of Homeland Security`s assistance to the DNC when he learned of the hack and the DNC didn`t accept the help. At that point, the FBI was investigating. And then when he has this conference call with State Election Officials on August 15th of last year, he wants to get their support for designating state voting systems. Part of the country`s critical infrastructure that would trigger beefed up federal protections, and he gets this blowback, pushback from the state election officials. They don`t want it. They fear a federal takeover of the election process. And so he put the idea on a back burner. So as a result, you know, two efforts by the Secretary of Homeland Security are both rebuffed during this Russian cyber-attack.

HAYES: And one of the takeaways from the hearing, not just Johnson`s testimony but other witnesses, is just that the continuing vulnerability. I mean, these are - these are systems that very distributed. They`re run by - there`s different vendors, there`s different election systems and different localities and different states. And you know, they are penetrable, and that`s unnerving.

ISIKOFF: Right. Look, there was - some people took solace in the fact to actually change the outcome of an election would be extremely difficult because the election system is so diffused and it`s run on state and local levels and you know, multiple jurisdictions, thousands of jurisdictions. But the fact is it doesn`t take much to have an impact. The - you know, the fact that the Russians were probing the state election systems, voter registration, if they got in those voter registration databases, and they did in two states, Illinois and Arizona. In fact in Illinois, there was 76,000 voters whose information was compromised. All you have to do is change a few digits in those voter registration records and then people go to the polls and they couldn`t - you know, and then there would be confusion at the polls. They wouldn`t be able to vote. Now, that didn`t happen but the potential for real havoc is there.

HAYES: All right Michael Isikoff, thanks for your time.

ISIKOFF: Thank you.

HAYES: Still to come, news sign that the Mueller investigation is gaining momentum, we`ll explain ahead. And Senator Al Franken on whether the Attorney General is avoiding testifying in front of Senate Judiciary Committee and why he thinks Democrats can defeat the Republican Trump care bill, coming up.



COREY LEWANDOWSKI, TRUMP`S FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER: There is no collusion, there is no obstruction, there was no communication. It`s time to move on from this. What is Bob Mueller doing? I don`t even understand his role is anymore because everyone has said there is nothing here. And so this investigation should be ended immediately.

HAYES: The former - the President`s former Campaign Manager appeared on the President`s favorite cable news show this morning to extend the campaign against Special Counsel Robert Mueller`s Russia investigation. The President himself will be on that show later this week for his first on-camera interview in over a month. But while his allies are trying to undermine the Special Counsel, Mueller`s investigation appears to be picking up steam. He`s been on a hiring spree of experienced attorneys, he`s meeting with the acting FBI Director to ensure he`s got all the information and resources he needs. And he has been meeting with the investigative committees in Congress to discuss staying out of each other`s way. Last week he met with the heads of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Yesterday, with the head of the House intelligence, today Mueller is back on Capitol Hill, this time for a sessions with leading members of the Senate judiciary committee, which is looking into the firing of former FBI director James Comey.

Asked earlier about what they plan to discuss, Senator Chuck Grassley, a judiciary chairman, wouldn`t rule anything out.


SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY, (R) IOWA: There are some areas that I won`t go into that I think are very definitely that he can`t interfere with, probably some he`ll tell us that there`s some that we can`t interfere with.

HAYES: Is obstruction one of those areas, possibly the president obstructing justice?

GRASSLEY: I think everything is on the table.


HAYES: A member of the Senate judiciary committee, Senator Al Franken joins me next.


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. AL FRANKEN, (D) MINNESOTA: We do know that the Russians interfered with the election and I can`t believe that in the last five months that Sean Spicer hasn`t had that conversation, if they have nothing to hide, what they should be asking, what the president should be asking, what Sessions should be asking, is how can we prevent this from happening again?


HAYES: Senator Al Franken on the Russian interference in the presidential election. Now with the president reportedly facing an obstruction of justice investigation had it seems to make the temptation to fire the man leading the investigation even greater. The question is, how confident is Senator Franken that special counsel Robert Mueller has the independence and the latitude he needs to to investigate the possible collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.


FRANKEN: I`m very confident in him. I think he has the independence he needs unless he`s - unless the president does something like fire him, in which - and I don`t think that is a tenable option for the president. But you never know.

HAYES: There`s a nominee now to replace James Comey at the FBI, Christopher Ray. And it`s somewhat strange to me that we haven`t had hearings yet, it seems like an important position. It also seems like there are some assurances, I imagine members of the committee such as yourself will want to get from him during that process.

FRANKEN: Well, yes. We do want him. We actually have on the judiciary committee oversight over at the Justice Department. We would also like to get the attorney general to appear before us again. Again, we have oversight over the Justice Department, the attorney general is the head of that. And if he is appointing a new head of the FBI, we want to be having a hearing with him as well.

HAYES: Is Sessions just avoiding your committee now?

FRANKEN: I don`t know. I think so. I mean, I don`t know. We want him to appear before us. I certainly have some questions for him.

HAYES: There`s new details today on the health care bill. You were one of the senators who was rallying today about the Senate health care bill. Basically, in many respects, broadly is similar to the House bill despite the fact that there was all this noise made for months about how, oh, that`s just the House bill, the Senate it`s going to - we`re going to write it from scratch.

That doesn`t appear to be what`s actually happened behind closed doors.

FRANKEN: Well, I haven`t seen it yet. That`s what we`re hearing. But I want to see it before I make a judgment about how close it is.

The House bill is unbelievably bad. I mean, it is unbelievably bad. it is $800 plus billion in cuts to Medicaid. We had a shadow hearing today, Democrats did, with - on rural health. We had a number of witnesses. This will be devastating to rural health care, hospitals would close, people, I`m co-chair of the rural health caucus. I`ve been around my state. People crying in roundtables. Their mother gets her home health care through Medicaid. She would lose it. The woman speaking and her husband would not be able to take care of her mom, because they both work.

This is, it would be a tragedy to adopt something, anything like the House bill.

HAYES: What is the plan here in terms of stopping it? It seems like there`s, I`m always unclear what Senators can and can`t do, because at some level it seems like each individual senator is empowered to really bring things to a halt and deny unanimous consent. At the other level it seems like Mitch McConnell is playing hardball and he does have a majority and he`s got the reconciliation process on his side.

FRANKEN: You can deny unanimous consent, and that takes up a certain amount of time, but once that time has elapsed, then you move on. So I don`t think that is going to be, I think what we are going to do is defeat this, that`s what we need to do, because if this bill is anything like was described, and it is like the House bill, I can`t see it getting 50 votes. I can`t see Susan Collins voting for it. I can`t see Lisa Murkowski, I can`t see Bill Cassidy, I can`t see - there`s a lot of people I can`t see voting for this thing.

HAYES: Senator Al Franken, thanks for joining me.

FRANKEN: Thank you.

HAYES: Still ahead, assessing the fallout for Democrats in the wake of last night`s special election with Jonathan Chait and Michelle Goldberg.

Plus, a message from the queen in tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two, next.


HAYES: Thing One tonight, today in London when the queen delivered her speech for the state opening of parliament, speculation quickly spread she might be subtly offering her support for the European Union in the wake of Brexit.


QUEEN ELIZABETH II, ENGLAND: My government`s priorities to secure the best possible deal as the country leaves the European Union.


HAYES: Wasn`t anything the queen said about Brexit that raised eyebrows, but rather what she wore, specifically the blue hat with those yellow star looking things People started remarking online that the hat looks a lot like the EU flag, blue with gold stars, even the European parliament`s lead negotiator on Brexit tweeted clearly the EU still inspires some in the UK #queenspeech.

But aside from reading signs in the Queen`s wardrobe, her speech did appear to snub one pro-Brexit, pro-nationalist leader: President Donald Trump. That`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.



TRUMP: My mother was born in Scotland in Stornoway. She respected and loved the queen and she loved the ceremony and the pomp, pomp and circumstance.


HAYES: In President Trump`s first week in office, he accepted an invitation for the queen of England for a state visit to the UK later this year. And he seemed pretty excited about all the pomp and circumstance. In April, The Times of London reported that he was insisting on a gold-plated carriage ride with the queen. The White House denied demanding a gold carriage procession.

But that was just the first speed bump. President Trump lashed out at London`s mayor on Twitter in the immediate aftermath of a deadly terror attack earlier this month prompting calls within Britain to cancel the president`s visit. A week later, The Guardian reported President Trump told Prime Minister Theresa May he would not come if there would be large scale protests.

All of which brings us to today when the queen addressed the opening of the new parliamentary session, a time when the monarch traditionally announces state visits.


ELIZABETH II: Prince Phillip and I look forward to welcoming their majesties King Philippe and the Queen Latizia of Spain on a state visit in July.


HAYES: Following the speech, 10 Downing Street insisted that the absence of any mention of President Trump did not mean the trip was off saying a date hasn`t been fixed yet.


HAYES: Last week, Officer Jeronimo Yanez, who shot and killed Philando Castile in Minnesota was acquitted of second degree manslaughter. Dash cam video of the incident, which was seen by the jury has now been released. And in the car with Castile was his girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter. And what you`re about to see is disturbing.




YANEZ: The reason I pulled you over, your brake lights are out. You only have one activated, active brake light and that`s going to be your passenger side one. Your third brake light, which is up here on top and then this one back here is going to be out. You have your license and insurance?

CASTILE: Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me.

YANEZ: Don`t reach for it then. Don`t pull it out. Don`t pull it out.

CASTILE: I`m not pulling it out.

YANEZ: Don`t pull it out! Don`t...

DIANMOND REYNOLDS, GIRLFRIEND: Oh, my god! You just killed my boyfriend. He wasn`t reaching.

YANEZ: Don`t pull them out!

Don`t move!

REYNOLDS: Oh, man, I can`t.

YANEZ: Oh, my god.

REYNOLDS: Don`t move! Don`t move.

YANEZ: Oh, my god. I`m shaking.

YANEZ: Don`t move.

REYNOLDS: Don`t move, baby.

YANEZ: Code three. Get baby girl out of here.


HAYES: Officer Yanez was acquitted and later relieved of his duties in a voluntary separation agreement.

According to The Washington Post`s comprehensive study, there were nearly 1,000 fatal police shootings in 2016, like year`s past, and charges are only filed in about 1 percent of all the fatal police involved shootings, convictions are even more rare.

Officer Yanez had a trial by jury of his peers, including the legal defense as the constitution ensures. And he had due process, which is afforded rightfully to any police officer when that officer is charged with a crime.

But due process is unequally distributed in this country and the truth is that due process is not the lived reality for millions of people who are run through the criminal justice system every day.

And it is very hard to look at that dash cam video and say that our fellow citizen Philando Castile got his due process.


HAYES: Republican Karen Handel beat Democrat Jon Ossoff by almost four points in Georgia`s Sixth congressional district last night, the race turning out to be a successful test so far for how the GOP might manage to keep the House even as the president posts a 36 percent approval rating.

First, Republicans leaned heavily on culture war, attempting to tie Ossoff to various and sundry liberal villains from comedienne Kathy Griffin to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Second, super PAC money poured in. The New York Times estimates that Handel benefited from $18.2 million of spending by outside groups. And third, old-fashioned gerrymandering as the Atlanta Journal-Constituion wrote about the Sixth district, its boundaries clearly were crafted to benefit Republican candidates.

Joining me now to pick over this, Michelle Goldberg, who is just in Georgia, whose new piece for Slate on those results is titled "More liberal tears" and Jonathan Chait, columnist for New York Magazine, author of Audacity, who also has a new piece after last night titled "This might be the worst Democratic freakout ever."

Jonathan, I guess I`ll start with you, you basically were like, hey, Michelle`s writing from the tears perspective, you`re basically saying, stop crying, It`s not so bad. What`s your general read here?

JONATHAN CHAIT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: You have to adjust your point of view about what`s going to happen for the party with everything that happens. In this election, it was worse for the Democrats by a few points than they expected, but the whole run of special elections, the Democrats have had, has been very positive for them. On average, as Dave Wasserman found, for FiveThirtyEight, the party has outperformed its partisan lean of its districts by eight points.

Now if it could just keep on this eight-point improvement in November, well, of course, there`s a long way away, but if they can keep that up, by that pace, they would win back the House easily.

So I think the data actually tell us, the Democrats have done really well in these special elections. They haven`t won them just because they`re all in really heavily Republican districts, but that`s not the way the House map looks, it`s a map that we have because these are Republicans who are appointed into Trump`s administration. They weren`t -- it`s not some cross-section of America.

HAYES: Right. It`s also, and also - we should say, that generally appointed because they thought they were safe seats. You don`t give up a seat. So, you`re generally appointing people you think you have safe seats.

CHAIT: If they think there`s a risk of losing the seat, they won`t appoint them.

HAYES: Right.

You were down in that district. And I`m so fascinated by this sort of culture war aspect. Like Kathy Griffin had nothing to do with Jon Ossoff. She tweeted about it once and it was like, I kept seeing her pop up.

MICHELLE GOLDBERG, SLATE: Right. I mean, the thing that breaks my heart about this is that there were so many first-time activists in this district, you know, women who had never been involved in a campaign before who worked their hearts out and who kind of thought that their neighbors were better than this, because at the end of the day, Karen Handel`s campaign was just about stick it to the liberals, right? There`s - I never saw a single campaign that said -- or single advertisement that said a single positive thing about Karen Handel. I`m not sure that there is one, right.

There was the Jon Ossoff campaign and anti-Jon Ossoff campaign. I mean, and they didn`t just try to tie him to Kathy Griffin, they tried to tie him to Muslim terrorists, to the black bloc anarchists. I mean, it was such an over the top - to the shooting of Steve Scalise. It was such a repulsive over-the-top campaign. And I think that ultimately what it proved is that even Republicans who are very uncomfortable with Donald Trump, they hate liberals more. And that`s what activates them.

And it was interesting to see online, even a lot of never-Trump conservatives were celebrating Karen Handel`s win, because ultimately they hate us.

HAYES: And Jonathan, I mean, the other thing I think that really gets lost in all these races is the role that super PAC money has played. Because I think there was a sense of like, oh, money doesn`t matter anymore, because Hillary Clinton outraised and out spent Donald Trump. But in races of this matter, and there was a lot attention played to Ossoff, who raised a lot of money, $23 million, but in all of these specials we`ve seen huge amounts of super PAC money come in. And, you know, they have to pay higher ad rates, but it also means they don`t have to fund raise. And I think that is just a taste of what we`re going to see in 2018.

CHAIT: I think that`s right. Ossoff certainly had enough money. And there`s a threshold question with money. You need to have enough money to get your message out, and above that level, there`s a principle of diminishing return. So, I don`t think that going to be a huge barrier. I think that will help the Republicans a little bit, but I don`t think that`s going to be a huge factor. I think the Democrats will have enough money to get their message out in most of these races.

HAYES: I also think that, to me, what was -- this cultural are resentment helps explain why they`re plunging ahead with this health care bill. Because I think there`s a calculation made by the Republicans that their appeal is so detached from policy in certain ways, or even just like what is going to happen with this bill, that they can push the bill for their ideological or donor interest class for those reasons, and they can still get people to vote against basically Kathy Griffin even if the bill is bad.

GOLDBERG: You know, one of the women - some of the women who really moved me were women who had kids with special needs who are terrified about their kids growing up with preexisting conditions or lifetime caps. And I met this one woman who has two children with severe hearing loss, they both had operations, and she had actually split with a lot of her friends in that community because she couldn`t believe their kind, their passionate embrace of Donald Trump which seemed completely divorced from the needs of their children. And it`s just because, you know, at the end of the day, they thought Obamacare raised our premiums and they didn`t really have a sense of what was coming at them with this new bill.

HAYES: And that to me, Jonathan, sort of connects to something you`ve written about is that, you know, Ossoff did not lean into the AHCA. He was critical of it and it was a huge factor for volunteers, but it seems to me, particularly as this thing moves ahead, it`s going to have to be central for Democrats in 2018.

CHAIT: I think it`s their best issue. It`s their strongest issue and Republicans know it that`s why I think what the Senate is going to do is just delay and delay and delay the implementations of these provisions so that as little of it takes effect within people`s memory of the vote as possible, and that`s the only thing they can do because it`s an awful bill.

HAYES: Yeah, and I really don`t think -- I think that what you`re going to see develop, if they pass the thing, is even more catastrophic politically, ironically. Like, I think the best thing for Republicans is for it to die in the Senate.

GOLDBERG: Right. And one of the real heartbreaks of this - I mean, one of the heartbreaks is that this could have derailed this terrible bill that`s going to ruin people`s lives.

HAYES: I don`t it cements it that it didn`t, but it would have been a really staggering blow if Ossoff had won.

Jonathan Chait and Michelle Goldberg, thank you for joining me.

And that is All In for this evening.