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

All in with Chris Hayes, Transcript 6/23/17 Free money bonanza in the GOP healthcare bill.

Guests: Jon Ralston, Jim Manley, Maggie Hassan, Ted Lieu

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: June 23, 2017 Guest: Jon Ralston, Jim Manley, Maggie Hassan, Ted Lieu



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It`s a very, very narrow path but I think we`re going to get there.

HAYES: A significant roadblock to the health care bill as a vulnerable Republican Senator says he won`t vote for it.

SEN. DEAN HELLER (R), NEVADA: In this form, I will not support it.

HAYES: Tonight, where does the rest of the Republican Caucus stand?

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: The bill has a chance and I`m still open to it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not yet decided to vote for the bill.

HAYES: And the reminder of what`s at stake if it passes.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: This is not trying to be overly dramatic. Thousands of people will die.

HAYES: Then new details reveal the vast scope of Russian interference in the election and the President once again makes the case against himself.

TRUMP: When he found out that -- you know, that there may be tapes out there, I think his story may have changed.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.

TRUMP: Wasn`t very stupid.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. Tonight there could be a major setback for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell in his effort to swiftly pass a once-secret health care bill that would slash coverage for the poor and sick and give a huge tax cut to the rich. Nevada Senator Dean Heller, a Republican facing probably the toughest re-election fight of any Senator in his party in 2018, declaring publicly that he cannot support the bill as written.


HELLER: This bill is currently in front of the United States Senate. Not the answer. It`s simply not the answer. And I`m announcing today that in this form, I will not support it.


HAYES: Heller`s announcement was made alongside Nevada`s popular Republican governor Brian Sandoval who was among three Republican Governors who signed on to a letter rejecting Trumpcare which crucially included the point that quote, the Medicaid provisions included in this bill are particularly problematic. Now, Nevada is one of the states that accepted the OmbamaCare Medicaid expansion. In opposing the bill today, Heller didn`t just align himself with Sandoval`s opposition to the GOP effort to slash Medicaid, he also said that Republicans are lying about the bill, about cutting premiums.


HELLER: We have 200,000 demands, we`re talking about those with mental health, with disabilities, mothers with children that today have insurance that they probably would not have had five years ago, six years ago. I`m telling you right now, I cannot support a piece of legislation that takes insurance away from tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Nevadans. If this bill passes, the second biggest lie is the premiums going down. There isn`t anything in this piece of legislation that will lower premiums.


HAYES: He called it a lie, a lie that your premiums will go down, Republican Senator. Now, McConnell can only lose two votes and still pass the bill. Yesterday, you remember, a group of four Conservative Senators said they oppose it but they left open the possibility of supporting the bill if it moves to the right. On Fox News this morning, President Trump said he expected that group to come around.


TRUMP: Well, they`re also four good guys and the four are friends of mine and I think that they`ll probably get there. We`ll have to see. What`s interesting is that I`ve been here only five months. People are saying where`s the health care? Where`s the health care? Well, I`ve done it five months while other people haven`t done in years. And it`s been -- people have worked on health care for many years. It is a very complicated situation from the standpoint, you do something that`s good for one group but bad for another.


HAYES: Not a whole lot of policy detail on that interview this morning but that last part I guess in some abstract sense is true. In this respect, McConnell now has opposition on both the right and the left which makes his job considerably harder. And Heller crucially may have opened the door for even more opposition. Ohio Senator Rob Portman, for example, is in a very similar position to Heller. His state expanded Medicaid with the Republican Governor and his Republican Governor signed that letter opposing TrumpCare that cited Medicaid cuts. Portman said yesterday he has quote, "real concerns" about the Senate Bill citing Medicaid though he has not yet taken a yes or no position. Joining me now, the Dean of the Nevada Press Corps Jon Ralston, Editor of the Nevada Independent. I so wanted to talk to you today because there is such a battle in interpretation over what happened today with Dean Heller. Some people say this is kind of a faint like it was yesterday. Others say no, this is him tying himself to the mast of a no vote in a very public way. What`s your read?

JON RALSTON, NEVADA INDEPENDENT EDITOR: Well, I think it is much more of the latter than the former, Chris. I mean, he played some of what he had to say. He really boxed himself in. now, I`ve seen a lot of Democrats and I`ve seen a lot of progressives come out and say he`s just negotiating here. He`s not really going to stick to that and they`ll change the bill and he`ll vote for it. But as you laid out the politics, they`re not going to move this bill, I don`t think, far enough to the left to get Dean Heller because they`ve already lost those conservative, they`ve even lost even more. I don`t see that happening. Plus, look at the language that Dean Heller used. You played some of it, Chris. And he has now cloaked himself in the 70 percent popularity of Governor Brian Sandoval who essentially as I said on Twitter, a political human shield for Heller to use to stick to this position. 200,000 people in Nevada got health insurance after the Medicaid expansion. I don`t have to see how they changed that bill, where Sandoval`s and Heller`s rhetoric can change from essentially saying you can`t kick the poor, the elderly, the disabled off healthcare.

HAYES: I thought the point about Sandoval I think is so crucial for understanding what happened today. And I think today was really the genuine first big setback for McConnell. I don`t know what will happen but -- and the reason, just to sort of emphasize this. Sandoval is inordinately popular in the State of Nevada, very high approval rating. And it`s hard to oppose your party leadership alone. It seems very smart to me for Hiller to come out and tie himself to the very popular Governor when 18 months from now, he`s going to stand before the voters in that state and give himself the cover of basically going out two paired together so he doesn`t to have stick out alone.

RALSTON: That`s exactly right Chris. And I think-let`s just look at it through a political prism for a second. Forget whether it is right or wrong to kick people off health care and I know that`s hard to forget and I do think that Dean Heller considered that. I know for sure that Brian Sandoval considered that when he expanded Medicaid. Dean Heller, in my opinion, is the most vulnerable Senator in the country. He has worse numbers in every poll that I`ve seen in Nevada than Donald Trump does by the way. That`s how bad his numbers are. He would be essentially DOA in a general election if he supports this bill. He`s already got an opponent, a rookie Congresswoman by the name of Jackie Rosen. I just think it would be all over for him. So, you look at the other side, if he supports it, maybe he gets a challenge from the right, but from home, Sharron Angle is not the Sharron Angle we once loved.

HAYES: Right.

RALSTON: Danny Catania who runs every cycle, might run against him but it is much more of a political problem for Dean Heller to vote for this bill than to vote against it.

HAYES: So that is really important for folks to hear. And here`s the last part of that. You`ve got the super pact aligned with the President and Vice President, America first policy. That they say they`re going to -- that they`re going to prepare a seven-figure ad to buy against Heller for precisely I think the reason that you`re saying which is to put a thumb on the other side of the scale as he makes the calculation of politics.

RALSTON: Yes. And listen, I think that Dean Heller to some extent, and I`ve been critical of how Heller has handled this by equivocating so much and causing some of his own problems. This is a tough move for him in the sense that this kind money was going to be spent against him, that you have very powerful rich interest in his state to support Heller who probably very upset with him. And so, I throw out just those couple of names of possible challenges on the right that I don`t think will happen. But if you have a lot of money put against him, you have a willingness to fund the challenger in the primary, people may not know this either, Chris. Nevada primaries are in June, they`re upper, super low turnout. So you could have a candidate who`s well-funded just getting the faithful out to vote against Dean Heller, that`s risky for him. I still think this was a smarter political calculation but it did not come with some risk.

HAYES: All right, Jon Ralston, thanks for being with me tonight.

RALSTON: You bet.

HAYES: Joining me now, Joy Reid, host of MSNBC`s "A.M. JOY" and Senate Veteran Jim Manley who`s the former Chief Spokesperson for Harry Reid, and Jim, let me go to you first. The Heller thing to me today was the first time when I though -- I generally thought that odds of McConnell getting this done were around 80 percent, not a done deal but odd favor then. Today, the Heller decision made me ratchet back the odds on that and I wonder if that`s your read on it too having been in the room for this kind of whip counts

JIM MANLEY, FORMER CHIEF SPOKESPERSON FOR HARRY REID: As a matter of fact, it is Chris. I woke up more than a little desponded this morning once I heard what Senator Heller said. And more importantly, I hate to agree with my old pal Jon Ralston. The way he boxed himself in, I think there is a fighting chance. I guess I`ll go with the bottom-line. I can count three Republican votes possibly against this scene that this thing in Heller, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee. Now, to be clear, Senator McConnell has got a leverage and I don`t know how much money he has to play with so -- you know, to get -- Republicans on board. But yes I feel a lot better tonight than did I this morning.

HAYES: So here`s the way that I`ve been sort of thinking about it Joy, is that Heller also opens up a path. I mean, someone I think its Binyamin Appelbaum had a tweet today that there`s no way it passes by one vote because no one has got the spine to do that. It`s either going to -- it`s either going to fail by more than -- more than that or pass by more than that, right?


HAYES: 1Everyone`s going to get there or not get there. Heller seems to me when you think about Rob Portman in Ohio who`s got huge rallies Columbus, Ohio this Sunday, Charleston, West Virginia showing more (INAUDIBLE) that incredible video that is out there of a mother, a reverend confronting her with a picture of her daughter who has cancer. They`ve now got a little bit of cover, space for opposition.

REID: Yes, and you know, it`s interesting because as I`m watching this holding unfold, I think back to the Supreme Court case that severed the Medicaid expansion --

HAYES: That`s right.

REID: -- from the mandate, these sends with all states had to take it. The reason --

HAYES: Or forgo all Medicaid.

REID: Or forgo all Medicaid. He`s been able to penalize the state for not taking it and the 19 states that went to the Supreme Court (INAUDIBLE) saying no, we want the option of not taking it. What wound up happening because of that is you`ve pitted states that took -- remember, what the Medicaid expansion is money.

HAYES: Right.

REID: It`s money to say that now people up to 135 percent of the poverty rate, a quantifiable number of people in your state that is easy to count. Because they weren`t eligible in the original Medicaid, this group of people will lose their health care. 100 percent and your state will lose millions of dollars that is now written into your budget. The calculation for a senator becomes much more for the Governor.

HAYES: Yes, that`s a -- it`s a great point.

REID: Because now you also have hospital


HAYES: And you are screwing your state.

REID: That`s right.

HAYES: I mean, you know, you can say that ideologically it is for the better good or whatever but in a sort of short term pragmatic ledger sense -- and here are the other two people that Jim, I wanted to get your insight in because you`ve worked with them. Murkowski and Collins, OK. You`ve got Alaska in Murkowski, you`ve got Susan Collins in Maine. They have both made noises but very noncommittal. It seems to me they have a lot of leverage, they are not currently using. What is your read on that?

MANLEY: Well, it goes back to what I suggested earlier. I`m not sure how much Senator McConell -- how much money McConnell has to play with but I think he`s a lo1 of options to try and get those two on board. So I`m not ruling anything out. So --

HAYES: What do you mean by -- what does that mean though? Like --

MANLEY: Well, Chris, you were around back in the day. The Cornhusker kickback style --

HAYES: Right. That was my favorite.

MANLEY: Now there`s already a little sweetener in there for Buffalo, New York, so that predicate has been laid.

HAYES: The Buffalo buy-out.

MANLEY: The Buffalo buy-out. So he`s got a lot of different options. You know, for Collins, maybe it`s going to be additional money for the opioid crisis.

HAYES: Right.

MANLEY: Now remember -- and I think you hit upon this earlier. You know, this bill obviously is very conservative but he has underfunded somebody`s key programs including the opioid funding. Potentially that`s going to bring these guys on board. So we`ll have to wait and see.

HAYES: So here`s the thing that is really key, is the thing that is interesting about Heller is the politics of it should be that hard for him to vote for it and it`s the first time in this whole crazy secret process where I thought, OK, well, this is political gravity at play. And it does seems to me like there`s space for political gravity to work on people like Portman and Capitol particularly like it`s not -- whatever the original ultimate outcome, like the idea that you got to represent these people and you got to do things for them.

REID: And remember the Buffalo buy-out only works because the Buffalo Congressman is in the House. So he only has to add up and the number of small business owners that don`t want to have pay every health care for their employees and pit them against the number of urban poor which is not very many in this district. He can do the math, he wants to go with the (INAUDIBLE) business owners. If you were the state, you have -- this is the only district.

HAYES: Right.

REID: You can`t buy them off by saying, we`ll throw you a little bit more money for an opioid program if you`re not a rich state that can afford to fund that yourself 100 percent which is what Rand Paul faction wants.

HAYES: Right.

REID: No money. We don`t want to give any money to do this. We don`t want to give any subsidies for people to buy health care. Nothing.

HAYES: That`s the other -- that`s the sort of guardrail on the other side. They try to move towards the Heller position then it will actually --

REID: Right. They`re going to spend money and when Democrats were making the corner (INAUDIBLE) they were offering money. In order in order to get this bill passed, they have to take money away because that`s what the Rand Paul faction demands.

HAYES: All right, Joy Reid and Jim Manley, thank you both for being here tonight.

Just a little while ago, I got the chance to speak to Senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire right after she got an emergency Town Hall meeting on the Senate Health Care bill. I asked how it went.


SEN. MAGGIE HASSAN (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE: Well, (INAUDIBLE) my senior Senator and I called the emergency field hearing together. Well over 200 people showed up on very short notice on a Friday afternoon in the summer. We heard from well over 50 Granite Staters who are so concerned about the impact that this Senate Republican version of Trumpcare would have on them in their daily lives. You know, look, the Trumpcare bill is devastating. If you buy your own insurance, it`s going to drive your premiums up. It imposes an age tax, especially harmful on people between the ages of 50 and 64. It also undercuts our ability to make sure that the most important health care, those essential health care benefits are covered when people spent their hard earned money on premiums.

And it would end Medicaid expansion in our state and states across the country in New Hampshire. Medicaid expansion was a bipartisan effort and it`s been the most important tool we have in fighting our heroin, opioid, and fentanyl crisis. And it also makes deep, deep cuts to traditional Medicaid. So today, what we heard from people who came to give their testimony, to tell their stories in our field hearing, we heard from a woman who, she and her husband had their own business. Before the Affordable Care Act, they have very expensive health care. They were able under the Affordable Care Act to cut their premiums by $750 a month and get better care for it.

We heard from a young man who lives an independent life even though he experienced his very severe disabilities because of the things that Medicaid pays for that traditional private insurance does not. We heard from people who have life-threatening conditions whose medications cost thousands of dollars a month, who can now get those medications and live a healthy life because of coverage under the Affordable Care Act. And we heard from people who treat people with substance use disorder and who are in recovery from addiction about how devastating the laws of Medicaid expansion would be to them.

HAYES: Let me zero in on that because there are several Republican Senators who represent states that have both Medicaid expansion like your state and also are battling very very serious and acute opioid problems. I`m thinking primarily of Rob Portman in Ohio and Shelley Moore Capito in West Virginia. Those two come to mind. There`s about $2 billion for opioid specifically opioid programs in the Senate bill. My sense is that what will happen is there will be more money put into that as a kind of inducement to Portman and Capito. And I guess my question to you is, won`t that offset the problems on Medicaid? Why is it not good enough to put more money into that to address opioids?

HASSAN: Well, first of all, the $2 billion number is just truly a drop in the bucket and doesn`t begin to approach the coverage provided for Medicaid -- by Medicaid expansion for substance use disorder across our country. But let`s also take a step back and understand that substance use disorder stems from root causes that require treatment too and the critical thing here is to have integrated health care for people with substance use disorder. A man got up today to talk about a loved one who is in recovery and how she had been the victim of sexual trauma. And that that was the root of her addiction. We hear about people who had workplace injuries, for instance, and insurance -- private insurance wouldn`t cover physical therapy but they would cover opioids for the pain. Those physical problems need to be addressed if somebody`s going to stay in recovery.

HAYES: Right.

HASSAN: So it would really be a step backward. But it`s also important for people to understand that in addition to treating people with addiction, Medicaid expansion right now in New Hampshire provides health care coverage to about 50,000 Granite Staters, most of whom have jobs. Most of whom are working -- they`re hard-working people who can`t afford private insurance. And what we`re hearing from physicians across the state is that they`re -- these people are the people who are finally coming and getting into kind of primary care they need to address longstanding health conditions and it is allowing them to be more productive, work harder and contribute more to the economy and their communities.

HAYES: All right, Senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire thanks for being with me tonight.

HASSAN: Thank you very much, Chris, for having me. Take care.


HAYES: Coming up, the President continues to build a case against himself on television. The jaw-dropping moment he admitted to trying to influence James Comey`s testimony when he tweeted about tapes in two minutes.



TRUMP: When he found out that I -- you know, that there may be tapes out there, whether it`s governmental tapes or anything else, and who knows, I think his story may have changed. I mean, you`ll have to take a look at that because then he has to tell what actually took place at the events. I did not tape it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was a smart way to make sure he stayed honest in those hearings.

TRUMP: Well, it wasn`t -- it wasn`t very stupid. I can tell you that.


HAYES: The President of the United States now admits that his empty threat to former FBI Director James Comey about having tapes to their conversation was intended to influence Comey`s testimony. Now, besides being a Congressional witness, Comey is a likely witness in what is reportedly a current ongoing criminal investigation into whether the President of the United States obstructed justice. And according to Norm Eisen, a critic of the President, who was President Obama`s Chief Ethics Lawyer, the tape lie increases the President`s legal exposure for obstruction and witness intimidation providing more evidence of corrupt intent. It`s not just the President saying the tapes were floated to influence Comey, it is now the official White House line.


SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think the President made it very clear that he wanted the truth to come out. He wanted everybody to be honest about this and he wanted to get to the bottom of it and I think he succeeds in doing that. The reality is, is that he wanted to make sure that the truth came out. And by talking about something like tapes made people have to -- made Comey, in particular, think to himself, I`d better be honest, I`d better tell truth.


HAYES: Both the President and the spokesman cited Comey`s confirmation in his Senate testimony that he did tell the President he wasn`t personally under investigation. And that was evidence, they said, that the taped threat forced Comey to tell the truth. But here`s the thing, that wasn`t what the Trump team said when Comey first testified. Initially, you may recall, they claimed the President was vindicated by Comey`s testimony declining to dispute Comey`s allegations that the President demanded his loyalty and asked him to let Flynn go. But later, the President and his lawyer contradicted Comey`s account implying he had lied under oath. Asked today to clarify whether Comey was lying or telling the truth, the White House Press Secretary declined to comment. I`m joined now by Congressman Ted Lieu, Democrat from California, former Prosecutor. Congressman, do you agree with what Norm Eisen and others have said about the President essentially admitted he was doing this to influence or perhaps intimidate Comey, it increases his criminal exposure on obstruction?

REP. TED LIEU (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you, Chris, for that question. I do. And let`s be very clear what happened here. The President of the United States intentionally misled the American people for six weeks about the possibility of Comey tapes when he knew that was a lie all along. And not only was that wildly inappropriate, it is now further evidence of obstruction of justice and a new possible charge, which would be witness tampering.

HAYES: Do you think that -- just the fact of going to alone would rise to that level in.

LIEU: The witness tampering statute is very broad. It says, if you try to influence, you don`t actually have to influence, if you just try to influence a person`s testimony through intimidation, that can constitute a violation of the statute. So I believe that the President`s tweet along with his basic admission on national TV, that that is evidence of witness tampering, absolutely.

HAYES: We should note here the LLC decision from the 70s that the President can`t be charged or indicted in normal criminal court, the remedy would have to be impeachment and we`re talking about his criminal statutes. I want you to just to -- I want you to respond to what the President had to say about Mueller today. There`s a growing sort of set of anti-Mueller talking points that were raised to him in this interview. Take a listen.


TRUMP: He`s very, very good friends with Comey which is very bothersome but he`s also -- we`re going to have to see. I can say that the people who have been hired are all Hillary Clinton supporters. Some of them worked for Hillary Clinton. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous, if you want to know truth from that standpoint. But Robert Mueller is an honorable man and hopefully, he`ll come up with an honorable solution.


HAYES: What do you make of that?

LIEU: Well, first of all, Robert Mueller is a Republican. He served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. And I agree with the President that he is an honorable man. And the President cannot fire Robert Mueller. He actually would have to have to Deputy Attorney General fire Robert Mueller and so far, the Deputy Attorney General was saying no, he won`t do that. So in order for the President to get rid of Mueller, he would do what Nixon did which is basically keep firing people until they fired Mueller. And I don`t think the President is going to do that.

HAYES: You know, there was a poll about who people believed between Comey and Trump, 45 percent believed Comey and 22 percent believed the President. And I don`t think that`s surprising. But at a certain level, it`s almost like we kind of all know what we know on the obstruction front. I mean, I guess the question to you is, are you confident that this is something that Robert Mueller can move the ball forward on?

LIEU: I am. In Watergate, the principle was that no person is above the law including the President. And the first article of impeachment was obstruction of justice, the second was abuse of power. So the Special Counsel goes ahead and conclude the investigation and says the President obstructed justice and also did witness tampering then I believe those would be grounds for impeachment.

HAYES: All right, Congressman Ted Lieu, thank you.

LIEU: Thank you.

HAYES: Coming up, details from the incredible, incredible new Washington Post report of the Obama administration secret efforts to do something about Russian interfering of the election and how at a crucial moment, Republicans stood in the way.



BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think there`s no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and we will at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized. Some of it may not be.


HAYES: It now appears that one of the options former President Obama hinted that last December was a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia`s infrastructure, a digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow. That response was still in its nascent stages when Obama left office. And we know this, thanks to an exhaustive and really remarkable report in the Washington Post out today revealing more information than had previously reported on the extent, scale that scope of Russia`s interference in the 2016 Presidential Election and the Obama administration off in tortured attempt to handle it. In last August, three months before the election, an envelope sent by a courier arrived to the White House with a top secret report for the President. It detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin direct involvement in the cyber campaign to defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton and helped elect her opponent Donald Trump. Obama and his aides knew they were dealing with extremely politically charged issue, particularly since candidate Trump back in August, remember was going around saying things like this.


TRUMP: The only way we could lose, in my opinion, I really mean this Pennsylvania, is if cheating goes on. Especially when I know what`s happening here folks, I know she can`t beat what`s happening here. The only way they can beat it, in my opinion, and I mean this 100 percent if, in certain sections of the state, they cheat.


HAYES: So in an attempt to hedge against any appearance of politics, the Obama administration went to Congress hoping for bipartisan appeal. CIA Director John Brennan moved swiftly to scheduled private briefings with Congressional leaders. But getting appointments with certain Republicans proved difficult. In a meeting on Capitol Hill turned into a partisan squabble, causing some Democrats to be reportedly stunned by what one of their Republican colleagues did.

Mitch McConnell`s role in all of this next.


HAYES: Last summer, at the time the Obama administration approached congress with their conclusions about Russia`s interference in the election, Democrats wanted to go public with the information.

According to the Washington Post, Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public the election was under attack would further Russia`s aim of sapping confidence in the system, and yet Republican Senator Mitch McConnell reportedly went a step further voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House`s claims.

To put it another way, if you`re the Senate majority leader obstructed any attempt at bipartisan countermeasures at a crucial moment. Although a week later, according to the Post, McConnell and other congressional leaders issued a cautious statement that encouraged state election officials to ensure their networks were secure from attack.

Joining me now, Greg Miller, national security correspondent for the Washington Post, one of three reporters who wrote today`s story. And Malcolm Nance, MSNBC terrorism analyst, author of "The Plot to Hack America."

Greg, let me start with you. I mean, the picture that`s painted here is -- it is almost cinematic. And there is a kind of tragic irony of the core of it, which is this mounting realization happening inside the White House of the enormous scope of what is happening and the inability to get anyone else really to take it adequately seriously.

GREG MILLER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Yeah. I mean, you talked a moment ago about this breakthrough, this intelligence breakthrough that came in very early August that came from the CIA, from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that pointed not only to Putin`s direct involvement in this election operation, but to his objective, but his instructions on the objective of this operation: to damage Hillary Clinton`s chances of winning and help elect Donald Trump.

I mean, to the White House, this was -- this matter had significance on a couple of levels, including, we talked to officials who said we thought that this gave us something to go to the Hill with to show to members of both parties who would have to see that this was so consequential that we needed to treat this as a national security threat.

HAYES: And yet that didn`t happen.

Malcom, your reaction to this story. I mean, the most striking thing to me is the incredible intelligence that opens the story, which is being able, for the CIA to be able to say, we know, we are confident that Putin himself is directing it, I don`t even -- I can`t even conceive of how they could get to that level of certainty.

MALCOLM NANCE, MSNBC TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, certainly in this story, there`s very deep sourcing of what apparently U.S. intelligence had in their hands, which means that -- let me be frank, that information that they have in the Post report, that is in Putin`s office information. What we call crown jewels intelligence, either some allied intelligence agency decided it is so important that we get this information out, we`re ready to burn our asset, or whoever the intelligence agent was that collected this, and we needed to get this in the hands of the United States, or the United States were revealing something that really shouldn`t be revealed.

But let me tell you Vladimir Putin is not going to take this very well. I mean, he`s going to start killing his staff next week to start--

HAYES: You think people in his circle are at risk in the wake of this kind of thing?

NANCE: Well, I mean, what we clearly have, as of last July/August, we knew what was going on in Putin`s office and that he directed it and here was his list of objectives.

HAYES: And yet here`s the thing, Greg, they can`t really convince folks on the Hill. They themselves don`t seem to sort of ring the alarm quite as loud as you would think given the scale and scope. They also have other intelligence agencies that really drag their feet. There`s a famous New York Times story about the FBI doesn`t think it`s actually being done to benefit Donald Trump.

What was that about?

MILLER: Well, a part of it is just sort of institutional equities and rivalries. And so this was CIA gathered intelligence and CIA owned intelligence, and other agencies are always more skeptical of information or material that they didn`t collect. It doesn`t belong to them. It takes them longer to come around to endorsing stuff like that.

These other agencies had to go out and gather their own information. The NSA was looking at all of the intercepts that it had. The FBI was looking at tons of information and sifting through it. And it just took time for them to come around to the CIA conclusion. They all did in the end, but it took months.

HAYES: The other part of this that`s clear in this reporting, and it`s been clear in some of the other reporting. There is a Times story about this, is while what we saw, the part of the iceberg that we saw was the penetration of the DNC and John Podesta and those leaks that were done through -- via WikiLeaks -- or published via WikiLeaks.

The submerged part was the threat of widescale havoc being played on election day with an election that one of the candidates had been saying for months was going to be rigged, and actual penetration of many of the systems around the country.

NANCE: Right. You know--

HAYES: Which is terrifying.

NANCE: It`s terrifying, but I`m sorry to say it, this network started on July 25th, 2016, we were consistently warning, certainly on my show, with me and Joy Reed, that this could happen. Not only could it happen, that it would have to be the next logical step in a succession of Russian actions.

President Obama took that seriously. John Brennan, in August, called the director of the FSB, Russian intelligence, hair on fire said get out of our election, stop this operation that you`re doing. Obama called Putin himself on the red phone and said do not play with the electoral process.

I wonder, if that hadn`t happened, if they would have attempted to take the steps to actually hack the vote.

HAYES: Which leads us to the last thing, which is the conclusion of, is the system still as vulnerable as it was?

I mean, where we end up on that?

MILLER: Well, I think that`s a huge question. And there`s very little indication that there`s been any significant steps to take -- to solidify or secure our basic voting infrastructure or our democratic processes.

I mean, part of it is really hard to fix. We`re a democratic society, very open. Communication can`t be restricted here in the United States the way it can be in Russia. But, you know, the Obama administration was trying to reach out to states that operate voting system and control voter roles and things like that, it`s very diffuse.

And the Trump administration has, can point to nothing that it has done so far by way of securing voting mechanisms in this country.

HAYES: All right, Greg Miller and Malcolm Nance, thank you both.

Coming up, what happens after the president takes his victory laps, gets the photo-op and moves on? The presidential bait-and-switch ahead.

Plus, a new hire in the White House. That`s tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two after the break.


TRUMP: I know the best. I know guys that are overrated. I know guys that are really good. I know people that you`ve never heard of that are better than all of them. We`re going to use our best.


HAYES: Thing One tonight, despite the promise of a huge presidential Rolodex, the Trump administration continues to be way behind on actually hiring people. Of the 560 key positions that all require Senate confirmation, only 45 have been confirmed, 104 have been formally nominated, 15 have been announced but not officially nominated, and a whopping 396 positions have no nominee at all.

There`s one position the president has just filled, not in his administration but in his household. One month after firing Angela Reed, the chief usher of the White House and the first woman to ever hold the job, the Trumps have hired her replacement. And much like Ms. Reed, who is a general manager at a Ritz Carlton hotel before joining the White House, the new guy also works for a big hotel. You`ll never guess which one.


TRUMP: With the notable exception of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, this is the most coveted piece of real estate in Washington, D.C. The best location.


HAYES: That`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.


HAYES: Since the beginning of the 20th Century, there have been only nine chief ushers at the White House, several of them serving for decades through different administrations. The last person to hold the office, Angela Reed, was the first woman to ever serve as White House chief usher. And she`d only been in that position for six years when she was fired by President Trump last month.

Now, the reasons for her dismissal still unclear to this day. And now just over one month later, the Trumps have chosen Ms. Reid`s replacement. His name is Timothy Harleth. And according to the press release, he will bring more than a decade of hospitality and leadership experience to the White House.

First family didn`t to have look too far to find their new chief usher. He was already working down the road at the Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue.



TRUMP: United Technologies and Carrier stepped it up. And now they`re keeping actually the number is over 1,100 people, over 1,100 jobs. And by the way that number is going to up very substantially as they expand this area, this plant.

Just today I was in Indianapolis to announce that we`re saving the jobs at the Carrier plant from going to Mexico, 1,100 jobs.


HAYES: Before Donald Trump had even taken the oath of office, he was taking credit for saving jobs. Supporters cheered that he was already getting results, and critics took notice. President-elect Trump delivering for the working man. And the reality even then was much different. The state of Indiana, with Vice President-elect Mike Pence still its, governor had offered carrier $7 million in incentives over the next 10 years, based on the company`s plan to retain 1,069 jobs.

But they were massaging the numbers, only 730 of those jobs were actually being saved. The rest were never moving in the first place. at the time one of the union

But there were 550 other manufacturing jobs that were still being eliminated. At the time, one of the union leaders said the president-elect lied his [ bleep ] off.

And this week we`ve learned more than 600 employees at the plant in Indianapolis are bracing for layoffs beginning next month.

It`s not an isolated incidence. There`s a whole mini-genre of stories about U.S. plants keeping jobs in the U.S., thanks to President Trump. But the reality not really lining up.

In January, for instance, Ford announced it was canceling a new plant in Mexico. This week, it announced plans to move production of its Ford Focus from the U.S. to China.

In February, President Trump visited Boeing factory in South Carolina to celebrate jobs. This week that factory announced layoffs.

It is a Trump University level bait and switch, which is what the Trump presidency has been so far on domestic economic policy. And there is no bigger bait and switch than the Republican health care bill. That`s ahead.


HAYES: The president`s empty promises go beyond the jobs at Carrier, Ford and Boeing. When the president tweeted in 2012 that, quote, Paul Ryan`s budget is very dangerous for the Republicans, just before the election, be careful, he showed an instinctive grasp of a basic fundamental truth. The Paul Ryan agenda of rolling back benefits for the poor and middle class to fund tax cuts for the wealthy would never win over white working class voters or mass constituency. Instead, when Trump ran he promised everything from a return of manufacturing jobs to even tax hikes on the wealthy, but, alas, he was not telling the truth. His tax plan is a giant giveaway to the rich. As The New York Times put it, there vast majority of benefits would accrue to the highest earners, the largest holders of wealth.

And there is no single bigger bait and switch than health care. Trump repeatedly promised not just to avoid cutting programs like Medicaid, but in fact to, quote, save them without cuts. The Senate health care bill, master-minded by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell does nothing of the sort, instead it cuts back Medicaid expansion and then slows future Medicaid growth.

Trump yesterday tweeting that he is, quote, very supportive the Senate health care bill.

Joining me now, Zephyr Teachout, associate professor at the Fordham Law School and author of Corruption in America; Nick Confessore, political reporter for the New York Times and MSNBC contributor.

And Nick, you and I were just saying in the commercial break, all through the election campaign it was really the thing, it was really true, that Trump`s rhetoric was a deviation from the rhetoric and goals of the GOP donor class, at least the way he talked, the things he wanted to do were divergences from kind of Paul Ryanism.

NICK CONFESSORE, NEW YORK TIMES: That`s right. He was meh on tax cuts. He had a tax cut plan, but it wasn`t a big part of his stump speech. He was pro-manufacturing jobs. He was pro-entitlements. And I think that was a big reason why he was winning some of these votes.

HAYES: It was distinguished.

CONFESSORE: Yeah, because these voters were kind of kind of, you know, Meh on the whole kind of run of stuff they were hearing from Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. He campaigned on this stuff and then now the establishment has rolled him somehow, just flipped him on this stuff.

ZEPHYR TEACHOUT, FORDHAM LAW SCHOOL: No, and you hear that, like, people would think, oh, he`s going to protect ours Social Security.

CONFESSORE: Yeah, like finally gets it.

HAYES: You say this as someone who ran in a district that Donald Trump won in the year the that Donald Trump won that has a lot of voters that are white working class that flipped, that the sort of quintessential Obama, Obama-Trump voters. They live in the district he talked to.

TEACHOUT: And he would talk also on trade, you know that he was going to really work to renegotiation our trade relationships. I mean, he again has been all over the map in terms of what he said, in terms of what he`s done, the donor class is sitting happy.

HAYES: I mean, this tax -- this health care bill is the ultimate example, because you got things in there like my favorite example is they`re cutting the tax, the 3.2 percent tax on investment income, retroactive -- this is my favorite bit of policy in there. Now, you know, there`s some argument you can make that you make these tax cuts for incentive purposes. You can`t incentivize behavior in the past. It`s just a grab, right.

CONFESSORE: And also, you know, the president can`t stop talking about the Trump rally in the stock markets. It`s not as if investors are disincentivized right now. And really, you know, it`s not really a health care bill, and it`s not really a repeal bill, you know, it`s kind of incidental here, right. It has two main components. It`s a big tax cut for rich people and it`s a restructuring of Medicaid that not a single member of congress campaigned on and that they could never accomplish on its own under the guise of repeal.

HAYES: And that point is key, I think, in terms of the politics of this, which is that if he had run on this--

TEACHOUT: He would have been crushed.

HAYES: It really would have been hard -- no, seriously, it would have been hard, like the district that you ran in, if he went around being like, we`re going to start Medicaid and really cutting it, that would not have flown.

TEACHOUT: It would not have flown. The sort of promise of protection and the promise of change. I want something to change. We don`t want all the rich guys in charge. He was the only one out there talking about how we`re going to stop this ATT&T/Time Warner merger. We`re going to be tough on antitrust. You know, all of that has gone by the wayside now.

HAYES; And I think in some ways, right, the bigger part of this is the fact that on policy, we have never seen a White House more withdrawn. I mean what happened over this development over years, the American presidency, is it really took the lead on signature domestic policy achievements and congress sort of took a back seat. That has been entirely reversed to the degree the ACA attempt is going to be successful or not is the degree to which he has gotten out of the way and essentially ceded all the keys to congress.

CONFESSORE: Right, and it was part of the bargain that they made. You know, the reason the establishment Republican came behind him in the end -- rallied behind him was a trade, you know, so we`ll be in charge of the policy and you can do your thing on job creation, theater with the factories and the companies and we`ll be in charge of policy.

TEACHOUT: And it`s a double betrayal, because it`s Trump`s just betrayal across the board of the people he was speaking to and then it`s a betrayal on the part of Republican congress members who are not standing up even when the president may be breaking the law, as we know he is on emoluments or standing up on any other issues.

So their commitment to represent their district when the president is overreaching, they`re betraying that.

HAYES: And yet at the same time, the trade right now is working, right. I mean, that`s the thing that`s so remarkable. The trade is working particularly for the GOP donor class. I mean, if you watch business television, you watch a universe of very happy people. I`m serious, with the Trump administration.

CONFESSORE: Listen, if Gary Cohn is running economic policy, a former lobbyists for oil and gas are running the EPA, it`s pretty good if you`re in business and you`re getting what you would have wanted to under the best case scenario of a GOP president.

HAES: Yeah, Zephyr Teachout and Nick Confessore, thanks for making time tonight.

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