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

All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 6/27/2017 'Not This Time'; The Resistance

Guests: Chris Murphy, Dan Donovan, Matt Fuller, Haley Byrd, Kirsten Gillibrand, Karine Jean-Pierre

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES Date: June 27, 2017 Guest: Chris Murphy, Dan Donovan, Matt Fuller, Haley Byrd, Kirsten Gillibrand, Karine Jean-Pierre

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



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This will be great if we get it done and if we don`t get it done, it`s just going to be something that we`re not going like.

HAYES: The Republican attempt to jam a health care bill through the Senate fails for now.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: We will not be on the bill this week.

HAYES: Tonight the up-hill climb for Republicans.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: Even Trump voters don`t like it.

HAYES: But the bill isn`t dead yet.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: This is not over. Do not be misled, the House bill died by a two-vote majority or something and that it came back to haunt us with an even worse bill.

HAYES: Then the White House really wants the Russia investigation to go away.

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: We`ve been going on this Russia-Trump hoax for the better part of a year now.

HAYES: And things get heated in the White House briefing room.

BRIAN J. KAREM, PLAYBOY CORRESPONDENT: The President is right and everybody else out here is fake media. And everybody out here is only trying to do their job.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. There will be no vote this week on the Senate Republican healthcare bill. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell`s audacious strategy of crafting the bill entirely in secret and then ramming it through Senate in one week has failed after the bill proved unable to withstand a little more than just five days of public scrutiny. In the wake of the CBO score released yesterday, showing the bill would leave 22 million more people uninsured by 2026, the legislation has continued to hemorrhage support. By this morning, at least five Republican Senators announced they opposed advancing the bill to the floor, more than enough to stop it in its tracks. Despite last-ditch efforts by the White House Chief of Staff and the Vice President to wrangle the votes on Capitol Hill, Republican leadership pulled the bill this afternoon.

MCCONNELL: We`re going to continue the discussions within our conference on differences that we have that we`re continuing to try to litigate. Consequently, we will not be on the bill this week but we`re still working toward getting at least 50 people in a comfortable place.


HAYES: It was only after the vote was delayed that a handful of other GOP Senators including Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Rob Portman of Ohio and Jerry Moran of Kansas announced they opposed the current bill. Now, we`ve been somewhere like this before after the first House bill failed back in March and the public attention wandered elsewhere, that`s when the backroom deal making began in earnest. And weeks later, almost before you knew it, Republicans were celebrating the bill`s passage in the Rose Garden. This time, Democrats are sounding the alarm.


PELOSI: This is not over. Do not be misled. The House bill died by a two-vote majority or something and that it came back to haunt us with an even worse bill.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D), VERMONT: Good news is they didn`t have the votes to pass it today, the bad news, they`re going to be trying hard with kinds of money to pass it in the next couple of weeks.

SCHUMER: Over the next couple of weeks, we know that leader McConnell will try to use a slush fund to buy off Republicans, cut backroom deals to try and get this thing done.


HAYES: At the end of this week, Lawmakers head home for a week-long July 4th recess. And during that time, far from the D.C. press corps, all kinds of bargains and side deals will, of course, be on the table. The Senate bill contains over $200 billion in extra-budgetary savings compared to the House version. That means $200 billion at Mitch McConnell`s disposal as he tries to woo the remaining holdouts. The deal-making has already begun. Immediately after the bill was pulled, Senate Republicans head over the White House to talk healthcare policy with the President himself.


TRUMP: This will be great if we get it done and if we don`t get it done, it`s just going to be something that we`re not going to like and that`s OK and I understand that very well. But I think we have a chance to do something very, very important for the public, very, very important for the people of our country that we love.


HAYES: And joining me now, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Senator, this process, this attempt by Mitch McConnell to do this unprecedented sort of feat which is craft the bill in private, put it before the Senate for a week and ram it through, didn`t quite get there. Why not?

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: Well, it didn`t get there because this was a dumpster fire of a bill and it`s caucus slowly recognize that. I mean, it`s pretty amazing that you know, after six years of chanting repeal and replace, Republicans didn`t spend any of that time coming up with a single new idea as to how you insure Americans. The CBO said that this would uninsure 22 million, raise rates by 20 percent, and you know, this is certainly a temporary victory. But it`s important because this was Mitch McConnell`s nightmare. He did not want this bill to go a day beyond Friday of this week because it is like a rotting fish. The longer that it`s out there, the more it`s going to stink. People are going to figure out what they`re trying to do to the country. And it`s not going to be easier to pass this bill when they get back, it`s going to be harder. He certainly has the slush fund. He`s going to try to buy votes but the American public are going to have a few more days to figure out what this is, it`s only going to get less popular.

HAYES: So, what do you make of - I thought this was such a fessing dynamic. I was very closely following a few key votes. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, dead silent and then as soon as they announce the bill is being pulled, (INAUDIBLE) Republican Senator saying, by the way, I was against that bill. What do you make of that?

MURPHY: Yes - no, not exactly examples of history making courage but I think they knew that if this bill was going to get pulled, they at least should get credit for being against and it and I think they want to be in a position to try to get something for their yes vote when we come back after the break. I mean, the danger here Chris, is that the expectations are so low. I mean, 22 million people, that`s a humanitarian catastrophe and the worry is that if they come back a week from now and have a CBO score that says they only uninsure 15 million people, that those Senators you mention can stand up and say they`ve gotten a victory. So we`ve got to remind people that the Republicans, including those Senators, promised that they were going to replace ObamaCare with something better, not something worse. The expectations game is going to be really important next week.

HAYES: I want to - I want to get your reaction to something Lisa Murkowski said today that I thought was quite interesting. She seemed to be indicating a willingness to actually work with Democrats in some sort of genuinely collaborative fashion. Take a listen.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You still have folks in your caucus who want to repeal ObamaCare root and branch. You`ve got other folks who say maybe there`s a ways to work with Democrats on this. Would you be a proponent of trying to work across the aisle and make some of those fixes as opposed to saying we got to start over?

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R), ALASKA: Absolutely. When did we get to the point where we said no, we`re not going to talk to Democrats about a fix? We should be working with our colleagues on the other side of the isle, we should be working with our colleagues in the other chamber.


HAYES: Do you think there`s any - I mean, Mitch McConnell said flatly we`re going to talk among our conference to get to 50 votes. So he - the way he`s doing this is clear. Is there any constituency for that kind process?

MURPHY: I think essentially what happened here is that sort of Mitch McConnell peeked out of the closed door meeting, saw that this bill didn`t have support, shut the doors and they`re back to their secret negotiations. But it`s a real shame that this can`t happen because - listen, it`s not good for this country to have one fifth of our economy be a ping pong ball between Republicans and Democrats. And maybe Republicans look at what they want. Maybe they`ll pass a bill that strips away the Affordable Care Act. But then, five years from now, maybe we`ll be in a single payer system. And it would be much better for the country if sat down and create joint ownership over the health care system, talk about Republican concerns, talk about Democratic concerns and see if we can get something that works for both of us. Right now though, I don`t think that`s a prospect. I think that Mitch McConnell has decided to go back into the secret negotiations and that means that we`ll be on the outside shouting at the door.

HAYES: Right, or shouting outside live streaming. Senator Chris Murphy, thank you.

MURPHY: Thanks.

HAYES: I`m joined by Congressman Dan Donovan, Republican from New York who voted against the House version of the healthcare bill. And I wanted to talk to you about this idea of sort of back to the drawing board. I mean, I guess my question is, you voted against House bill, the process in the Senate was even more truncated, even more, secretive than the House was, do you think anything good can come of this?

REP. DAN DONOVAN (R), NEW YORK: I think your previous guests said it all Chris. I mean, we can have a healthcare bill that`s Republican or Democrat. The Affordable Care Act was passed without one Republican vote, the House bill was passed without one Democratic vote, nothing was done yet in the Senate. They know it`s - they`re negotiated that. But we can have a health care policy for our country that changes every time the residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue changes. It`s not fair to consumers and patients and families. It is not fair to providers - healthcare providers, it`s not fair to insurance companies. You know, healthcare - I said this on your show once before, it should be an American issue, not even a bipartisan issue.

HAYES: So, I guess - so the - here`s what Susan Collins said. She wants to go back to the drawing board, work with Democrats to correct the problems with the ACA. This is not the - which is not the rhetoric of repeal which is (INAUDIBLE) point over at Bloomberg. I guess my question to you is - I mean, it does seem to me, when I look at that Republican bill in the House and even the Senate, there`s some stuff that targets stabilizing, for instance, the individual markets and the exchanges that I really think you could get 75 percent of votes in both Houses for. I mean, just - that seems to me a big problem, people are really concerned about it. It does seem like there`s even things in the Republican bills that if you focused on that, you could pass.

DONOVAN: Yes I think you`re right Chris. I think there`s things in the bill that both sides can agree on. And the solution maybe that you have to break the bill apart and get those parts pass so the American public sees some progress, some movements towards a better healthcare system that we currently have now. My position on this has always been that we have to help the people at the Affordable Care Act harmed, there are people who are paying astronomical premiums, co-pays, and they can`t afford health care. At the same time, the Affordable Care Act helps people who didn`t have healthcare and coverage before. So we should help the people who are harmed by the Affordable Care Act at the same time not harm the people that were helped by it and I think we can do that.

HAYES: That`s a pretty - that`s a pretty good standard. I should note the CBO basically says that people who were paying out of pocket costs are going to pay more out of pocket cost. I want to ask you about one particular part of this bill that I`m fascinated with. You and I have spoken about it before. It`s called the Buffalo buyout and it`s one of the strangest, most audacious moves that I`ve seen a member of Congress make which is essentially a deal to change the calculation of Medicaid funding in New York state vis-a-vis property taxes that would cut property taxes for four or five Republican members of Congress but then push that burden onto everyone else in New York including people living in New York City and on Staten Island. That -

DONOVAN: The people I represent Chris.

HAYES: The people you represent. Your colleagues in your state caucus just basically gave your constituents the shaft. And here`s the craziest thing, that somehow is in the Senate bill.

DONOVAN: Yes, I don`t know how it survived. I mean, the poll of the (INAUDIBLE) was looking at that to see if it was germane to the bills so they could vote over in the Senate under reconciliation, have 51 votes rather than 60 votes to pass it. Listen, I don`t begrudge my colleagues for representing the people that sent them to Washington. This is good for their constituents. It`s bad for mine. And that`s one of the reasons I voted no. And I predicted Chris, on your show the last time, that our Governor has to make up that $2.3 billion deficit that the state would have a shortfall in Medicaid payments. And today he announces that he`s going to go to Albany and ask for a county tax on property that would increase the property taxes on people who make up the difference. And I have asked governor Chris, to except the people of New York City from that increase because we`re already paying our share.

HAYES: OK, well, that`s probably good politics for your constituents in Staten Islands and other parts of the city but I just want - I want to highlight this one point. What it says to me that that deal got into the Senate bill is that all the talk about the plans for the Senate to pass something and then force you guys in the House to pass identical down to every letter without conference committee. The only reason for that, your deal, that House deal to be in that Senate deal, is because that`s what they`re planning on doing, right?

DONOVAN: Yes, it may well be. And as you`re pointing out earlier, everything that they do over in the Senate bill, when that comes back here, we had 217 members that`s voted for the House version. We can`t afford to lose anyone. So any changes are made over in the Senate, you`re taking a chance that you might get on to 217 on this side of the - of the capital.

HAYES: All right, Congressman Dan Donovan, always a pleasure. Thanks for your time.

DONOVAN: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: Joining me now, Haley Byrd, Congressional Reporter for the Independent Journal Review and Matt Fuller, Congressional Reporter for the Washington Post. And you guys have both been doing fantastic work. So here`s Matt, you were really on the pulse of the House bill. When you said it wasn`t going to happen, it didn`t happen. When you said it looks like there`s a pass, there`s a pass. So I trust you on this. What`s your current determination about the state of play on this Senate bill?

MATT FULLER, WASHINGTON POST CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Well the current state of play is pretty obvious. I mean, clearly, McConnell doesn`t have the votes. I think you laid it out pretty well there. You look at who you have in this conference so you can only lose two votes, right? You have Dean Heller off the top saying he`s against the bill. You have Susan Collins who`s from the very start has looked like unlikely, as if she really just can`t support this or really just won`t. And then from there, you have a bunch of conservatives who have their own set of issues. Rand Paul, another one I think conservative leaders rather - you know, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, they sort of written Rand Paul off a little bit and thought maybe you know, we could do this with losing Rand Paul and losing Susan Collins. Well, Dean Heller really throws that -

HAYES: That`s right.

FULLER: - that game plan to - you know, chaos. Now you have all these other Senators, as you mentioned Shelley Moore Capito, Rob Portman, a lot of these Senators who the Medicaid expansion has benefited their state and there`s really no impetus for them to support this bill when it`s just going to hurt their constituents.

HAYES: So Haley, the Mike Lee, Rand Paul objections, how - I guess how overcomable do you see those and how rigid are they? Mike Lee basically put down a marker and said there`s got to be some kind of state option to entirely opt out of the ACA which was, of course, means getting rid of things like pre-existing condition protections, guaranteed issues, right, lifetime caps, all these very popular patient protections. Do you think he`s going to stick to that?

BYRD: That`s a good question. I think as we saw in the House, the House Freedom Caucus and Conservatives also started out from that really far right position of wanting all 12 ACA mandates repealed, or at least the ability for states to do so. But you know, as negotiations went on, Meadows and the Freedom Caucus eventually ended up you know, settling for just community ratings and essential health benefits. Rand Paul and Mike Lee have both indicated in some form or fashion that the House bill if it was put on the Senate floor, might not have been conservative enough for them. So that`s a concern.

HAYES: That`s interesting. Right. Mike Lee`s marker we should say is even more radical than what the Meadows amendment with the - McArthur Amendment in the House. Again, remember, that was, states can get out of these essential health benefits which are you know, pretty - also pretty popular. So you`re saying, they`re - they already were saying that`s not enough. What were you say? Matt.

FULLER: Well that`s really - I mean, if that`s the case, that`s kind of the ball game here, right? I mean, if you take Collins and Heller at their word and I just don`t see - Lisa Murkowski for instance, she`s someone who has made the pre-existing conditions part of her problems, as well as a lot of these Alaska specific issues. And then there`s a - maybe a whole host of other Senators who have the same sort of issues. A lot of Republicans campaigned on the fact that you know, we want to repeal on ObamaCare but we want to keep those pre-existing conditions protections including the President himself.

HAYES: Right. This is why I thought Ron Johnson`s ad was interesting. Ron Johnson explicitly calling to revoking the pre-existing conditions protections. He says it leaves in place the pre-existing condition rules that drives up cost. We should look to improve successful models for protecting individuals with pre-existing conditions, yada, yada, yada..

FULLER: Right, his position is the pre-2009 system but the only problem with Ron Johnson position is he sort of made it clear that he`ll vote for - if it`s incrementally better if he thinks it`s a little bit better than ObamaCare. So he`s one of those votes where you know, he`s talking about sort of radical or extremely gettable. He`s not someone that I would count on. At the end of the day, it`s Ron Johnson going to be the one to hold this off? He might be eighth or ninth vote but he`s not going to be the third vote which is the one that sinks it.

HAYES: All right, Haley Byrd and Matt Fuller, thank you both.

FULLER: Thanks.

BYRD: Thank you.

HAYES: Coming up with the healthcare vote, postponed until after recess, Republicans head to their home state to face their voters. Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on the power of constituent pressure and Karine Jean-Pierre on organizing the resistance after this two-minutes break


HAYES: Now that the Republican-controlled Senate has abandoned its vote on Trump care this week until after the 4th of July recess, Republican Senators will to have returned to their constituents next week and defend a massively unpopular bill that threatens to take health care away for millions of Americans. This was a scene in front of Florida Senator Marco Rubio`s office in Orlando yesterday, one of many similar kinds of protest across the country. Democrats are warning that fight is far from over and are preparing for round two. As Axios reports tonight, Senate Republicans have been tasked with reaching a new healthcare agreement by Friday so a new draft bill can then be sent to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis over the next week recess. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R), SOUTH DAKOTA: We`re going to use the rest of this week to really work on what it takes on come to consensus, provide ideas from amendments that will make the bill better than it is today and then have those scored so that when we do come back from the break, we can proceed.


HAYES: And joining me now is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat from New York. All right, Senator, everyone is watching this with baited breath. And I think they want to know what happens next. From your perspective, what comes next?

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D), NEW YORK: Well, to be honest, Chris, this is just the beginning. And while Senator McConnell doesn`t believe he has the votes today, it doesn`t mean he won`t have the votes two weeks from now. So people have to keep speaking out, telling their stories, being heard and fighting for what`s best for their families because this is not over.

HAYES: How much does it matter? I mean, there was constituent pressure brought to bear obviously. We all are familiar with watching the infamous town halls back in 2009 around the Affordable Care Act, how much does that pressure matter? You`re a Senator, you`re an elected, does it - does it make a difference in your calculation?

GILLIBRAND: It really matters because when you`re hearing constantly from your constituents that something is good or bad for them, it affects you. Your job is to represent them. And so, showing up at town halls, showing up outside members of Congress`s offices, making those phone calls, sending those letters, I read those letters from the Senate floor when I was talking about different nominees I was voting against and sharing what my constituents felt about these nominees. It absolutely informs our judgment. And when something is as important as health care, that has such a significant impact on families` lives, on the ability to survive, these the moments when you cannot stay silent. You do need to speak out and telling those stories and pushing back it`s why the Republicans did not have the Senate votes they needed to pass this bill.

HAYES: What do you say to people who say, look, we`ve been here before, they did this in the House and then they went behind closed doors and they made the bill from opponent`s perspectives I think worse. They`re going to come back and do this again. To people had think it is a fait accompli, what do you say to them?

GILLIBRAND: Just look at what happened in the House, all they had to do was buy off a few members, give them certain things they wanted for their states of districts and we are as vulnerable to that as they were. And so please continue to advocate for what you believe in and what`s necessary. This -

HAYES: I mean, just to be clear. I just want to make sure you understand my question. People who are defeated, they think it`s a fait accompli in the other direction which is to say, people that think, they`re going on get the votes. McConnell knows what they`re doing and they`re going to knuckle under - there`s nothing we can do.

GILLIBRAND: Not necessarily. Nothing is ever over until it`s over. And so honestly, it`s - the only time democracy ever works is when regular people stand up and demand action. And that`s what the American people have been doing since the inauguration, since the women`s march, men, and women have been standing up, speaking out, fighting hard and pushing back on policy that`s are harmful to our country, harmful to our values. And so people to have to keep speaking out and not grow tired and not grow weary and not give up because if they do, they will lose. It is up to the American people to fight back.

HAYES: Do you think, there is a timing issue here. And it is always unclear to me. I`ve been trying to parse this reconciliation process which frankly just breaks my brain when I try to figure out like where we are in it. But they do have a-they have a limited runway, right? At some point, the clock runs out on their ability to ram this through with 50 plus one.

GILLIBRAND: Right. They will run out of time at some point but I believe Senator McConnell (AUDIO GAP) what they need for their states. I think we are as vulnerable as we were last week and so we have to keep fighting and keep pushing back. And if you notice the members who have said no, are either the ultra-conservative members, people like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, or the moderate members like Susan Collins or Dean Heller or Lisa Murkowski. Those members really do listen to their constituents and they know their states very, very well. So when people in their states are protesting, showing up at town halls, and speaking out about how this will harm their families. If you listen to what they`ve said, they`re worried about rolling back Medicare; they`re worried about how many families or children with disabilities, how many seniors, how many individuals who won`t be able to afford insurance because they have pre-existing conditions. These are real families, real lives and they know that. So speaking out to them specifically makes a difference.

HAYES: Well, the Medicaid cuts are big and we`re going to see where that goes in this next generation. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand thanks for joining us.

GILLIBRAND: Thank you.

HAYES: Joining me now, Karine Jean-Pierre, Senior Adviser, National Spokesperson for MoveOn. What have you learned from what happened in the House that you and organizations like your own are applying now?

KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, MOVEON.ORG SENIOR ADVISER AND NATIONAL SPOKESPERSON: What we`ve learned is that we cannot be complacent. We have to keep our foot on the gas Chris because we - like you said, we saw what happened in the House. The public scrutiny went away. They pulled - they pulled the bill down and then we didn`t hear anything for a while. We thought we - it was over and then the thing - then what you saw was, they were breaking, making deals behind the scenes and they rammed it through. So we have to be really, really vigilant here. It`s not over. This week, when the recess is happening, we need folks to go to events. Some of these Senators, Republican Senators are going to be too chicken to have some events so if they go to their - go to their office, make sure your voice is heard, tell your story. There`s going to be fourth of July parades that they`re going to go to. Make sure you show up with your do not take my health care away sign on the sideline. You just got to make sure that we are vigilant and that we`re being seen. Also, they need to continue to make calls. We flooded their lines these past two weeks and it is working clearly and we have to continue to do that.

HAYES: Compare those metrics, I know you guys are - keep tracking of this sort of thing. I mean, are - we`re you seeing in those last week the kind of engagement you saw during that first round of the House battle?

PIERRE: Absolutely. Because what happens is Chris, is that we dragged this - we dragged this bill into the spotlight. And once that happened and people started to see how awful and how cruel this bill was, their voices start to lift up. People really started to call and say, what is this thing? And then we saw the CBO numbers that came out yesterday and folks continue to call and protest. And we have protests all across the country in different cities. So yes, I think the moment that it was in the spotlight and we really could see, we really were able to scrutinize this bill, then it became a problem for Mitch McConnell.

HAYES: You know, in some ways that shows that McConnell in certain ways, from a purely tactical perspective, wasn`t making a terrible bet, right? I mean, it did seem to me the secrecy shrouding for the first several weeks of the process of this bill really did help. It was hard to get people to get engaged because we would even do the segment on the show about what in - you know, what`s the secret bill? But it`s hard to get people around it. Do you think they can go back underground now? I guess is the question.

PIERRE: That`s the fear. I think they will go back underground. Let`s be really clear here, Mitch McConnell had take every day that he has from now until he brings this bill up to vote to use that slush fund, that $188 billion that he has to dole out to some of these you know, some of these Republicans that on the fence, that have said no to this and try on buy their votes. That is absolutely going to be happening. So that`s why we have to be vigilant here. We`ve got to continue to fight.

HAYES: To me, what`s so important I think and interesting is the Dean Heller role in all this because that`s the person who is the most exposed politically and who does really seem to be that the pressure that we brought fair by his constituents has worked, that he sort of listen to them. And I think it`s a sort of indicator to folks that think, the rules of politics don`t - are suspended. They still do exist to a certain extent.

PIERRE: Yes, they do. They still exist and also he has a governor that was - that was also doing the same thing and saying no, you can`t do this. Medicaid exchange is very important in the - in the state. So he was getting a lot of pressure from his constituents and the Republican Governor.

HAYES: We`ll see what happens to Cory Gardner in Colorado and Rob Portman in Ohio. Karine Jean-Pierre, thank you very much.

PIERRE: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Coming up, Intelligence Committee Member Eric Swalwell on what they still have to learn in the Russia probe as the White House starts to play offense. Very interesting, their new line ahead.


HAYES: In five of President Trump`s clubs around the country, including Mar-a-Lago, there hangs a framed Time Magazine cover from 2009 featuring one Donald J. Trump. It`s a fake, a Photoshop. First reported by the Washington Post`s David Fahrenthold - that`s why it gets to Pulitzers -- some tip-offs include the use of exclamation points. Trump is hitting on all fronts, even TV, and the Apprentice is a television smash. The date was made up, Time confirm there was no March 1st, 2009 issue. The White House response today, we couldn`t comment on the docor at Trump golf clubs one way or another. Donald Trump was never on the cover of TIME magazine at all in 2009. There was, however, a March 2, 2009 issue with Kate Winslet on the cover. And whoever did the phony Trump cover borrowed some of the headlines from the real cover and just dragged them over and put them on the fake one.

And then someone took that Photoshopped TIME magazine cover and had it printed, blown up five times and then framed and then hung in at least five Trump clubhouses to impress the membership.

Now, if any of those members happened to scan the bar code on the fake TIME magazine cover, they would discover it is actually a bar code for software that lets you be a karaoke DJ.

It all adds a bit of perspective on a day when the president tweeted that basically every news outlet in America is fake news. The coordinated, sustained assault on actual news ahead.


HAYES: President Trump and his team are going on offense on the Russia investigation. And part of that counter attack is to declare all of it fake news.


SANDERS: The constant barrage of fake news directed at this president probably that has garnered a lot of his frustration.

We`ve been going on this Russia-Trump hoax for the better part of a year now with no evidence of anything. I think you could take it pretty straightforward that this administration disagrees with all the stories that claim that the president and his campaign colluded with Russia in any capacity.

So, I think he`s been extremely clear that he believes that`s a hoax.


HAYES: Joining me now, Congressman Eric Swalwell of California, a member of the House intelligence committee.

And congressman, we just got news a few minutes ago, and I don`t know how up to date on this you are, but apparently Roger Stone, who is a friend and advisor to the president, once worked for him in certain capacities, is going to be testifying before your committee. What can you tell us about that?

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, (D) CALIFORNIA: Well, that`s by Roger Stone`s own lawyer. Nothing that has been released yet from the House intelligence committee.

It is no secret that he is an individual relevant to this investigation. And once, you know, all documents from him are received, you know, certainly someone we want to hear from.

And, you know, Chris, I just want to say, we want to proceed as fast as we can to get to the bottom of this, because this has really brought Washington to a halt. The way the president has addressed this investigation, his tone, has just torn our country apart. So, I think the sooner we tell the American people what happened, who was responsible, and what we can do to make sure it doesn`t happen again, the better off the whole country will be.

HAYES: What do you say to the defenders of the president, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, among others, the president himself, that, you know, this has been going on forever and you guys haven`t found anything. It is a hoax.

SWALWELL: It hasn`t been going on forever. He has not been in office for much more than six months. He is actually just approaching the six-month march. And to go through the complicated financial transactions to try, to try and track down foreign witnesses over a significant period of time, it takes time. And I`m an impatient person. I want to get this done yesterday. But I also want to make sure that whatever we report, whether it`s in the president`s favor or not, that we did a thorough job, and that we did it expeditiously, but that it is the final sign-off as to what happened with Russia and the last presidential election.

HAYES: So, there`s some news today that really leapt out to me. And it`s about Paul Manafort, who used to be the campaign chairman. he was the campaign chairman at a really crucial time around the convention. He`s someone that we know has worked for a foreign entities, particularly entities allied with Vladimir Putin and the Russian government.

Today, a consulting firm led by Paul Manafort retroactively filed forms Tuesday showing that his firm received $17 million over two years from a political party dominated Ukraine before its leader fled to Russia in 2014.

This is maybe not the most important part of this, but how long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?

SWALWELL: That`s a lot of money where I come from, and also that`s a pattern of this administration. Michael Flynn, as you know, retroactively filed as a foreign agent as well.

HAYES: From Turkey, we should note, not Russia.

SWALWELL: That`s right. That`s correct.

And to be fair to Mr. Manafort, it was with Ukraine, but pro-Russian individuals in Ukraine.

So again, I think just as telling as what individuals did as Russia`s interference campaign took place is also what they did once an investigation is launched, and that will also inform us.

But I mean, I guess my question here is you can work for a foreign government, work as a foreign agent and not contemporaneously report and then three years later say that back in 2014, oh by the by, I happened to be on the payroll of a foreign government?

SWALWELL: And again, that is a factor that will go to intent, Chris. And also, it also, it tells us, and it shines a light on what the relationships were that the Trump team had.

And also, Chris, I just want to add, unless we were thoughtful and aggressive with trying to understand the relationship that Donald Trump and his team and his family and his businesses had with Russia and pro-Russia forces, none of this would have happened. I promise you, Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort, would not have disclosed that they had been working with these groups. It is only because of the attention that has been put forward.

HAYES: Just disclosed today, $17 million. Not bad.

Congressman Eric Swalwell, thank you.

SWALWELL: My pleasure.

HAYES: Still to come, after avoiding an on camera press briefing for weeks, Sarah Huckabee Sanders comes out to today to attack the media. One reporter having none of it. Their heated exchange just ahead.

Plus, and offer they maybe should have refused in tonight`s Thing One, Thing Two. This one is good.


HAYES: Thing One tonight, the story of an Australian biotech company called Innate Immunotherapeutics. As The New York Times reported in December, the Australian drug maker has powerful backers in Washington despite being a tiny pharmaceutical company from Australia that has no approved drugs and no backing from flashy venture capital firms.

In fact, the largest shareholder and board member of that tiny Australian drug company is none other than Republican Congressman from New York Chris Collins.

But his relationship to the company has raised red flags in Washington for months. Collins, who served on Trump`s transition was overheard in January bragging about making millionaires of a lot of people talking about Innate stock.

During his HHS confirmation hearing, Tom Price, was grilled about purchasing Innate stock, which he bought at a discounted rate and saw it triple before selling it.

In April, the Daily Beast reported Congressman Collins wrote legislation that could help a company like Innate expedite drug approval while he bought millions of dollars of Innate stock. It was reported in May that Collins was under a federal investigation by the office of congressional ethics and that four other House members bought stock in that same small Australian company.

Well, today a significant update to this story, not about the ethics investigation, but about the stock price itself. That`s Thing Two in 60 seconds.


HAYES: It has been quite a week for a tiny Australian pharmaceutical company named Innate Immunotherapeutics.

Last Wednesday, the company announced it had received FDA clearance for clinical trials in America. Today, it appears unlikely that will happen after reporting this morning its latest tests in Australia had failed, sending the company`s stock into absolute freefall. The price dropped more than 92 percent to just 5 cents a share.

Republican congressman and the long time Trump backer, Chris Collins, Innate`s largest investor and board member, reportedly took a nearly $17 million bath as the stock bottomed out. Collins is currently under investigation by the congressional ethics office for potential insider trading related to his investment in the company and for allegedly encouraging colleagues to buy the stock.

Today, Collins called the news disappointing but said all who invested were aware of the inherent risk.


HAYES: The president has always found it useful to frame the press as the, quote, enemy of the people even as he has obsessively poured over his own print and television coverage. But lately, the president has escalated his attacks as reporters dig further into story of Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to his campaign.

Today, as part of a multi-tweet tirade, President Trump referencing a now retracted CNN story, said that, quote, they caught fake news CNN cold, but what with NBC, CBS and ABC? What about the failing New York Times and Washington Post? They`re all fake news.

If all news is fake news, then it is only Trump you can trust.

The White House today turned the cameras back on the briefing room and Sarah Huckabee Sanders used the opportunity of CNN`s mistake to attack the media as a whole, at least until one reporter decided he had had enough.


SANDERS: If we make the slightest mistake, the slightest word is off, it is just an absolute tirade from a lot of people in this room, but news outlets get to go on day after day and cite unnamed sources, use stories without sources, have, you know, you mentioned the Saramouchi (ph) story where they had to have reporters resign.

BRIAN KAREM, THE SENTINEL NEWSPAPERS: Come on. You`re inflaming everybody right here right now with those words. This administration has done that as well. Why in the name of heavens, any one of us, right, are replaceable, and any one of us, if we don`t get it right, the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us. You have been elected to serve for four years at least. There`s no option other than that. We`re here to ask you questions, you`re here to provide the answers. And what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and say see, once again, the president is right and everybody else out here is fake media.

And everybody in this room is only trying to do their job.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Olivia Nuzzi was one of the people in that room today. She and Charlie Pierce are here right after this break.


KAREM: You`re here to provide the answers. And what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and say, see, once again the president is right and everybody else out here is fake media. And everybody in this room is only trying to do their job.

SANDERS: I disagree completely. First of all, I think if anything has been inflamed, it`s the dishonesty that often takes place by the news media. And I think it is outrageous for you to accuse me of inflaming a story when I was simply trying to respond to his question.


HAYES: Joining me now, Olivia Nuzzi, the Washington correspondent for New York Magazine, Charlie Pierce, writer at-large for Esquire. Olivia, you were in that room today, you were live tweeting it. Aside from that sort of confrontation, there was also the fact that she went to a bunch of reporters from conservative outlets. You said the question that kicked off the briefing from Breitbart was fair, the one asked by Lifezette, the Laura Ingram click bait site was not.

The question was essentially, I`m paraphrasing, does all Russia reporting need to be reviewed and perhaps retracted now, which lol.

What is going on in that room?

OLIVIA NUZZI, YORK MAGAZINE: Thank you for reading my tweets. I hope you do that every night.

It`s unclear, you know, it`s -- obviously the White House communications department is going to select questions from time to time from outlets or select outlets who they think will ask them questions that will allow them to talk about what they want to talk about, that`s probably why they selected the man from Lifezette today.

It just seems like they used today`s briefing -- remember, the (inaudible) moved off the camera for the last week or so pretty much consistently. There hasn`t even been audio sometimes. So you have to wonder why did they choose to do this today? Why did they choose to have the briefing on camera today?

And it seems like they thought that the CNN retraction was a good opportunity to talk about what they want to talk about, which is the idea that all reporting on Russia, because of CNN`s mistake, is therefore illegitimate, which is a ridiculous premise, of course, but they are hoping that, you know, this catches on I think with Trump supporters, with the rest of the country and people stop taking these stories seriously.

HAYES: You know, Charlie, politicians and reporters have adversarial relationship, sometimes they`re incredibly contested. I live in a city where the mayor and the press corps are basically at each other`s throats all the time.

But this -- Donald Trump and this administration very, very much seem to me to want to fight with the press, because they don`t have the Democrats to blame, because they have the majorities of all governments. Hillary Clinton is not running anymore, Barack Obama is gone. And so the press really has become, it seems to me, a kind of stand-in, the opponent they can point to. And have you ever seen anything quite like this before?

PIERCE: No. I was about to mention that it got really bad in the Nixon White House, if you read Tim Krouse`s terrific "Boys on the Bus" you`ll find out that there were people in the White House press corps then who were talking about getting together for some of collective actions. Of course, reporters being reporters, that never happened.

But it seems to me now -- you know, it seems to me now that we`re descending into something close to asymmetric warfare. I mean, the White House has declared war on CNN right now. And if CNN doesn`t know this, and doesn`t get itself D`d up, it is going to be in a lot of trouble.

And the media, including people like me, if we`re not going to defend ourselves, nobody else is.

HAYES: Yeah, that is I think the key point here, is that part of the problem is that the White House can asymmetrically engage in media outlets in a way that sends a signal to a certain percentage of the country, 35 percent of the country, maybe less, that that outlet is the enemy, and the outlet themselves can`t control that, because that`s just an asymmetric unilateral choice made by the White House itself. And you`re seeing, Olivia, you`re seeing that play out.

NUZZI: Right. I mean, it`s sort of an impossible position, right, because even though the White House is acting as though CNN or NBC or any of the other networks that they`re talking about in Trump`s tweets are the enemy. The media can`t retaliate then and say, yes, well, we are the enemy, because that`s just not something that anyone would do, right? We have to continue to treat the president fairly and report on him as if we`re not in this bizarro situation that we are.

We can`t say, yes, the White House is our enemy, because they`re just not, typically. You know, they wouldn`t be in this situation. And so we`ve never been here before, right, and there are no rules in place for how to deal with a situation like this.

So, even with the briefing, you know, a lot people keeping say just turn the camera if they won`t allow it, just record the audio and release the audio if they won`t allow it, but, you know, you can`t -- the question is, is this the hill you want to die on this early? And it`s very difficult, as Charlie said, reporters being reporters, to get everyone together to decide on some specific tactic.

The press is just, its too vast, its too fragmented, for all of us to come together and say, well, we`re just going to turn the cameras on today anyway, or we`re just going to record it today anyway.

And I think they are really benefiting, the White House is, from the fact that we have never been in this position before. And we don`t exactly have a set a rules in place for how to handle it.

HAYES: And not only that, you know, I found it fascinating, Charlie, I did a little experiment today. Today was big news in the country that the health care bill by the Senate was pulled. That`s like sort of lead- worthy news of any outlet that covers politics, liberate, conservative, anywhere in between and I went over to Drudge and there was nothing about that. It was about CNN. And I went over to and it was Barack Obama is taking too many fancy vacations. I went over to Breitbart, it was also about Jeff Zucker and the media.

And it just seems striking to me that it`s -- I don`t think it`s a coincidence, right, that these two things are happening at the same time.

PIERCE: Oh, no, it absolutely isn`t. And people get their marching orders and they know exactly where to march.

I would slightly disagree with Olivia, because I think the first network that turns its camera on in defiance of White House orders, number one will be my personal heroes and role model, but number two will get some great video, some wonderful exclusive video of Sean Spicer you know hurling himself on the camera lens or something.

But that`s what I mean by responding asymmetrically to an asymmetric attack.

HAYES: Yeah, and you`re right, the problem with that, Olivia, to your point, is that does put you in this position where you have sort of allowed yourself to play the role that has been carved out for you by the White House.

NUZZI: Totally, you immediately look like the enemy, but also I think the question is, is there a way to handle this to play by their rules, which is that there are no rules. Is that really the way to go about covering this White House? And I`m not sure what the answer is on that.

HAYES: Well, the rules do seem out the window at this point. Olivia Nuzzi and Charlie Pierce, thank you for joining me.

NUZZI: Thank you.

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