Skip to main content

tv   All In With Chris Hayes  MSNBC  May 3, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT

12:00 am
honor. that is our broadcast for this evening. thank you for being here with us. good night from new york. tonight on "all in." >> remember, i did win more than 3 million votes than my opponent. >> hillary clinton returns with a vengeance. >> i was on the way to winning until a combination of jim comey's letter on october 28th and russian wikileaks. >> tonight, as the president of the united states once again casts doubt on russian election sabotage -- >> i'll go along with russia. it could have been china. it could have been a lot of different groups. >> -- his former opponent raises the strongman alarm. >> i was your secretary of state, and we do speak out about rigged elections. then -- >> trump got rollrolled. it's sort of embarrassing. >> the president threatens to shut down the government and tries to change the narrative on the budget. >> the democrats didn't tell you
12:01 am
that. they forgot. and as republicans line up votes to gut obamacare -- >> we're excited about this policy. >> -- a gut-wrenching appeal from a late-night comedian. >> if your baby is going to die, and it doesn't have to, it shouldn't matter how much money you make. >> when "all in" starts ght now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. on a day in which the president continued to praise foreign strongmen, he's also seemingly pining a bit for something a little bit closer to their system of government. as his legislative failures mount here at home. this while his 2016 opponent today went further than she has ever in describing the two main reasons she believes for her loss. >> i was on the way to winning until a combination of jim comey's letter on october 28th and russian wikileaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off. >> recounting vladimir putin's
12:02 am
animosities personally towards her, clinton snuck in a dig at the current administration. >> he rigged the elections for the parliament, and i was your secretary of state, and we do speak out about rigged elections. that kind of goes with the territory. at least it did prior to this administration. >> we'll have more on clinton's remarks later in the show. but just about the same time she was speaking, the president of the united states was on the phone with one vladimir putin. their third call since the president took office. as has become routine, we initially learned more details about the call from the foreign power on the other end of the line than from the white house. according to the kremlin, the two presidents discussed what will be their first face to face
12:03 am
meeting tentatively planned for this summer at a summit in germany. the man who directed russian interference in the 2016 election, according to the u.s. intelligence community, meeting with the man that campaign was helping to elect. though their relationship has not perhaps been quite as smooth as president trump once hoped, both he and huten appear to be on the same page about russia's role in the election, appearing alongside german chancellor angela merkel today, putin called the allegations of the interference, quote, simply rumors, echoing recent comments by the u.s. president. >> you don't think it's funny that they, the russians, tried to meddle in the election? >> that i don't know. knowing something about hacking, if you don't catch a hacker, okay, in the act, it's very hard to say who did the hacking. with that being said, i'll go along with russia. it could have been china. it could have been a lot of different groups. >> the president has a long history of declining to say anything criminal of putin, praising his leadership style and tiptoeing around his record of human rights abuses. >> if he says great things about me, i'm going to say great things about him. i've already said he is very much of a leader. you can say, oh, isn't that a terrible thing. the man has very strong control over a country.
12:04 am
it's a different system, and i don't happen to like the syste certainly in that system, he's been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader. >> this fits tiny a larger pattern of what appears to be genuine admiration for strongmen leaders. the president extended an invitation to philippine president rodrigo duterte. he called north korean despot kim jong-un a smart cookie, saying he's be honored to meet request him under the right circumstances. he paid a congratulatory phone call to president erdogan of turkey. he even found something to admire about saddam hussein. >> saddam hussein was a bad guy, but do you know what he did well? he killed terrorists. he did that so good. they didn't read them the rights. they didn't talk. they were a terrorist, it was over. >> it's not a new phenomenon. way back in 1990, the president expressed support for china's harsh crackdown on the tiananmen square protests.
12:05 am
telling an interviewer, when the students poured into tiananmen square, the chinese almost blew it. then they put it down with strength. that shows you the power of strength. our country right now is perceived as weak. with his deep appreciation for that kind of state power, it's no wonder the president has had trouble adapting to the basic workings of democracy. having failed so far to move any major bills through congress, he is now blaming the legislative process itself. >> i think the rules in congress and in particular the rus in the senate are unbelievably archaic and slow-moving and, in many cases, unfair. in many cases you're forced to make deals that are not the deal you'd make. you'd make a much different kind of a deal. you're forced into situations that you hate to be forced into. >> i'm joined by senator chris murphy, democrat from connecticut, a member of the senate foreign relations committee. i thought that was a pretty good
12:06 am
encapsulation of some of the insights of the federalist papers and the constitution. you're forced into making deals you wouldn't otherwise make. >> yeah, listen, the founding fathers set up a system in which change was made intentionally difficult to execute. the fact of the matter is, you know, donald trump didn't get his wall in the budget not because democrats objected to it but because every single democrat or republican who lives on the border or in a border state objected to it. the reason he's not getting his health care repeal bill is because his own party won't support him not once, but twice in the house of representatives. when it comes to his immigration ban, it's judges, non-partisan judges that are telling him what he's doing is unconstitutional. he's finding that there are some pretty routine checks and balances that are put in the way of his agenda. it's not arcane rules. it's the fact that he just can't get even his own party to agree with him. >> do you worry about that impulse of the president, this
12:07 am
sort of admiration for more sort of authoritarian modes of government? do you worry about that here, or do you feel like the institutions are what they are, and he's running up against them? >> so i do worry about it here. i mean i don't think you can take for granted a democratic experiment that's only 240 years old. i think there was a tiring of democracy that was happening out in the american public that led to the election of donald trump. folks did look at this process and say, you know, we're getting all of the inefficiency of democracy and we're not getting a result that's benefiting the whole. it seems like the elites are doing better and everyone else is doing worse. i think there was an attraction to the ceo model, but i think he's finding ultimately that the way our founding fathers did build this constitutional system is holding, and i think, you know, frankly he could, you know, do better by reaching out across the aisle and trying to find some consensus on difficult issues like immigration and health care because it's actually there to be found if you try. >> you just mentioned the ceo
12:08 am
model, part of the main case of this president was deals. everyone does bad deals. i wrote art of the deal. i know how to get deals. if you look at his deal-making record so far, you know, it's hard to say that his negotiating tactics have worked. do you worry about that when he's on the phone with someone like president vladimir putin, just about what kind of deal, what kind of negotiation deafness he will have? >> yeah, so, you know, he got a really bad deal when it comes to his priorities in the budget negotiation. democrats got a lot of what we wanted, and that's in part because he just doesn't know his portfolio when he's doing meetings on the budget or health care. he doesn't know the details, and, you know, i feel good about that because this is a fight between his priorities and my priorities. but when it's a fight between american priorities and russian priorities or american priorities and chinese priorities, not knowing his portfolio is going to get us into a lot of danger. and the fact that he doesn't have other people around him who know the portfolio is just as disturbing.
12:09 am
tillerson has never done this stuff. there's not a single assistant secretary that's been nominated in the department of state. so part of what a good ceo sometimes does if he doesn't know a book of business is to hire people who do. and donald trump hasn't done that when it comes to foreign policy. >> on the russia story, it was striking that the president -- you know, the president resisted the conclusion of the intelligence community about russian active measures and sabotage of the election. he then came around and accepted it, but seems to be backtracking. do you think it's significant? does it matter while vladimir putin is saying it wasn't us, that the president of the united states seems essentially inclined to agree with him? >> it seems whatever kind of day he's having is going to dictate what he says about russia's interference in u.s. elections. if he's having a good day, he'll admit they did it. if he's angry at something congress has done, he'll go back and claim there was no interference. i think there is significant. when you poll the american public, there's a sizeable portion that doesn't think the russians interfered in our elections.
12:10 am
why? because donald trump is telling his supporters over and over again that they didn't. to the extent we do need to rally this country around a new set of sanctions against russia, it's hard to do that when the up of the united states isn't copping to it. and, frankly, if other countries want to try to interfere in the same way rush da, the fact that she think the president of the united states is going to get their back when they conduct this kind of interference, it's certainly -- it certainly would lead to foreign leaders thinking that they might be able to get away with. >> there's certainly some evidence they're trying that right now in france and possibly germany as well. senator chris murphy, thank you for joining me. >> i'm joined by colonel lawrence wilkerson. there's been a lot of discussion about the u.s.'s posture towards regimes that have bad human rights records and whether this is a break with previous administrations or continuity. what's your position on that? >> i don't see this administration thus far anyway as having a strong portfolio on
12:11 am
human rights either rhetorically or in actuality what it does in the world to support those rights. so far it's been rather vacant. it's not there. >> you know, the senator said something i thought is very important. you worked at the state department and know what a kind of complicated bureaucracy that is. and the fact that there's just no one at the key leadership level below the secretary of state, that can sound abstract or bureaucratic to people. what does that mean for how the united states conducts itself in the world? >> well, it's serious stuff because we're talking everything from consular affairs and issue of visas, for example, for people wishing to come to this country, and we're talking about east asia and the pacific, europe and russia, and all the other functional and regional bureaus. there's no one there, so what's happening is people are just carrying on as they can with daily work with no guidance
12:12 am
policy-wise, and essentially no leadership. >> does that make a difference when you're going to enter into let's say the g20 summit. there is a bilateral meeting this summer, which is what's being discussed. what does it mean for what you get out of that meeting, what the u.s. is able to accomplish towards its objectives if you do not have that groundwork? >> well, senator murphy just summed it up rather well. if you don't have your facts together and you don't have the details and at least a reasonable grasp on them, you can't be a negotiator like donald trump claims he is with regard to real estate deals and so forth. colin powell used to sit -- and i'm sure condi rice and other secretaries have done the same and go over books. they were three to four inches thick just to master the details so that when things came up that were serious, he was ahead of those with whom he was negotiating. that's what successful negotiations are about, being more prepared than the other side of the table. if donald trump thinks he's going to take the kind of swinging from his hip type
12:13 am
actions that he's shown us so far into international negotiations, then we're going to pay. >> i want to ask you about a comment that wilbur ross, the commerce secretary, former business magnate made about the missile strikes that were ordered against syria. he was describing at an event what happened that night at mar-a-lago. just as dessert was being served, the president explained to mr. xi he had something he wanted to tell him, which was the launching of 59 missiles into syria, ross said. it was in lieu of after dinner entertainment. as the crowd laughed, ross added, it doesn't cost the president anything to have that entertainment. what's your response to that? >> it's a rather inane comment. that's my first response. second response is i think they accomplished exactly what they wanted. domestically they moved russia off the front page of the washington post and "the new york times" and internationally they showed kim jong-un in pyongyang that they were willing to send missiles at people. that's what they did essentially.
12:14 am
>> i wonder whether you think, as someone who has served, it struck me the description of war-making, however limited in this case and, you know t was one strike, as entertainment. it struck me as a way of not fully grapplinwith the gravity of what the commandein chief has to do. >> how aboutryan williams on the destroyer, i think it was, that was shooting off missiles and saying, aren't they beautiful? isn't this wonderful? this is the idea that many americans have about war now because they have no skin in the game. no skin in the game whatsoever. people die at the end of those missiles. people die who send those missiles out. people die in syria. they die in iraq. they die in somalia. they die in libya. they die all over the world right now, less than 1% that are serving anyway. the other 99% have no interest in it other than it is watching on tv and declaring it beautiful, brilliant. i had a big piece of chocolate cake while they were going out.
12:15 am
>> colonel lawrence wilkerson, thanks for being here. still to come, a theme emerges tonight. things in the background of white house images like what exactly is on the white board behind steve bannon in this photo taken today. we'll zoom in. plus, the photos behind mick mulvaney. props are back in the white house briefing room, but are they really what they said they were? i'll explain after this two-minute break. the show's about to start! how do i look?
12:16 am
like a bald penguin. [ laughing ] show me the billboard music awards.
12:17 am
show me top artist. show me the top hot 100 artist. they give awards for being hot and 100 years old? we'll take 2! [ laughing ] xfinity x1 gives you exclusive access to the best of the billboard music awards just by using your voice. the billboard music awards. sunday, may 21st eight seven central only on abc. i think the president is frustrated with the fact that he negotiated in good faith with the democrats and they went out to try and spike the football and make him look bad. and i get that frustration because i think it's a terrible posture for the democrats to take. >> trump administration's budget director mick mulvaney defended the negotiating prowess of his boss today after they hammered out a bill to fund the government through september. this after there is bipartisan agreement. the bill is a major reduke to the president's agenda. >> why? >> i think the democrats cleaned our clock. you know, there are things in this bill that i just don't understand. this was not winning from the republican point of view.
12:18 am
>> trump got rolled. the republicans got rolled. they ended up with nothing really. it's sort of embarrassing. >> why is anybody voting republican if this is what happens when we win? >> this morning the president himself appeared to concede defeat when he tweeted, the reason for the plan negotiated between the republicans and the democrats is we need 60 votes in the senate which are not there. we either elect more republican senators in 2018 or change the rules to 51%. the president himself tried to make it sound like a win in a rose garden appearance today. according to politico, mulvaney was asked to do a last minute briefing this morning. trump instructed his aides to change the messaging. mulvaney went out there on border wall funding when, in fact, there was no border wall funding. >> when you heard in the last 48 hours about the deal, did you think we could build this? i bet you didn't. nobody did, okay? is it a replacement for an existing wall?
12:19 am
yeah, that's fine. is it a new wall? no. this is what's out there right now, okay? this is what's going to be put in as a result of this bill, okay? that is better border security. you can call it new wall. you can call it replacement. you can call it whatever you want to. this construction that you see here -- well, i don't know if it's this exact construction because i don't know where this photograph is. this wall is being installed on the southern border today. >> the photo behind mulvaney, the one he kept pointing to but was not certain about the exact construction is a reuters photo dated january 25th, 2017, a photo from more than three months ago for a section of the fence in sunland mark, new mexico. new fencing indeed as explained by this ap article in august, 2016. border patrol spokesman ra mire row cor dare sew said it's a fence that is replacing another fence. it doesn't hold anymore. construction is expected to finish early in 2017. joining me now steve ellis, jennifer rubin. jennifer, do you agree with what
12:20 am
i've seen from everyone from rush to krauthammer to lindsey graham, which is sort of a wide spectrum in many ways of the right saying the president got rolled. is that your sense? >> yeah, it is. even on national security, where he got a little bit, he got only about half of what he had asked for, which in and of itself wasn't as much as the pentagon says they need. so i am sympathetic to those republicans who say what did we get out of this? >> you know, steve, you are my guru on this stuff. you get in the weeds of all the crs who have been funding this government through continuing resolutions for years now. i don't understand how this happened. my sense too is that democrats got more of their priorities than the white house did, but i don't understand how that -- how did that even come to be? >> well, one is the deck was sort of stacked against the administration. i mean the funding levels in the base part of the budget were all established back in 2015 in the bipartisan budget act. so you already kind of knew the level of funding, and you knew the level of this extra slush fund war funding the overseas operations account. so it was very hard to play with this in the margins.
12:21 am
that's why i think a lot of appropriations committee, the members who write the bills, would say we should have done this in december, cleared the deck. wow have had a fresh start with the fy 18 budget rather than dealing with this. >> i was reminding watching mick mulvaney today that this is a very long way from what his big budget rollout was because that big budget rollout was a real hard core austerity budget. we were going to slash and cut and cut. here he is explaining why basically meals on wheels and school lunches are things the government can't afford. take a look. >> they're supposed to b educational programs. they're supposed to help kids who don't get fed at home get fed so they do better in school. guess what? there's no demonstrable evidence they're actually doing. there's no demonstrable evidence it's actually helping results, helping kids do better in school, which is what when we took your money from you to say we're going to spend it on after school problems, the way we
12:22 am
justified is these are going to help kids get better jobs. >> that was march 16. that was the big budget fight. it strikes me as part of the problem here, the president didn't run on austerity. he then rolled out an austerity budget, and there was no real groundwork laid to actually make that a reality. >> right. there are several things going on here. one is just what you said. he ran as a populist, a big government guy who is going to help the little guy. here he is made to seem he is screwing the little guy. secondly, the budget control act of 2011 continues to haunt the republicans. they are continually salami slicing, chintzing on the stuff people like in government, the national parks. who doesn't like the national institutes of health, instead of going where money is, which is in -- they make it worse by putting out an entirely irresponsible tax cut plan. i think they're going about the wrong things.
12:23 am
they set up huge expectations and frankly there is no majority consensus. there is no majority that wants the kind of budget they initially rolled out. >> that's a great point and also the point about the budget control act is a really good point about what inevitably gets squeezed by the way the budget control act is set up is that you're going to end up cutting into the nih. you've also got this amazing admission by mulvaney today about miners' health. there was a lot of money for it and it was a big question about whether it was going to be funded. here is basically saying, yes, of course, we were using the miners as bargaining chips. take a listen. >> the president is asking me since the day i got here for a way to fix the miners' health issue problems that they have in appalachia, and we were simply waiting for the opportunity to give it as part of a bipartisan discussion so that we could get something in return. >> it strikes me as a kind of saying the quiet part loud kind
12:24 am
of thing for mulvaney to do, steve. >> yeah. i mean certainly the one thing that's important to know about this miners' health provision as well is one of its big proponents of getting this fixed is senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. so at some point this deal was probably going to happen, i have to say. it was also a sticking point when they extended the budget in december. this was an issue that senator manchin from west virginia was pushing on as well. i think it comes down to kind of your original question to me, chris, is that the democrats have a lot of sway, and it's not just in the senate where they have the filibuster. it's also in the house because you have the freedom caucus member who's are probably not going to vote for anything if it doesn't cut a lot more. >> this is a greet point, jennifer. the freedom caucus, a bunch of them walk on every cr. that means if pelosi tells democrats to vote against the cr, they can vote it down. so it's weird. you've got a situation in which you've got almost a functioning
12:25 am
kwauzy majority in the house of democrats because of the way the freedom caucus has acted towards this stuff. >> absolutely. and you remember when they sliced off a bit of the bush tax cuts. remember the first deal was, all right, we'll take everything but a million dollars enough, we still have to have it. the freedom caucus said, no way, no way. guess what, that number came down to $650,000. so they do this continually to themselves. they make it worse because they are such purists or so difficult or don't want to make a deal or don't know how that they do end up pushing ryan and the rest towards the democrats. that's kind of the budget we got frankly was sort of a pelosi-ish, ryan-ish budget. >> there's also a blueprint for what a kind of base ix functioning government looks like which is essentially the white house being largely cut out of the loop. you're essentially getting a kind of congress first governing, and we'll see whether that continues. steve ellis, jennifer rubin,
12:26 am
thank you. coming up, republicans under pressure to support trumpcare. one congressman even trying to hide in the ladies bathroom to avoid questions about it. and last night, jimmy kimmel made things even harder for them. that moment after this short break.
12:27 am
right now, in fact probably right at this moment, the white house and the gop house leadership are trying desperately to squeeze enough votes out of the house republican caucus to pass what is a pretty massively unpopular health care bill, which would gut one of the most fundamental and popular provisions of obamacare. that's protections to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. here's the thing. after last night getting those votes got even harder. that's because talk show host jimmy kimmel told an
12:28 am
unbelievably moving and harrowing story about his newborn son, who was born with a heart defect. billy kimmel thankfully survived emergency surgery, and his father, in an emotional monologue made two key points. one, that his son could have died without his family's health insurance. and, two, that without obamacare's protections, billy kimmel might never, ever qualify for his own health insurance because of his pre-existing condition. >> we were brought up to believe that we live in the greatest country in the world. but until a few years ago, millions and millions of us had no access to health insurance at all. you know, before 2014, if you were born with congenital heart disease like my son was, there was a good chance you'd never be able to get health insurance because you had a pre-existing condition. you were born with a pre-existing condition, and if your parents didn't have medical insurance, you might not live long enough to even get denied because of a pre-existing condition. if your baby is going to die, and it doesn't have to, it shouldn't matter how much money you make.
12:29 am
i think that's something now whether you're a republican or a democrat or something else, we all agree on that, right? i mean we do. [ applause ] no parent should ever have to decide if they can afford to save their child's life. it just shouldn't happen. not here. >> that monolong garnered a rare tweet from president obama who wrote, well said, jimmy. that's exactly why we fought so hard for the aca, why we need to protect it for kids like billy. congratulations. the potential real world impact of the health care bill has made this a very, very tough vote for house republicans. asked today his position on the bill, gop representative darrell issa responded, quote, none of your business. much more on the increasingly desperate gop's health care hail mary right after this.
12:30 am
12:31 am
12:32 am
12:33 am
how is health care coming, folks? how is it do something we're moving along. think it's time now, right? right? >> yes, it is. >> the trump administration together with house leadership has been leaning hard on house republicans to vote for their health care bill, but the rank and file aren't exactly eager to fall in line. asked his position today, undecided maine representative bule poliquin said nothing and made a beeline to the restroom. unfortunately it was the door to the women's restroom. house speaker paul ryan has been trying to calm nerves by insisting the bill does not gut
12:34 am
protections for people with pre-existing conditions. tweeted today, verified, macarthur amendment strengthens. but that is not verified despite ryan's use of the caps off button. his tweet contradicts the findings of really just about everyone who has looked at the bill including the aarp, which one hour after ryan's claim tweeted that it, quote, does not adequately protect patients with pre-existing conditions. citing that fact, michigan republican fred upton, who had previously co-authored obamacare repeal and replace plans came out against the bill today. by nbc news' count, there are now 21 house republicans opposed, 18 more who are undecided or not talking. now, republicans can only lose 22 votes and still pass the bill, which they hope to do before the house recess starts on thursday. of course even if they manage to pass the bill, it would then go to the senate which almost certainly would not pass it in its current form. at this point, according to "the washington post," house gop leaders are focused, on, quote, one simple political goal. pass a bill they can say repeals obamacare even if it has no hope of revival in the senate to shield their members in next year's lxz. joining me now is phil klein,
12:35 am
author of overcoming obamacare. three approaches to reversing the government takeover of health care. i think probably the best conservative reporter and writer on obamacare out there. you have been watching this. i've been sort of watching you in kind of shock and horror as this has fallen apart. why has this process gone so badly? >> i think probably fundamentally it's because republicans aren't willing to own up to a coherent strategy. if you're opposed to obamacare and you want a replacement, there are ideas that are coherent ideas for replacing it. if you say that you want to do all of the things that obamacare does, but you don't want obamacare, you end up the mush that we have now. and i think that, you know, it's
12:36 am
easy to comment on the freedom caucus on obstructionist, but it's important to focus a bit on the centrists here. these are people -- i mean fred upton is a good example of somebody. he was somebody who for years was pushing to repeal and replace obamacare. i reported today that back in 2013, he actually issued and authored a report as chair of the energy and commerce committee saying that community rating and essential health benefit requirements were driving up premiums. now he's saying he can't support this at all because it's giving the options to state to opt out of these things. >> this is a key point. you know, at least mel brooks got a lot of criticism for what he said the other day about basically sick people paying more. the house freedom caucus at least there are members who have a sort of coherent ideology,
12:37 am
which is that we want to deregulate the industry. we don't want to offer these sort of essential guarantees that people should be able to pick and choose and hopefully that will drive premiums down. that's the story they're telling, whether that's what it is. but it's harder to tell a coherent story if you say, well, we like all those protections. we just want it changed, which is the position that upton and his ilk are in. >> yeah, i mean i spoke to the chairman of the tuesday group, charlie dent, last week. i asked him, i said, okay, if you support obamacare's regulations and you support the medicaid expansion, then what it you oppose about obamacare? he said, well, higher premiere yumps. i said, what's your idea for decreasing premiums because the freedom caucus said you disagree with it. let's deregulate and that will reduce premiums. what's your idea? and he said, that's the $64,000 question. and i think the dirty little secret here in this debate is that the centrists don't have an actual idea. as far as i'm concerned, they
12:38 am
basically support obamacare. they just don't want to admit it. maybe they're for getting rid of the medical device tax. >> it's not quite that, though. i think it's a little more than that too because i think that the leadership doesn't have the courage of their convictions ideologically about what real lyeans so what you get is people saying, we're not getting rid of these essential protections on pre-existing conditions, and then the march of dimes says, well, you are. and the aarp and all these groups. that's the other issue is that it's being sold to line up with a bunch of promises they made about things they wouldn't touch in obamacare. >> yeah, and it's sold to basically -- i mean if you add in president trump's statements, you basically say, only, go find me a plan that covers as many or more people than obamacare for less money, with lower deductibles and that has more coverage and more choices and more protections for people with pre-existing conditions. it's impossible. there are tradeoffs, right?
12:39 am
i mean you could theoretically cover more people for less money if you're willing to have higher deductibles youment. but then if you want to lower deductibles, it's impossible. they're not being honest about these trade geographytradeoffs a in a sort of policy mush. >> phillip klein, thanks for being with me tonight. still to come, a remarkable candid hillary clinton said today she would be our president if the election was just held ten days earlier. she also declared herself a member of the resistance. hillary's return to the spotlight ahead. and a forensic investigation of the mysterious whiteboard behind steve bannon. this is a good one. it's tonight's thing 1, thing 2 after the break.
12:40 am
12:41 am
12:42 am
thing 1 tonight, rabbi boat i don't know, the self-dubbed america's rabbi visited the house today.
12:43 am
an author and cable news commentator, he's also written for breitbart since 2013 where he's defended steve bannon against charges of anti-semitism. today the rabbi met with steve bannon at the white house and tweeted a photo calling bannon a great stalwart friend of the jewish state. and that's the end of the story unless you're like everyone else who saw this on twitter and wondered, hey, what's all that on the whiteboard behind bannon? in thing 2, we zoom in in 60 seconds. ♪ if you've got a life, you gotta swiffer
12:44 am
president trump's chief strategist steve bannon likes to call his office a war room, and as politico reported, more than 200 of trump's campaign promises are scribbled in marker on a whiteboard in that office. today, via a view photos, we got a look at that whiteboard, which includes promises like build the border wall and, key word here, eventually make mexico pay for it. that one does haven't a check mark next to it but others do. suspend immigration for terror prone regions and suspend the syrian refugee program. both items have check marks despite the fact that both versions of trump's travel ban have been blocked by federal courts. then directly under the header,
12:45 am
pledges on immigration, there's cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities which has a check mark despite the fact that last week a federal judge blocked that executive order too. looking sharp len. who's the lucky lady? i'm going to the bank, to discuss a mortgage. ugh, see, you need a loan, you put on a suit, you go crawling to the bank. this is how i dress to get a mortgage.
12:46 am
i just go to lendingtree. i calculate how much home i can afford. i get multiple offers to compare side by side. and the best part is... the banks come crawling to me. everything you need to get a better mortgage. clothing optional. lendingtree, when banks compete, you win. okay! ...awkward. if you want to stay on top of your health, one simple thing to do -- is take the pledge to go and get screened for the cancers that might affect you. so stand up to cancer and take the pledge at getscreenednow.org it only takes a minute to take care of yourself, and nothing rhymes with "org"...
12:47 am
it wasn't a perfect campaign. there is no such thing. but i was on the way to winning until a combination of jim comey's letter on october 28th and russian wikileaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off. >> it wasn't hillary clinton's first public appearance since the election but it was definitely her most candid. speaking to journalist christiane amanpour this afternoon as part of a luncheon for women international charity, clinton took personal responsibility for her loss, but she also suggested other factors had a significant impact.
12:48 am
>> we overcame a lot in the campaign. we overcame an enormous barrage of negativity, of false equivalency and so much else. but as nate silver, who, you know, he doesn't work for me. he's an independent analyst, but one considered to be very reliable, you know, has concluded if the election had been on october 27th, i'd be your president. so did we make mistakes? of course we did. did i make mistakes? oh, my gosh, yes. you know, you'll read my confession and my request for abso lugs. but the reason i believe we lost were the intervening events in the last ten days. >> at one point, hillary clinton talked about her forthcoming book which is about the campaign and admitted reliving the process was a painful one. she managed to point out at least one silver lining from last november. >> remember, i did win more than 3 million votes than my opponent. so it got really --
12:49 am
>> i feel a tweet coming. >>le with, fine. better that than interfering in foreign affairs. if he wants to tweet about me, i'm happy to be the -- you know, the diversion because we've got lots of other things to worry about. and he should worry less about the election and my winning the popular vote than doing some other things that would be important for the country. >> hillary clinton is not over this election. up next, the part where she joins the resistance. really. don't go away.
12:50 am
12:51 am
12:52 am
12:53 am
i spent decades learning about what it would take to move our country forward, including people who clearly didn't vote for me to try to make sure that we dealt with a lot of these hard issues that are right around the corner and things that are really going to be up ending the economy for the vast majority of americans to say nothing of the rest of the world. i'm now back to being an activist citizen and part of the resistance. >> joining me, karen finney, former senior spokesperson for hillary clinton's campaign. and the senior editor of business insider who wrote a piece called "some thoughts are greenwich, winnetka and why hillary clinton lost. i wanted to play this clip karen from the weekend. i was watching hillary clinton talk about donald trump and talk
12:54 am
about my opponent and had this campaign flashback. and then i remembered this rally from the weekend which also felt like we were back in september. take a listen. >> does anybody remember who our opponent was? huh? they chanted "lock her up." no one is over the election. >> hold on, chris. that's a cheap shot there. hillary was actually asked several questions by christiane amanpour about the election so she was actually -- she was responding to questions about the election when talking about the election. >> are you telling me that hillary clinton is over the election? >> that's not my point. you're playing a clip of her answering a question about the election and saying she's not over the election which is different than actually you won, you're the president and at a rally where because you're too much of a big baby to go to a dinner with urnalists u're still talking about -- >> but the point --
12:55 am
>> -- how you won. >> the point still holds. >> she talked about -- look. you also mentioned she was very blunt, i thought, if her assessment of the election. she took personal responsibility, absolute responsibility. talked about, you know, some of the mistakes, and i think you'll hear more about it in her book about mistakes that were made. either by herself and by our campaign. but then the other things that she mentioned, she's not wrong to suggest that perhaps our president should not be tweeting so much about how he won the election and should be, i don't know, doing more reading about north korea as general wilkerson suggested earlier in your show. >> there's no -- there's no -- i totally agree with that. i also think, josh, you and i were going back and forth on this today and a lot of people were. there's a strange thing where people want hillary clinton to take responsibility in a way that seems strange to me.
12:56 am
like that she's supposed to say the only reason she lost is because of decisions hillary clinton made when it's objectionably the case from john mccain's loss to john kerry's, whoever, that there's many factors. >> i don't think she should say she lost only because of mistakes she made. if i humiliatingly lost to donald trump that i had widely been expected to win, i'd never get over it. i'd fixate on it for the rest of my life. what should the democratic party be doing right now? there's a wide variety of reasons she lost. any close election like this there's many things you can go back. i agree the comey letter was dispositive. a better candidate would not have been vulnerable. as democrats look going forward as they look and try to find lessons they can take into the 2020 election they should focus on the mistakes they made because those are mistakes they can avoid making next time around rather than being upset
12:57 am
about things beyond your control that caused you to lose. >> i agree. and it's part of why talking about this idea and what is now a fact-based reality that the russians interfered in our election. that is a very big deal. we're not saying that's the only reason that she lost but it's a big deal that, you know, a foreign actor that is hostile to our country interfered in our election. i've seen a number of studies that have said in a number of those rust belt states, a number of those counties who vote forward obama who shifted to trump, fear of diversity was a larger factor in their support for trump than the economy. now that to me is something that is particularly after eight years of president obama, i care very deeply about. and as not just a democratic party but as an american, i'd like to better understand thats
12:58 am
but suggests as a country as we're trying to move forward, and we are more diverse country, we've still got a lot of work to do. >> josh, you seem like you'd like to respond. >> that's a big deal. the democrats somehow managed to get themselves into a position where large swaths of americans, white and non-white doubt the democratic party's commitment to ordinary working people. and you saw lots of these working class white voters switching to trump and working class non-white voters underperforming on turnout because they were not enthused about the ideahat hillary clinton was for them. a great example, on banks. obviously the id that donald trump was the tough candidate on goldman sachs was ridiculous. and if democrats want to make that case in 2020 they'd be well advised not to nominate somebody who took $675,000 in speaking fees from goalsman sacks. there were big mistakes that democrats and clinton specifically made that caused the democratic party to become associated with certain elites in the economy, in the country, and that's a change the
12:59 am
democrats can make on their own. the investigation around russia is very important. there are organs of the government that will do that. but that's house cleaning the democratic party must do on its own and they can fix through their own effort. >> it's also really important and the party needs to make these changes. two big things. number one, i think it was a huge mistake the democratic party stopped investing in the 50-state strategy and we actually removed ourselves from the ground game in the eight years while president obama was in office. i think that's one of the things the party is looking at now and trying to change. i hope they do. we've got to be more involved in the grassroots on an ongoing basis so that we're much more -- and listening to people much more closely so it's not just about a candidate but that it's about believing that the party will do what it says it will do because you see they've been there and you see them do what they say they're going to do. that's really important. looking at the record of the candidate is important.
1:00 am
i'm sure i'm going to get plenty of tweets about this. i think with hillary, we put out very detailed plans -- >> i've got to say, karen -- >> how she'd pay for it and all that. we thought that was important and mattered. look now. people would sure love to know more details about what donald trump would do. that matters as well. >> karen finney and josh, thank you. comey will face questions from