tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC May 26, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT
tonight on "all in." >> jared married to my daughter, ivanka. >> nbc news reports jared kushner, the president's son-in-law and one of his senior advisers has come under fbi scrutiny in the russia investigation. >> i actually think he likes politics more than he likes real estate. >> tonight, what we know about the fbi probe now reaching inside the white house. then -- >> get to the polls and vote for greg. >> election night in trump's america. >> i'm sick and tired of you guys. >> assault charges filed as voting starts. >> gianforte grabbed him by the neck, both hands, slid him to the side, body slammed him, and then got on top of him and started punching. >> will greg gianforte join congress after allegedly committing assault? tonight, my exclusive interview with the reporter who got sent to the hospital for asking about health care. the guardian's ben jacobs when "all in" starts right now.
good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. the fbi's russia investigation now involves one of the closest members of the president's inner circle. nbc news reporting tonight that jared kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, has now come under fbi scrutiny according to multiple u.s. officials. investigators believe kushner has significant information relevant to their inquiry, officials said. that does not mean they suspect him of a crime or intend to charge him. this follows a "washington post" report late last week that investigators had identified a current white house official as a significant person of interest, someone close to the president. tonight the post is reporting the president's son-in-law is under scrutiny because of the extent and nature of his interactions with the russians. kushner held meetings in december with russian ambassador and the head of the sanctioned russian bank. his lawyer responded in a statement to nbc news, mr. kushner previously
volunteered to share with congress what he knows about these meetings. he will do the same if he is contacted in connection with any other inquiry. joining me live from the white house, nbc news national correspondent peter alexander. peter, do we have a reaction from the white house yet? >>. >> reporter: chris, good question. you just repeated that statement from jamie gorelick. that's the attorney for jared kushner. i reached out to several white house officials. their public position is they're not commenting. they redirected me to that statement from kushner's attorney. i've reached out to several and have yet to hear anything beyond that. it's notable that both kushner and ivanka trump are now back here in washington, d.c. after traveling overseas on the first several legs of this foreign
trip with ivanka trump's father, the president. specifically what we know here that's important to sort of distinguish this, the officials said that kushner is basically in a different category than those former aides to the president, the former national security adviser mike flynn as well as the former campaign chairman paul manafort. they are formally considered subjects of the investigation. the records of both manafort and flynn have been demanded by grand jury subpoenas at this point. we do not have any information that indicates that any records have been asked for or provided by jared kushner in this investigation. what's also unclear is precisely what about kushner's activities, his relationship, interactions with russian officials may be that he is the individual that has in the past been reported as being under scrutiny. it now goes -- the bottom line is this now goes not just to the trump campaign, but it goes to the trump white house itself and ultimately to the trump family circle. chris? >> thank you, peter. i'm joined by ned price, matt miller, former chief spokesperson for the justice
department, and naveed jamali, a former fbi double agent, author of "how to catch a russian spy." matt, maybe i'll start with you. i mean one thing that's striking here, and just, you know, to be fair, right, one of the complaints you had and a lot of people had during the investigation of hillary clinton during the campaign were leaks coming from the fbi. is this essentially, you know, unacceptable that they're leaking about this? >> if it is the fbi leaking about this, yeah, of course it is unacceptable. but you should never assume where a leak is coming from when you read a story. oftentimes when investigators go out and start talking to people over the course of their investigation, that's how an investigation makes its way to the public. so i don't think we know enough yet. it's likely it's the fbi, but i don't think we know that for sure. >> ned, what does this mean for the functioning of the white house? >> well, it's tough to say. look, chris, i mean up until now, the white house has had a 3-d strategy when it comes to these russia allegations. first deny, then distance, and then deflect. deny the allegation. then when it proves to be true, distance themselves from whether it's carter page or paul manafort or mike flynn or whomever, and then deflect. but in this case they certainly can't do that. this is the president's son-in-law and arguably the president's closest adviser,
someone who is essentially in charge of everything that matters to president trump, so they're going to have to find a different strategy in this case, chris. >> naveed, what's so crazy to me here is if you look at "the washington post" reporting, the subject -- the thing they're looking at are these meetings that happened after the election. i really -- this is a real head scratcher to me. i mean the scrutiny was already there. we knew what the russians had done. there was a lot of people looking at it very closely. and during that period of the transition, jared kushner has a meeting with the ambassador, which, again, fine, but takes him to the back of trump tower so no one receives. he leaves it off his form, and meets with the ceo of a sanctioned russian bank, both of which seem like -- particularly the latter, strange things to do. >> absolutely. i think we have to take the question of collusion, put that in the parking lot and focus on the question of infiltration. i think priority one now becomes what did the russians do? priority two becomes were they successful? priority three is do they still have any pieces in play?
and priority four is was this a counterintelligence failure, and if it was, why was it a failure and how can we change it so it never happens again? but your right. the fbi is going to look at jared kushner, not at 2016 meeting in december with the bank, which is very problem attic. they're going to go back three or four years. and i have a feeling having lived in this world, having been recruited by the russians, that if jared kushner was targeted by the russians for recruitment, this is something that probably occurred three to four years ago. >> this is what i keep thinking. investigations can start at point a and end up at point x. we've seen it in the clinton deal. we saw it with hillary clinton where benghazi was part of what gave way to the e-mail story. if you're jared kushner, you got to be thinking who knows where this goes. >> that is exactly right. when the fbi looks at you, they start flipping over rocks, and they flip over every rock, and they want to see if any spiders or anything else come scurrying around.
they might start with his meetings with the russians but we know one of the things they're scrutinizing with paul manafort are financial transactions he had in ukraine. they may look at all of jared kushner's dealings. at the same time they're looking at kushner for these meetings, there may be a separate parallel investigation into obstruction of justice by the president potentially and the firing of james comey. and we know from reporting that jared kushner was one of the people in the white house that recommended to the president that comey be fired. so that's another -- you know, another area where he could come under scrutiny. >> that is a very good point, and i think it struck a lot of people as a little surprising at the time because the media image that i think kushner and ivanka have projected, i think quite artfully, is that they're the kind of adults in the room, and they're the voices of reason and the cooler heads that prevail when they do prevail.
and it was quite clear that kushner, ned, was one of the people at least in the reporting who wanted comey gone and, of course, that has now become a kind of second order problem for this white house. >> well, it is a second order problem now. it seems like an eternity ago. but i think the real crux of the matter when it comes to jared kushner is that he had the same title during the campaign and during the transition that he does now, and that is director of everything. he was in charge of the transition and prior to that the campaign's contacts with foreign leaders, with other foreign officials. and this, chris, all really boils down to one key question. why did the trump transition and before that, the trump campaign, have so many contacts with the russians? and more importantly, why did they then withhold them and/or lie about them, in some cases both? if anyone is going to know the answer to that question, it is going to be jared. >> if you're trying to read this as charitably as possible, and i think it's important to maintain that discipline, look,
u.s./russia relations are important. this is an incoming administration that's going to try to figure out how to reset them, et cetera. what do you make of the omission of russia on the sf-86, the omission of meeting with kislyak, the omission of sessions both in testimony and on the sf-86, the of course flynn dissembling. there is just -- if what they were doing was innocent, and maybe it was, there does seem to be a lot of deception around it? >> that's exactly right, chris. you're looking for a pattern. i mean i've done enough fs 86s, and i was recently asked when i was going through one of my reviews why i didn't put my high school on there. it was an innocent answer. >> you can screw them up. there are -- absolutely. >> that's exactly right, chris. but what you're seeing here is a pattern. it's the same thing with flynn. it's one thing to make a mistake on your taxes. it's another thing to have a $2 million account in the caimans that you conveniently forgot. we're looking for a pattern.
i think the more these things come to light, what you see here is that pattern emerging, not just an innocent omission. >> just to be clear, the sf-86 is the form that you fill out for security clearance and for review by the fbi, and, matt, that's where you have to sort of list all the foreign contacts you've had. and, you know, jared kushner left the kislyak meeting that he had during transition, which, again, to me, another kind of strange element of that is a lot of people came in through the front door of trump tower. that meeting didn't happen that way. left it off his sf-86. it would appear to indicate they were cognizant of what they were doing at some level. >> they were concealing it. they absolutely were concealing it. it could be because of the political pressure they were under about contacts with the russians, and it could be something more nefarious. it's the same thing you see throughout. not just the things that happened during the campaign, but carrying over into the white house. so when the president met with james comey and asked him to quash the flynn investigation, he asked the vice president and the attorney general to leave the room. there are just these things they do that continue to raise
questions why aren't you more open about this? why is it always behind closed doors? i think that's one of the reasons the public is so suspicious, and it's one of the reasons obviously that investigators are drilling down into this question with kushner. >> ned price, you were on the nsc in the obama white house, there are some democratic members of congress who have made rumblings about calling for kushner's security clearance to be revoked. i saw that call reaffirmed in the wake of this news. is that fair? is that reasonable? is that out of line? >> well, look, you know, the thing with security clearances, and we've dealt with this question in the context of mike flynn and others based on unfair allegations that these are somehow politicized. the fact of the matter is that security clearances are granted, reviewed, and re-reviewed by career officials. >> right. >> so it shouldn't be up to political leaders in the white house or the department of justice or anywhere else to say he can or he cannot have a security clearance.
that should be up to the professionals as it is in every single case. >> all right. ned price, matt miller, and naveed jamali, thank you. we will have more on tonight's breaking news. how the man set to broker peace in the middle east is now under fbi scrutiny. michelle goldberg and rick wilson join me after this two-minute break.
if you can't produce peace in the middle east, nobody can. okay? all my life, i've been hearing that's the toughest deal in the world to make. and i've seen it. but i have a feeling that jared is going to do a great job. i have a feeling he's going to -- he's going to do a great job. >> jared kushner was supposed to be the grounded one, the adviser to president trump who would be the antidote to folks like steve bannon. the president's son-in-law was given a massive, almost incomprehensible portfolio, expected to deal with everything from the opioid addiction crisis to reorganizing the federal government to figuring out peace in the middle east to working out u.s. relations with mexico, oh, and china. now he's under fbi scrutiny in the russia investigation. joining me now, michelle goldberg and rick wilson,
republican strategist. kushner was always such a strange, fascinating element of this story. >> mm-hmm. >> because at one level, he is the most -- he represents everything that the trump base sort of says it hates. >> right. >> he's the most elitist, globalist, private school, like out of central casting, and yet he was going to be the person that was the linchpin of this administration. >> well, right. and the thing is because he's actually in that way very much like trump who also represents great wealth and east coast -- >> inherited wealth. >> inherited wealth. but i think -- i mean it seems to me that the key to understanding jared kushner is that like his father-in-law, he is an incredibly self-interested, greedy, self-serving, and kind of amoral figure. the best thing that i've ever read on jared kushner was "the
new york times" magazine story about his massive business as a slumlord. you know, one of the ways that jared kushner pays the bills is by pursuing poor people through the courts to squeeze them for small amounts off of leases that they legally had gotten out of. he is -- you know, these are really bottom-feeding, sinister figures. one of the great tricks i think jared and ivanka play on the world is because they're so elegant looking, so poised, people tend to conflate that with some kind of innate decency. this is a gangster family. >> i would not say that. i would not go that far although i will say that, you know, the world, rick, of new york real estate, which is a world that kushner and trump both come out of, jared kushner is a guy who saw his father go to jail, get prosecuted by chris christie. this to me was like almost shakespearean.
last week, new jersey governor chris christie told people that jared kushner asked him if trump should hire a lawyer. a spokesperson for christie denied this. both sides confirmed the phone call between them took place. i mean chris christie, who prosecuted kushner's dad, now offering them legal advice as jared kushner is now looking at fbi investigators knocking on his door. >> you know, you were mentioning how poised the young prince kushner looks. i got to tell you, he is a guy, given his father's experience, who i do not believe would prosper in prison. i think the hard yard would not be good for jared, and i think if the fbi is trying to lean into him, he's going to have a real contest of family loyalty versus not wanting to have several cell mates with him. >> well, that seems getting out of -- let me just say that seems getting out ahead of where the facts are. >> maybe a little. >> we should be clear about where the reporting says right now that he's a sort of figure of interest.
he's not in the same category of people who are, quote, subjects in the investigation. but he is now someone who is going to have -- i mean the thing that i think i would find sort of terrifying, even if i were the most innocent person in the universe, and that may be the case of jared kushner, to have -- while i'm working in the white house, to have the fbi going through what i've been doing would really spook me. >> well, right. and also -- >> and it should. >> one of the dynamics, one of the things that kushner -- one of the reasons he's thrived is because he's apparently the only person that trump trusts, right? trump has alienated to some extent every aide around him. he knows that they're all back-biting him. kushner is the one person that he trusts. >> and it's family first has been the rule. >> and now he has reason not to trust kushner, which throws a kind of psychological wrench into the entire thing. >> every discussion going forward means -- every discussion going forward that
trump has with kushner, he's got to be thinking, crap, the fbi could depose me on this. the fbi could ask jared what we talked about in the pursuit of this investigation, and i think there are some things about kushner's business interests such as there are folks in china basically selling to chinese interests saying we'll take care of your visas. we'll do these things because we have direct lines to the president. i think there are things between kushner trying to monetize the situation with his father-in-law, the president, that are going to be layers on this where the fbi will bring pressure on him to roll in and tell them about other parts of the case that they're more interested in, which is the russia-related matters. >> i just think it's worth pointing out that it was widely reported when comey was fired that kushner was the one person really pushing for that, right? >> right, which does make you wonder. and to rick's point, you know, this is something i said just a moment ago. let's say you're the most -- you run a real estate enterprise
that is the most legalistic and compliance-obsessed in the world. you still don't want the fbi, like, kicking around your real estate records, right? these are businesses that make a lot of deals with a whole lot of people, particularly new york city, and i just can't imagine given the scope of that enterprise, and what you said about what they've been doing in china and what they've been doing in other places, that that is something that is at all welcome news for kushner enterprises. rick? >> and the specific thing, chris, they don't want them asking about are trump and kushner's banking relationships in china and with deutsche bank and with the bank of cypress and other areas that are awash in money that is connected to either the chinese or the russian governments because these are questions that -- these are the last questions they want to answer. it's why trump is scared of talking about his tax returns. it's why he avoids the question of indebtedness with carefully parsed answer. the fact that the fbi is
involved, it's bad news. >> and fin sin, the unit in the treasury that is going to turn over documents. again in this ironic way, the decision by donald trump, ivanka, and jared to not fully completely divest, right? for all of them to retain different kinds of ways that they are still enmeshed in businesses, now without the wall there, it's now open for investigation. >> right, and i think that there is reason to believe that jared kushner, maybe not to the extent of his father, but that he is someone who cuts corners. we see that even on his failure to disclose his art collection, which "vanity fair" has just reported. you see it in his failure to disclose his meetings with various russian officials when he's applying for a security clearance. there's two ways to interpret that. either it's sinister and suggestive of some sort of collusion, or it's sloppy. neither one is going to serve you very well if you're under fbi investigation. >> michelle goldberg and rick wilson, thank you both.
in less than two hours, polls will close in the special election in montana. that means we are on the cusp of finding out exactly what happens when a republican congressional candidate body slams a reporter and is charged with misdemeanor assault on the night before the election. the candidate, of course, is greg gianforte, who is seeking the seat previously held by new
interior secretary ryan zinke. it should be an easy win. the seat represents the entirety of the state of montana which trump won by 20 points. outside groups have spent $5.6 million on gianforte's behalf. vice president pence travelled to montana to campaign with him as did the president's son, donald trump jr. president trump himself even recorded a get out the vote robocall. >> you have to get to the polls tomorrow to vote for my friend, republican greg gianforte for congress. he's a wonderful guy. he knows how to win. he's going to win for you. and i'll tell you what, the people of montana are going to be happy. >> but even before last night's staggering incident, there was a chance of a possible upset. democratic candidate rob quist is a cowboy hat wearing populist folk singer who polls showed within striking distance, at least in some polls. and then came last night when the guardian's ben jacobs tried to ask gianforte about the cbo score of the gop health care bill at an event in bozeman.
>> -- the cbo score because, you know, you were waiting to make your decision about health care until you saw the bill and it just came out. >> we'll talk to you about that later. >> there's not going to be time. >> speak with shane, please. >> i'm sick and tired of you guys. the last guy that came in here, you did the same thing. get the hell out of here. get the hell out of here. the last guy did the same thing. are you with the guardian? >> yes, and you just broke my glasses. >> the last guy did the same damn thing. >> you just body slammed me and broke my glasses. >> get the hell out of here. >> you'd like me to get the hell out of here. i'd like to also call the police. can i get you guys' names? >> you've got to leave. >> he just body slammed me. >> jacobs ended up at the hospital where he got x-rays on his elbow. thankfully they were negative. gianforte was charged with misdemeanor assault. soon after the incident, gianforte's spokesman released a
statement utterly at odds with what you heard on the tape. scanlon claiming that jacobs, quote, aggressively shoved a recorder in greg's face and began asking badgering questions. jacobs was asked to leave and after asking jacobs to lower the recorder, jacobs declined. greg then attempted to grab that phone that was pushed in his face. jacobs grabbed greg's wrist and spun away from greg, pushing them both to the ground. fox news reporter alicia acuna, who was in the room, described the scene very differently. >> when ben jacobs from the guardian came in with his recorder, placed his recorder right up to him about here, and started asking him questions about the cbo report on the republican health care bill. and you heard what happened from there. i, myself, was standing about two feet from both gianforte and jacobs when this happened. there was a table in between us, but i did see the whole thing when gianforte grabbed him by the neck, both hands, slid him to the side, body slammed him, and then got on top of him and
started punching and then yelling at him. >> in the wake of the attack, three montana newspapers rescinded their endorsements of gianforte. the billings gazette stating flatly, we will not stand by that kind of violence, period. when we come back, i'm going to speak to the reporter at the center of this all, ben jacobs. that's next.
>> it's not a crazy question that was asked in that ad from the national democrats in montana. joining me to discuss today's special election and being body slammed by greg gianforte is the guardian's ben jacobs. ben, first, you're fine, right? you're okay? >> i'm -- i'm -- i'm in as good shape as i could be under the circumstances. >> your glasses are broken. you did not get -- you did not break or fracture that elbow, right? >> i haven't broke or fractured the elbow. i just have to make sure the swelling and pain goes down. but i'm still -- yeah, as i told you last night, it's a good thing that it's not my pitching arm. >> yeah, you seemed last night and tonight kind of shaken up. >> yeah. no, it's been a very strange experience. i mean it's on one level it's surreal to be in the middle of a news story when your job is to report the news, not to be in
the news. on the other hand, it's also, you know, i've asked hundreds if not thousands of politicians questions, and nothing like this has ever happened before. and yet this is something that's a basic question about the most important issue of the day, and it's -- you know, the basic important issue for voters to be aware of before the election. >> so did you get a sense -- i want you to respond, since i have you and i think that the statement was issued after we spoke last night. that statement that was issued, because in some ways there's two things that happened last night. there was the attack itself and then the statement. that statement is really pretty remarkable in many ways given the fact that it completely contradicts your account, the tape, and the account of the eyewitness from fox who was there. what do you think of that statement? >> i mean i think i've said this before. the statement got my name right and it got my employer right. i think just about everything else was factually inaccurate. >> have you heard from the gianforte people at all? >> no. >> they haven't reached out? they haven't said anything? >> no. i've not heard anything from the gianforte people.
>> and you have been covering this race. you've been there, in fact, you know, our booking producer is texting with you to get updates about what was going on there. what was your sense today? i mean this is surreal to ask. like how did your getting body slammed change the race, but what was your sense today about your getting body slammed changed the race? >> it certainly made an impact. normally on election day i'd go to the polls and ask the voters about the big issue. i wasn't sure how to ask, excuse me, ma'am, what did you think about my being body slammed? but my sense this time, 24, 27 hours ago that gianforte had an edge and that he was the favorite. it still could go either way, but he had the edge. and it's just a question of what's happened, that this was a front-page story all over montana. this has, you know, gotten a lot of attention. but about two-thirds of montana voters have already cast their ballots, that this is a heavy absentee voting state. so that a lot of people have voted and there have been
reports that folks have called in to the secretary of state's office to see if they can change their ballots, and they can't. so it's sort of hard to tell because we're only viewing one proportion of the electorate. and then there's a question of how much voters, in terms of all the issues, how much my being body slammed compares to taxes, health care, public lands or the range of other issues. >> it was interesting to me that all three newspapers rescinded their endorsement, and there was a citation issued by the police for misdemeanor assault. i want to bring in the conversation, ben house and erin gloria ryan. erin, i remember you were tweeting about this and i remember you were on about the access hollywood tape. and i remember there was a feeling that trump is this unique thing. you can get away with anything. but this seems like we're running the experiment now with someone people didn't know about. like will people just tolerate anything?
>> the first thing when i saw the story break on twitter, first thing i thought it was a joke. there is no way this was a real thing that helped. the second thing i thought of was michelle fields, the breitbart news reporter who was grabbed by corey lewandowski. there was this weeks long news cycle devoted to people attacking her, proving her to be a liar, and quibbling over who was grabbing who, and people saying she deserved it anyway. i sort of watched it play out again last night, and it almost seems like voter have en masse, at least a portion of them, have decided that self-control isn't something that elected officials need to have. >> i'm glad you used that word because, ben, that seems to me -- i keep thinking about what i think about ben howe. i keep thinking about which -- like conservative principles and the idea of like self-mastery and self-control being sort of in line with them and the idea of sort of like unruly, licentiousness being opposed to them. it was remarkable to me to last night watch a lot of conservatives say this is absolutely unacceptable, black and white issue here. but then a lot rise to the
defense of a candidate who body slammed a reporter. >> yeah, that's the battle that's been going on for a while now, which is the battle between conservatism, and republicanism, and a lot of people have chosen republicanism which is the win at any cost. trump has really stretched that definition to lengths i never thought i would say, and it's made it so they're so used to defending things that trump has done, this is almost light. no offense to ben jacobs but this is almost light compared to some of the things they've had to defend with trump. >> it's like a batting doughnut is trump and you take that off and you can swing freely when you have to defend like some candidate in montana. here's paul ryan doing his best. take a listen. >> if he wins, he has been chosen by the montana -- the people of montana, who their congress is going to be. i'm going to let the people of montana decide who they want as their representative. >> that's when he said -- he
says stuff like that about trump all the time but it's completely not responsive. >> piggybacking on something that ben just said, there is right and wrong. those two things still exist. it seems like in this conversation, people have gotten so distracted by the desire to win that the fact that there is right and wrong has gotten lost. it is not right to body slam a reporter. >> or anyone, i would also say. >> it doesn't matter how body slammable they are. you don't body slam people. that is against the law. laws exist for a reason. there is right and wrong. and paul ryan and some other republicans kind of shrinking away from condemning this have proven that they've chosen winning over doing the right thing. >> ben, what was your reaction today to watching the reaction to it?
>> it's been absolutely surreal sort of watching, you know, watching this happen. this is one of the strangest experiences i've ever had, but i've been heartened by what i've heard from folks, folks across the political spectrum have been sending me text messages encouraging, you know, folks in the administration and that, you know, folks generally tend to recognize that this is -- you know, that body slamming anyone is inappropriate behavior, and it's been very heartening to see that reaction and also see the reaction from fellow reporters who have been vocal on this. >> first of all, i cannot believe we're having this conversation. but, ben howe, there's also this aspect to it, you know, we watched donald trump rain down insults and invective against reporters at his rallies where everyone would boo. you saw anecdotal reports after this broke yesterday in montana of voters in montana saying he deserved it. he had it coming. you know, you're lucky we don't pop off on you. there is the sense that has been cultivated and gotten particularly acute in the trump era that the press are the enemy and they have it coming. >> i think across the board in a lot of ways we have a problem with monoliths. everybody wants to treat each group like they're not comprised of individuals. so you talk to somebody who is on the right who thinks that ben jacobs deserved it or whatever,
and he says the media has brought this on themselves. but if you talk to them about somebody they know in the media, they might say that particular person is okay because it's really made up of individuals. and when we treat it like one thing where everybody has the same attitude and same biases, then you're going to end up with a problem like this where you have a backlash that we're seeing right now. i think it's dangerous. >> i also just feel like there's something about this, mark sanford said this earlier today. there's something sort of been unleashed by trump. i feel like that's particularly true of violence. i think we've seen violence happen more. i mean gianforte seems to be an individual that's got some anger control issues. >> of course, yeah. >> but it does seem like it is -- and not just on the right. on the left as well. like we have seen violence sort of rise up in this trump era in a way that i think feels a little like the opening of a pandora's box. >> right, it does. i think what's also a little upsetting about this, aside from the actual violence, is the fact that it obscures what the issue was that ben was asking about,
which was like the possibility that a new health care policy might take health care away from millions of people. and i actually wondered after this happened kind of darkly if being body slammed would count as a pre-existing condition. >> that's a good question. someone noted, ben jacobs -- i will note this. we still don't have an answer from greg gianforte about what his response is. this is as we approach polls closing, he's managed to run out the clock here. they've been silent. the nrcc has been silent. everyone has been silent, and we still don't know what his reaction to the cbo scoring of the house health care bill is. you think we'll ever get an answer for that, ben? >> um, i -- we'll find out. for me, what he said was he'll make a determination and if he happens to be elected tonight, i'll be excited to ask him that question at the speaker's lobby when he gets to washington. >> people were posting photos today of what it looks like when you go to congress and you walk around capitol hill where people
put microphones in your face all the time because that's part of the job. thank you all for being with me tonight. coming up, the issue that started this whole story as erin was saying, a simple question about the cbo score of trumpcare. why republicans really don't want to talk about their health care plan. plus al franken drags ted cruz in a great thing 1, thing 2 starting after this break. the best way to hit the beach? with neutrogena® beach defense® sunscreen. helioplex™ powered,
thing 1 tonight, it's no secret that senator ted cruz doesn't have a lot of friends in congress. >> if you killed ted cruz on the floor of the senate and the trial was in the senate, nobody could convict you. >> among the words used by cruz's republican colleagues to describe him, wacko bird from senator john mccain, carnival barker, and jackass by then speaker john boehner, which is actually pretty mild compared to what boehner said after leaving congress. >> so how about your opinions on
some of the other people running for the highest office in the land? how about ted cruz? [ laughter ] >> lucifer in the flesh. i get along with almost everybody, but i have never worked with a more miserable son of a [ bleep ] in my life. >> george w. bush told donors, i just don't like that guy, and former senator bob dole couldn't hide his feelings about ted. >> i don't know. there are a lot of good candidates. i like nearly all of them except ted cruz. >> but that's just how republicans feel about him. what about democrats? >> you have to understand that i probably like ted cruz more than most other of my colleagues like ted cruz, but i hate ted cruz. >> senator al franken has a new book out in which he shares
according to a page tweeted by jonathan tyla, one section recounts senator amy klobuchar pre-clearing a ted cruz joke she was going to tell at the gridiron club dinner with cruz himself. amy smiled. here it is. when most people think of a difficult cruise, they think of carnival. but we democrats in the senate think of ted. ted smiled and then he offered a suggestion. what if you changed a difficult cruise to a challenging cruise? franken writes, cruz eventually relented, saying i tell you what. i believe in the first amendment. you go ahead and tell your joke. franken stepped in and asked if he wanted to hear his rewrite. okay. here it is. when most people think of a cruise that's full of crap, they think of carnival. but we think of ted. there went ted's smile for once. he had no words. cruz does have a few words for franken now, telling politico. al is trying to sell books and
the cbo score because, you know, you were waiting to make your decision about health care until you saw the bill. >> yeah, we'll talk to you about that later. >> yeah, but there's not going to -- >> speak to shane, please. i'm sick and tired of you guys. the last guy that came in here did the same thing. >> the question that caused congressional candidate greg gianforte to, according to witnesses, attack a reporter was a seemingly innocuous one about the cbo scoring of the health care bill. gianforte had declined to take a position on the bill until the cbo analyzed it. after the bill passed the house he said, quote, personally i would have liked to have seen cbo results prior to the voting but we need to repeal and replace obamacare. he seems to want to skip comment on the republican unpopular alternative.
but then the cbo score came out, projecting that 23 million people will lose their insurance over the next ten years. including 14 million people losing coverage because of the $800 billion in proposed cuts to medicaid. according to the center for american progress, the cbo score means that montana alone, the health care bill will kick close to 80,000 people off insurance in the next decade. that's what greg gianforte refused to comment on. but the millions of people who would lose health insurance under trumpcare isn't the only problem the cbo found under this bill. we'll discuss that with peter orzack who ran the congressional budget office.
its active naturals® oat formula... ...goes on feather light. absorbs in seconds... ...keeps skin healthy looking and soft. aveeno® naturally beautiful results. joining me now, peter orszag, former head of the congressional budget office, the world famous congressional budget office. his most recent op ed in "the washington post" is titled "don't blame the cbo for the health care bill." there's two messages from the gop on the cbo score, it's great for us, that was the paul ryan tactic, it's a great score. and the other is they got it wrong. are either of those true? >> no. it's devastating. and look, we won't know because probably this legislation will never become law, but the example that people use to try to make that argument is, cbo got obamacare wrong. >> right.
>> and that's false. cbo did overestimate how many people would be on the exchanges, partly because they also underestimated how many businesses would drop their plans. the thought was businesses would drop their plans, those people would go on the exchange. what really matters is the net number of uninsured people. cbo estimated there would be 30 million people uninsured. it was 27. that's pretty good in my book. >> here's the thing i think got lost. we talk about the numbers, and the numbers matter, but how would you -- i mean, the fundamental thing this bill is doing, right, is, it is redistributing from the sick and the relatively worse off to the relatively healthy and relatively better off. >> you do not want to be low income, older, living in a high cost state under this plan. i mean, we're talking not just 1,000 or $2,000. for the cbo report, it shows
that for a 64-year-old at $26,000 of income, you're talking about a $12,000 increase on average, let alone if you live in a high cost place like alaska. it's earth-shattering. >> have you seen legislation ever, major legislation that would have the negative consequences that acute in the time that you worked there and at the omb? >> no, because usually what happens is, you are revising the legislation to try to avoid those kinds of outcomes. >> right. so you're saying the process is what produced the outcomes here in some ways, this thing was put together, it was rammed through, and that's how he get what you see in that cbo score. >> two things. i think there are some content issues here. and then given the content issues, there's also not iterating enough on how to improve it. >> what are the content issues? >> the basic content issues are, they're not putting enough money into subsidies for health insurance. so you can't make the system work while you're pulling out hundreds of billions of dollars. something's got to give. and that's what's happening. >> and to understand the math
here, right, the reason that that is true is because they can't put more money in because they want to repeal all the taxes. and if -- >> and they won't replace that. >> and they don't want to play it with new taxes. if it doesn't reduce the deficit, the whole thing is shot, because they need cbo to say it reduces the deficit. >> correct. you of skinny down the subsidies for individuals and that makes it unaffordable for the low income, older people in high cost places. >> how disruptive would this be if this became the law tomorrow? >> i'm at a loss for words. you almost couldn't imagine a shift this big happening. these numbers are not sustainable. you will not have a $12,000 premium increase for, you know, 64-year-olds on average across the country. it won't happen. something will give before that -- >> so something would break? >> something would break politically or substantively. >> this thing can't in its current form become law and 5,
is what you're saying. >> i can't imagine it happening. if it did, it would substantively be a massive problem for tens of millions of americans. >> peter orszag, thanks for coming by tonight. that's "all in" for this evening, "the rachel maddow tonight what the feds want to know. plus donald trump's america first bravado on display at nato as the president rails against u.s. allies. and could the congressional candidate charged with assault be headed far win tonight in montana? results are coming in live as the 11th hour begins right now. well good evening again from our headquarters here in new york. he may be the closest advisor to the president us
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on