tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC January 6, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PST
tonight on "all in" -- >> who actually is the benefactor of someone who is about to become commander-in-chief trashing the intelligence community. >> an intelligence hearing for an audience of one. >> i love wikileaks. >> intelligence chief democrats and top republicans send a message to the incoming president. >> espionage is an act of war. >> tonight is the unprecedented spectacle on capitol hill. >> i think there's a difference between kept schism and disparagement. >> plus an exclusive inside look into the top-secret report on russian hacking. >> every american should be alarmed by russia's attacks on our nation. >> then the vice president's harsh words for the president-elect. >> grow up. time to be an adult. you're president.
>> a democratic congresswoman refusing to attend the inauguration and why the president-elect spent today in a democratic national convention. >> i mean, do you want me to read it? >> "all in" starts now. good evening from new york, i'm joy reid in for chris hayes. in 15 days, donald trump will become the president of the united states and tomorrow he'll come face to face with a group he seems to oppose more than anyone since hillary clinton, america's intelligence community. a senior u.s. intelligence official tells nbc news that the director of national intelligence and the heads of the nsa, the cia and the fbi are all scheduled to be at trump tower tomorrow to brief the president-elect on their finding that russia was behind the election hacking of democratic e-mails. president obama received the same briefing this morning but it's the conclusion that trump still refuses to accept. appearing to favor the denials by wikileaks founder julian assange, delivered most recently in an interview with a very solicitous sean hannity on fox news over the evidence presented
by american intelligence profesonals. and it's leaving trump increasingly isolated. today he turned to his favorite medium -- twitter -- to defend himself tweeting "the dishonest media like saying i am in agreement with julian assange. wrong. i simply state what he states. it is for the people to make up their own minds as to the truth. the media likes to make it look like i'm against "intelligence" when in fact i'm a big fan!" now it's tough to square that claims with trump's repeated rejections of their conclusions and reluctance to receiving daily briefings and statements like this from his transition team. "these are the same people who said saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction." well, today after weeks at the center of the back-and-forth over russian hacking, working mostly behind the scene, top intelligence officials finally stepped into the spotlight, putting faces on the faceless intelligence community trump has been attacking. appearing on capitol hill, the director of national intelligence, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the director of the national security agency all testified at the first congressional hearing on the election hack helded by
the senate arms services committee. the chairman, none other than senator john mccain. now mccain is no ally of donald trump's but he's remained studiously silent throughout the campaign even as trump did things like mocking mccain's time spent as a prisoner of war or insulting a gold star family. today was mccain's turn to talk and he went straight for julian assange. >> i believe he is the one who's responsible for publishing names individuals that work for us that put their lives in direct danger. is that correct? >> yes, he has. >> and do you think there's any credibility we should attach to this individual given his record of --
>> not in my view. >> not in your view. >> senator lindsey graham, mccain's closest ally, has been a vocal critic of trump's stance on russia and he asked about the upcoming intelligence briefing. >> you're going to be challenged tomorrow by the president-elect. are you okay with being challenged? >> absolutely. >> do you both welcome that? >> we do. >> do you think it's appropriate? >> we do. >> are you ready for the task? >> i think so. >> good. >> in a pretty remarkable moment, director of national intelligence james clapper who, he noted, has served every president since kennedy, actually criticized the president-elect by implication for his attitude towards the intelligence community. >> i think there is an important distinction here between healthy skepticism which policymakers -- to include policymaker number one should always have for intelligence but i think there's
a difference between kept schism and disparagement. >> this comes immediately after the "wall street journal" reported based on anonymous sources that trump is planning to revamp the office of the director of national intelligence, paring back both that agency and the cia. trump's spokesman strenuously denied that report on a call today with reporters. >> there is no truth to this idea of restructuring th intelligence community frastructure. it's 100% false. >> but clearly someone in trump's orbit thinks that the story is true. both the associated press picked it up citing anonymous sources of their own. let's not forget trump has contradicted his team before and he's claimed to know more about cyber security than the professionals. here he was at his new year's eve party last weekend. >> i know a lot about hacking and hacking is a very hard thing
to prove so it could be somebody else and i also know things that other people don't know and so they can not be sure of the situation. >> reporter: what do you know that other people don't know? >> you'll find out on tuesday or wednesday. >> well, today is thursday and we have yet to hear trump's grand revelation tonight, however, nbc news reports according to a senior u.s. intelligence official that u.s. intercepts picked up senior russian officials celebrating donald trump's election victory as beneficial to russia. the source also says the u.s. has identified russian actors who turned over stolen democratic materials to wikileaks, according to nbc news, intelligence officials are so worried trump won't accept their findings tomorrow cia officials actually called members of congress asking them for public support in anticipation of a public drubbing by the president-elect. joining me now is congressman mo brooks, republican from alabama and member of the house arms services committee. congressman brooks, i want to
start by sort of getting -- taking the temperature of where you stand. are you a julian assange republican like sean hannity or are you a john mccain republican and with clapper and the others who say russia was behind the hacking? >> well, i've been on the foreign affairs committee for a number of years and also house arms services committee my entire time in the united states congress and i think it's important to note that you do the best you can with the information that the intelligence community gives to you, nonetheless there is almost always some elements of doubt because the intelligence community rarely has perfect information and they have to draw certain inferences from the information that they have. so i would agree with mr. clapper where he says that there is warranted quite often a healthy degree of september kichl and caution but ultimately you have to make decisions based on the best dell jens that you have. usually it's correct. sometimes it is not. certainly the decision to enter into the iraq war as well as instances where it was
questionable resulted in a very significant decision on the part of the united states which has been questioned many years thereafter. >> i'm not sure i gotten a answer to my question. you sit on the relevant commit 's the. who do you believe, julian assange and donald trump or the intelligence community when it comes to russian hacking? which one do you believe? >> well, i don't think that is the right question to ask because sometimes i will agree and sometimes -- >> on this specific. not in general. on this, on whether or not russia was behind the hacks. whose side are you on? >> it is a premature question to ask and it's not fair to try to place a congressman on one se orhe other. i need to be given the kind of information from the intelligence community that makes he feel comfortable with the conclusions they have reached. this is a brand new congress that just started this week. we have not yet had in the house arms services committee or the house foreign affairs committee the kinds of hearings that are necessary for me to have the
information to reach the kind of conclusion that you want me to make right now with incomplete evidence. >> well, the senate has one of those such hearings today. they had all of the top leaders of the intelligence community before them. i'm assuming you watched at least some of those hearings or were briefed on them by your staff. >> i did. >> you have been a pretty big skeptic about donald trump. during the campaign you were quite if not a never trumper, you were extremely skeptical. you said he's taken every position on everything that if people knew he'd been all over every issue that people would be skeptical -- >> but -- >> hold on a second. but now you're saying you are not prepared to decide whether you believe julian assange more or whether you believe the intelligence community more? you're not prepared to decide that right now? >> the senate arms services committee hearing today was public. classified information, the kind of information you need to look at to reach your own conclusions as to the veracity of the opinions given, that's a different thing.
so what we heard today were opinions given from the witnesses. i want to look at the primary evidence. i'm an attorney by training. i've prosecuted many a case as a district attorney and assistant district attorney. i've also defended people on the defense side and you make decisions based on evidence, not based hearsay. >> i'm not sure they were giving their opinions. i think they were giving their considered judgment. you say they were just giving their opinion? >> well a considered judgment is an opinion. >> before i let you go, we are out of time. who would you say on balance is more credible? who would you tend to believe more? julian assange or dni clapper? >> well my default position is going to be to give the intelligence community the benefit of the doubt because after all they do have access to information that has not yet been shared with me as a member of the house foreign affairs committee or house arms services committee. >> then we have gotten you closer to believing the intelligence community over
assange and donald trump. >> but to have a final opinion, though, i need to see the evidence. >> all right, well congressman mo brooks, thank you very much. i'm joined by charlie pierce, writer at large for "esquire" and msnbc contributor charlie sykes of right wisconsin. i don't know if you are as surprised as i am that when you hear a republican member of congress who sits on the relevant committee, arms services and foreign affairs, that he was not willing to definitively say, charlie sykes, that he believes dni clapper more than he believes julian assange. that is how far the republican party has gone. they aren't willing to come out and say "no, i don't believe julian assange over our own intelligence community." >> yeah, that was traordinary and somewhat cringe worthy because you asked him the easiest question of the year -- who do you believe, julian assange, who is an anti-american activist who's hiding out in an embassy -- or do you tend to believe u.s. intelligence agencies? and he was struggling to give you a straight answer. i am old enough to remember when republicans actually trusted and respected the u.s. military and
our intelligence agencies and actually were not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to either vladimir putin, russia, or to toadies like julian assange. >> and this wasn't a question of do you believe donald trump more or the intelligence community because that would have put them in an an intractable bind because he is the guy, their president, their guy. but this is julian assange. this is not saying do you believe trump more. it's saying julian assange or the intelligence community. he didn't want to answer. >> no, and unlike my colleague from milwaukee, i expect nothing from modern republicans so i wasn't disappointed or not. i'll tell you, my favorite moment of the day was thom tillis, the senator from north carolina, making the u.s. lives in a glass house therefore -- virtually coming right up to the edge of saying we can expect
this because it's karma because what we do -- because of what we do overseas. if any democrat had ever made that argument they've have been barbecued on the white house lawn. incredible. >>rank churc-- >> frank church must have been laughing his head off in senate he van at that time. >> that's a perfect point to play this montage that the great producers have put it together. it shows where it's coming from. these are republicans who are in fear trump voters are in their district, they don't want to walk away from donald trump who is with julian assange and who has said the following things about russia and putin over lo these many years. take a listen. >> he kills journalists that don't agree with him. >> well, i think our country does plenty of killing also, joe. they say it wasn't them, it may have been their weapon but they didn't use it, they didn't fire it, it was probably russia, it was probably people involved on the pro-russian side but i think we have to straighten our own problems out right now, katy.
the people of crimea from what i've heard would rather be with russia than where they were and you have to look at that also. >> if putin said "we're going to murder somebody in america" and there's radioactive stuff all over america -- >> if he did it, fine. but i don't know that he did it. >> charlie sykes. we kill plenty of people as the reaction to vladimir putin has had journalists killed is extraordinary for someone who is going to be president of the united states. >> it is extraordinary on so many different levels including the moral equivalency that republicans used to dislike. look, one of the things that happened in that really rather remarkab hearing today was there was kind of a bipartisan consensus that we're not going to let this go. that we're not going to rom over
for donald trump. you truly did get strong rhetoric from john mccain, who's a republican. you got some strong rhetoric from lindsey graham. so i do think that they're trying to send a signal to him. i know donald trump wants to live in his post-truth alternative reality world but now that he'll become president, there are some reality checks here and the united states senate, i think -- i thought that hearing did a good job in exposing how thin his position is and how outrageous it is for the president of the united states to be carrying water for vladimir putin and the russians. >> i have to play a little piece of sound from joe biden today, vice president joe biden who had advice for donald trump. let's take a listen. >> he said -- he said -- "doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory president o statements and roadblocks. thought it was going to be a smooth transition, not." in all caps. >> grow up, donald. grow up. time to be an adult. you're president. you've got to do something. >> charlie pierce, i wonder if -- we laugh about that and joe biden is always delightful to listen to but there is a sense
that donald trump has the potential to become pretty isolated here because there is still part of the republican party still with john mccain. that still exists. we don't know how large it is. the intelligence community is not an amorphous blob donald trump is tweeting about. it's those guys with those bars on their chest that now even trump supporters can look at those guys and say, wait, ey're not more cdible than julian assange? does donald trump risk becoming more isolated now? >> i have no idea. i think for all intense and purposes in the republican party as is presently constitutes, john mccain and lindsey graham might as well be lawn jockeys. they have no power. nobody listens to john mccain. a lot of pundits do and some democrats do, but the real fire in that committee came from thom tillis and joni ernst and deb fisher and tom cotton to an extent who are the future and they were not quite -- i mean lindsey graham was incredibly amped up today, it was interesting to see. but those were the people trying to make the serious argument that, among other things, the current president hasn't kept our cyber security the way he should have.
that having been set, i think the republican party is donald trump's right now. >> charlie pierce, last word. >> i don't think he's isolated at all. >> charlie sykes, last word to you. >> well, i think do not underestimate the fact that donald trump only has a two-vote margin in the united states so it's not true to say john mccain and lindsey graham don't have a lot of power, i do think once you no longer have barack obama to kick around anymore, he's going to own this. he's very off message. a guy says i'm going to fight for america, i want to make america great again and what is he doing? he's had this self-inflicted problem again of appeasing russia. >> yeah. the charlies, great tonight. charlie pierce and charlie sykes, thank you both for being here, appreciate it. coming up, the fight over trump's cabinet. why top democrats are demanding an ethics investigation into his pick to lead the department of health and human services.
but first, nbc has exclusive new details from the top-secret report on russia's hacking. evan mcmullin will be here to break down the intelligence findings that donald trump refuses to accept. that's just after the break. li% of bad breath germs for a 100% fresh mouth. feeling 100% means you feel bold enough to... ...assist a magician... ...or dance. listerine®. bring out the bold™
the russians hava long history of interfering in elections. theirs and other peoples. but i don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've mean? this case. >> what exactly did russia do to interfere with the u.s. election? nbc's hallie jackson has exclusive details. >> reporter: tonight an exclusive inside look at a top secret report on russia, one that went directly to president obama today. so what does it reveal?
two top intelligence officials with direct tell nbc news a detailed russian cyber attacks. the staff, the state department, american companies. some successful, others thwarted. the report explains moscow's motive, partly to disrupt the democratic process and partly as payback, the intelligence analysts conclude, for the obama administration's questioning of vladimir putin's legitimacy as president. it's not just last year's presidential campaign either. the report backs russian cyber activity back to 2008 and 2012 it doesn't speculate on whether russia's interference affected the outcome of 2016. while president obama says today he has full faith in the conclusions of that report. president-elect trump, who will get the same briefing tomorrow, haseemed skeptical of the intelligence community so far. >> when the president-elect receives his own briefings and is able to examine the intelligence as his team is put
together and they see how professional and effective these agencies are that some of those current tensions will be reduced. >> reporter: hallie jackson, nbc news, the white house. >> and donald trump has already responded to that nbc news report tweeting "how did nbc get an exclusive look into the top secret report he, obama, was presented? who gave them this report and why. politics! joining me now to talk about what we're learning is a former cia analyst and author of "the targeter." and evan mcmullin, former cia officer. i'm going to start with you putting aside donald trump questioning where nbc got the report. i was interested in one piece of what we just heard, the idea that part of this was payback by vladimir putin for the obama administration questioning his legitimacy as president.
is it just me who sees constant mirrors in the things vladimir putin thinks and the things donald trump obsesses about? >> russia has been playing this game with the united states for close to 70 years at this point so most of what russia does should not surprise us. the spying game is what it is, it's true. but on the same hand, accepting that a foreign government could possibly be not only in the united states, within our election system is unfathomable to me. and to essentially pick the side of a foreign government and possible international criminal, julian assange, over the men and women who work hard to keep this country safe. that i would not have expected. >> evan mcmullin, i have to throw that to you. we managed to speak with a republican member of congress who was never a pro-trump republican during the primaries but he seemed to find it difficult not even just to say he doesn't believe the intelligence services, which is shocking in and of itself, but
to put distance between himself and julian assange do we get to the point where the indemnified individuals include vladimir putin and julian assange when it comes to republicans? >> it's truly unfortunate, in the earlier segment when you asked a question to charlie sykes i thought he gave the excellent answer. it's the easiest possible question you could give and he botched it but it shows you how unrecognizable elements of the republican party are these days. it's unfathomable to me that we have a question about whether we trust our intelligence professionals over an anti-american activist supported by russia. >> i want to talk about some of the things that were quite frightening, the idea of what could go wrong. let's start by playing dni clapper who talked about what the response to such cyber warfare could in theory be. take a listen.
>> when something major happens in cyberspace, our default policy position should not be exclusively to counter cyber with cyber. we should consider all instruments of national power. unlike nuclear weapons, cyber capabilities are difficult to see and evaluate and are ephemeral. >> is there anything that the u.s. has in its arsenal, in its kit back to respond what has happened during our elections right now that russia would already know about or be prepared for? >> ihink that's a very good question. one that i would not want to answer on live t. however, i do think -- and i agree with senator graham, he said there are other things the united states should be doing besides sanctions and declaring diplomats persona non grata. a place like russia, putin, authoritarian regimes don't find that to be very intimidating.
i think there is more they should be doing. >> evan, one of the other pieces that's come out of nbc -- this is what journalists do, they obtain advanced word on this report and one of the striking things is they said they've identified russian actors involved in turning in information over to wikileaks. does it get more definitive than that or is there still reason to consider that as congressman brooks said, just an opinion? >> no, that's pretty damming information without seeing the specifics. but i will say it's interesting that julian assange in his interview with fox news the other day when he was asked "did you receive the information from the russian government?" he was very careful to answer the question in a particular way. he denied receiving the information from the russian government but did not say he didn't receive it from a third party who could have been working for the russian government. if you go back and watch that interview, he's very careful in how he talks.
the question posed to him let him off the hook but it seems clear there was a cutout and it was interesting to hear that from this report to want. >> nada, having been in the position with dealing with an administration that was putting pressure on analysts to come to a politically desirous conclusion, something they wanted, in your case during the runup to the iraq war, give us a preview of how difficult it could be for analysts if they're already hearing that the incoming administration wants to somewhat take apart the cia and other agencies. it sounds like punishing for coming to a conclusion that they don't like. >> it sounds like it but the difference between what we dealt with with the bush administration and the questioning of our analysis i think is very different than what the analysts are going to face with a trump administration. under george w. bush, there was a respect for the office and intelligence work and an
understanding of how hard they work. so that's entirely different than what we had to deal with. >> evan, you ran for president. did you ever think you'd leave to see the day when an incoming president of the united states essentially set aside the joint findings of all of our intelligence agencies in favor of a guy hiding out in the ecuadorian embassy in london. >> no, but more importantly i never thought i would see a president-elect in the united states or a president that would align himself or herself with the very adversary that is attacking our democracy. that's the underlying source for the tension between the cia and donald trump. it's his general threat to this country through his policies and through his alignment with vladimir putin. that's the deeper issue here. it's not the capability of our intelligence analysts or anything else. that's the deeper issue.
donald trump will blame it on the iraq war and a range of other things he can point to but that is the deeper issue. >> indeed. nada and evan, appreciate you being here. coming up, flooding the zone, republicans staff hearings for six cabinet picks on a single day -- the same day trump claims he'll hold his first press conference in over five months. that's ahead.
started off like this. "the democrats led by head clown chuck schumer know how bad obamacare is and what a mess they're in. instead of working to fix it they do the typical political thing and blame." shortly after trump's tweets schumer made news regarding trump's pick to lead the department of health and human services, representative tom price who the "wall street journal" reports traded more than $300,000 in shares of health-related companies over the past four years while sponsoring and advocating legislation that could potentially affect those companies' stocks. trading stocks in companies while pushing legislation to affect those companies is not exactly drain the swamp stuff and schumer called for the non-partisan office of congressional ethics -- the group the gop tried and failed to dismantle -- to investigate. the senate hearing on price isn't scheduled yet but a bunch of hearings have been scheduled for next week on trump's cabinet picks and the schedule suggests team trump is doing everything kgb to make sure the news that comes out of those hearings gets buried. i'll explain next.
the confirmation hearings for trump's cabinet picks kick off next week, while some hearings are yet to be scheduled, have a look at this -- there are hearings for six different cabinet members scheduled for the same day, next wednesday, including what would be day two of hearings for attorney general pick jeff sessions who civil rights groups oppose due to his past and allegations of racism.
wednesday will also be the day for hearings for secretary of state pick rex tillerson, the exxonmobil ceo with close ties to russia and education secretary pick betsy davos, who has long favored charter schools and uchers over public schools. also that day trump has claimed via twitter he'll hold his first press conference since july on wednesday, though it remains to be seen whether he'll do that since he's claimed he'd have press conferences in the past and it never happened. the packed schedule could ensure the headlines from the hearings will get buried, which may be the point. we should note is back in january of 2009 four of president obama's had hearings on the same day but those picks were less controversial. there are two fewer candidates and the president-elect hadn't claimed he was holding a press conference. by the way, it's not just about when the hearings take place but the kind of scrutiny candidates will receive and there's more. one of our next guests has broken news on that front and we will explain next.
joining me now is msnbc -- next is now. joan walsh national affairs correspondent for the nation and jason johnson, politics editor at the root. magic. >> now. >> you have a scoop ott nonjust the what and when but the mechanics of this. >> senator feinstein, who's now the chair of the judiciary committee, senator leahy who is the past chair, they have asked for more time because jeff sessions hasn't completed his questionnaire. it's great he got himself elected from the state of alabama but that's not the same as being prepared to be the top law enforcement officer so they've been asking for more time and witnesses but chairman grassley has said no, yesterday he came out with a a schedule. the democrats will get four witnesses. >> only four witnesses? >> only four witnesses and only two days and there will be no delay despite the woefully inadequate disclosures he's made. >> jason that seems first of all shocking that you could limit the democrats to only four people, four witnesses that can testify. does that sound like it's feasible to get through all of the past that -- baggage jeff
sessions is dragging with him to washington? >> it takes a long time to lay out how much of a bigot he is and so i think that -- and here's the thing i think is important. given the fact that, again, this guy was rejected 30 years ago, he has statements today and i think one of the things any witness would want to do is say look, not just that he may be a bigot but there are consequences to that attitude being in this position and that requires time, that requires witnesses, that's clearly not something the republican congress wants to do and there will be bad consequences for rushing this through when he has to adjudicate on behalf of this nation. >> joan, do you have reporting on now that it's going to be a scramble, civil rights groups and others that oppose sessions will have to choose. you have criminal justice reform
issues with him, direct race issues, but you also have voting rights. >> voting rights, banking. there's so much, it's going to be very hard to choose those four witnesses but what people have told me, which is kind of interesting, they're very upset about this truncated hearing but they're also saying they will push senators to bring some of this stuff up on the floor. when this goes to a vote, assuming he'll get out of committee, which he will, there is a lot of push for progressive democratic senators to oppose him, to talk about his record and we'll see what they can get away with under mitch mcconnell but the battle does not end what the haring ends next wednesday. >> we know there was civil disobedience in alabama about jeff sessions. have you got any reporting that there will be some disobedience in washington? >> there will be. people are talking about it now. the issue will be this. it's like we saw with the phone calls this week, you have to put pressure on these senators, you
have to make that clear because heidi heitkamp, you have democrats in red states who are going to say i can't oppose trump. they need to get phone calls otherwise all these confirmations will go -- >> heitkamp, manchin. let's talk about the six people at one time. how are democrats deciding how to apportion their time if they have to deal with tillerson, day vos, et cetera, all at the same time? >> they're scrambling. feinstein wants to grill mike pompeo as the cia director. she may have to choose between going to her own hearing and talking to him about torture. as you made the point earlier, barack obama's cabinet was by and large senators, known quantities, eric holder had just been confirmed for a job two years before so he'd been vetted already. there are a lot of people with years and years of vetting. these people are brand new to the jobs they're going to do and a lot of them want to dismantle the agencies they're supposed to lead and protect so there are a lot of questions, there's a lot that remains unknown nobody to my knowledge has completed their senate disclosers so you're
supposed to have time to look at it, have your staff look at it, talk it over, think about what you're going to ask. they'll get this stuff the night before so democrats are scrambling. they're angry but they're hanging tough. i'm impressed? >> jason? >> joy, how many times can you apply for a job of importance without filling out the application? half of these people haven't filled out the application so the democrats have to play whack a mole with all these people going through. one example, the education pick. this is someone -- there are so many different issues connected because now we have criminal justice with education, now we have school violence in education, she doesn't have any history on these issues and i know some school choice advocates think you're going to end up in dead poets's society and it will be nice but this requires work. i hope the democrats can lay out a plan where even if a lot of these people get through, they can put out the message, hey, we stood tough when these people
thing 1, news today donald trump is scheduled to meet tomorrow with the editors of the conde naste media empire. surprisingly, one of the people who's expected to be included in the meeting is "vanity fair" editor grayden carter, a man long considered one of trump's oldest rivals. trump and carter have openly feuded with one another since the 1980s when a young carter writing for "spy" magazine dubbed the real estate mogul "a short fingered vulgarian." that was ignited recently when another writer for "vanity fair" gave a scathinreview of trump's midtown manhattan
restaurant that prompted trump to kweet "as anyone looked at the poor numbers of "vanity fair" magazine in way down, big trouble, dead. gray don carter, no talent, will be out." despite that, other journalists showed up at trump grill to confirm the quality of the food and drink was horrible, which is how we got this photo from the daily beast olivia nuzzi of a trump grill martini served extra, extra, extra dirty -- on the rocks and in a wine glass. now if that doesn't look appetizing to you, maybe you'd prefer this slightly less disgusting looking drink from trump's cocktail bar in d.c. that is until you hear what it costs. and that is thing 2 in 60 seconds.
himself after chef jose andres backed out of a deal to open a restaurant in trump's d.c. hotel citing objections to trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric. not to worry, you can eat and drink at trump's d.c. hotel -- if you can afford it. the washingtonian has discovered that the bar in trump's d.c. hotel has raised its drink prices twice since opening last september. so that now the cheapest drink on the menu costs a whopping $24. now if you're wondering what's the most expensive drink on the menu, that distinction belongs to what is essentially a vodka oyster shooter with caviar that clocks in at $100 even. very russian. not a cocktail fan? maybe you'd like to try their finest hungarian wine which they serve by the crystal spoonful. literally by the spoonful. it prices ranging from $15 to $140. not for a glass but a spoonful of wine. hard to imagine anyone spending that much money at any bar but with inauguration day around the corner, i bet there are a few
in 15 days, donald j. trump will become the 45th president of the united states. and politicians are refusing to attend his inauguration and risk flouting years of precedent. so just this week bill and hillary clinton announced that they would be going. the clintons will join george w. bush and his wife laura who cited the chance to "witness the peaceful transfer of power, a hallmark of american democracy." and jimmy carter with his announcement last month was the first former president to rsvp for the inaugural. a few politicians are making other plans. >> i've been to, let me see, two clinton inaugurations. i've been to two of them for bush, two of them for obama. i'm not going to this inauguration. i can't go to this inauguration because he continues to spew hatred, bigotry, and prejudice obvious after he said he was going to bring us all together, he was going to unify us, but
to abrogate this tradition of both parties showing up for the inauguration of the president no matter what party he's in? >> thank you, joy, for having me. let me tell you what my thinking is on this. since the election, donald trump announced on election night that he was going to be a president for all americans and over the past few weeks we have continued to see him building on hateful rhetoric of the campaign and i am hearing from my constituents, whether i meet them in the supermarket, in their living rooms, at large gatherings we've had at churches and universities true fear about what is coming from this administration so for this inauguration i believe in the peaceful transition of power, i believe and respect the office of the president but the fear that i'm seeing, the rise in hate crimes and the really continuation of the divisive rhetoric coming out of the president-elect has led me to
believe that my place is not with the pageantry and it is not right at this time to normalize this presidency. >> and you joined john lewis in leading the civil disobedience on the house floor for which the house speaker wants to fine you. do you expect there to be more civil disobedience as trump takes office, including from lawmakers? >> i think we are going to do whatever we can to fight for the american people i think when we are looking at people losing health care. when we are looking at the rise of hate crimes in our communities. when we are seeing nominees who are diametrically opposed to the mission of their agencys there's so much fear and foreboding that i think we will do what we can in the minority to make the american people's voices heard here in the capital. >> and what do you say to --
have any of your colleagues on the other side, i should just say, had any comment for you about not coming to the inauguration. >> no. i think people understand this is a personal decision for me, that i think reflects what i'm hearing from my constituents and i know many of my colleagues across the aisle did not attend barack obama's. but i see this as very different because this is a continuation of the divisive and hateful rhetoric and i know that many of us are concerned about what we're seeing from the president-elect, whether it's his unwillingness to divest from his business interests and put america's interest first or whether it's his critique of our intelligence agencies and the public servants, the men and women who work for us so hard and choosing foreign powers over our own intelligence agencies. these are the issues that have led to my decision and it's one i have that great support from my district on.
>> and very quickly, a lot of people have been saying to me, i'm sure saying to you, they want to know what to do, some action items, things they can do for their own personal resistance that will make them feel they're at least doing something rather than just being sad about the election. very quickly, what would you advice them? >> the number one thing that i here, and i think it's remain vigilant, remain engaged. just this week with the thousands of phone calls americans put into the republican majority in the house saying do not do away with the independent ethics oversight. the republicans changed course because of the public pressure and that's what i'm urging all americans to watch, remain vigilant and remain engaged. this is your government. >> indeed. indeed, congresswoman katherine clark, thank you so much for joining us and kudos on that great civics lesson for us, thank you very much. >> thank you, joy. that's "all in" for this evening, the rachel maddow show starts right now.
that was a tongue twister. katherine clark was great. >> she was great and the rachel maddow does start right now, too, so you didn't tongue twist that at all. here i go. >> thank you. and thanks to you at home for starting up and staying with us for the next hour. there's a lot going on tonight. we've got two excellent experienced life-long journalists here tonight as our guests which is really good because this is a night when there seems to be a lot of news breaking into the evening hours. at just about 7:00 eastern time tonight we got a surprise out-of-the-blue announcement that former cia director james woolsey has abruptly quit the donald trump transition team. mr. woolsey had been on the trump transition, we had no advanced word that there was anything wrong in that relationship or he might be on his way out. he was on tv as recently as yesterday speaking for the incoming administration, defending them on various matters related to his area of expertise. but for whatever reason abruptly and with n