tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC January 10, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PST
>> son-in-law-turned-trump senior adviser. the implications of jared kushner's new white house job. >> confirmation is going great. and the all-night action to save obamacare with the leader of the democrats. senator chuck schumer and senator cory booker. and is this really why democrats lost? >> there was one performance this year that stunned me. >> the conservative bubble and meryl streep when "all in" starts right now. >> somebody like meryl streep is also inciting people's worst instincts. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes.
in 11 days, donald trump will become president of the united states. now one of the most powerful people in his inner circle and a family member is getting a job at white house. jared kushner, ivanka trump's husband, was just named senior adviser to the president, just about as senior of a role as you can get. it does not require senate confirmation. there is one problem, like his father-in-law, he's a businessman with a lot of potential conflicts. just this weekend, for example, "the new york times" reported on a deal he's been pursing with a major insurer from china, a company's whose ownership is shrouded on mystery. the president and vice president are exempt from conflict of interest laws. for everyone else in the executive branch in the white house, it is a federal crime to reap any personal benefits from government work. kushner's lawyer said he plans
to resign and divest his assets to comply with federal law. it poses unique challenges for the vetting process. some of the nominees are so wealthy, their assets so varied, there are not enough boxes on the standard form for them. now, under a law passed in the wake of the watergate scandal, every cab knit appointee has to by law under go a thorough ethics review. the director of the office of government ethics has to oversee that and many are behind schedule, including several current nominees from president-elect trump with confirmation hearings scheduled this week. haven even completed fbi background checks. in november, e-mails to trump's transition team, the oge director said, "we seem to have lost contact with the trump/pence transition since the
election." when asked about concerns over the vetting process and this week's jammed-pack hearing session, this was the response from majority leader mitch mcconnell. >> all of these procedural complaints are related to their frustration of having not only lost the white house but having lost the senate. i understand that. papers are still coming in and so i'm optimistic that we'll be able to get up to seven nominees on day one, just like we did eight years ago. >> eight years ago when mcconnell was himself, he expressed similar concerns to then majority leader harry reid. chuck schumer read mcconnell's letter aloud on the senate floor. >> we will insist on their fair and consistent application. therefore, prior to considering any time agreements on the floor of any nominee, we expect the following standards to be met. one, the fbi background check is complete and submitted to the committee in time for review and
prior to a hearing being noticed. two, the office of government ethics letter is complete. >> schumer then sent that exact same letter written by mcconnell back to mcconnell. joining me now is senate majority leader chuck schumer. senator, the argument that mitch mcconnell wants to make is they are just trying to get on with the people's business and president obama when he was elected in 2008 and staffing up in 2009, there was a bunch of hearings set that first week. is this fair? is this fair turnabout or is there something different happening this time around? >> oh, way different, chris. the bottom line is, senator mcconnell sent that letter to harry reid, the one i read on the floor and as you probably
noted i just crossed out the name harry reid and put in mitch mcconnell and then crossed out the signatory which was then mitch mcconnell and put in my name. but the difference, the major difference is all of the obama nominees complied with mcconnell's request and that's how they got through quickly. a large percentage, the majority of these nominees has not complied with this request and these nominees demand it even more so. first, there are a huge number of billionaires. second, a huge number of people with all kinds of complicated business relationships, devos, for instance, has ownership interests in 600 corporations. and third, a whole lot of these nominees have spent their life campaigning and proposing things, the opposite of what trump said, the most notorious probably is price, who spent his life trying to destroy medicare and trump said he's not going to change it. so these cry out for hearings. not six at once, two hours each,
you know, and then we're finished. the american people demand to know who these people are and to take a few extra days for each of them when they could be in power for four years and have huge power over our lives, it's not at all a close question. >> so i want to separate out two issues here because i'm fairly astounded by each. let's start with the government ethics, the oge review. >> yes. >> this was put in place for a very good reason. after watergate. >> yep. >> it also seems to me, almost in the interests of the nominees themselves insofar as they were going to expose themselves to criminal liability under criminal statutes if they run afoul of these laws. >> exactly right. and it would be in the interest of the trump administration and the republican leadership to have this done. but there's a certain sort of casualness, a certain sort of we
can play by different rules than anybody else that seems to have enveloped this administration and now it's seeping in to the republican leadership. but you're exactly right. the one nominee who was similar to some of these nominees under president obama, penny prikser, a billionaire, took six months before she could file the papers and then you have to develop a plan and if you don't, the liabilities that you speak to there could hold. >> so then there's fbi background checks, which is more astounding to me. i watched this up close back in 2009 when i was in d.c. and watched the transition take place. >> this is just -- >> has this ever happened before? >> no. it's not even close. look, in the old days when there was bipartisanship, they'd take all of the nominees and just push them all through but the -- that hasn't happened in a very long time because we're ethnically much more aware and
serious. and it hasn't -- no administration has come close to this. and the surprise to me is that my republican colleagues are just going right along. >> so just to be clear, fbi background checks are done in which they are quite thorough and people if you know anyone who has ever worked at any level, federal high in the federal government happens, it's intended to make sure someone doesn't have blackmail and could be a target for an agent. >> right. >> are they really going to just push people through to some of the most powerful positions in the u.s. government without an fbi background check or did they say they are getting to them? >> well, they say they are getting to it but they want to have the hearings. it's sort of like alice in wonderland. first the verdict and then the trial and they say don't worry, in due time they will be completed. that's ridiculous. the purpose of the hearings is to use these reports and these
checks to ask the nominee questions, not in a quiet, dark room where no one else is but before the american people. >> is it standard, again, when you're reading the mcconnell letter, my understanding is typically the way it goes is, once the fbi check is completed and the vet is completed, the content of that reporting in private sessions with members of the committee who could then review it as part of the material that they have to enter into the hearing with. >> that correct. and, in fact, most administrations want these reviews done before they even nominate the person so they shouldn't be embarrassed. >> okay. so you're the leader of the democrats in the senate. you guys have 48 votes. so you can -- you don't have a majority of power but the minority in the senate have some power. >> we do. >> other than sort of trolling mitch mcconnell with a letter, what do you have to hold this up?
>> well, we don't have the power to prevent the hearings from happening although again the republicans are making a shambles of the rule. the tradition, not a rule, you don't schedule the hearing until they agree and they've trampled all over that. the one thing we do have is the ability still to demand 30 hours for each nominee on the floor. and those 30 hours -- let's say there are 15 cabinet nominees. that's 450 hours. if you work 24/7, it would still take three weeks to it. we don't want to have that. we want to have full and fair hearings once the information is available but people know in the backs of their minds, if we don't get that, we have the ability to slow things down as we -- and there's good reason to do it because different bits of information may come out while this process is unfolding. >> you refer to the 30 hours.
i remember interviewing harry reid when he was senate majority leader back in 2009, and my understanding is that mitch mcconnell did exactly do that with quite a number of nominees. in fact, the sort of staffing process slowed to a halt, particularly on judicial nominees. >> absolutely. >> but this was not something that they were reticent to use back in 2009. >> absolutely. the process that everyone saw with merrick garland saw with hundreds of nominees and obviously we have the ability to do that, not just with the cabinet secretaries but with all of their deputies and appointees. we don't want to do it but if they are forcing us to do it by rolling over the process -- >> so what's the trigger? >> is the information available, do the nominees have hearings where there's extensive rounds of questioning where there's time to question them and come back for another round. ironically, although happily for us, the very same things mcconnell asked for in 2009.
that's why the letter is sort of getting a lot of attention right now. >> you tonight will be in the senate along with your colleagues in the democratic party in the senate. there's the cots reallied out all night talking about the affordable care act and the problem with a repeal with a delay. i want to ask you the same question here, what is the concrete plan to make sure that the tens of millions of people who are benefiting from the affordable care act are not thrown out in the cold? >> we've told our republican colleagues, if you're going to repeal it, you own it. you come up with the alternative and our republican colleagues know there are lots of good things in thaca, the 20 million people covered,
pre-existing conditions, a kid has cancer and the insurance company can't kick the kids off the insurance and treating women equally, the list goes on and on. the republicans themselves know to get rid of all of those things will hurt them so what they are trying to do is come up with a way to both repeal the aca and save the good things. it's virtually impossible. when they were out of power, they could vote to repeal. i think they did it 49 times. now they have responsibility and they don't know what to do. they're like the dog who caught the bus. my prediction here is there's a chance, not a majority chance but a decent chance that they are not going to be able to pass a repeal of aca because they don't -- they are going to have enough people who either don't want the consequences of repeal or who they believe for budget deficit reasons they don't want to do it. so they are in real trouble and they are squirming and squirming. in fact, senator corker introduced an amendment that said let's delay repeal so we can come up with a
free-up some of donald trump's policies. cory booker and his bill to oppose any registry for muslim that. that's after this two-minute break. the democratic strategy for legislation opposition appears to be, as you just heard from chuck schumer, to be coming into focus. they will attempt to appeal obamacare and fire a warning shot and democrats introduced legislation led by senator liz wet warren that would push trump to shed any financial investments that would be a conflict of interest, like his
son-in-law will have to do. cory booker introduced a law that would block the establishment of a registry of people based on their religion, race, age and that's in response to the fact that trump said he supported the muslim registry in america. >> there should be a lot of systems beyond databases. we shid have a lot of systems and today you can do it. but we have to have a border, strength, we have to have a wall and we cannot let what is happening to this country happen -- i would certainly implement that. absolutely. >> how do you get the muslims registered? >> it would be good management. what you have to do is good management procedures and we can do that. >> good management. since then, the trump campaign has denied that president-elect ever supported a muslim registry.
but he was asked about a ban on muslim immigration last month. >> what is going on is terrible. >> has it caused you to rethink or re-evaluate your plans for a muslim registry in the united states? >> you've known my plans all along and what's happening is disgraceful. >> joining me now, senator cory booker, democrat from new jersey. senator, let me start with the legislation you propose, a pre-emptive block on this idea. is this politics? is this something you want to sort of put a stake in the ground from a symbolic standpoint or do you generally fear something like this could come to pass? >> i'm genuinely concerned. president obama came into office and took the mechanism that was established in the bush
administration to register people by their national origin. there was 25 countries there, all muslim countries. they had to register with a mechanism that is still there even though obama did not use it. i want to get rid of that mechanism. we cannot go back to that country that discriminates against people because of their race, religion, country of origin or what have you. listening to trump's rhetoric, i'm going to believe him when he tells us what he wants to do. >> there seems to be a philosophy of sort of these two forces, you know, bearing towards each other right now. on one side you have the incoming trump administration which is approaching things with a blitz creed approach, the talk about repeal very quick, all of these nominees scheduled before they have fbi background checks, democrats trying to sort of concretely show what they stand for. what is your personal philosophy on how to conduct yourself as a memberf e u.s. senate in
terms of being in the opposition? >> well, look, at the end of the day, right now i am in a state of grave concern. president-elect trump was elected and, sure, there was some hopes that i would have that he'd come to the presidency with a willingness to reach across the aisle but if you look at his rhetoric since elected, it is far to the right that we've seen in a long time and the appointment that he's making to the epa, to even the jeff sessions nomination and all that he's done and stood for on lgbt issues, police accountability issues, it puts me in a posture where i'm willing to fight and resist anything that trump does to try to hurt people. >> concretely, let me interject there, does that mean voting against jeff sessions, your former colleague? does that mean pushing the democratic leadership team to
demand these 30 hours to extend this process? what does it mean concretely? >> i'm breaking a pretty long senate tradition by being a sitting senator testifying against another sitting senator. i think these are extraordinary times and they call for extra other neard measures. >> you'll be testifying against your former colleague jeff sessions tomorrow in that hearing? >> i'll be testifying against my current colleague either tomorrow or wednesday. >> and what provoked you to do that, given the fact that that is a violation of what had been a long-standing tradition? >> well, look, we've seen already in this country that we are at a strike point around issues of policing, around issues of civil rights, around issues of being lesbian equality within our country. and we've seen consistently jeff sessions as senator jeff sessions voting against everything from the matthew
shepherd act, speaking out against keep ideals around the voting rights act, taking measures to try to block criminal justice reform. he has a posture and a positioning that i think represent a real danger to our country. and even nations. take those libertarians out there that are happy that states are doing things with marijuana reform. please understand that every state that has medical marijuana or even looking to legalize is in violation of federal law. the obama administration chose not to enforce that and the next administration could change their position and literally drag people to federal court who are participating in those state legal activities. there's a whole spectrum of things of jeff sessions own words that are a threat to people in this country and it's something that i feel necessary to do everything i can to speak out against. >> senator cory booker, thank you for your time tonight. really appreciate it. >> thank you. ahead, the hypocrisy of mitch mcconnell and how tearing down political norms has been
senator republicans led by mitch mcconnell spent nearly ten months last year refusing to consider president obama's nomination of merrick garland to fulfill a vacancy. yet when chuck schumer suggested that democrats can take a strong stand against the supreme court seat, a seat only opened because of mcconnell's remarkable refusal to appoint the nominee, mcconnell had this to say. apparently there's a new standard now which is to not confirm a supreme court nominee at all. i think that's something the american people simply will not
tolerate. >> that is mitch mcconnell in a nutshell. when president obama was entering office, he demanded there be no hearings until fbi and background checks were complete. now he's scheduling it before the background checks are done. under president obama, mcconnell was complaining about the imperial president obama. now he's using his power to limit senate consideration of the executive branch nominees, structuring the hearings to keep them briefer than usual. simultaneous hearings on cabinet nominees make it physically impossible for most of us on multiple committees to advise and consent. "brian schatz said, "add to that the lack of a full disclosure of standard ethics information and
years ago when president obama turned to tom daschle to lead his effort to pass health care law, nominating daschle to run the health and human services. it did not go well. >> the man who was supposed to tackle health care, tom daschle. >> i deeply apologize. >> took himself out of the running for secretary of health and human services. for the former senate majority leader, it's an enormous fall from grace. to the man from south dakota who bragged in a campaign chergs years ago that he still drove his old broken down car was caught not paying taxes on a car he been riding around in for years. >> it was a relatively minor infraction but many believed it has massive implications for how the health care law turned out. now mitch mcconnell wants to
change the vetting process, including holding confirmation hearings before background checks are complete. joining me now is michael steele and rebecca tracer. michael, there's no first order of defense, it seems to me, of having hearings before a background check is completed. >> the process is a process. it is designed for a reason. every administration, regardless of party, ideology and all of that has subscribed to this because it's an orderly way to get through the transition. >> i'm glad you said that. one of the things that is strange to me, it's partly for the protection of the administration that's doing the nominating. >> yeah. >> it really is. we don't want to find out two
weeks in that they are really black-mailable because they collected an unsavory enterprise. >> the vetting process in government is designed for a very particular purpose and you just hit it right on the head, to protect the principal, the president, the senator, whoever the head of that office is as they work with these other actors, largely unknown. no matter how close your friends are, everybody has a little skeleton somewhere. >> that's exactly right. >> this process is designed to get at it. if you're comfortable that this cabinet secretary has a relationship with this person or this country or this group, then, fine. you prepare for that. you know it's going to come up in the hearing and you deal with it. but if you're blind-sided because you've ignored the process and then six weeks in, the press doing due diligence exposes that, then what do you do? you have cabinet secretaries that resign. >> it seems to me that you're
making this face that says what is that face? >> the face is, what could possibly be an embarrassment here? what's a skeleton hidden in the closet of a trump administration? every conflict of interest, people working for him, who already has ties to countries that may or may not have taken part in hacking, you know, in trying to influence our election. you know, what is the embarrassment of donald trump? he's open about everything he hasn't done. he's open and proud about setting norms on fire and not just donald trump, mitch mcconnell has already shown us that obstructionist bullying works, that simply not operating according to past norms and it works. we don't have a supreme court justice because -- >> and it worked. it was a brazen play and completely effective. >> it worked. >> michael, this is what is the most interesting part of this story. it's not that the trump folks are doing this because of what rebecca said.
they operate in a post scandal atmosphere. there is no such thing as a scandal for them. it is at some level fascinating to me that mcconnell is doing this. if you look at his opposition years of barack obama, he sees senate norms as no longer binding. >> well, yeah. and i don't know if that's wholly true but it does come off that way and it's disappointing. i've known mitch for a long time and he's really about the institution at the end of the day. he respects it, he expects these -- respects these processes. which is why the backsliding, if you will, in allowing this process to go through without the complete vetting of the candidates -- now, again, chris, this is driven by the administration coming in the door. they want this to happen. >> right. >> i guess mcconnell could say, no, we won't allow this to happen but that's just not how you want to get off in the
relationship with the president. >> that's clearly going to be the case. and to me, i guess, the question is, rebecca, at some level, process complaints are always hypocritical. people end up on either sides of the filibuster debate. i think it's a good thing that the democrats can't filibuster these nominees. i was a principled supporter and i think it's a good thing now. i carry that through. >> i agree with you. >> you agree? >> yes, i do. >> but the political argument has to be more than just hypocrisy. it's got to be about what the stuff is. >> yeah, what the issues are. >> yeah, what is going to happen. >> so the issue that -- cory booker just said look at the epa nominee. these are going to have very real consequences very soon and the area that i've been looking at is the area of reproductive health care and access.
you have somebody like tom price, one of the most voiciferous of contraceptive coverage, he's going to be jammed down through this confirmation process -- >> he's someone who has passed all of these as a sitting member of congress. >> right. but the actual -- >> hold on, michael. >> the implication of that, even without the full repeal of aca, he's going to be able to reverse the contraception mandate and put somebody in charge of title 10, public funding for family planning. this has real-life consequences and they are going to happen soon. >> and michael, i know you want to get in there, but that is where the substance of these hearings always end up. >> yeah. >> the qualifications of the nominee and then straight up what the agenda is. >> well, one has nothing to do
with the other because everything that rebecca just described while i understand and appreciate it will have no bearing on the outcome. what could have a bearing on the outcome. >> on whether he is -- >> right. tom price will be the sect secretary of health and human services. no bearing on the outcome. i understand how you feel, but that's the reality. but the other truth -- and this gets to the heart of the segment is, why would you risk tom price using him as an example, you say he's already been vetted so he'll probably be cleared. why would you risk these other nominees because of something in their background that you did not take the time to go through
and get -- >> that's true exactly. >> to get an answer for and get ahead of before the hearing. >> although, and here is the unifying theory, which is if you go back to the tom daschle example that we started with, and tom is watching this like, how did that happen? how did i -- this guy released his taxes. daschle was shamed into withdrawing. >> that's right. >> if he hadn't been ashamed, if the administration said, we don't care, maybe he gets confirmed and ultimately that -- if you take that approach, we're going to see how far that gets you. michael steele, rebecca traister, thank you for being with me. up next, meryl streep's golden globe speech last night. and then side by side, their new venture, voicing dissent in the trump era. "thing 1" and "thing 2" is right after the break. (vo) if you have type 2 diabetes,
you may know what it's like to deal with high... and low blood sugar. januvia (sitagliptin) is a once-daily pill that, along with diet and exercise, helps lower blood sugar. januvia works when your blood sugar is high and works less when your blood sugar is low, because it works by enhancing your body's own ability to lower blood sugar. plus januvia, by itself, is not likely to cause weight gain or low blood sugar (hypoglycemia). januvia should not be used in patients with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. tell your doctor if you have a history of pancreatitis. serious side effects can happen, including pancreatitis which may be severe and lead to death. stop taking januvia and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area which may be pancreatitis. tell your doctor right away and stop taking januvia if you have an allergic reaction that causes swelling of the face, lips, tongue, or throat, or affects your breathing or causes rash or hives. kidney problems sometimes requiring dialysis have been reported. some people may develop severe joint pain.
call your doctor if this happens. using januvia with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. to reduce the risk, your doctor may prescribe a lower dose of the sulfonylurea or insulin. your doctor may do blood tests before and during treatment to check your kidneys. if you have kidney problems a lower dose may be prescribed. side effects may include upper respiratory tract infection, stuffy or runny nose, sore throat, and headache. for help lowering your blood sugar talk to your doctor about januvia.
but all of that change apparently couldn't come fast enough for the president-elect of the united states who said today, "it's finally happening. fiat chrysler just announced to invest in michigan and ohio's plants." you may assume that trump himself had something to did with the fiat jobs. the real reason those jobs are staying is more interesting and that's "thing 2" in 60 seconds. some news outlets made the mistake of crediting donald if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz.
before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz. some news outlets made the mistake of crediting donald trump for fiat chrysler's big announcement that they'd be investing $1 billion in michigan and ohio plants. this is the final stage of a plan first announced long ago as fiat chrysler spokesperson told think progress, this plan was in the works back in 2015. this announcement was just final
confirmation. and while trump himself doesn' deserve any credit, fiat chrysler did not make the decision on their own. part of the reason is that the united union made this part of their contract negotiations in the previous year. that's right, unions. not donald trump's tweets, are responsible for these new jobs in america. donald trump thanked fiat in his tweet but to paraphrase an old saying, if you like those jobs, thank the union.
ever since donald trump won the election, there's a running joke that's developed that every liberal access, every example of big-city con den sengs is why trump won. meghan mccain said, "this meryl streep is why trump won." what she was tweeting about was a very famous actress giving a political speech at an award show but this is what she said about president-elect donald trump. >> there was one performance this year that stunned me.
it sank its hoofs in my heart. not because it was good. there was nothing good about it but it was effective and it did its job. it made its intended audience laugh and show their teeth. it was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter, someone he outranked in privilege, power and the capacity to fight back. it -- it kind of broke my heart when i saw it and i still can't get it out of my head because it wasn't in a movie. it was real life. and this instinct to humiliate when it's modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody's life because it kind of gives permission for other
people to do the same thing. disrespect invites disrespect. violence incites violence. when the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose. >> calling out trump's behavior, streep was saying that people should be treated with dignity and respect cht the great thing about our constitution, one of the many great things in a free democracy like ours, you don't have to shut up when your candidate loses. that goes for everybody. even when the candidate that you like wins, you can still speak up. we'll talk to obama's speechwrer, next.
i really wish he would have said, i don't like the election results but he's our president and we're going to support him. i'm concerned that somebody with a platform like meryl streep is also, i think, inciting people's worst instincts when she won't get up there and say, i didn't like it but let's try to support him and see where we can find some common ground with him, which he actually has done from moment one. >> trump senior's adviser kellyanne conway. and there is a new website launched crooked media, and pod save america. very well done, gentlemen. >> thanks. >> so i basically am 90% in agreement that this is why trump won thing is ridiculous. >> sure. that's a good amount. >> but let's talk about the 10% you elitist bubble dwellers. is there some sort of out of
touch problem or is there something to that critique? tell me from los angeles. >> there may be an out of touch problem but someone calling out donald trump for attacking a disabled reporter, i don't see that as elitist. >> we were just talking about this at our house. >> that joke is so elitist that one-tenth of 1% of people will get it, just to be clear. >> i know. >> i'm out of touch and i don't care. i li in l.a. and it's fantastic. no, but look, the thing that is ridiculous, there's all of these people -- we had this conversation before. >> a million times. >> a million times and people think it's a smart little moment for them to, i don't know, be a tribune for the working men, when will these out of touch hollywood liberals get it. >> it's d.c. republicans. >> it's absurd because, by the way, they don't want these people to be more in touch. what are you complaining about? what are you -- it's ridiculous.
it was a fine speech. come on. >> and it was a call for a decency empathy and respect. i guess the broader question here is, there is this really, to me, interesting conversation i've watched take shape among the broad center-left about what's the most effective means of sort of opposing donald trump. and what worked and what didn't in the campaign and i think those conversations get a little screwy because people are conflating their first order of commitments with their tactical assessments. that's said, what do you learn from the election about that? >> i don't think meryl streep's sfeech is winning us any elections but at the end of the day, a large group of voters who didn't like donald trump and didn't like hillary clinton but said, you know, what i think that donald trump is new and might be different and he might change my life and improve it in some small way and she seems
like she's been there a while so even though she says crazy things, i'll go with him. it wasn't like, i'm really pissed that lena dunham was giving speeches for hillary clinton. >> let's worry less about these kind of signals and worry a bit more about policies, nuts and bolts about the ways the federal government are affecting actual people in their actual lives and focus on that. but like, look, donald trump is appealing to people for a lot of atavistic -- >> there you go. >> straight from holly weird. >> on top of that, he resonated with people. >> this is an interesting point because to me it really was a
kind of -- to me, you both work for our current president, president obama, as speech waters and there seems to be a bed rock, the president was in the room when i said this, basically, you get the substance right and the politics flow from that. if you get it right on the ground, then the politics float from that. and i think that was kind of the bed of this election in some ways. he's got a high approval rating. unemployment rate is half of what it was. the wages are growing. he's going to give this big speech tomorrow, this farewell address.
like, what do you say about what has happened substantively and what happened in the election and how those two connect to each other? >> i don't think he'll cover too much of that ground because it's looking background. the tradition of a farewell address is the president usually gives some sort of a warning or talks about the challenges that the nation faces ahead. i think for president obama, one of the topics he'll be talking about is what he covered in the convention speech and this last summer, which is what democracy requires and citizenship requires and it requires us to live in the same reality, believe the same sort of facts, argue about things intensely but still sort of somehow find a way forward together. so i think that's -- that will be his focus in this speech tomorrow night. >> and, of course, making clear that he's not leaving.
>> well, that's -- not moving out. on that score, jon, can you imagine -- like, can you imagine him -- there is a norm, there is a tradition that you show a lot of deference and george w. bush refrained from criticizing barack obama a lot and disappeared from the scene. can you imagine barack obama to violate that and be an outspoken critic? >> i don't think barack obama will be out there every day criticizing donald trump and he said this, too, if really serious norms and principles and values are violated, he'll be a citizen and probably will say something. so i don't think he'll be out there every day on cable shows hitting donald trump but i think if things -- you know, if -- i think he'll speak out if something serious happens. >> we've got him pencilled in as the a-block guest all week. he'll be on crooked media. jon, thank you for being here. >> thanks, chris. that is "all in." we have a special edition of the show tomorrow night leading up to that aforementioned president obama's farewell address, msnbc will carry that speech live. stay tuned for that and for special coverage on "the rachel maddow show" and speaking of the very same rachel maddow, that show starts right now. >> missed you terribly while you were away last week. >> thank you. that is very kind. i did miss you. >> oh, don't be weird.
>> i missed you and my lovely staff and the crew here. >> are you feeling liken ner jazzed like, i was made for this, this is the best time to be on tv? that way at the end of this hour of television. >> we have the best jobs in the world but there has never been a better time to have this job than right now. >> i agree. thanks for joining us at home. i'm happy that you are here as well. he first ran for congress in 1978, the republican held that speech for a couple of terms was leaving to make room for the senate and it resulted in a very close election to replace that guy. it could not have been closer. that house race, 1978, ended up getting decided by 139 votes. but at the end of it in that unbelievably close election, the guy who ended up going to washington was this guy. and when he ran for re-election,