tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC June 26, 2017 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT
as "the new york times" documented yesterday, "since he took office as president, donald trump told an untruth every single one of his first 40 days as president. this deluge on untrue statements should have driven all of us into our boats like noah. waiting for the high sea level to drain from the city." that's the fact we haven't been able to handle yet, what do you do with a president whom basic human truth telling doesn't actually click? that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in." >> what's going to happen? people will die by the thousands. >> the clock is ticking on the senate health care bill. as the cbo estimates 22 million people will lose their insurance. >> the plan in its entirety will absolutely bring premiums down. >> no one loses coverage. >> these are not cuts to medicate. >> tonight, the lies being used to rush the bill through the senate, and the chances of it actually passing this week. then, the supreme court
rules on the travel ban. and as the president lashes out against the russia investigation, does this new talking point seem preemptive? >> what crime? >> right. >> can anybody identify the crime? collusion, it's not a crime. >> when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. the senate health care bill at this hour is in trouble. after being crafted in secret, the bill has finally been forced out into the open as republicans try to pass it before they lee for recess at the end of this week. every day the bill spends in the glare of public attention, the more criticism it attracts from just about every direction. tonight, democrats are planning to hold the senate floor late into the night to protest the republican bill which is headed for a vote with zero hearings and very little debate. senate democrats are the least of the bill's problems. within the last hour or so, republican senator susan collins said she would vote against the bill in a crucial test vote.
and after the nonpartisan congressional budget office released its highly anticipated analysis of the bill, which finds if this bill passed, 22 million more people would be uninsured by 2026 compared to current law. that includes 15 million more people just next year, including 4 million with employment sp sponsored insurance. average premiums in the individual market would spike in the nexts couple years. while premiums are projected to decrease starting in 2020, the crucial detail is this, deductibles and other out of pocket expenses would rise. cbo score isn't likely to comfort any of the republican senators sitting on the fence. and the senate bill's problems don't end there. the bill is meeting resistance at the state level with the bipartisan national governors' association calling on senate majority leader mitch mcconnell to slow down what has been an astonishingly rushed process. the national association of
medicaid directors, a bipartisan organization, of state medicaid agencies, called the bill's changes to the program, quote, unworkable. meanwhile, a number of major health care industry groups have come out against the bill including the american medical association, which represents the nation's doctors. ama wrote in a letter to senate leadership, "medicine has long operated under the precept of first do no harm, the draft legislation violates that standard on many levels." american hospital association announced its opposition to the bill, and according to the president of america's essential hospitals, a coalition of hospitals that treat low-income patients, "this bill will close hospitals. it will hammer rural hospitals. it will close nursing homes. it will lead to disabled children not getting services. people will die." after writing the bill in secret, proponents in the senate and the trump administration now appear to be trying to bluff their way through this one week of public scrutiny. without having a real discussion about what the bill would
actually do. instead of defending the legislation on the merits, they're attempting to mislead the public. >> the system, the plan that we have, would put in place, would not allow individuals to fall through the cracks, we would not pull the rug out from under anybody. we would not have individuals lose coverage that they want for themselves and for their family. >> these are not cuts to medicaid, george. we don't see them as cuts. it's slowing the rate of growth in the future and getting medicaid back to where it was. obamacare expanded the fool of medicaid recipients beyond its original intentions. >>vy i have to strongly disagree with the characterization we're somehow ending the medicaid expansion. in fact, quite the contrary. the senate bill will codify and make permanent the medicaid expansion. >> late tonight republican susan collins said she would not vote on the motion for the senate bill to proceed. nevada's dean heller came out against the current version of the bill even before the cbo score came out. specifically citing those med kale cuts.
four other senators opposed to the bill from the right, arguing it doesn't go far enough in rolling back the affordable care act. some of those senators could change their minds. republicans can only afford to lose two votes and still pass the bill. according to gop leadership, that first test vote could come as soon as tomorrow. i asked democratic senator sherrod brown if he's having conversations with his fellow ohio senator rob portman about where he stands on this senate health care bill. >> just a little bit. we talk more about things we can work together to make happen in the state. we think very differently on this issue. strong support of the affordable care act. he ran against it in both elections. he was elected to the senate. so we talk about all kinds of ohio-specific issues especially opioid treatment and addiction and what we need to do about it. and that's -- i met with a number of police officers and court officials and treatment people today, both in youngstown today, in cleveland yesterday, a number of people that have gotten clean from their opioid treatment, addiction and
treatment. and they think this is the number-one tool, medicaid is, to fight back against opioid addiction. so, we'll see how that goes, but i think this report today, 15 million people just like that lose their insurance, hundreds of thousands of those in ohio, and that 15 untmillion is a combined population of my state and senator mcconnell's state, kentucky. that's how many people will lose insurance immediately, not to mention the tax breaks to the insurance industry, the people that helped senator mcconnell write the bill. so it's pretty outrageous, it's pretty morally rep herehensible what they're doing. >> you're going to run in a state in 2018 that donald trump won. the politics of this couldn't be clearer for you. this is an easy call. your beliefs aside. because of what the bill's going to do. i mean, it's just remarkable to me that anyone thinks there's political upside here. >> well, i don't know -- i think they -- i guess they believe -- they've been saying repeal and replace for so many years it's
become a mantra to them. the house did it, what, 55 times, something like that. i think you can -- human mind can convince itself of what it wants. i don't think many house and senate members are getting out listening to the public. you know, lincoln used to say, go out and get public opinion baths. the party of lincoln hasn't learned much from lincoln going out and listening to voters. withdrew you go out, there's overwhelming opposition. the young man no who works my phones, he got one call for the repeal, literally hundreds against. that's why i ask people to come to sherrodbrown.com. sign my physician. >> all right. senator sherrod brown of ohio, thanks for your time. >> chris, thank you. thank you. >> joinedmy francis rooney, republican from florida, who voted for the house health care repeal bill. congressman, i want to start on process just because the house was criticized for a rush
process. this is a bill that was written in secret, it's going to have a lot of effects whether positive or negative and there's one week of public debate. how is that justifiable given the stakes here? >> you know, there's been so much thought written and talked about about this disastrous obamacare for the past eight years that it's kind of uniquely positioned to be acted on pretty quickly and simply. >> right. >> i can't imagine there could be any new news about what to do here. >> why would you keep the legislative language secret and only show it to people for a week? if that's the case, if you feel like you guys have the better part of this argument, you feel strongly about this, which clear lou you clea clearly you do, you voted on it. lots of people feel that way. why not have one hearing, a markup, all the normal things you folks do to legislate things? >> i can't really speak for the senate and the time constraints that they're operating under. i don't know what they've been talking about behind closed doors or otherwise before the bill got -- >> isn't that strange?
>> well, there's a lot of strange things up here in this swamp, let me assure you. >> people are watching, they're saying to themselves, look, obviously you feel strongly that the affordable care act's a bad deal for americans, there are lots of people who feel that way on capitol hill. you know, you show the cards. you have markups, hearings, say this is legislation we're going to produce, you go out, make the argument. that process has been so lacking on the senate side, it leaves a lot of people scratching their head about what they're hiding. >> i tell you, my job is to represent southwest florida and be the best republican member i can be. i think we did a good job of a transparent process, there wer a lot of amendments, a lot of changes were made. there was no secrecy. and i'm fully comfortable with the work that the house did for the american people. >> the funniest part about this, they're going to make you vote on the senate bill. you realize that, right? they're going to bring that thing over and jam it down the house caucus' throat and this process is going to be your process because you and the house are going to have to own it. >> well, i don't know that --
isn't there something called a, like, a compromise committee or something when two different bill are different -- >> yes, the conference committee. they're going to bypass it and make you, sir, going to make you vote for this thing. >> oh, i didn't know about that. i'll check into that. i don't do well with people trying to make me do anything. let me assure you. >> let me ask you this. on the substance of this legislation, the cbo report is out today. the reason i think it's relevant, the noise is about evading a conference committee, so this sort of ends up in your ambit, as it were. you got the cbo saying in the report, look, the problem that people point to about the affordable care act, insurers leaving private marketplaces, nongroup marketplaces, that problem will exist and continue to exist even if this bill is passed. it doesn't seem to solve the fundamental problem that folks point to about the affordable care act. >> well, see, that's where we have a bit of a philosophical disagreement. i believe in the free market system and that if we are able to isolate the extremely high risks off to the side, if we
were able to offer tax credits that allow people that aren't on group plans to buy coverage in a competitive environment, that they're going to have terms and deductibles that are reasonable for them. that's what the free market should do. >> right. the cbo says that the majority of folks will pay more out of pocket for health care if this bill is bapassed. >> well -- sorry. >> that is not what the president of the united states promised people. >> yeah, but the cbo is nothing but a bunch of voodoo economics. look how wrong they were on the number of folks that were going to be covered under obamacare. they missed it by 120%. they said we were going to be growing over 3% for the past 6 years and we haven't -- >> i want to be clear here, it seems like lthere's a tension between the arguments made for the bill. tom price appointed the than who runs the cbo. i imagine you think he isn't a shil, you think they're getting it wrong, right? >> what i've been led to understand, "the wall street journal"'s written about this, peter orszag, when head of omb, devised a model and the model is a status model that doesn't give credit for any modification of
behavior for a free market system. >> here's my question. one is, look, we believe in a free narcotic systmarket system market system is going to have winners and losers like any market does. things are expensive, you can buy them, things are not, you don't make enough money, you can't buy them. we believe in a free market system. the other is this idea that everyone is going to better off, that's the argument tom price has made, the argument the president has promised, everyone will be better off. you would agree that can't be possible, right? there's going to be losers here. >> i would agree everyone is going g be bto be better off ths insurance that will be replacing the exchanges because the exchanges are a dismal fail wur. it's going to be up to the states to figure out how much medicaid they want to pay for. >> i want to be clear on this, i want to make sure i understand where you're coming from on the cbo. >> sure. >> the cbo says many people will pay much more money out of pocket for worse health insurance in the individual
exchanges under this plan. and that is clearly the architecture of the bill. that's not, like, voodoo economics. the bill is clear about that. >> well, no, what they're not assuming is that the competitive market will work to drive down premiums and deductibles by bringing more insurers into these markets. >> congressman francis rooney, thanks for making some time tonight. >> thanks for having me on. i'm joined by phillip klein, managing editor of "the washington examiner," julie rogenr, chief correspondent for kaiser health news. julie, i want to start with you, you've been covering health care for a while on the hill, covered several rounds of this. what is your imfregs of where the state of may is right now on this legislation? >> well, on the one hand, i think it's a very uphill battle as we've been hearing. for senator mcconnell to get 50 votes for this bill. we got a couple of firm nos. one more would theoretically sink it. on the other hand, a lot of people should not underestimate senator mcconnell and the other thing he has to work with is almost $200 billion that the senate will would save over and
above who the house bill would save. this is the beginning of the negotiating for some of these sn senators who've been saying they're going to hold out but not necessarily vote no. >> right. there's two wings, there's heller and collins, the quote/unquote, moderate. phillip, i want to talk about lee and rand paul, particularly. both saying they're not going to vote for the motion to proceed tomorrow which is a big deal. what their demands are and how gettable you think they are. >> i think it's going to be tough because, remember, the house bill as passed made a lot -- in that bill, conservatives naemade a lot of concessions on the regulatory front, on the spending front and the senate bill moved further to the left and there's -- the cbo confirmed today that there's more spending and more taxes in that bill, so as julie said, right now, mitch mcconnell has
some money to play with it try to woo centrists but pumping more money into the bill just risks alienating the conservatives. >> well, it also seems to me they want something like the macarthur amendment in the house, the offer of a state waiver to waive what are both ideologically central forms of regulation and also quite politically popular. do you think that, philip, is what they're looking for here? >> i think there's more to that. i mean, keep in mind, this is a bill where to conservatives the big pitch is that it reforms medicaid but the big medicaid changes don't really start to hat happen until the next decade. it's not until the middle of the next decade that they're phased in. a lot of it is -- what is going to happen to really lower premiums and to try to give more assurance that entitlement reform is going to happen? i think that's the biggest central problem here is that
conservatives such as myself have been arguing with sort of less conservative republicans for years about trying to repeal and replace obamacare, and the argument that we always get back is, well, you know, it's not going to be politically palatable palatable if we get a crappy cbo score that says we lose all sorts of come raj and people are going to get thrown off of medicaid. well, to me -- >> that's where you are. >> yeah, they've spent a trillion dollars of obamacare money and that's where they are. >> this is a -- >> so the -- if i -- yeah. >> a great point about this, philip tox philip, to go to julie on this, the build is, it's a weird frankenstein monster that doesn't do anything that either sort of wing really likes and still has generated all these extremely negative headlines and i think real substantive risks. i mean, can you imagine, julie, them voting for something that's going to have 50 million people kicked off insurance next year, and raise premiums next year in
2018? >> it is kind of amazing that this is what they've come up with. you know, they've been saying for seven years they want to repeal and replace obamacare, but until now, we had never seen how they would do it. and that's because they haven't been able to agree amongst themselves. that's been kind of the dirty little secret all along, is the only thing they all agreed on is they wanted to repeal and replace obamacare. when you actually get down to doing it, you discover that the republic chance ha republicans have just as many divisions among themselves as the democrats do. >> philip, don't you think there's a problem with the republicans, too, with the process? it seems to any, the reason you have a public process around this is precisely because the politics of it do matter, they matter, the substance, the creation of the thing. this idea you're going to kind of, like, pull one over by getting through the week seems like you are laying land mines for your future self. >> oh, absolutely. i think if you go back and look at the republicans' takeover the house in 2010 and their
subsequent victory, in areas where maybe ideologically it wasn't as much as a slam dunk in terms of the obamacare, the way they were able to win is by getting the votes of independents on the process ground. the idea that -- >> right. >> -- it was, you know, scott brown was able to win in a state that obama had carried by 26 points a little over a year earlier in early 2010 and a lot of the focus was the idea of the sort of washington behind closed door backroom dealing. >> right. >> they'd be able to kind of say, of course, i want to, you know, ensure that everyone has decent health coverage but i want to do it in a bipartisan way with real open process, and that was, i think the democrats are probably going to be able to do the same sort of thing against republicans next year. >> and julie, every time that anyone recalls anything from the aca, when you talk about scott brown, that was in november, you talk about those angry speeches that happened on the floor about
the process, those were in january, february, march. a year in. i mean, have you ever seen legislation of this magnitude on this subject year undertake this trajectory process wise ever? >> no, never. i've stood out -- i've saw a lot of closed meetings in the capitol and office buildings but never seen a bill done this way. i've never seen a bill that actually creates more losers than winners. often you get bills that create winners and losers but this really is a bill that helps far fewer people than it would hurt and i think the republicans know that that's what they're resulting in. >> that is the fundamental issue here. phil klein, julie rovner, thank you both. >> thank you. up next, why republicans are being so secretive about what should be their biggest legislative achievement. steve schmidt on the unprecedented hidden process in the senate health care bill after this two-minute break. and i couldn't wait to get my pie chart. the most shocking result was that i'm 26% native american. i had no idea.
deeply bizarre. obamacare act was championed, dozens and dozens of hearings, aims, debates. "the new york times" noted, "the senate finance committee worked on the legislation for eight days, its longest markup in two decades. considered more than 130 amendments and held 79 roll call votes." "the full senate debated the health care bill for 25 straight days." president barack obama even went to the houses republican conference in january 2010 and answered questions about the bill. >> this is a big problem. and all of us are called on to solve it. that's why from the start i sought out and supported ideas from republicans. i even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you which was tort reform and said i'd be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with pre-existinging conditions. that wasn't my idea, it was senator mccain's.
i supported it and it got incorporated into our approach. >> now, contrast that with the secrecy in which senate majority leader mitch mcconnell's cloaked this health care bill and then the mad rush to pass it in a week. every president, every politician at every level, works to sell their policies. they want, usually, attention for their policy priorities because they believe the more people learn, the more people wild agree with them. when george w. bush wanted to partially privatize social security, he went out and he talked to voters at a string of events about his proposals. republicans now are doing the exact opposite. they are doing this because they know that this bill is massively unpopular. they're doing it, anyway. joining me now, republican strategist, msnbc political analyst, steve schmidt. steve, i want to talk to you because you're a veteran of this sort of thing and it really is remarkable, i've never seen anything like it in covering politics from aldermen in chicago up to president of the united states, you know, generally you go and you tell people, we're going to try to do this then you want to have an argument, you know you're going to get criticized and make your case. it just seems to me that in a
very deep, fundamental way, the senate republicans are not even attempting to make the case. they are running away from the case. >> no, very clearly their strategy is that this is very unpopular, and, therefore, the less we talk about it, the less public process there is discussing it, the better off we'll be in the long run and people won't know about it. i think, though, given the magnitude of the parts of the economy that this touches, a sixth of the economy, that health care affects everybody. you know, this strategy is based on a flawed premise. people will know about it. not talking about it, not having hearings, trying to pretend that it's not going on, isn't effective to remedy the unpopularity of it. >> it also seems to any that there's just so little focus on the substance of the matter in terms of what that will mean, so, cbo comes out to say, 15 million people are going to lose
health insurance next year, you know, and premiums are going to go up, what's the republican plan for the what then? you pass this thing, have a big ceremony, made good on your repeal and replace promise, but then you got to go tell people why they don't have insurance anymore. >> look, any complex piece of legislation requires a communication strategy that's able to break down -- >> yep. >> -- the complex components into simple themes that express to the american people this is why this is good, this is why this is going to make your health care better. and if you watch television on this network, on other networks, there's not a single republican -- >> that is right. >> -- who is able to articulate clearly why is this going to make the american health care system better? what's in it for you? how is this going to make your health care better? your sick kids' health care better? and the reality is, it's going to make health care worse and it's going to cost a lot of money to a lot of americans, and
so because there's no good answer, they're hiding out on the process heading into a midterm election year where when you look at all of these special elections, i think the conventional wisdom that says, hey, republicans have been on a streak misses the point. the republicans have been underperforming very badly. their historical vote returns in these special election districts. so republicans should tread very carefully here on something so unpopular affecting so many people heading into the midterm election where there's likely to be a consequence. >> here's the $6 4,000 question for me. i covered the aca and i knew, i talked to democratic legislators who knew they were voting for something that was at the time not popular and could cost them re-election and they basically did it because they believed in the project. for all its flaws, they basically thought, look, this country needs to expand coverage, get toward something of universal health care, i'm willing to do it for that
purpose. what is your understanding of why republicans are doing this? what's the core motivation here to do something that they know is politically unpopular? >> i think it's that same genetic impulse that pulls the lemmings over the cliff one after the other. it's not logical, it's difficult to understand. i mean, when you look at the democratic side and you're exactly right about this, this was the work of generations inside the democratic party. >> right. >> trying to have a national health insurance plan. and many democrats who voted for this laid down their political careers because that's what they believed the right thing to do was and they understood the consequences going in. i think that you could go one by one through these republicans, i don't think any of them could tell you what's actually in the legislation. i don't think they can go particularly deep on it and that's because i don't think anybody's gone particularly deep on it. i think there's a real lack of understanding. i mean, how can anybody, house side, senate side, vote to
reorganize a sixth of the american economy without having a cbo score? without knowing what the cost is? >> a hearing. >> how is that conservative? it's positively radical. >> yeah. steve schmidt. thanks for making time tonight, stooefr. >> you bet. next, the new line of defense against possible russian collusion, not that the president didn't do it, but even if he did, it isn't illegal, anyway. h that after the break.
turn toward, well, what if there was collusion? >> i've been scratching my head about this for months. why quha what is the crime? if the russian kgb chief is talking to paul manafort and the chief says, you know, i got this dirt here that says hillary clinton was this or that. >> there's no evidence. >> and paul manafort says, next wednesday, i want you to release that, that'd be great for us. i don't know that that's a crime at all. what's the crime? >> i said it before, i'll say it again, collusion is not a crime. only in antitrust law. you can collude all you want with a foreign government in an election. there's no such statute. >> they might say as the trump campaign representative, wow, you have that? tell the american people the truth. let mem sthem see it, themselve. release it. is that a crime to release it, it show the truth, show damaging information? >> collusion, obviously would be alarming and highly
inappropriate for the trump campaign, no evidence, by the way, of colluding with the russians, that's not a crime. >> if that sounds convoluted, wait physical yuntil you hear t from the president, himself. that and congressman hynes are next. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months,... with reduced redness,... thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you're allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts... or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight... and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea,... nausea, upper respiratory tract infection... and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be.
president trump still routinely refuses to acknowledge russian interference in the election, unless he can blame former president barack obama for it. president trump tweeting this morning, "the real story is that president obama did nothing after being informed in august about
russian meddling. with four months looking at
russia under a magnifying glass, they have zero tapes of "t" people colluding. there's no collusion and no obstruction. i should
be given apology. "setting aside for a moment the far from finished special counsel investigation into possible collusion and possible obstruction of justice, the president despite his tweet is apparently still not convinced that russia interfered in the election. >> he believes that russia probably was involved, potentially some other countries as well could have been equally involved or could have been involved not equally. >> just to fwring bring it full, that stance is reminiscent of candidate donald trump during the first presidential debate with hillary clinton. >> i don't think anybody knows it was russia that broke into the dnc. she's saying russia, russia, russia, but i don't -- maybe it was. i mean, it would be russia, but it could also be china, could also be lots of other people. also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay? >> ah, yes, the 400 pounder.
president trump received a classified briefing of cyber security and russian attempts to interfere when he said that. now the president is reportedly eager to meet president vladimir putin with full diplomatic bells and whistles when the two are in germany for a multinational summit next month. deep divisions within the administration. joining me, congress nan jim himes of connecticut. member of the house intelligence committee. let me start with the question of collusion. when people say, oh, well, if it were the case that paul manafort talked to someone at the fsb about releasing damaging information of hillary clinton that had been criminally acquired by russian intelligence, it's no crime there, do you think that's true? >> well, let me say a couple things about that, chris. first of all, that's, of course, a fox news panel, and, you know, trying to evaluate whether a fox news statement is true is like the snipe hunts that we did in cub scouts. you know, they're not going to lead anywhere. i can't help but think this story is here partly because we're in the midst of learning
22 million americans could get thrown off their health care if the senate bill passes. the other thing i would say, of course, of course it would be a crime. i mean, i listened to the fox news statement. you know, conspiracy is a crime. maybe collusion is not, but conspiracy is a crime. meddling in a united states election is a very serious crime. i mean, the -- again, i almost hesitate to respond to the fox news report because it's both, you know, absurd and counterproductive, but, you know, of course, if any of this turns tout be true, and let me be very clear, there are investigations under way that will determine whether there were any links or collusion. if they wiare, it is pretty cle that would be some form of crime. >> you know, i want to play for you something mike pompeo said that was striking to me. here's the director of central intelligence, it's his agency, of course, that was the first to sort of acquire the intelligence to say that at the highest level, that vladimir putin was doing this and the scope of what the russians were up to. here's what he had to say about how big a deal it is or is not. take a listen. >> we have, the intelligence
committee has said that this election was meddled with by the russians in a way that is frankly not particularly original. they've been doing this for an awfully long time and we are decades into the russians trying to undermine american democracy. in some ways, there's no news but it certainly puts a heightened emphasis on our ability to figure out how to stop them. >> that's the director of central intelligence. he says it was frankly not particularly original and in some ways there's no news. do you agree with that? >> yeah, i wasdis heahearted to hear mike say that. mike's a friend of mine. i worked with him on the intelligence committee. everyone who testified in front of our committee, including most recently director of national intelligence coats, has said the russian have short of poked around onn the sidelines over time, this is not something that was unusual for them. this was a radically different things. breaking into networks at places like the dnc, taking that information, timing the release of the information through organizations like wikileaks and d.c. leaks, pretty much
everybody who's taken a look at this thing, first of all, there's unanimity that happened. that's not a belief that's necessarily held inside the white house. >> yeah. >> of course, this is very, very different from anything we've ever seen before in both its intensity and in the effect that it had. >> there's also discussion about the sanctions bill which -- sanctions on iran and russia, there's criticism substantively on those sanctions, particularly on the iran side, although it has had large bipartisan majorities and there's word that paul ryan and house gop leadership is seeking to water down the russia-related portions of the bill for the trump administration. what do you make of that? >> well, i mean, it's another trip behind the looking glass, right? you know, you've heard the president, i guess in one of his tweets, you know, suggest that this is no big deal and then criticize former president barack obama for not doing enough. by the way, i happen to agree with that. you know, i think that the russians walked away from this experience thinking that the expulsion of a bunch of their
digits and intelligence officers and shuttering of the two so-called diplomatic facilities was actually no big deal, kind o a slap on the wrist. as somebody on that committee, i have no doubt that they are, you know, going to do something in the german election which is upcoming, they're looking forward to doing this in again in 2018. >> you think they're geared up for 2018? >> i absolutely think they're geared up for 2018. that's not because i have any particular inside knowledge but i do think they -- if nothing else, they have created a great deal of uncertainty in the american political system for those knnow formonths or so and would love nothing better than to keep the conversation going well into and through the 2018 elections. they can do it. >> congressman jim himes, thank you. still to come, the supreme court reinstates parts of the presidential travel ban but do make one big exception. congressman keith ellison joins me to talk about that ahead. plus, first impressions in tonight's "thing one, thing two" after this break.
yeah. like i said. book now at choicehotels.com with the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your every move and automatically adjusts on both sides. right now save on sleep number 360 smart beds. plus, it's the lowest prices of the season with savings of $500 on our most popular p5 bed. en johnson's, nos importa la seguridad tanto como a ti. es por eso que cumplimos o superamos 15 estándares normativos globales de productos para bebés. y donde los estándares difieren, siempre elegimos cumplir con los más rigurosos. johnson's.
thing one tonight, an update on the presidential power grab. we chronicled president trump's odd and aggressive style of shaking hands. the yank and pull he uses on members of his staff as well as world leaders. but today, he welcomed a leader with his own preferred style of greeding, india's prime minister narendra modi who has a habit of hugging. personal choice or may be his own power move. modi often opts for the embrace. what happened when prime minister modi met with president trump at the white house today and what did not happen? that's thing two in f 0 seconds.
president trump welcomed india's prime minister narenda modi to the white house today. no keeping with the prime minister's penchant for hugging, hugs before cameras in the rose garden. instead of president trump's typical yank and pull handshake. while the leaders comfortably embraced each other, they notably declined to meet with
the press. president trump did address the media during his remarks saying he and prime minister share a preferred method of communication with the public. >> i am proud to announce to the media, to the american people, and to the indian people, that prime minister modi and i are world leaders in social media. we're believers. giving the citizens of our countries the opportunity to hear directly from their elected officials and for us to hear directly from them. i guess it's worked very well in both cases. you've wished upon it all year, and now it's finally here. the mercedes-benz summer event is back, with incredible offers on the mercedes-benz you've always longed for. but hurry, these shooting stars fly by fast. lease the c300 for $399 a month
arguments as two lower courts blocked implementation of the ban on the grounds it was motivated by unconstitutional l immigration. in the meantime, trump's ban will be allowed to take effect beginning thursday with one important exception. the court said the ban may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim or a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the u.s. these are likely people of u.s. family members or college students like foreignpplying fo here. it remains unclear how the exception will be interpreted which is an aissue that could lead to litigation over the summer. clarence thomas cited that in his dissent saying he would have let the entire ban take effect as written and argued court's decision will lead to a flood of litigation over what constitutes a bona fide relationship. thomas was joined in his dissent by samuel alito and the court's newest justice neil gorsuch who in his first ten weeks on the court looks to be a very, very reliable conservative. the president claimed victory
after today's announcement even though he didn't quite understand it. tweeting out, "very grateful for the 9-0 decision from the u.s. supreme court. we must keep america safe." representative keith ellison, the country's first muslim member of congress, joins us next. america safe. (vo) what's your dog food's first ingredient? corn? wheat? in new purina one true instinct grain free with beef, real beef is number one. no corn, wheat or soy. support your dog's whole body health with purina one. ♪ pressure... i feel it every day.
but at night, it's the last thing on my mind. for 10 years, my tempur-pedic has adapted to my weight and shape, so i sleep deeply... and wake up ready to perform. ♪ nothing performs like a tempur-pedic, and our july 4th event is the perfect time to buy one. save up to $500 on select tempur-pedic mattress sets. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's,
and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works by focusing right in the gi-tract to help control damaging inflammation and is clinically proven to begin helping many patients achieve both symptom relief as well as remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. while not reported with entyvio, pml, a rare, serious brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections, or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's medication isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.
far as it needs to go, including all the way up to the supreme court. we're going to win. we're going to keep our citizens safe. and regardless, we're going to keep our citizens safe, believe me. >> that was the president back in march on the same night his readvised travel plan was blocked by a federal judge. the supreme court will now be taking it up in october. joining me now, keith ellison, deputy chairman of the dnc. i want to get your reaction to the court's ruling today. >> well, it is set back for the cause of liberty and justice for all, no doubt. i know it is a partial decision but the right decision would be to simply not, simply uphold the lower court decisions. and stand up for the right of all people to have whatever fate they choose. there's no doubt that these
countries were picked because they're muslim majority countries. and it is interesting when trump goes to places like saudi arabia, he seems to not want to ban everybody. if they have a hotel, or if they're rich or something, he seems to be okay with those muslims. the other ones who are fleeing tyranny like people in syria, he wants to ban. i think that's sad and disappointing. >> there's part of that, the original formulation of that campaign statement, we ended one a temporary pause on all of it so we can figure out what the shell going on. that has been stayed until june 12. are you confident this executive branch will in good faith undertake any kind of actual review or do you think that will be a sham as well? >> i'm confident it will be a sham. first of all, he says that he wants muslim ban. then he says that muslims were
celebrating 9/11 which is completely untrue. then he says he thinks islam hates america. he has built a body of information indicating his hostility and i think it is real clear that it will be a sham and i have no confidence in it. but here's something even worse though. this last weekend, there were two white supremacist rallies, one was at the white house. the other was at the lincoln memorial. i believe the rhetoric of the president is fueling some of the ugliest, most pernicious elements in our society. he is green lighting ugly and hate and some of these folks are getting aggressive. and we know about what happened in portland a few weeks ago. my take is that there is more than simply this ban at stake. it is the culture and climate of our society. >> let me ask you, we had this horrible attempted assassination of numerous members of congress,
republican members of congress and the person who did that had been openly espoused liberal politics, center of left politics, whatever you want to call them. and there are folks who want to make the connection between that rhetoric and violence as well. do you feel like it applies in both directions? or is the president doing something unique? >> when the president says punch them in the face. carry them out on a stretcher, he creates a culture of incivility which sort of lets anybody who is loosely hinged to reality go off the rails. so i think -- >> he said those things as a candidate. >> yeah, did he. he has not really reannounced them in office, either. so i do think that, look. i know steve scalise and i pray for his family every day. but i will tell you that the head of state ought to counsel
civility, ought to tell people we won't allow problems sob solved with guns and street violence. that's what the president should be doing. >> you know, o'neal gorsuch was one of those people who wrote in disent. he has emerged as a strenuous right conservative voice like scalia. and i wonder whether republicans must be looking at gorsuch's role and saying, well, it worked out with merrick garland. maybe that's a model for the future. >> it is a model for lawlessness. the president of the united states has a right to no, ma'am gait and the supreme court, the senate is supposed to give advice and consent based on that person's qualifications. the senate under mitch mcconnell didn't do that. they literally stole it from
barack obama. it is part of the fear that i have that the basic adherence to almost of the press, respect of judicial independence, basic civility, we're losing that in this era of trump. >> so here's my question. do you think republicans on capitol hill are operating on bills that are inordinary nationally under popular. do you think political gravity still exists versus what will happen to people? >> i think they're going to try. they're they'll get what they can from the moment they can get and it then deal with tomorrow, tomorrow. that's what i think they're doing. and when you think that you would consider 200,000 or so people did not have photo i.d. and could not vote in wisconsin, that gives you some insight into what they can do. if they can suppress votes
around, elections are often won by one two or or three points. they'll continue to push these programs and super pac money. i think they'll do it one day at a time and package it it if they can. >> that's "all in" for this evening. rachel maddow is up. president's son-in-law has tonight hired one the of country's most prominent criminal defense lawyers. this prominent criminal defense lawyer will be representing jared kushner personally in the trump/russia investigation. his name is abby lowell. he is one of the few criminal defense lawyers in america who i think counts as household name. he is most famous for having again democrats' top lawyer during the impeachment proceedings against bill clinton. he also reprent