tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC November 3, 2017 12:00am-1:00am PDT
that this was done by a twitter customer support employee who did this on the employee's last day. we are conducting a full internal review. that's our broadcast for tonight. thank you for being with us. i'm ali velshi filling in for brian williams who remains under the weather. good night from all of us at nbc news headquarters in new york. trump since your adocument? >> as the man who ran the trump campaign returns to court -- >> you worried at all about going to jail? >> the attorney general suddenly remembers more conversations about russia. >> i have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the trump campaign. >> tonight, new trouble for jeff sessions. robert mueller's new questions for jared kushner over the comey firing. and new reporting about paul manafort's ties to the russian mafia. then a marine veteran calls out chief of staff john kelly. >> i'll apologizefy need, to but
for something like this, absolutely not. >> never mind the mueller probe. >> i really believe we'll have it done before christmas. >> why failure on tax cuts could be curtains for the trump presidency. "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. there has been a cascade of development in the russia investigation since special counsel robert mueller unveil the first charges earlier this week. including today. some really, really brutal headlines for the attorney general jeff sessions. first, after being indicted monday on 12 counts, including money laundering and conspiracy against the u.s. -- that's the exact charge -- former trump campaign chairman paul manafort was back in federal court today in washington for a hearing on the terms of his $10 million bond. a federal judge ordered manafort and his business associate, also indicted, rick gates, to remain under house arrest at least
until next week. both men are currently under gps monitoring. another hearing was set for monday. while manafort and gates are expected to go on trial sometime in april. "the daily beast" reports documented unseal the by the special counsel reveal links between manafort and russian organized crime. including a notorious boss described as the most dangerous mobster in the world. i'll talk to the reporter who broke that story coming up. according to another report today, as yet unconfirmed by nbc news, the special counsel is turning attention to jared kushner. the president's son-in-law and white house adviser whose name has surfaced in multiple different aspects of the russia probe. kushner's legal team has reportedly turned over documents who investigators who have begun asking about kushner's role in the firing of former fbi director james comey. if true it is yet another sign mueller is seriously examining whether the president of the united states and those around him committed obstruction of justice by trying to derail a criminal probe into the campaign's ties to russia.
meanwhile, fallout continues from the revelation that george paup done husband, foreign policy adviser to the trump campaign, pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi about his own efforts to connect the campaign to senior russian officials. today the president's nominee for department of agriculture sam clovis withdrew his name from consideration after those same court filings revealed it was clovis who was the supervisor who encouraged papadopolous him to make contact. "the washington post" reported clovis, nominated for a job called chief scientist, admitted he has no actual scientific credentials. so that was sort of a tough one too. clove advice isn't the only trump official for whom unsealed filings are causing trouble. members of congress on both sides of the aisle are depending an explanation from the attorney
general of the united states. jeff sessions. they're demanding it about the discrepancies between his sworn congressional testimony and the actual events recounted in those filings. sessions appeared before both the senate intelligence and judiciary committees in recent months where he categorically denied any knowledge of contacts between the campaign and russian nationals. >> i have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the trump campaign. >> you don't believe that surrogates from the trump campaign had communications with the russians? is that what you're saying? >> i did not and i'm not aware of anyone else that did. i have not seen anything that would indicate a collusion with russians to impact the campaign. >> but sessions and the president both attended a meeting with papadopoulous who pleaded guilty to lying. they attended the meeting in march 2016 where according to newly revealed court documents when papadopoulos introduced himself, he stated in sum and substance he had connection that is could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate trump and president putin.
over the past days numerous reports have appeared to try and clear sessions of wrongdoing, and also throw the president under the bus, recounting according to anonymous campaign sources that while then-candidate trump listened with interest to this proposal, sessions spoke vehemently against the idea, asking others not to discuss it again. there is however just one problem with that account. it's tough to square the idea that sessions dramatically shut down talk about connecting with russia, with his claim of having no memory whatsoever of any such talk by anyone involved with the campaign. now tonight there's a new report. in just the last few americans. that campaign adviser carter page, who was just sitting at this table a night ago, who set off investigators' red flags with a trip to moscow in the summer of 2016, is telling "all in" he testified in congress today that he told sessions ahead of time he was making that moscow trip. ken dilanian, national security correspondent for nbc news, reported sessions rejected the
russian proposal by george papadopolous. what is the latest? >> well, just that senator patrick leahy, ranking democrat on the judiciary committee, and senator al franken, who asked sessions the original question and got misleading information are, are demanding jeff sessions come back to congress and clear this matter up. they feel they were misled. sessions, it's interesting in the clips you just played, we saw how sessions' testimony evolved from "we didn't talk to russians" to "we didn't talk to russians about collusion." and it's not alleged that the subject of collusion came up at this march 31st meeting, but it is alleged in those court documents and jeff sessions is not disputing this that papadopolous ka described contacts to put together a
meeting between vladimir putin and donald trump. my sources are telling me jeff sessions nixed that idea, thought it wasn't a good idea. >> the source -- my understanding of what the source is telling you about sessions in that meeting is that he doesn't remember it, but definitely nixed the idea. >> yeah, that is the bizarre -- >> am i right on that if. >> you are absolutely right. the source may be basing it on the accounts of other people in the meeting as well. essentially, the source seems to be saying sessions is not disputing it, but he has no specification recollection of papadopolous, because he was a 29-year-old campaign aide that nobody remembers. >> this seems to be the case that he's fairly junior, but he is sitting in that meeting, they have the e-mail chains, there's what seems to me a pattern that sessions has a problem with as he thinks about mule exert committees that have oversight over him. >> oh, i agree.
because by the time he answered the second round of questions after having to clear up his testimony and acknowledge that he did meet the russian ambassador are jeff sessions knew the overall line of inquiry was, hey, did you guys have relationships with russians? were russians talking to the campaign? and it's clear that he knew that that was the case. at least in the terms of this papadopoulos meeting, trying to broker an arrangement between putin and trump. members of congress are saying, wait a second here, how can you claim ignorance of this did? >> it does seem that having had to recuse yourself for a statement that was misleading at best, and outright false at worst in that original hearing, when you come back to clean it up, going back through e-mail traffic or notes to say, actually, i was at this meeting -- i mean, the best thing would have been to say, i was at this meeting where someone broached this and i said, that's a bad idea. you end up looking like the good guy. but that's not what happened in that testimony, correct? >> that is correct. the other question here of course is, did papadopoulos pass on to anyone at the came pan the offer he got from his russian
friends of dirt on hillary clinton and thousands of e-mails? it's incleefbl to many people that he did not that he kept that information to himself. the question becomes, who did he pass it on to? sam clovis, immediate supervisor? jeff sessions, supervising the foreign policy advisory committee you saw in that meeting? sessions' people are saying he has no recollection of hearing about that. but you can be sure he'll be asked about that before a congressional committee. >> one of the issues i think for the campaign at this point, you can see it from that meeting that we showed, that photo, this is a very flat campaign organization at this point. right? you got -- one of the things about this operation, it was fairly fly by night, it was very small. particularly in the paid staff. you don't have sort of junior staffers sitting next to mitt romney or hillary clinton or your normal sort of sized campaign. so the idea that this guy's getting offers of dirt and it doesn't make it up the very small chain to the people at the very top of that campaign, including the candidate, might be -- it's less plausible than it would be in a normal
campaign. >> i agree. i mean, if you're a 29-year-old campaign volunteer, what else are you there for, besides passing on those kinds of offers? >> right. >> you could argue that maybe in a normal campaign they would have called the fbi but that's not what happened here. senator richard blumenthal, member of that same judiciary committee that has oversight of the department of justice where jeff sessions is the attorney general. does jeff sessions have a credibility problem? >> enormous credibility problem. he has to come back to the judiciary committee. i've written him today to ask him in effect to come clean, explain, clarify, justify, these apparent false statements to our committee that he had no knowledge of any contacts between the trump campaign and russian officials. and it is not only that picture, a picture's worth a thousand words, but it's also the papadopoulos plea document which details multiple contacts
between him as a campaign surrogate and russian officials, literally the russian foreign ministry. and his e-mails to other in the campaign. >> i want to see if i'm tracking this. i want to stipulate what would have to obtain in order for sessions not to have intentionally misled you. it that is he did shut down that talk at the meeting, but doesn't remember the meeting whatsoever. that he was cut out of all subsequent communications and e-mail about the possibility of getting dirt on hillary clinton. and when carter page told him it was going to russia and he approved it and forgot that. awe four things would have to be true? >> and in addition, he did not receive any of the e-mails sent by george papadopoulos, was unaware george was telling his campaign supervisor, campaign high-ranking official, and other members of the foreign policy team which he, jeff sessions, headed, about these continuing conversations and communications with the russian foreign ministry and russian agents. so there is a lot of explaining here to do.
>> one thing that i think sheds light, j.d. gordon, if we can share the photo, j.d. gordon is in that meeting, he's the one there with the blue tie, looking toward jeff sessions, to the left of jeff sessions. this is j.d. gordon in the "new york times" tonight. recalling this moment which was apparently memorable enough that j.d. gordon remembers it. he said he had a friend in london, the russian ambassador, who could help set up a meeting with putin. mr. trump listened with interest. he said no one should talk about it because it might leak. what do you make of that? >> we're at a what did he know and when did he know it moment here. similar to what happened with watergate. and happens in a lot of investigations. and as a former prosecutor, i've seen this kind of story unfold. the special prosecutor, special
counsel, is climbing the ladder of criminal culpability. >> do you think the chief law enforcement official of the united states of america is under legal peril right now if. >> he certainly has explaining to do. whether he's under legal peril, he knows best, but lack of recollection and the possibility that documents showed that he was on that e-mail chain create some peril for him. >> let's go to the person sitting in that meeting who is the candidate at the time, donald trump, who also i think has some credibility issues. february 16th news conference when asked any contacts with any russians? take a listen. >> can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with russia during the course of the election? >> well, i told you, general flynn obviously was dealing. so that's one person. but he was dealing as he should have been -- >> during the election? >> no, no, nobody that i know of. nobody --
>> you're not aware of any contacts during the course of the election? >> how many times do i have to answer this question? >> can you say yes or no on it? >> i know you have to get up and ask a question, it's so important. russia is a ruse. i have nothing to do with russia. >> the president by his own claims is one of the all-time great memories. appears to have forgotten this particular moment in this meeting. >> he appears to have forgotten that moment. and he appears to have forgotten his attempts to do business in russia previously. and if he ever knew about the june 9th meeting involving his son-in-law and his son and his campaign adviser with russian agents, he has forgotten that as well. >> do you think it's credible at all that he didn't know about that meeting this trump tower one? >> i find it incredible. and, in fact, given that he authored a statement for his son to provide to reporters who were inquiring about that meeting, and it was a statement that seems deliberately to have obfuscated what happened, i think it is incredible. >> as a former colleague of yours, it's been really remarkable to watch jeff sessions come and testify in front of your committee.
he was full of fire and brimstone and indignation that anyone would question his integrity, his truthfulness, it was an assault on his reputation and character, that he felt dishonored by the treatment before the committee. what do you make of that self-righteousness in light of subsequent revelations? >> i hope that he would be as indignant as i am right now, as a member of that committee, having watched that testimony, and feeling that he has to explain to me as a member of that committee the discrepancy. most charitably, a discrepancy. >> he served on that committee, so he can understand the shoes that you are in. senator richard blum.that will, a great pleasure to have you here in person. kerry cordero, former attorney with the department of justice, let me start with you, this question on the attorney general. you know, look -- this doesn't add up to any conclusive evidence of anything, but what do you make of this pattern of
sort of forgetting mid-leading, deposition in the worst case scenario what do you make of it? >> he was very strongly worded in his congressional testimony and very indignant about being accused of not being truthful or trying to hide something. so the attorney general's in sort of a bad place right now, particularly with respect to his testimony before congress. i think the best possible outcome from him is that he's able to correct or update or amend his testimony in writing if the committee were to allow him to do that, then he would sort of perhaps be able to explain and massage away the discrepancies between what has been revealed and what he actually testified. i think it will be far less good for him if he is actually called back up to testify in person and have to explain in open session the difference between him hearing informational a meeting as it's been revealed, versus what he said to the committee. but it reveals sort of a bigger issue, which is that the trump campaign and the trump administration and those who are out sort of trying to explain away these series of events continue to talk about each one, whether it was the june meeting
or whether it was this march meeting, as if they are isolated events. >> right. >> and so the reason why that becomes a problem is because when you start to look at them and you sort of move the lens back, they're not isolated. there were obviously many different e-mails and many different communications and many different conversations. and so that cuts against their credibility as it being one conversation here or one particular event. >> it's a great point, because if you ever -- you've ever caught someone in a lie or a pattern of behavior in which
they're trying to get out of, there's this tendency to focus on each instance. it's like that time i just forgot. that other time, that was crazy, i was running late. when you put them all together, renato, it looks a lot more damning. i wonder from a sort of prosecutorial and legal standpoint, at what point does lack of memory tip over into implausibility? >> well, that's a great question, chris. i will tell you as i sat and watched the very lengthy testimony of mr. sessions recently, i was as a former prosecutor sitting on the edge of my seat saying things like, gol up, ask this question! or come up, you should try and pin him down! he was, in my opinion, very evasive. he was somebody who, like you said, very selective memory. and i thought at times he got away with not answering the senators' questions. so for example, you had played a
clip earlier at the top of the show where i believe it was senator franken was asking about, did you have conversations with people about russia and the campaign? he's like, well, we didn't have conversations, then he kind of melded it into, conversations about collusion that affected the election. >> right. >> i felt like he had a lot of qualifiers all the time. >> yep. >> it was a deliberate strategy on his part. >> yeah, and i want to talk about this. we were talking about obstruction. again, there's evidence today, more evidence, that that's something mueller's looking into. there's a lot of reasons to think that's something he's very serious about. the document requests from kushner. kerry, one of the things about obstruction was idea of corrupt intent. the idea that you show that you are with corrupt intent trying to obstruct an investigation. and there's not a real particular precise technical legal analog here but i thought this quote from j.d. gordon about sessions was interesting, he says, "he said no one should talk about it because it might leak," which suggests to me sessions in that moment recognized there's something problem mat and i can sketchy about what is being proposed here. >> well, sessions, he was the head of national security committee, and he as a senator,
i mean, he did have understanding i think probably more than anybody else that was advising the president during the campaign that russia is known to members of congress as being an adversary, and that it sounded like a very bad idea to be trying to set up a meeting between the candidate and vladimir putin or trying to have any kind of outreach. so in some ways it's a little bit reassuring if it's true that attorney general sessions at the time said it was a very bad idea. but what then cuts against that is the fact that if this individual raised what he thought was a really bad idea, why was that person continually on the advisory committee? why didn't he pull someone aside and say, get rid of this guy, or why was that individual allowed to continue to have access to more senior-level campaign officials? so it just doesn't paint a very good story for them if they're
trying to explain it away as not a big deal. >> renato, it made me think sometimes in institutions and environments, there are things people don't know because they don't want to know them. one wonders the degree after jeff sessions shut that down, if that's accurate, that it lingered in the back of his head there's probably things happening, particularly when manafort come on this board that maybe he didn't want to know about. >> that is a concept that is in the law. in fact, at times in criminal case wet give something called the ostrich instruction, essentially somebody who willfully does not want to know what the truth is. "don't tell me what's inside the suitcase." i thought one piece of the papadopoulos charge which is very interesting, suggestion we send somebody low level to russia. why does it need to be someone low level? like you said, there's something problematic, sketchy, call it what you want, they knew there was something untoward going on.
>> that's the other data point that suggests they're not total n achlt. fs bumbling around. those data points suggest they kind of knew what they were doing, if in fact they were doing what they are accused of doing. thank you both. up next, new revelations from robert mueller's unsealed documents including former trump campaign chairman paul manafort's links to russian organized crime. that remarkable story and the reporter who broke it after these two minutes.
i have nothing to do with russia. to the best my knowledge, no person that i deal with does. manafort has totally denied it. he denied it. people knew that he was a consultant over in that part of the world for a while but not for russia. i think he represented ukraine or people having to do with ukraine or people that -- whoever. >> you know, something like that. from the beginning donald trump has called the russia investigation fake news, witch
hunt, ridiculed the notion his campaign had any ties to russia. as the investigation proceeds, more and more ties surface, including connections between sketchy russian figures and people in the trump campaign. just today we learned, thanks to some also reporting at "the daily beast," that paul manafort, who ran trump's campaign and lived in trump's building and who was just indicated for conspiracy against the united states, that guy, not only had contacts with russia, russian agents, but was one step away from one of russia's most notorious mobsters, according to the fbi responsible for weapons trafficking, contract killings, international prostitution. in 2009 he made the bureau's ten most wanted fugitives list. the author of that report betsy woodruff joins me now. what's the connection? >> it was hid no one plain sight. what we learned from the indictment is that paul manafort, through a company called lusical consulting, spent upwards of $5 million on mercedes-benzs and real estate and clothing from a best of hill hills clothing store, start in about march 2012.
that's the new information we got from the indictment. the reason that information is important is because "the new york times" reported this past summer that lusical consulting received millions of dollars from ukrainian political figure ivan fursin in february of 2012. a month before lusical starting spending so much money at manafort's behels. which raises important questions like, who is this ivan fursin guy? according to an austrian police report, the austrian police piece of this is really important -- the fbi believe that ivan fursin was a senior figure in simeon's organized crime group. austria is key here. the country the austria is at the crux of eastern and western europe, particularly in vienna, there's significant influence from russia. austrian police are very much invested in understanding the way that russian organized crime operates.
because it comes right up to their doorstep. so that means that this assessment, this understanding from the austrian police, is something that we should take with the greatest degree of seriousness. that's why it's so important that a man who gave millions of dollars to a manafort-linked company, a company that manafort controlled koorgs to the indictment, is someone who was a figure of such acute concern to the police in austria. >> to walk through this again, it's a little complicated, but it's not a lot of chess moves to get you from one to the other, right? >> exactly. >> there's a guy names ivan fursip, ukrainian parliamentarian. and we have reporting in 2012, he's putting millions of dollars into this entity, lusical, and after he puts it in, millions of dollars flow out as spent by p. manafort, who has control. so the money is flowing in a fairly clear way. it's flowing from fursin into the thing, into the company manafort controls, into the big expenditures that are recorded in the charging document. the guy at the other end of that, fursin, is, according to as austrian police, a sergeant in the mob army of one of the
most notorious russian gangsters in the world. is that correct? >> he's a person of serious concern to the austrian police because of his connection to the semion molilevich organization. i spent time talking to experts in the organized crime space the last two days. an important thing to understand about the way organized crime functions in russia is that how it's been explained to me, it's more of a process. a medium, a mode. rather than in the united states where we think of organized crime as discrete groups. when we're talking about what semion's project did, it's something that brings in businessmen, politicians, folks like ivan fursin, according to the austrian police, who's a
member of the ukrainian parliament. organized crime is so influential and powerful in eastern europe, it's not a discrete project the way it unless the united states. that's why fursin simultaneously raised major concerns to the austrian police, while also wielding significant political power in ukraine and having this lucrative connection to paul manafort. >> you know, the possibility that paul manafort joined that campaign while in business with or in debt to some extremely dangerous people seems nontrivial at this point. betsy woodruff, thank you very much. coming up, president trump's chief of staff under fire. i'll be joined by marine vet currently serving in congress who blasted the former general as a liar lacking integrity.
now the president is now demanding tougher immigration laws, more extreme vetting, and is considering sending this "animal terrorist" to guantanamo bay. the president is responding to this terror attack and he's calling for tougher measures to keep the american people safe. isn't that what's most important? >> on trump tv, there was elation last night when the president's tough talk, that was a graphic they were praising as tough talk in response to the new york terror attack, particularly the loose conjecture about sending the attacker to guantanamo bay. >> do you want the assailant from new york sent to gitmo? mr. president? >> i would certainly consider that, yes. >> are you did tharg now? >> i would certainly consider that. send him to gitmo, i would consider that, yes. >> this is part of donald trump's pattern, escalating his own attacks and rhetoric past any plausible vision of governing, desperately exaggerating his own response in attempt to appear tough and get
a graphic like that on sean hannity's program. today the president found himself walking back those remarks about guantanamo. "would love to send the nyc terrorist to guantanamo but statistically that process takes much longer than going through the federal system." maybe he watched our show. "there is something appropriate in keeping him in the home of the horrible crime he committed, should move fast, death penalty." pronouncements like this for a pending case in the courts have legal consequences and in just one tweet the president managed to give a huge boost to saipov's defense attorneys and make the work of frontline prosecutors charged with obtaining justice against this alleged mass murderer that much hard letter so the trash talk and the tough talk may sound tough to his base, but it's awfully fool anybody practice. which is a pretty good summary of this entire presidency thus far. coming up next, the chief of staff john kelly yet again refuses to apologize for smearing a congresswoman.
all men and women and first responders who work in lawful, stand up. stand and up bow so that we can applaud you and what you do. >> if you recall, that was congresswoman federica wilson, 2015, dedication of a new fbi building named for two slain agents. that was a speech about which white house chief of staff john
kelly two weeks ago said this. >> congresswoman stood up. and in the long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise, stood up there and all of that. and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building. she sat down. and we were stunned. stunned that she'd done it. even for someone that is that empty a barrel, we were stunned. >> john kelly was wrong. and even when the video, the same video we played, proved him wrong, he refused to apologize to the member of congress he just smeared and he still refuses to do so. john kelly made headlines for saying a lack of compromise led to the civil war. but he also renewed his attack yet again on congresswoman fredericka wilson. >> do you feel you have something to apologize? >> do i? no, no. never. i'll apologizefy need to, but
for something like this, absolutely not require stand by my comments. >> congressman gallegos who's called john kelly a liar who is "going to be used as a weapon so don't be distracted by what he used to have on his lapel," strong words, why did you say them? >> they're truthful. we have a fact, he lied. we have video proof he lied. now this keefe of staff, he's not a general, is using his former title basically to cow public opinion against everybody. and against this member of congress. a respectable member of congress. a member of the branch of government that also is very involved in decision-making process. he absolutely lied. and the fact that he uses both his title, which is the general, former general of the united states marine corps, and the -- the good thing that is come from that, then doesn't life by the values, is just disgusting. fy had done this in the marine corps, if i had lied about
another marine or somebody else in the course and conduct of my duty, then got caught and did not own up to it, did not apologize, i would have been busted down a rank. he doesn't get to live in both worlds. if you want to use your title to somehow gain some type of leverage, especially on the media, then you should live by those values. but he's not. so he's no longer a general, we should not treat him as a general. he's a chief of staff and we should recognize he's being used by the trump administration and willingly being used by the trump administration. >> do you think he's an honorable man? >> at this point the way he's acting he's not honorable. you lied about another fellow human being, you were caught in the lie, you have not owned up to your actions. not only are you not honorable, you're not an adult. you are in charge of essentially the executive branch, you have been caught in a lie, you cannot even admit it because for some reason, i don't know, you just can't accept the fact that you were wrong. and anybody that does that, whether they're a former general or a former lance corporal like
i was in the marine corps, you have to accept the fact that there's something wrong with them. at this point he's not acting honorable. >> do you think that what that -- when he came to the podium, when he called her an eliminate till barrel, recount characterization of the speech that's belied by the actual video, did that alter the perception that you personally and your colleagues on capitol hill and the democratic party at least have of him? >> well, certainly. and certainly the fact that after it was proven false, that was even -- that certainly changed our minds about him. for me, actually, the biggest problem was when he was standing in front of the media and would only call on people that know somebody that was from a gold star family. that is not the way that we should be conducting our government. that is an overreach. that is a level of militarism that this country should not be moving in. just because you are a general
does not mean -- former general, that somehow you get to declare one citizen has a better opinion than the other, especially when it comes to issues of war. we're a citizen-led and will be forever as long as i can be here on this earth military. and certainly generals and former generals do not get to somehow impede on the fourth estate about where they get to ask questions about what happened, who died, why they died. it's absolutely ridiculous that he even did that. that was actually the breaking point for me. the fact that he lied about federica and what she said, then didn't have the integrity to own it, really disappointed me. but, you know, at the end of the day he has gone with trump. he has become trump. and i think we and everyone else that is here to keep the executive power in check need to recognize that. >> congressman gallego, thank you for joining me. still to come, after staking everything on the president in
"thing 1," we told you last night about the struggle over naming the republican tax reform bill. after paul ryan reportedly asked the president to help brand it, trump was insistent the deal be called the cut cut cut act. today republicans released the bill -- and sadly, really, reject the president's idea, they decided to go with the tax cuts and jobs act. the president may not know what's in the tax cuts and jobs act but he did comment on the name today. >> it's tax cuts, it's tax reform, and we added the word jobs. because it's all about jobs. we're going to have tremendous numbers of jobs pouring in. >> see how that works? it's the tax cuts, it's also the jobs. you got both those there.
when house republicans released their 429-page tax bill today they included this handy explainer along with it deciding to call out one person in particular. our legislation will ensure this much-needed tax relief goes to the local job creators it's designed to help by distinguishing between the individual wage income of nba all-star stephen curry and the steve's bike shop. that's weird. why would they randomly use one specific nba all-star as the face of america's tax problems it? might be to please one person. two months ago president trump just happened to get in a public feud with steph curry, going to the white house is considered a great honor for a championship team, stephen curry is hesitating, therefore invitation is withdrawn. the president may still be sore about that incident, because
while trump withdrew curry's invitation with an exclamation point, that was a day after curry made it clear, he's just not that into you. >> we don't stand for basically what our president has -- the things that he's said and the things that he hasn't said. that we won't stand for it. and by acting or not going, hopefully that will inspire some change when it comes to what we tolerate in this country. i'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in, i literally say "ahhh." america
>> for a republican party thats that been promising tax cuts for decade, the stakes couldn't be higher. there is no guarantee this thing is going to pass. within hours of its release, two republican house members said they couldn't support it and two senators can't support it. senator jeff flake voiced his concerns on the senate floor. >> we cannot simply assume that we can cut all taxes and realize additional revenue. it's important that tax reform comes as well. we've been hearing a lot about cuts, cuts, cuts. if we are going to do cuts, cuts, cuts, we have got to do whole sale reform. >> then there's the warning from the groups like the national association of realtors, national association of home builders, saying the tax cut could cause a loam slump. though take that with a grain of salt.
this is the last big push for the president and his party to actually deliver this year. if they fail, it could spell absolute political disaster. one of the people. president is counting on to pass this legislation, republican matt gaetz. congressman, you were a no on the budget resolution, which was really interesting to me because i think it was a day or two after my show, you said it was basically liberal and that it didn't cut spending enough. so here's my question to you. last time you were on, you said the reason this is going to be deficit neutral is because we've got all these cults on the spending side. you voted against the budget resolution because the cuts didn't materialize so how could you vote for the fax cuts in good conscience? >> hope springs eternal, chris. i hope to repeal the individual mandate, that will cut spending and i'm hoping some of our friends in the senate, like senator corker and flake will join us to cut spending that's hollowing this country out. we've got to get the tax cuts passed to rescue the american people.
>> but those two things are intention. if you got to get them passed no matter what, even if the spending cuts don't materialize whereas the first part you say hereies the other way we can get pay fors. is there a threshold where this cannot increase the deficit. >> speaker ryan has given me a commitment we'll be doing budget reform in the next -- >> congressman, between -- congressman -- >> hey, chris, if we go have a bill to cut spending, are you going to endorse it on the show? of course, no liberals will. if we had bipartisan cooperation, we could actually -- >> let's be clear here. i don't think the deficit is a problem. if you want to increase the deficit, fine by me.
i'm asking you because you think the deficit is a problem. >> there's no amount of spending cults or tax cults alone that are going to deal with the deficit. the question is whether or not it's sequential or linear. >> congressman, you're smart enough to know you're going to get rolled on this. if you say i'm a yes on the tax cuts votes, we're going to get the spending cuts later, how long you have and i been paying attention it's always tax hikes and spending cuts later? >> it's important to rescue the american people from the obama -- let's unlock the american economy first and i'm going to be one of the loudest voices in congress to cult -- cut spending and i hope democrats will join me. >> let's talk about the stagnant wages, which was the biggest problem of the obama economy and the biggest problem now. the corporate tax cuts are permanent. the wage stuff is all temporary. why is that okay?
if your priority are american families, families that have kids, all the stuff you're doing for them but those are temporary, those might go away by corporations get the permanent ones, doesn't that say what your priorities really are? >> absolutely not. we've got one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, that's a wet blanket over our current economy. that's a reason we don't have wage growth. >> what's the evidence for that? >> well, the fact that when we've had the corporate tax rate in the world, we haven't had the wage growth we wanted.
you just said the problem in the obama economy was that people didn't make more money. let's try something different. that's why the american people voted for republicans and voted for president trump. we can have higher wages if we bring more capital that's currently overseas back into this country and inject it into the american economy. >> this economy is awash in capital. there are people who run around silicon valley getting hundreds of millions of investments for juicing companies that go bust. there is capital coming out of the ears of everyone. there is capital sloshing around global financial markets. what people don't have is money in their pocket to take home from wages and what your tax plan is doing is cutting money on capital, hoping it trickles down to those people. can you understand why they're skeptical? >> i understand your constituency is largely in silicon valley but in main street america we don't see we're aflush in capital and one of the reasons was the obama economy had dodd-frank and the challenges of the obamacare and those are economic -- it's what we're trying to rescue the american people from.
>> if this thing passes and we see real wage growth a year from now, i will have you on this show to take an enormous victory lap, all right? >> i look forward to it. >> all right, congressman malt gaetz, thank you for your time. >> there's nothing -- in some ways there's nothing new here and the arguments are the same. it's interesting to watch because the arguments aren't different from 1980. >> it's the same arguments that obama and romney were having, the same arguments from the 1980s. this is the core issue i see with the tax plan. right up front they're saying we're going to offer you these great tax cuts but everything else associated with middle class life, your health care, education, moving, all of those things become more expensive. it's like getting a really cheap plane ticket but they're charging you $25 for the peanuts -- >> and the bags. >> because you have the student loan interest deduction will probably go away, capping the mortgage deduction at $500,000. it really can get you. there's a bunch of places where you can find that hitting you. >> and since most of that wears out after five years, middle
class life doesn't get better with this. everybody wants wages to go but they're not going to imaginely go up because businesses pay fewer taxes. that money doesn't necessarily go to workers, it my go into the ceos' profits. >> we've seen corporate sal riggs go up and up and up. capital is somehow still restrained. the bosses still don't have enough money, the owners don't have enough money, the people you report to at work every day, they don't have enough money but if you give them enough of it, you'll see a little bit it have. >> they'll magically want to give it to you instead of new cars, instead of new equipment and that lie has never manifested itself. it's a lesson we should have have learned 35 years ago. >> the stakes here are extremely high. i think it's going to pass the house.
but they don't have 50 votes in the senate right now. and if this thing blew up and died the way aca did at the end of this going into the christmas break, i think it's total political cataclysm for the party. >> i don't think it's going to pass. i think you have too many people who are concerned about it. >> you don't think it's going to pass? >> i don't think it will pass the senate. >> it will get out of the house, though. >> there's plenty of house people, ryan will get them enthusiastic. the senators will say, look, this is going to kill me long term because i've got to be in office for six years, i'm not going to be able to talk and dance my way out of this. the other issue is you can't run in in conjunction without taking care of the aca. >> and they're recreating the process, keep it secret, bust it out, try to pass it and like the acc, they've got an interest group process. doesn't mean the home builders are right. but they have a real interest group problem.
>> i know more people who are in the national association of realtors than i know people in the chamber of commerce and most americans do. people have real estate husbands and wives working out there and these things out there are things people can understand. that's what you get hit with in 2018. >> i think we're watching them recreate the aca process and the stakes are only higher than obamacare. jason john, thanks for joining me. thanks for joining me.