tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC May 4, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT
"all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in." >> the plan gets better and better and better. >> new momentum for trumpcare as the white house presents the alternative facts on pre-existing conditions. >> why change pre-existing conditions? >> we're not. no, no, we're strengthening. >> tonight, will the hard sell work? >> the preside said, billy, we need you. we need you, man. >> and what the latest rube goldberg version of health care would do to the sickest americans. then. >> it makes me mildly nauseous to think we might have had some impact on the election. >> the fbi director makes his case. >> tell me what you would do. >> tonight, congressman adam schiff on comey's defiance and why he has serious questions about comey's ability to investigate the president's ties to russia. when "all in" starts right now.
good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. we begin with breaking news tonight. big news. the house will vote tomorrow on their bill to overhaul the nation's health care system. republican leaders saying they now have the votes necessary for passage. >> we have ma jord leader kevin mccarthy of california. going forward tomorrow? >> yes, we are. >> do you have the votes? >> yes, we do. >> the vote is set to come even though the text of the latest amendment has only just now been released. the bill crucially has not been scored or evaluated or modeled by the congressional budget office, which means nobody knows how much it would cost or how many people will be covered. the vote will take place after the gop and the trump administration spent the day selling the bill to the american people by insisting, despite copious evidence to the contrary, that it will not gut protections for people with pre-existing conditions. >> the president has made it very clear that pre-existing
conditions are covered in the bill under every scenario. >> so anybody who has a pre-existing condition under trumpcare, they're going to be fine? >> yes. >> well, no, not according to pretty much every single stakeholder honestly. the march of dimes, the american medical association, the aarp. the list goes on and on and on. to get the bill across the finish line, house republicans added an amendment today that senate minority leader chuck schumer compared to, quote, administering cough medicine to someone with stage 4 cancer. this is essentially the third version of the bill. the failed first version which was scored by the cpo, was expected to strip coverage from 24 million people, cut medicaid by $839 billion, raise premiums for millions and give a massive tax cut to the wealthiest 2% of households. it doesn't appear any part of that bill has changed. instead the second version of the abill allowed states to opt out of protections for people with pre-existing conditions as well as the standards known as essential health benefits which include coverage for things like emergency room trips, pregnanc care, lab tests and prescription drugs.
those changes, however, alienated some moderate republicans, which then led to the version of the bill that apparently they'll be voting on. it keeps all those provisions but also adds $8 billion in additional funds over five years to supplement the insurance of people with pre-existing health problems. now, that money, a relatively small sum in the context of the overall health care market, would help fund what are called high-risk pools. essentially a kind of separate insurance market for sick individuals. but high risk pools have a history of failure. they're enormously expensive. in addition, as senator ron widen points out, the change to the bill effectively encourages insurance companies to charge sick people with high premiums because they'll be bailed out with taxpayer dollars. despite all that, republicans now believe they have the votes for passage thanks in part to two republicans who had been opposed today switching their vote. >> the president said, billy, we really need you. we need you, man. i said, you don't have me. he said really need you. we went through that for 20 minutes. he called back yesterday.
we need you, we need you, we need you. i said, i'm a no. and i stayed a no, and i said fred upton and i have been working on some language that if we could get in there, it would get us both in the position where we need to be on pre-existing conditions to make sure those people are covered because they need to be covered. i'm happy to announce that the people in the seventh district of missouri will have pre-existing conditions covered adequately with this addition that we just talked the president into. >> all right. nbc news capitol hill correspondent mike va cara joins me. your sense of the lay of the land at this moment? >> well, it is the old-fashioned way, chris. they were getting absolutely nowhere when fred upton, the former chairman of the energy and commerce committee, the committee that put out how many versions of repealing obamacare back when president obama was still the president -- when he jumped ship, they knew they re in pem so, again,hey've done he old-fashioned way, a series of closed-door meetings on capitol hill. mike pence, the vice president, has been here for three consecutive days. i'm standing in statuary hall in
the house of representatives. he was down stairs in his first floor office, a parade of undecideds. the arm-twisting, the cajoling, the pressuring has gone on. you saw those two members marching down to the white house and walking out with that $8 billion commitment. now, despite all of that and despite kevin mccarthy telling me and other reporters just a few minutes ago, after he emerged from a gop leadership meeting behind me in the speakers' suite of offices here in the capitol, that they did have the votes to go forward. it's still going to be touch and go along the way tomorrow. not clear at all they have any kind of margin to play with, but they're going to go for it nonetheless. part of the political dynamic here, chris, is that it's hard to persuade a lot of these members in these marginal districts and some districts that aren't so marginal and yet like billy house, have problems with the pre-existing condition provision in this bill, to move forward and walk the political plank when they know it's going
to go over to the senate. and if the senate gets around to taking it up at all, it's going to be changed dramatically before it comes back to the house of representatives. nevertheless, those moderate republicans who vote for this -- and as you know, in the face of unified democratic opposition here in the house, no one's going to vote for it on the democratic side. but those moderates who do vote for it are going to have to be held responsible for that or will likely be held responsible for that and have to answer for that in the 2018 midterm election. so a dicey political situation here to say nothing of the unknowns. you talked about it already. the lack of a congressional budget office score, which would seemingly fly in the face of the conservative mantra over the course of the last several years to know what they were voting for well in advance and, principally, to know how much it costs. >> thank you for joining me. joining me now, steve ratner, former head of president obama's task force, someone who writes a lot about washington and budgets
and things like that. let's start on that process issue mike raised. i mean they do not know what this bill will do in the most essential and fundamental ways. what do you think of them voting on it? >> well, it's obviously a terrible process. what we do know, as you pointed out, the original bill scored as 24 million people losing insurance and so on. then the second bill moved to the right, would have cost more people their health insurance. this moves back a tiny bit. we know it's worse than the first bill. that much we know. >> you think that number, about 24 million, there's no way that doesn't come out higher? >> it has to be higher by definition almost. it depends what you define as health insurance of course. but if you define them as obamacare type of plans, you know a lot more people will lose health insurance. >> now, billy long was saying that we got that protection for people with pre-existing conditions. sean spicer telling jim acosta today they'll be fine. you shook your head sitting here both times. why? >> because they're walking this very, very fine line. the fact is the bill does require insurance companies to offer people with pre-existing conditions insurance. but the new bill says that they can then charge whatever it takes to cover those people.
so if you have very serious cancer by one estimate, you could literally be paying $140,000 for health insurance. >> $140,000? >> if you have very serious cancer. if you're pregnant, i think it's something like $20,000 extra for health insurance. they're not technically lying, but it's all but a lie. >> so then the question becomes -- remember the bill moved in that way. the house freedom caucus was very focused on the core regulatory constraints on health plans, that they wanted the states to be able to waive out of. they got the the moderates then said now you're gutting pre-existing conditions. we respond with $8 billion over five years to what? >> well, some people estimate the total cost of covering these high-risk people is something like $330 billion over ten years.
so giving $8 billion over five years and who knows what after this is obviously very small potatoes. in fairness, there's $130 billion in the plan now for things like this. >> right. >> so they're about $190 billion short. let's put it that way. >> more or less. just $190 billion. >> more or less. >> part of the issue here, these high-risk pools which essentially is what they're talking about, right? so the idea is you're not in the same risk pool with everyone else. you have diabetes. you have cancer. you have a pre-existing condition. you go into this separate pool. this is a model that's been
tried from a policy standpoint numerous times. >> this is why we got obamacare frankly because we had this in 30 or 35 states before 2010 and it didn't work. there was never enough money. people even with very serious illnesses often still couldn't get insurance and they had to wait, pay out of their own pocket for six months or a year before they got it. and the reason we got the what they were basically talking about was that if you didn't repeal the aca taxes now, then you'd have to use some of the moy you might want to use for other tax cuts to repeal the aca taxes or some of them ay later. that's what they're talking about. if they don't make them as part of health care repeal, then it's other tax cuts they can't do later. that's why they're so focused on doing this. >> do you think this bill, if it became law, would make health care in america better? >> is that a loaded question? no. i think obviously -- look, obviously it wouldn't. obviously it wouldn't.
the conundrum in all seriousness that we face is that it's a question obamacare set minimum standards, but that also meant that health insurance got more expensive for a lot of people. you have to say to yourself, would you rather have less expensive health insurance with less coverage, more expensive health insurance with more coverage. the aca comes out on one side of that. the republicans are trying to get to the other side of that. >> i'm joined by cory booker. are you surprised they're going to vote on this tomorrow? >> i'm actually very surprised. after the incredible outpouring of americans that really shut a lot of folks down, this bill isn't better. they actually moved this bill to the right. a lot of these folks who are signing onto this now, i don't see how they don't understand that this craven bill is going to hurt many, many more americans.
frankly, in my opinion, should this ever pass, and that's another issue, both houses, the folks who are voting for this will pay for this at the polls. i don't understand what they're doing. they didn't try to come to the middle. they didn't try to reach out to democrats. they didn't try to build a bipartisan coalition. they moved this further to the right and are pushing this now through. so i'm surprised at the outcome. >> i honestly don't know the answer to this question. do you talk to like new jersey members of the house on stuff like this? i mean you must work together on sfuf like medicaid and there's certain things you've got to deliver for your state as a whole. do you have those conversations about what this would mean for new jersey for instance? >> yeah. i was actually very moved that a lot of new jersey congresspeople, republicans, turned against the last bill. i don't know how they're shaping up for this one.
but that was a result of thousands of new jerseyans >> i have seen expressed from some quarters, democratic strategists, members of congress off the record saying, this is such bad politics. sure, go ahead. let them pass it out of the house. it's not going to go anywhere in the senate. what do you think about that? >> look, we cannot be playing politics with people's health care or with people's sense of security. i live in a low-income community. it's where i've lived for the last 20 years. and it's moments like this that make people afraid. people who, since obamacare, suddenly can afford prescription drugs, suddenly can get their mental health care. i live right across the street from a drug treatment center.
let's stop playing politics and get to a point in our country where people begin to understand that for a thriving nation, health care has got to be a right. it's got to beomething that everyone has access to and not just fiscally because by the way, it makes incredible economic sense to do things like the affordable care act did, access to preventive care, prenatal care. all that makes sense because those investments pay off in terms of the productivity of our citizenry. but just for the moral urgency of this moment, the craven bill that i see coming to vote tomorrow is just cruel and just wrong to tens of millions of american, republicans, democrats, independents, people who deserve more from a nation this wealthy, this rich. they deserve better. so screw the politics. this is about people. this is about what's morally right. this is about what we stand for. this is a president who has lied to people, folks in red states, red counties who passionately want to keep their health care, who were promised better health care, more access, something better than the affordable care act. well, this is clearly not just worse. it's a death knell. i don't mean to be -- i've seen where people have to wait to get
their health care from the emergency. this will cost american lives if it ever becomes law. this will mean death, pain, and suffering to people's families. so i'm not interested in the politics. this is something that my colleagues, people i respect across the aisle, they just can't support. for god's sake, for the sake of our country and what they stand for, they cannot pass this piece of legislation. >> senator cory booker, thank you for joining me. >> thank you. an intense scene in the senate today. james comey defiantly defending his decision to inject himself and the fbi to theion. next, congressman adam schiff on whether or not he trusts comey tonvestigate the trump campaign's ties to russia right after this two-minute break. tie in the middle of the night. hold on dad... liberty did what? yeah, liberty mutual 24-hour roadside assistance helped him to fix his flat so he could get home safely. my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. don't worry - i know what a lug wrench is, dad.
the shlike a bald penguin. how do i look? [ laughing ] show me the billboard music awards. show me top artist. show me the top hot 100 artist. they give awards for being hot and 100 years old? we'll take 2! [ laughing ] xfinity x1 gives you exclusive access to the best of the billboard music awards just by using your voice. the billboard music awards. sunday, may 21st eight seven central only on abc. look, this was terrible. it makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election. but honestly it wouldn't change the decision.
everybody who disagrees with me hato come back to october 28th with me and stare at this and tell me whatou would do. would you speak, or would you conceal? >> a day afterillary clinton blam him in part for her 2016 loss, fbi director james comey defended his decision 11 days before the election to disclose newly discovered clinton e-mails. it was comey's first public testimony on capitol hill since revealing that the fbi has been investigating potential links between the trump campaign and russian election sabotage efforts since last summer. an investigation unlike the clinton probe that the fbi opted not to make public before the election. comey maintained today that both investigations have been treated equally. >> with respect to the russian investigation, we treated it like we did with the clinton investigation. we didn't say a word about it until months into it, and then the only thing we've confirmed so far about this is same thing with the clinton investigation. that we are investigating. and i would expect we're not going to say another peep about it until we're done. >> on the eve of comey's testimony in what seemed to be a response to clinton's comments yesterday, the president of the united states took a swipe at the fbi director, appearing to
question the integrity of the official who is at this moment overseeing a probe into the president's campaign. quote, fbi director comey was the best thing that ever happened to hillary clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds. the white house has asked today whether the president stands by his fbi director. >> is the president comfortable having an fbi director that gives out free passes served during his administration? >> the president has confidence in the director, but i think clearly his point was after some of the comments that were made yesterday regarding the reason for the outcome of the election, i think he wanted to make it clear what exactly happened. >> director comey will be back on capitol hill tomorrow, this time for a closed-door hearing with the house intelligence committee. i asked the ranking member of that committee, democratic congressman adam schiff if he thought it was appropriate for the president to tweet about the fbi director while his own campaign is under vestigatn. >> well, there's little i find appropriate about the president's tweets, but i guess
what i find most disturbing this week is beyond that particular one, his continued reluctance to acknowledge even that russia was the party -- was the nation involved in hacking our election. he again over the weekend suggested, well, it could have been china. and, again refused to back off this accusation he's made against barack obama that barack obama illegally wiretapped him. so that is, i think, for me the most disturbing thing at least in the last few days on this subject. >> there did seem to be some backsliding in that interview with john dickerson reluctantly. it appeared he'd come to the conclusion to accept the intelligence community's assessment of this. do you think he's changed his mind, or do you think this is just how he's going to be about this set of facts? >> i think this is just how the president is going to be. i think he has a very difficult time accepting the fact that he had outside assistance in the form of russian intervention in the election. but then by the same token, hes had a hard time accepting the fact that he lost the popular
vote and has to invent the idea of millions of undocumented immigrants voting as the only reason why that could have been possible. so there's a lot of denial going on, but, you know, when it takes place in the highest office of the land, it's a very deep concern. >> my understanding is that director comey actually comes before your committee in a closed session tomorrow, and obviously you can't speak about that session. but given what he talked about today, the question that kept going through my mind is to what extent you and others on the hill can be confident that the integrity and independence of the fbi can be defended and protected while it undertakes this investigation. >> well, i have to say i could not find agreement with director comey's testimony today and the distinction which i found very artificial he tried to draw between his willingness to talk about the clinton investigation and his unwillingness to talk about the trump investigation. and merely the way he framed it, as if the issue was really to speak or to conceal, using a loaded term like "to conceal" i
think reflected the weakness of his argument. in fact, the real question was would he abide by the department of justice policy not to talk about an investigation in the days or weeks leading up to an election. he ignored that policy, i think very much to the bureau's detriment. in fact, i found it interesting that the distinction he tried to draw today that one investigation was in the early stages, the other was later on, that he didn't disclose the clinton investigation until it had been going on for three months. well, in october of last year, the trump investigation, by his own accounting, had also been going on for three months. so that is another distinction without a difference. >> so then what's your -- i mean it seems like democrats are on
the hook here a bit. i've seen a lot of folks in your position express frustration with what director comey has articulated. they think he made the wrong decision. at the same time, this is the individual who now oversees the most potent investigation into the possible getting to the bottom of the possibility of collusion or what happened. i mean do you have confidence in director comey? should he stay in the job? do you trust him to do this? >> well, you know, look, i think obviously the central important fact right now is the ongoing investigation and the fact it needs to be done well not only by the congress but by the fbi as well. but don't think thatelieves of the ligation to hold the department and hold the bureau accotable for thdecisions it's made. i think the decision last year was the exercise of very poor judgment by the director. that has politicized, that has dragged the bureau into the political process in a way that's going to be difficult to repair. nonetheless, we're going to do everything possible to work in coordination with the fbi. we need them to conduct their investigation thoroughly. we want to make sure we're not stepping on their investigation. we also need to do our own, and we'll need the fbi's cooperation and their support as well. they have a global reach that we don't have in the committee. so of necessity, we need to find
a way to work together. i think it's in the interest certainly of the bureau to try to restore a reputation for impartiality. but it's also vital to getting to the bottom of just how the russians interfered in our democracy. >> i do want to repeat the question because respectfully that wasn't an answer. do you have confidence in director comey, and do you trust him and trust his judgment to undertake this investigation? >> well, you know, my answer as you can gather is i have serious questions about the judgment he exercised last year. i have to hope that he's going to do better with this investigation. as long as he is in that post and the president has made the decision to keep him in that post, i'm going to do everything certainly to support the bureau in its work and make sure that for my part in the congressional investigation, we are working in
concert with what the bureau is doing, not at odds with each other. but i -- you know, i do think there are substantial questions that were raised about his handling of these investigations last year, and i have to hope that he's going to do a better job in the future. >> finally and quickly, are you confident we will ultimately get to the bottom of all this? we will know definitively what happened, who made it happen, who may or may not have worked with whom? >> we're certainly going to do the very best possible to find out exactly the answers to those questions. you know, i can't say at this point that we're not going to run into roadblocks. we've run into a few up till now. i do think that our investigation in the house is now fully back on track. i have a very good working relationship with mike conaway. i think we're coordinating our efforts, doing it in a very non-partisan way as we should. some things are going to be very difficult for us to ascertain even under the best of circumstances because we're dealing with a hostile power in russia. we're dealing with witnesses who may not want to be forthcoming with us, with documents that are going to be hard to obtain. but we are going to do our level best to get to the bottom of this and have to hope that the bureau will do exactly the same.
some insight into just wt the departme of justice looks like under attorney general jeff sessions. >> after an exhaustive almost year-long investigation, all of the prosecutors and agents involved in this case have come to the conclusion that insufficient evidence exists to charge either officer with a federal crime in connection with this incident. >> the justice department today confirmed it will not be charging two white police officers in the death of alton sterling. the 37-year-old was tackled outside a convenience store in baton rouge, pinned to the ground, and shot multiple times. his death, caught on cell phone camera, sparked protests across the country. today the justice department says they do not have enough evidence to charge those officers. but you know who federal prosecutors did have enough evidence to charge? 61-year-old desiree faruz, a pink activist who attended jeff sessions hearing and laughed
when richard shelby said sessions' record of treating all americans equally under the law is clear and well documented. today a jury convicted her of disorderly conduct. she now faces up to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine. coming up, for the first time in 105 days, donald trump is returning to his hometown. last time he was here, it cost new york city $24 million and he wasn't even president yet. what happens when he shows up tomorrow? mayor bill de blasio joins me on that next.
when it comes to shouldering the extraordinary costs associated with protecting the president and his family, new york has paid dearly. according to the city's police commission, the police department had spent $300,000 a day protecting trump tower between election day and inauguration day. and between $127,000 and $145,000 since then on top of other costs. as mayor bill de blasio told me, that adds up to millions of taxpayer dollars. >> well, chris, for the period just from the election to the inauguration was about $24 million, and then in the period since the inauguration when president trump has acally been in washington, you're talking in some cases up to $150,000 a day. so it's been a real expense protecting trump tower. it's different than when a president comes to town for a day or something. but the ongoing expense is protecting trump tower. that's been a real burden on the nypd. >> you've gotten money in the
continuing resolution, i think, via senator chuck schumer who put that in for you and other municipalities like west palm beach. does that square the balance sheet for the city? >> it gives us a good amount for the period going forward, but this is something that we'll have to come back to in the future to deepen and renew. the same with florida. the same with new jersey. it's a good start. i want to be clear. i want to thank senator schumer and others who made this happen. it's a did, strong start. but it's something we'll have to keep attending to. >> last time that you and i talked, the president had issued an executive order about so-called sanctuary cities, new york city being one of them. that order has now been stopped, ordered stayed in court. jeff sessions quite angry about that, disparaging the judges that issued those rulings. what is your position about that order? >> we believe the original executive order on sanctuary cities was -- first of all, it
wasn't what it was said to be. it was supposed to be something, quote, unquote, to enhance safety. it has nothing to do with enhancing safety. it's all about demonizing immigrants. we have a situation here in the safest big city in america where we have a million people, chris, who are either undocumented or green card holders who have been part of making us safe. and the nypd has a cooperative relationship with immigrant communities. my position is that executive order was contradictory in terms of its substance and contradictory in terms of its legal basis. this court case you mentioned the other day approved immediately that the foundation of the executive order was speeshous, and we've said all along if they try to actually implement it, we'll go to court immediately, and we believe we'll prevail. >> have you had any contact with the attorney general of the united states since the
department of justice referred to new york city as essentially soft on crime? >> you're exactly right. in writing, the department of justice said that new york city is soft on crime. and my message to jeff sessions was that was an insult not only to new york city but to the men and women of the nypd, and he should come here and say that to their faces. this is a city that has driven down crime very successfully for decades. in the last three years i've been mayor, crime has gone down three years in a row, and that's with our cooperative relationship with the immigrant communities, with the 93% decline in stop and frisk. that was a total insult to this city and our police. i've not talked to jeff sessions about it. look, it's an attempt at political provocation. a lot of what jeff sessions is doing is fundamentally politics and symbolism. it has nothing to do with public safety. he's supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer in this country.
how do you denigrate the number one police force in the united states if you're supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer. >> we're getting word there is going to be a vote tomorrow in the house on the newest version of the house gop health care bill. what would be the effects for the city in concrete terms were this to become law? >> a million new yorkers would stand to lose their health insurance. >> a million people in the city? >> a million of the 8.5 million people in this city would stand to lose their health insurance if this bill became law because the affordable care act reached so many new yorkers who didn't have insurance. now a million of them wod be in jeopardy under this specific language of losing their insurance. 24 million people nationally. chris, it would also have a horrible impact on our public hospitals, which are already in tough shape financially but depend on insurance money to keep going. a huge number of the folks who go to those emergency rooms take up those hospital beds won't have insurance anymore. that would fall on the taxpayers of new york city to pay a huge number of domino effects. look, the national perspective, the fact that you'd have
pre-existing conditions no longer covered, i think that's a time bomb ticking both in terms of the health of this country, but also politically for donald trump. that's going to be a very, very hard thing for him to explain why that guarantee that president obama created will now no longer be available to americans. >> new york city mayor bill de blasio, thanks for joining us. >> you're welcome, chris. coming up, fbi director james comey's own words on why he decided to send that now infamous letter, and if he had the chance to do it over, would he make the same decision. that ahead. plus when a fence becomes a wall. that's tonight's thing 1, thing 2 after the break.
how's your cafe au lait? oh, it's actually... sfx: (short balloon squeal) it's ver... sfx: (balloon squeals) ok can we... sfx: (balloon squeals) goodbye! oof, that milk in your coffee was messing with you, wasn't it? try lactaid, it's real milk, without that annoying lactose. good right? yeah. lactaid. the milk that doesn't mess with you.
thing 1 tonight, the house passed the spending bill that funds the government through september today. senate expecting to vote tomorrow. while that budget deal specifically preventing funding from being used to build trump's wall, yesterday white house budget director mick mulvaney still tried to declare victory, citing for instance money for
fencing upgrades along the border. as we noted last night, the fence photo mulvaney used is actually from january, three months ago. a section of fence in sunland park, new mexico, where construction began last august under president obama. press secretary sean spicer didn't stick around to field questions from reporters yesterday, prompting this rather awkward moment. >> will you guys just e-mail where that wall is from exactly so we can identify location? >> sean, do you -- >> sean! >> sean! >> sean! come on, sean. sean. >> he said he's not coming back. >> sean. but today sean came back. spicer and the white house a.v. club had 24 hours to work up an answer on how a fence is actually a wall, and that's thing 2 in 60 seconds.
see-through fence shs levee flood protection system is a border wall. i see what you did there, breitbart. 24 hours later, sean spicer showed up in the white house briefing room with some visual aids of his own but still had a hard time selling the fence as a wall. >> that's not a wall. >> just one question about the photos. >> sure. >> are those photos of fences or walls? >> that is called a bollard wall. that is called a levee wall. >> so that's the wall that was promised? >> there are various types of walls that can be built. under the legislation that was just passed, it allows us to do that. as we've mentioned -- >> what is that? >> that is called a levee wall on the left. that is called a bollard wall. >> so that's not a wall? it's a levee wall? >> that's what it's actually called. that's the name of it. >> it's fencing, not a wall. so you're basically just telling supporters, the president's supporters, to be satisfied with this existing tough-guy fencing until he's ready to build the wall? >> no. what i'm telling anybody is that the president said he was going
the president is under audit. it's a routine one. it continues, and i think that the american public know clearly where he stands. this was something he made very clear during the election cycle. it's the same -- we're under the same audit that existed, and so nothing has changed. >> president trump has refused time and again to release his past tax returns, and press secretary sean spicer said he wouldn't be releasing his tax returns this year either. but there's another question, and an even more basic one that the white house should be able to give us an answer to. did the president of the united states actually file his tax returns this year? like on tax day? did he send them in? did he file for an extension, or did he just not file his tax returns at all? there's been such a focus on whether the president would release his tax returns, it seems that no one has asked if he actually filed them. we asked the white house today, and we expected them to say, of course he did.
but that's not what they said. the white house told us that was a question for the president's tax lawyer, not them. we also don't have an answer to another crucial question when it comes to trump's taxes, a question raised by senator al franken today at the senate judiciary hearing about russia's influence in the election. >> what i want to know is why they favored president trump, and it seems to me that in order to answer that question, any investigation into whether the trump campaign or trump operation colluded with russian operatives would require a full appreciation of the president's financial dealings. director comey, would president trump's tax returns be material to such an investigation? >> that's not something, senator, i'm going to answer. >> does the investigation have access to president trump's tax returns? >> i'd have to give you the same answer. again, i hope people don't overinterpret my answers but i just don't want to start talking about anything, what we're looking at and how. >> that was just one of the
e-mail he had not even seen. >> i could see two doors, both labels actions. the other labeled speak and the other conceal. i stared at speak and conceal. speak would be really bad an elections in 11 days, lordy, that would be really bad. concealing would be catastrophic, not just to the fbi and well beyond. as to really bad and catastrophic, i said to my team we have to walk into the world of really bad. i have to tell congress we're restarting this not in a frivolous way, in a hugely significant way. this was terrible. it makes me mildly nauseous to think we mightave had some impact othe election. honestly it wouldn't change the decision. everybody who disagrees with me has to come back to october 28th with me and stare at this and tell me what would due? would you speak or conceal?
i could be wrong but we honestly made a decision between those two choices even in hindsight i would make the same decision. >> joining me now, former fbi agent and former fbi double agent author of "how to catch a russian spy. i keep wondering what the people in the bureau think about this? >> it's a difficult situation. the people in the bureau were attacked when he said hillary didn't do anything wrong and attacked when he sent the letter to congress. james comey that i know. james comey who used to be the united states attorney in the southern district of new york, james comey who went down to the department of justice as a deputy attorney general he stood up against illegal wiring, wiretapping, james comey who you know was appointed by president obama, he is an honest man. now, we can disagree with him. i think even he is troubled with his decision and he said that,
mildly nauseous, think about it. >> it's one for the record book. >> it is. it is. >> i truly believe he is honest. imagine chris just for a second that he didn't send the letter, okay, let's say secretary clinton get elected and then it came up, oh, they had that, they leaked it, now they didn't say anything about it and he concealed it and then we'll have a witch hunt against the fbi and have the same thing going on now. >> that's correct. just to be clear, navid, i'd like to get your sense here. the policy was clear here. the doj policy here is you don't do it. he affirmatively broke policy because his concern about the post election what that would look like. are you in the same camp as ali on this? >> i don't know. i think comey was very clear
about this. i sent the letter and it was essentially congress who leaked it. he knew that would happen. >> it took chaff fits less than a second, on his twitter page, investigation back open. >> never underestimate the self-preservation of a government employee. >> right. >> it could have been like sally yates. sally yates took the high road. he didn't. >> self-preservation. >> two different things. >> self-preservation. that's the thing. it seems important to distinguish good faith and bad faith critique. the bad faith he wanted donald trump to win. i don't think a lot of people think that. >> i don't believe that at all. >> i think have this phrase all the time. ackman chally bee said after iraq, we were heroes in error. i remember that phrase, we didn't mean to lie to people we just got it wrong. you could say he got it wrong, but what he got wrong if he got it wrong is a pretty big deal.
>> exactly. you have to think about it not from a political perspective, think about it as an insider in the fbi. i know how the fbi functions from inside as an fbi agent. sometimes you have to make decisions. sometimes the decisions are good and sometimes the decisions are bad. when they are good you get a lot of credit for it. when it's bad you get slighted for it because you are in the fbi. at the same time on october 28th, doj didn't have a lot of credibility. one of the criticism comey gets inside the fbi that he fell on the sword for doj, he fell on the sword in order to come release the results of the investigation the first time because the attorney general was sitting in the back of the plane with president clinton. that was big probably politically outside it's not big but inside the fbi -- >> the thing about comey yesterday. >> that is crazy, if you want to talk about the president of the united states tweeting, wow, you know, he tweets everyday. >> when we were covering this
back then the thing that troubled me more thathe letter affirmatively were the leaks coming from the bureau, wildfire speculation, she's about to be indicted, they're readying indictments. listen to this exchange and tell me what you think of this. listen. >> the fbi during the 2016 campaign have contact with rudy guiliani about the clinton investigation? >> i don't know yet. but if i find out that people were leaking information about our investigations, whether reporters or to private parties there'll be severe consequences. it's a matter i am very very interested in. >> but you are looking into it? >> correct. >> i find this tremendously troubling all these leaks coming out in the wake of the comey letter where the stories built as if -- that to me seemed a real fundamental violation particularly that close to an election. >> absolutely. i know ali can speak about this,
too. the fbi is organized by divisions and each has its own culture. the leaks were not coming from -- the counter-intelligence folks i know, 14,000 agents, is a tiny tiny percentage of overall fbi special agents. they purposefully don't say much. if the leaks were coming it was coming from the other side. >> the thing we were learning was it was coming from the new york bureau who didn't like hillary clinton. i felt these few days this was happening we had found ourselves in -- >> the leaks were coming from former fbi agents who claimed they knew people in the fbi. they were people talking to the networks and saying -- >> fair distinction. fair distinction. >> that's why -- >> they wear hearsay to begin with. >> they were hearsay to begin with. that's why you see the investigator is saying we're investigating this, we are looking into this. i know there's a lot of investigations going on in the fbi concerning leaks. >> that was great. come back any time. >> thank you.
>> that was all for this evening. before i go i want to invite you for a facebook q&a about my book, "a colony in a nation." if you love it, ask me questions and offer critiques, i'll be there to answer your questions. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. tonight the fbi director warns russia is still involved in u.s. politics. sean spicer's response "that's the view of the fbi." and very bad to catastrophic options on hillary clinton's emails. and the vote is on. but can the republicans carry health care across the finish line tomorrow? we'll hear from a member of congress after meeting with the president at the white house. the 11th hour starts right now. and good evening once again from our head quarters here in new york on day 104 of the trump administration.