tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC June 30, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT
the days when our railroads of all things were the envy of the world. that is our broadcast for tonight. thank you for joining us. good night for all of us from nbc news headquarters in new york. hope you can find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. >> the first concrete evidence that trump associates may have engaged in collusion with russia. >> it could be russia but it could be china. it could be lots of other people. >> i don't know why the republicans, they can tolerate almost anything. >> the republicans try to distance themselves. >> i don't see it as an appropriate comment. >> as president trump once again shows -- >> where are you from? >> you got what you voted for. >> i moved on her like a [ bleep ]. >> plus, senator bernie sanders on the gop health care deal. and a year and a half after this. >> donald j. trump is calling for a total and complete
shutdown of muslims entering the united states. >> the ban goes into effect this hour. >> i believe it will be a whole series of lawsuits that now happen. >> when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. big breaking news. the strongest evidence yet of possible collusion between a member of the trump campaign and russian hackers. the "wall street journal" out with a storied detailing, how a gop operative and fund-raiser sought to get hillary clinton's stolen e-mails from russian hackers while implying that he was connected to none other than michael flynn. the story says this operative peter smith embarked on a campaign before the election to get his hoonlds clinton's e-mails, which he believed had been stolen by the russians. smith died in may but he discussed his effort on the record with the "wall street journal" before he passed away. now while seeking the e-mails, he reported with michael flynn. now a central target in the rushing russian investigation.
flynn did not respond to questions. but there is another story. the journal creating u.s. officials reports and investigators, this is most important paragraph. have examined reports from intelligence agencies that describe russian hackers discussing how to obtain e-mails from mrs. clinton's server. we do not know whether smith was that intermediary. the journal notes, the reports detailing the russian hackers' discussions were compiled when are mr. smith's group was operating. last july you might remember. >> russia if you're listening, i home you're able to find 30,000 e-mails that are missing.
i think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. >> joining me, michael isikoff. i have to say, this story in the "wall street journal" both confusing and opaque. but i would say, the closest reporting has come the detailing an actual nexus between the efforts by russian hackers to hack into dnc computers and anyone in the order of the trump campaign. >> well, let's see. a couple things. i think you're right to play that clip from last july in which the president is encouraging the russians to obtain e-mails. because this story could put some additional context for why that statement was made. if indeed, flynn was aware of what peter smith, the political had chicago private equity exec was up to.
it is very murky like so much else is in this story. it is not clear if smith ever got any e-mails at all. there were some e-mails that he was, any real e-mails. i can till, they were being shopped around. and offered by folks who may have been connected with russian hackers. and this dates back to even before mr. smith began this effort. i've done some reporting on this and people were aware. no one was sure whether they were legitimate or not. even in the story, it says the e-mails that smith's folks did get, they couldn't verify them. they turned them over to
wikileaks. so this could have been some sort of hoax. that's one cautionary note on this. >> i want to be clear about what's going on. he was active into funding investigations. quite frankly, wild goose chases. he is a conservative rich guy who is doing freelance and thinks to himself, maybe they have the e-mails off hillary clinton's server because she said they pertained to personal things. goes on this fishing expedition. all of that aside, that paragraph in the "wall street journal" article really made my eyes open. that there are reports that russian hackers are discussing providing them to flynn through an intermediary. that's significant. >> right. and that caught my design as well. that was a new formulation of multiple reports we've had about
interaccepts. but just some cautionary notes here. we don't know who they're talking about, was having these conversations. we don't know how valid or strong the intelligence is. if these were intercepts, what people were saying. i think the most significant part is that they were specifically talking about getting them to flynn. and that takes me back to, you know, an observation. we've talked about before. that flynn is such a central character he has invoked his rights. he is asking for immunitiest hasn't gotten it. but until he is put under oath and forced to testify or reach as deal that gets his testimony,
we may never get the answers. >> i completely agree that. we're always sort of waiting for this fog here. the significance, this is someone who has some criminal liability exposure. about his conversations with kislyak. disclosures about all of this. he is at the center of the story. and we should note, he is the person the president of the united states wanted to protect. according to multiple reports and the under oath testimony of james comey that the president asked him to lay off flynn which is also, strikes me as
asked him to lay off flynn which is also, strikes me as significant. the president talks to comey, asks him to let flynn go. comey gets fired. any way you cut it, it is a specific set of circumstances. bob mueller is right to be questioning to everybody. it does raise the question, what did the president know about michael flynn? >> thanks for being with me. so there's two striking things about this that seem clarifying. what we know is what peter smith said off the record. he was digging the dirt. he was saying, maybe we can expose hillary clinton having lied about what was personal and what was official and the russian hackers have it. they got into the dnc. maybe other people had that
idea. maybe people like the president of the united states. >> i thought his july 27th statement, russia, if you're listening, please release the 30,000 e-mails. >> which is a pro found statement. >> it may be in part by this. there may have been multiple track teams trying to run this down. there's an interesting little fact i wrote in my book. in april, judge napolitano of fox news talked on air about russia having an argument at the highest levels of the kremlin. they had the 30,000 e-mails and were debating leaving them. i thought between dirty tricks political operatives, it appears there were multiple people looking form.
now we have flynn named by russian, make russian cyber militias, russian criminal hackers, even russian intelligence hackers. >> this is something we've been talking about. there's so much reporting about the degrees to which there are these russia connections. this simple idea that people thought, oh, we can expose this. maybe we should talk about getting these e-mails. that's a much clearer causal theory than anything on the table previously. >> i completely agree with you. this isn't opaque to me. in the intelligence world, most people, you sometimes wear a uniform. when you look at this, you will
find connections that are not so clear. when it comes to an intelligence operation, there is the mission and then the second part. you want to have this compartmentalization. you want to have this level of nonattribution. what we're seeing is exactly how that works out. you have hackers that could be connected to russia. may not be. the trail on one level, from an evidentiary standpoint, can be murky. but boy, that's the finger prints, you purposely use people or assets. exactly right. to make it difficult to pinpoint back to you. that's what you do. i see this much more in the lines of this is a clear operation. "the new york times" reported back in 2015. this is something they've been
thinking along for quite some time. and i think we're seeing how those pieces start to come to play. >> smith, what appears to be the case. this is smith talking to the "wall street journal." maybe he's getting rolled by hucksters. that's possible. he is representing to them that he is in communication with flynn. >> when people talk like that, old nsa analysis, when there is a conversation, your conversation tells us the conversation you had before us. either he was in once with michael flynn at some point or enough that he was working for michael flynn. or he's a liar and he's trying to make himself seal like bigger shot than he is. the criminal hack erkss or actual gru fsb intelligence officers discussing how do we flood the field with this. between that report of april and
july, we had 2.0. a russian intelligence pretending to be a romanian hacker. but you have all these people. people flooding the field to get that information and to find the source so they can use it against hillary clinton. >> and we know he has quite a story to tell. he is tell only person during this whole campaign. anyone with any national security, real national security experience and chops who is close to candidate trump. >> that's right. just to foot stomp on that, it can be both ways. donald trump or the future president will sit down with the officer. that probably didn't happen. the fact that the president
asked them to release they will. this could potentially be an avenue. it is not a direct 1-2 step. there may be a one, two, three, four. there may be a cast of character that's come from the president. >> that's exactly right. >> i remember stories in 2008. there was an a pockry. time in which there was something about whitey. and i heard operatives from every direction looking through this thing like the arc. and i can imagine, if you think that someone has 30,000 of clinton's e-mails, you can imagine the motivation you would feel if you could get your hands on that. thank you both. next, republicans are quick to distance themselves from the president after this morning's tweets.
xfinity gives you more to stream to more screens. no one who does not work for the president of the united states is defending what did he today. the nation woke up to this pair of tweets by donald trump. as the white house calls they will, official statements from the president of the united states. i heard poorly rated morning joe speaks badly of me. don't watch anymore. then how come low i.q. crazy mika i know what psycho joe came to mar-a-lago three nights in a row around new years eve and insisted on joining me. she was bleeding badly from a facelift. i said no. it drew combinations of all ends including from republican lawmakers, been sasse tweeting, please just stop. it is beneath the dignity of your office.
and stop it. the presidential platform should be used for more than just bringing people down. >> this morning's tweet? i saw it a little while ago. i don't see that as an appropriate comment. what we're trying to do is improve the tone and civility. debate and this obviously doesn't help doing that. >> the one person defending was sarah huckabee sanders, arguing that this behavior was perfectly appropriate for an american president. >> i think it is very clear when he gets attacked, he will hit back. i don't think it is a surprise to anybody that he fights fire with fire. when the president gets hit, he will hit harder. >> so the white house disagreed with any suggestion the president had done anything wrong. sanders even disagreed the tweets were sexist in any way. and then the thing she said that was right on the money. >> the american people elected a fighter.
they didn't elect somebody to sit back and do nothing. they knew what they were getting when they voted for donald trump. that is true and it applies to every western on. >> it is no secret. >> started kissing her. automatically attracted to beautiful -- just start kissing them. like a magnet. when you're a star, they let you do it. do you know anything. >> grab them by the [ bleep ]. anything. >> in the wake of the publication of that video, at least 12 women came forward on the record to tell stories of unwanted sexual touch and sexual misconduct by the man who is now the president of the united states. many of those stories were remarkably similar.
for many republican lawmakers, the "access hollywood" tape it was final straw until wasn't. one congressman did a full mideast tour to announce he was battling his party's candidate. >> i'm out. i can't endorse donald trump for president. after those comments? i can't look my final-year-old daughter in the eye and tell her i endorse this person to become the president of the united states. i just can't do it. >> i'm out. i can no longer endorse donald trump for president. my wife julie and i, we have a 15-year-old daughter. do you think i can look her in the eye and say i endorse donald trump for president when he acts like this? >> i'm out. i can no longer in good conscience endorse this person for president. my wife and i, we have a 15-year-old daughter. and if i can't look her in the eye and tell her these things, i can't endorse this person.
>> but the congressman's outrage, his despair, his concern, his conscience were apparently short lived. this was chaffetz a few weeks later. >> my wife and i did vote for donald trump last week. i think we're going through a lot of the discussions that people all across this country are doing. i never, ever, ever want to say it is president hillary clinton. that's the choice. there are only two people who have a chance to become president. >> the top ranking republican in washington has not been much more on courageous. he said he could no longer. >> this is be in keeping with it. i am not going to defend donald trump. not now and not in the future.
>> fast forward into the future a few months. >> the president's new at this. he is new to government. and so he probably wasn't steeped in the long running protocols that establish the relationships between doj, fbi and white houses. he is just new to this. >> that was concerning the potential he obstruction of justice. perhaps paul ryan . >> it is so beneath the dignity of the president of the are united states to engage in such behavior. i don't know why the republicans, then tolerate almost anything. >> connecticut senator chris murphy suggested a possible clue. many republican there's condemn this tweet in strong moral terms
and then try to end insurance for 22 million americans. it does seem to me that there are two definitely things here. uniform and unanimous condemnation by everyone. and no sense that it will change anything in the relationship of the republican party. >> no. i think that's true. what the president did today, it is very harmful to him. to his presidency. very harmful to the office of the presidency and very harmful in the country. will it change many if any attitudes within the republican party power leadership? i fear answer is no. is it going to change his support with his base? i fear the answer is no. at least not at the moment. which is one reason he keeps doing it. he thinks it plays well with his
40% of the leg trick base. is over it does play well. this harmful conduct. when senator joseph mccarthy was on a rampage in the early 1950s, time after time, people would say, is this ever going to end? they would reach the point when the fever would break. i think there are people who are supporters of donald trump. and coming up as a strong man. they must be saying, i remember when he was critical of president obama saying, he and other republicans were saying, president obama is demeaning by the way he walked off the plane. you compare what donald trump did today and his five months in wofs the obama presidency. by any reasonable analysis and say there is a lot of hip okayiscy.
>> i want to talk about the there people, nebraska senator who took quite a courageous stand. he did not endorse donald trump. but since then, he is part of donald trump's agenda. he celebrated neil gorsuch being confirmed to the court. when he is asked about the health care bill, ben sasse asked about it. you can't get him to say anything about the health care bill. but he condemns the tone and then go about voting. >> there is no cost to them coming out today. pretending they have a moral conscience. the reality is donald trump thinks of himself as a king. his children are part of the family misses. the couriers to the king may despise the king.
>> they the often do. >> with you there are things they wanted to do to the commoners. it is the king who has to sell to the comers. they never liked them. donald trump is a means to the end. these republicans couldn't give a dam about. he is going to sell them on losing their health care and make them sound good. >> having the last moment of decency with mccarthy, there is no moment. is there a line? >> usually the mccarthy example,
is the past prologue or have we changed so greatly as a people? the world is sgaching history plays overseas is devastating. standing by our country, not only americans but around the world, people expect the united states president to be high minded and good hearted. it is hard to make the case that there is anything high minded or good hearted. this is beneath contempt. he has gotten away with it up to now. it continues to play well with his base. there is no sign the fever is
yet breaking. so history may not be an indicator of what is ahead. right now donald trump is in a good position to hold on next year in 2018. i know there is a lot of talk. it is still odds against the democrats taking the house in 2018 much less the senate. and donald trump as of this moment is a pretty viable candidate for 2020. >> i agree with all that. i agree because it continues to hold together. that's because everybody recognizes the moment had it comes apart. >> in will political materials, i think they're correct. in rt amoral political terms, they're correct. the only way there works is if there's no break. >> they have to hang together. >> you have to remember where republicans were on november 7th
of last year. pretty much all of them thought hillary clinton would win. they thought donald trump had destroyed the republican party and that they would be the ones in a desperate rebuilding. that there brand had been wrecked. so they see the same demographics, that made us in the pundit world would believe they would lose. they haven't gone away. for somebody like paul ryan who sees a 3 million deficit in hillary, just redistricting didn't give them the house. they understand this may be their last chance to destroy medicaid. to destroy medicare. the thing that paul ryan has been dreaming about since he was a frat boy is to undermine the new deal, to take away the underpinning and the belief in americans that they're entitled to health care and entitled to a dignified retirement. they want that gone. the only person they think can deliver it is that guy.
>> and in american governance, it is rare to get the white house and both houses of congress. for either party. it is a really good hand. when you get it, democrat or republican. when you get it, you have your shot. so the idea that you'll waste that away no matter what he does. >> it still begs the question. where in the republican party are there any profiles in courage? as a name for what we've been talking about, playing both sides when a bad tweet comes out. to say that's terrible. then go back to supporting the president. the words are, tough words. one of the words is hypocrisy. other is cowardice. nobody wants informing strong but we need to see it clearly. until we have some profiles in courage, the within the party itself. this is not likely to change. >> thank you both for making time.
bribery. it's not my word. an unnamed source in the administration who told axios, i think we're going to pass. this i think they'll bribe off the moderates with opioid money. if it was going to fail, they would have put it on the floor. there is reporting indicating that behind closed doors today, mcconnell has been working his caucus. this idea that they'll use money for an opioid fund to woo back moderates. what do you make of that? >> well, what i make of it, they have about 17% of the american people supporting their legislation. what i make of it is they happen to have the courage to hold one hearing in the united states senate to hear from doctors, to hear from hospitals, to hear from insurance companies. what i do know is their current proposal would throw 22 million people off health insurance,
give huge tax breaks for the very wealthiest people in the country and large corporations, and that is perhaps, chris, the worst piece of legislation that i have ever seen, that passed the u.s. house of representatives. so i challenge them to do something pretty simple. all of us recognize the affordable care act has problems. deductibles are too high. the payments are too high. the premiums are too high. prescription drug krofts way too high. put it out on the table. have hearings. let's see how we can go forward together to improve the affordable care act. not throw 22 or 23 million people off health insurance. >> part of the cbo chart is key he in terms of what this really does. do you think people grasp that this is a fundamental permanent transformation of medicaid in a way that is really changes what medicaid is forever and ever and ever, and the cuts get deeper the longer you go. >> do i think people know that?
no, i don't. there was a poll that came out. 60% of the american people didn't even know there would be significant cuts in medicaid. and i'll tell you something else which i find a bit disturbing. just yesterday, politi-fact reviewed a statement i made on "meet the press" sunday. what i said was, if this legislation is passed, many thousands of americans will die. because you can't throw 23 million people off health insurance. people who have cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and not see increased deaths. political fact studied the issue and they looked at about a dozen different studies. and do you know what all the studies concluded? thousands of people will actually die. that's not bernie sanders. that is doctors, scientists who look at this issue. that's the kind of outrage that we're looking at. seeing up to 28,000 people die each year if you throw 23 million people off health
insurance to give $500 billion in tax breaks to the richest 2% insurance companies and drug companies. that is beyond obscene and that is something that should not be allowed to pass. the american people all over the country are rising up. i was in pennsylvania, ohio, west virginia, tremendous opposition there to this legislation. >> i want to ask but some news that you've been involved, about retaining counsel in an investigation that's ongoing. of the now defunct college your wife is a president of. burlington college. i know you said this is politically motivated but i want to ask you face to face on the record, the most serious allegation is that you improperly used your office to get loans for burlington college.
i want to ask you if that's true. >> do you know where that allegation came from? that allegation came from the vice chairman of the vermont republican party. and donald trump's vermont campaign state director. that is an absolute lie. but that's what you expect from the trump administration and people associated with donald trump. these people do not choose to debate the real issues facing the american people. whether it is the disastrous health care bill, climate change, whether it is their attack on women's rights or so many other issues. the way they think they can win elections. i think it was in the him magazine. where the republican national committee, not even the vermont republican party, was kind of goading and pushing to talk about this issue. that's what they are into. not only public officials and candidates. it is even family members and children. just beyond the pale.
>> let me ask you this. it has been interesting to watch republicans talk about single payer. it seems you're a quite prominent supporter of single payer. they keep trying to make the, a utility that the only choice is between single payer and their earn thety. they seem to want you to be the face of it. i wonder what you make of their political face of it. >> let me be very clear. i believe it is an outrage, a disgrace. our nation is the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all people. and yet we spend far more per capita on prescription drugs. so i'll introduce single payer medicare. there's more and more support for that among the american people. with donald trump as president, running to the house and the senate, i'm not holding my
breath about single payer payoffs. so what do we have to do? short term, i think you have to approve the are affordable care act. that means making sure we have a public option in 50 states in this country. making sure we can lower the age of medicare eligibility from 65 to 55. and taking on the drug companies, 34 cost prescription drugs. that's short term. long term, we need a single payer program. >> thanks for making time. >> thank you. ahead, parts of the president's infamous travel ban are in effect. they're here to talk about what happens next. and thing one and thing two next.
the progressive liberal who taunts the crowds with offers of jobs and clean energy and has a finishing move called the liberal agenda. as he 36-year-old real estate agent by day who moon lights in wrestling. one time he told the people in west virginia, i hope trump doesn't build a around the world around mexico. instead, i hope he builds it around this town so nonof you can infiltrate the population. we had the behind the scenes to prove it and that's in thing two. ole mouth clean with a less intense taste. so it has the bad breath germ-killing power of this... with the lighter feel... of this. try listerine® zero alcohol™.
last night we introduced to the progressive liberal who is taking mountain wrestling by storm by antagonizing fans with his over the top politics. ironically in mexico, there is a wrestler who revels in being a donald trump supporter. there appears to be a market for antagonizing wrestling fans. for me as far as pure
entertainment and comedy goes no, one beats the progressive liberal. pro wrestling has already draunl from real life which is why during the cold war, villains often look like this. in the trump era, this is the newest heel. the progressive liberal is thing two in 60 seconds. i got a mortgage offer from the bank today. whuuuuuat? you never just get one offer. go to lendingtree.com and shop multiple loan offers for free! free? yeah. could save thousands. you should probably buy me dinner. pappa's eatin' steak tonight.
president trump's infamous travel band with a caveat, the government could not ban visitors of a person with a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the united states, adding a close familial relationship is required. originally on the no lists are grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brother-in-laws sisters, fiancees and other family members, but now they put fiancee in the close person column. late tonight the state of hawaii challenged the ban in court arguing the government's definition of family is too restrictive.
at 8:00 eastern time tonight, a partial version of president trump's travel van officially went into effect. adir, let me start with you. i am confused as i think basically everyone is about what is actually happening right now. am i correct that the white house and the state department, no one has issued official guidance of what is on the record and how it will be enforced.
>> there is some guidance of what is a close familial relationship. it has not been a case that a person seeking a visitor visa has to establish a connection previously. we're in an unprecedented situation because the trump situation is engaging in unprecedented, bigoted actions. >> i think this is going to prove to be correct "the compromise also will invite a flood of litigation. it seems like this bona fide standard basically came out of nowhere.
>> it did come from as far as i can tell out of nowhere. it probably involved a technical concern about who can seek an injuks -- can they seek an injunction that's national, does it apply to everyone in the world, does it have to be limited in some sense? the bottom line is we can't lose sight of what's actually happening. why can't i with uncles in iran, why can't i invite them to come see my daughter that's going to be born in a month? and that's what this ban is doing. it's separating why can't an american citizen with citizens in yemen. >> you cannot invite your uncle in tehran to come meet your daughter or a grandmother scheduled to go to a wedding in los angeles cannot go. that's done. >> and how is america made more
safe if i can invite some relatives from iran and not others? it highlights the cruelty of this policy, which has become a hallmark of the trump administration action. >> you tweeted how are fiancees and grandparents not bona fide family. it it makes no sense, so ridiculous. my interpretation is the administration made this because they enjoy fighting about this. it's good politics for them. >> it's making on the promise that president trump did during the election. the very people who need to come here, grandparents coming to graduation, weddings and what does a familial relationship have anything to do with national security? just because i have a family here means i'm less likely to be a jihadi?
>> if this had to do with any rational standard, whether you were an uncle or a brother would have no relationship to -- >> and i don't want the american people to forget the roots in this. this is about a president who has hired every islamo phobe. and who's not coming? yemeni refugees -- >> who are starving -- >> or syrians who have seen torture and are running away from isis. babies who have cancers and are terminally ill candidate come for treatment here?
how inhumane can we be. >> it means to left-hand a's point people that are fleeing some of the worst savagery in the world right now are just barred. that is now in effect. >> even in conservative leadership years ago used to be proud that the u.s. was a country that welcomed refugees. the bush administration had a refugee program for iraqis fleeing the war that unfortunately we started there. but it's just a sign of the times that the trump administration, the republican party have abandoned this idea that america is a place for refugees to come to the united states and benefit from the opportunities, the freedom and the security that this country enjoys. >> linda sarsour and gadeir abbas.
ton the backlash after the president unleashes a hit jobs on the brains and physical appearancen of an anchor oh this network. as the white house defds the boss many of the fellow republicans are saying it's beneath what should be the did dignity of the office. and the russia investigation, a "wall street journal" article out ton brings michael flynn's name roaring back into the news that we are covering as "the 11th hour" gets under way. well good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. day 161 of the trump administration. another day dominated by the president's cell phone and the damage it can cause. today it was a personal attack aimed at an anchor at this network. this is what the president wrote in the early morning hours, quote.