tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC January 5, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PST
tonight on "all in" -- >> we're united in our opposition to these republican attempts to make america sick again. >> democrats unite to fight for obamacare as the president-elect warns republicans over the risks of repeal. >> and as he said this morning in a tweet -- >> tonight, the fight to save obamacare has officially begun and democrats have a plan. plus, the headquarters of the resistance, california, hires a high-powered attorney. >> you don't want to go there, okay? inside donald trump's love for wikileaks as he escalates his fight with american intelligence. >> wikileaks, i love wikileaks. and from rockettes to marching bands to brand-name celebrities, donald trump's trouble attracting the star power he craves for his big day. >> you are not summoned to perform for the king or for the dictator. >> "all in" starts now good
evening from new york, i'm joy reid in for chris hayes. with just 16 days until donald trump becomes president, democrats say they have a battle plan for what will be the first big fight of the trump administration. obamacare, along with a fancy new slogan they plan to use to make their case. >> the republican plan to cut health care wouldn't make america great again, it would make america sick again. >> that was incoming democratic leader senator charles schumer this morning after schumer and his democratic colleagues met on capitol hill today with president obama to discuss their strategy to fight gop efforts to repeal the health care law. also on the hill today was vice president-elect mike pence who vowed the gop's repeal and replace plans are on track. >> as i said today to members of the senate, the first order of business is to repeal and replace obamacare. >> senate republicans have now taken the first step in that
direction, voting today to start deba on a budget resolution to repeal substantial parts of the law. but repeal is the easy part, it's the replacement that's the problem. >> for years they've talked about repeal but for five years now they have had nothing to put in its place. now they're responsible for the entire health care system and it will be on their backs and i believe a year from now they will regret that they came out so fast out of the box to repeal. >>ow, democrats can't stop republicans from hobbling obamacare t they can help make the process politically painful anpotentially disastrous for the gop and they have a strategy. as politico reports, democrats plan to hold rallies in ohio, pennsylvania, and west virginia, featuring americans who have benefited from the law. leading up to nationwide rallies on january 15 warning of the chaos they say would ensue if the law is repealed. democrats also plan to use the amendment process to force republicans to take politically
toxic votes on popular provisions like protecting people with pre-existing conditions. and they're encouraging americans to bombard their representatives with phone calls opposing repeal. republicans have signalled they plan to repeal the health care law in the near term but maybe delay the effective date possibly for years as they work on a replacement. >> we -- we have a plan to replace it. we have plenty of ideas to replace it and you'll see as the weeks and months unfold what we're talking about replacing it. >> but voting for repeal while delaying a replacement could mean massive financial losses for hospitals and insurers and potentially result in millions of americans losing their health care coverage. the american medical association yesterday came out against the delayed replacement plan and some prominent republicans, including senator rand paul, are warning about problems if they delay on a replacement. but republicans don't have much in the way of good options. replacing the law effectively means overhauling the entire american health care system. and let's just say that's not an easy task.
just ask democrats, especially if you want to keep the parts of obamacare that americans like. >> when you replace it, are you going to make sure that people with pre-conditions are still covered? >> yes, because it happens to be one of the strongest assets. >> you're going to keep that. >> also with the children living with their parents for an extended period. >> you're going to keep that. >> we'll very much try and keep that in. adds cost but it's very much something we're going to try and keep. >> well, donald, you can't keep all the good stuff like coverage for people with pre-existing conditions while eliminating the ostensibly bad stuff like the individual mandate that make that coverage possible. trump himself seems to realize the political peril his party now faces and today he seemed to walk pretty close to opposing repeal, trump tweeting "republicans must be care informal that the dems own the failed obamacare disaster." later adding "it will fall of its own weight, be careful." even if that were true and it most likely is not true, it would be political suicide for republicans to let the law stand after spending years and years casting it as a democracy-threatening disaster.
but the costs of repeal could be very, very high, particularly in the rust belt states that narrowly gave trump his win. take a look at these maps. the one on the left shows the percentage of americans with health care coverage in 2013. see how it's all dark there? look at the one on the right. it shows the percentage of americans with coverage in 2016. see that light blue there on the 2016 map? that's where people got coverage and as you can see it was disproportionately right in those rust belt states. well, now millions of people in those states face the possibility of losing their health care coverage and the party that is poised to take it away, that coverage, doesn't seem to have any real plan in place to replace it. this morning on msnbc, west virginia senator joe manchin, arguably the most conservative democrat in the senate, laid out the stakes. >> donald trump won west virginia by 43%. 43%. unbelievable, okay? now, a lot of the people didn't know and they really still don't know how they got health care called affordable care act or
obamacare, but i'll assure you one thing, they'll know who did it and got rid of it for them. >> exactly. >> they'll know that. they might not know how they got it, they'll know how they got rid of it. >> joining me is democratic representative karen bass of california. all right, congresswoman. the last thing you just heard from joe manchin who is arguably -- he is quite a red state conservative democrat. trump won his state by 43% but you heard him say people don't know, they still don't know how they got health care called obamacare but they're sure going to know who got rid of it for them. what is the democrats' plan to let those people know if republicans get rid of their health care who done it? >> i think first of all a lot of people think obamacare just covered people that didn't have insurance. there's a whole lot of parts of the plan that cover everybody, such as pre-existing conditions. our health care caps. i used to work in the emergency room in los angeles and the people that come to the emergency room or who came during those years were people, one, had caps.
in other words, i was on chemotherapy for two months, my insurance company said i hit my limit, they won't cover my chemo anymore. or somebody who had diabetes or hypertension and they couldn't get health insurance so they come to the emergency room as a last resort. so if they get rid of obamacare, those people will be back flooding emergency rooms and that's one thing that has happened since aca has been in place. you've seen a decline of people who use the emergency room. another thing is for prevention care. so you go and you have your colonoscopy. well, you didn't realize that with obamacare you now no longer pay for that colonoscopy. so if they get rid of obamacare, you are going to have people complaining all over the place that, one, they don't have coverage anymore, they've been cut off, they've been kicked off, and, two, costs are going up because they're paying for things they didn't cover when they had obamacare. people will realize the difference. >> i imagine people going into their doctors' offices and
suddenly finding out they have a co-pay they didn't have. are democrats going to make the connection? because congresswoman, i have to tell you. one of the biggest criticisms of the party, even the president, has been that when obamacare was rolled out democrats walked away from it, some ran away from it, but never explained to people what obamacare is. a lot of people have had connect in kentucky and didn't know it was obamacare. >> i agree. >> the democrats going to do something concrete mean run ads, have specific stories showing so that people know no, no, no, when you're getting that co-pay, that was obamacare. >> that's absolutely right. i agree with you. the other thing i don't think we pointed south that obamacare has been a jobs plan. so when you talk about cutting off obamacare, you are talking about serious layoffs in -- that are going to happen in hospitals because rural hospitals have had to depend on it. and a lot of these hospitals are in republican states so i think the pain is going to be very wide and deep and it will be our responsibility to make it very, very specific. i can the el you my phones in the capital and in my district
office were flooded today with people calling up and saying, well, is my insurance going to be cut off now? am i going to have to pay for this? i've had cancer, the only way i've been able to get health care is because of obamacare so when the faucet is shut off, i believe the pain will be deep and wide and it's our responsibility to make sure everybody understands who is responsible. >> it's pretty pointed the three states you're starting off are in pennsylvania, ohio, and west virginia. think about those coal miners' benefits for black lung. that's obamacare. >> right. >> i want to ask you a question. mitch mcconnell had an interesting -- we'll take a quick u-turn for a moment. mitch mcconnell had an interesting quote i want to play for you, it's about another thing republicans have been holding up, that's a supreme court seat which they held open for a long time because they didn't think barack obama as president had the right to make a nomination. take a look about what they say about democrats holding up supreme court nominees. >> apparently there's a new
standard which is not to confirm a supreme court nominee at all. i think that's something the american people simply will not tolerate. >> i mean, i can't believe that he actually even said that. when he was the one that said that they were not going to even have hearings, confirmation hearings. you know what? i'm very proud of the senate. i hope they hold that line. the idea that trump -- if his cabinet is any example as to who he put forward would be on the supreme court, it would be disastrous. i can see protections we've had in our country for decades being rolled back so it's a great stand. we need to emulate what the republicans did in 2016. >>ed that -- that had nothing do with obamacare, i just want to give you a chance to hear him say that. thank you, karen bass. >> thanks for having me on.
>> joining us now is jess mcintosh and anton gun, a health care strategist extraordinaire. i'm going to come to you first on this, jess. here's the thing. republicans have been saying for so long that they're going to repeal and replace, repeal and replace. it's a catch phrase but they never had a risk of having to do it because they always had barack obama to save them from themselves. >> right. >> now that they have to do it, do you think they will go forward? >> i don't. i think republicans really like to govern by catch phrase because they don't like the govern. the reason why the president spent so much political capital putting the affordable care act in place and remember how long and awful it was to be a democrat working on the hill at that moment, that was really intense. he did that, we all did that, because it mattered so much. because we cared so much about making sure that millions of americans got insurance who didn't have it before. we cared about fixing that problem because democrats believe that government can fix
certain problems that need to be fixed. republicans don't share that belief -- at least republicans today don't. they don't believe government is a solution to the problems that america is facing. so they obstruct. they use catch phrase obstructionism and that's how they brand their party. their party is very little more than a brand right now. now we have to see them actually implement these tenets. no one is going to be spending political capital to get this done. no one is going to put their name on we're going to have the replace package here and if trump decides to tweet that the republicans in congress are doing it wrong, they'll turn around and run away faster than it will make his head spin. >> the thing is, there once was a republican health care plan. it's called obamacare. >> yeah, they did that. >> so since democrats took their plan and there isn't a new plan on the table, they keep saying we've got a secret plan, we've got a secret plan, what would be the political import, what would be the incentive to go through the same senate finance process we saw democrats go through, to go through that excruciating public horrible process of trying to reconfigure the entire american health care system in
public? would that help republicans at all politically? >> it didn't help democrats politically and especially when democrats had to do it while republicans were standing there yelling "death pena panels and y going to push grandma off a cliff." if we go back to a system where, like congresswoman bass was saying keerks mow patients are kicked off their insurance after a couple sessions, that is an actual death penal. you will have americans saying i can't afford life-saving treatment. so you're going to do it under the guise of real stories being told. it's not going to be a talking point. it won't be a sarah palin blog post. it will be actual americans who live in the states these people are supposed to be representing. so there's this other layer that they have to get through which is the political perception of what happens when they yank health care away from millions of americans who need it. >> then there's the part two. the thing republicans are quite good at is the atmospherics, the staging. and they were able to create this thing called the tea party that started out calling
homeowners deadbeats if they couldn't pay their mortgages but suddenly became this really well-funded faux grass-roots kind of thing which just went after health care every minute, every minute. it had all the optics you needed. do you see evidence that democrats can figure out how to message discipline, get adds on the air and actually do the mechanics of politicking? >> i don't think we can replicate the republican strategy because we are bound by principle and an ideology that government is supposed to do good for the people that it's elected to represent. i don't think that we can have a democratic tea party. that said. i think we can do a much better job of sloganeering and running ads and telling real people stories. it's not about everybody wearing shirts saying "make america sick again." it's making sure america knows the real-life consequences to their families and neighbors of what republicans are trying to do. that's the democratic mandate. >> i believe we have anton gunn, a health care strategist who used to be with the department of health and human services. anton, let's talk about the
practical things, what democrats would be showing the country is happening as ook is rolled back. can you talk about how -- can you possibly unwind this law without -- and leave in place, let's say, leaving somebody who's 26 on your insurance? can you do both those things? >> you can't do both things. see, the biggest problem is most people have no full understanding of all the incredible things the affordable care act has done over the last six years because they're not having the conversation with the right people. if you talk to any ceo that runs a large hospital in any major metropolitan area, whether you're talking about detroit and henry ford or tulane medical center, these are major health care systems who are taking care of people who now have coverage because of the affordable care act. these are people who are getting treatment for very important life-saving conditions that will all go away if they try to undo this law. so you can't just say you want to do one part and can't do the
other because there's so many benefits beyond the insurance. we love to talk about the under 26. we love to talk about 20 million people who now have coverage. but what about the mom who had a baby and was finally covered after her first child wasn't covered at all and she had to pay out of pocket $17,000 because her pregnancy was considered a pre-existing zmn what about the father who didn't get a double bypass when he needed it and passed away because he didn't have health insurance coverage? these people are getting treatment across the country and so you can't undo parts of i you can't undo the fact the quality of care people have received because the aca put so much more framework around delivering value for people using health care services, improving doctors' ability to deliver care at a higher quality so that people can actually get better faster and live the lives they want and deserve. so all of this conversation around we got multiple plans, well, if you've got multiple plans, that means you don't have a plan at all. and so you can't repeal the aca and leave this gaping hole in a
health care system that has been reformed it's almost like the conversation about whether you should eat broccoli and spinach. everybody knows broccoli and spinach is good for you. and what the republicans are trying to get us to do is understand that we don't need broccoli and spinach, they want to give us a happy meal box but they're not going to tell us what's in the happy meal box. what i'm clear about, broccoli and spinach is good for you whether you like it or not and happy meals are not good for you at all. so we have to get beyond this conversation and rhetoric and get deep interwhat the law is doing to save people's lives. >> here's the thing. happy meals are well advertised as well. anton, very quickly, why didn't the administration advertise all these great things years and years ago so that people felt the value and understood the value of the affordable care act. you have southern states letting hospitals close rather than take the expansion of medicaid because they've been able to convince their own citizens who are suffering that it's better to suffer than have obamacare. why wasn't this message rolled out before?
>> see, that's the funny thing. we did roll all of these messages out before. we spent a lot of time doing it. the problem is, when you spend a billion dollars trying to confuse, distract and dissipate the whole idea that health care reform needed to be done and the benefits of the law, it's hard to fight those messages. when you have membes of congress willing to go on television and radio shows and tell bold-face lies about what the affordable care act is but have no clue about it, it's hard to beat against that. we did everything in our power to try to convey those messages but frankly most of the american public didn't want to hear those messages. they're into catch phrases, as we heard, they're into the 140 characters, but it's hard to talk about payment reform and delivery system reform in 140 characters. it's hard to talk about in the a snapshot and soundbite. but it's easy to talk about it when you talk to a family who's gotten life-saving treatment at a place where they were uninsured five years ago. they walked into the emergency room.
they could not get treatment they needed but now they're getting care and better and so i've talked to these ceos and health systems. i've talked to the leaders that run hospitals, i work with them and they believe the affordable care act means a whole lot to them and it's allowing them the opportunity to do what they do best, that's save lives. i'm not talking one or two, i'm talking tens of millions in cities across the country. >> we do know for certain the uninsured rate in 2009 was 16.4%, now it's 10%. one more word anton and jess, yes or no, do republicans fully repeal and not replace the affordable care act or do they repeal and replace it? yes or no do they repeal it, anton? >> they're going to repeal it. i believe they'll do that. yes. >> jess? >> no. >> all right, bold prediction from jess mcintosh. anton gunn, jess mcintosh, thanks to both of you. still ahead, obamacare is just one of the battles democrats are preparing for in the trump era.
up next, california takes bold moves to brace for the incoming president recruit ago former u.s. attorney general. later, donald trump's self-imposed deadline for revealing allegedly new information on the russian hacking has come and gone. the incoming president escalated his fight with his own intelligence agencies, meanwhile. so inside donald trump's love affair with wikileaks ahead.
opponents of donald trump, particularly frustrated liberals, are looking for ways to properly channel their anger and their deep foreboding into a strategy for fighting back. not just against trump but against also the 115th congress which is likely to make their agenda trump's agenda, along with threatening even cherished programs like medicare. and perhaps the strongest challenge comes from the world's sixth-largest economy -- the state of california.
already, the university of california system has said that it would fight trump on immigration. janet napolitano said in a statement last month the university would protect the privacy and civil rights of the undocumented members of the uc community. governor jerry brown vowed to challenge any attempt by trump to interfere with climate science. today, in what appears to be an exemptional move, the state legislature hired barack obama's former attorney general eric holder to represent them in any legal fights against the new republican white house. it's a move that seems to signal that california is poised to become america's liberal front line against the incoming president. joining me is kevin deleon, california's senate leader. kevin, explain to us the process -- the decision to hire eric holder and how that differs from having an attorney general? >> well, thank you very much, joy, for the invitation. it's an honor to be here with
each and every one of you. i will say right now we're confronted a dichotomy of democracy. it's something unique in our history and it appears the most overt opponent to our state of the state appears to be the incoming head of state and this is the president-elect, donald j. trump. given the campaign rhetoric, one of the most bruising and controversial polemic and polarizing campaigns in modern political history, we actually thought perhaps this is just campaign rhetoric but it's very clear that our worst fears were being confirmed. after he's appointed individuals to head up hhs that want to dismantle, vision race the affordable care act. when the chief architect of senate bill 1050 of arizona is one of his close political counselors and we have someone like jeff sessions to be the nominee of the department of justice, that sent a very clear message to us in california that these individuals would be -- would pose a clear and present
danger to the economic prosperity and the well-being of the values and people of california. so that's why we have secured the legal services of the recent former attorney general of the united states, eric holder. we're very proud that he will be representing us, providing legal strategy and counsel and he'll be working very closely with the incoming attorney general as a legal team. the more legal firepower the better for the state of california and the people of california. >> well, it's certainly unprecedented. javier becerra is going to be the attorney general replacing kamala harris. so you walked us through why holder. tell us what, from california's point of view, are the three most pressing issues. the things you're most worried about. you ticked off a few, but what are the three areas of greatest concern for californians. >> three areas is health care, the aca. we have 6.5 million californians of every single hue, every geographical area in the state who benefitted greatly from the aca.
if, in fact, tom price and donald trump moves forward by eviscerating -- and the republicans on the hill by eviscerating the aca, you'll have 6.5 million californians who will no longer have any access to any type of health care. this is equal to a middle-class tax increase oncale foreignians who have to foot the bill for people who end up in the emergency rooms for their care. that would be a big blow, we have 200,000 jobs in the health care service industry directly related to aca. second thing is climate change, environmental protection, the clean air we breathe into our lung, the clean water our children drink every single day. if they roll back regulations and actually dirty our air with more harmful toxic pollutants, people are going to get sick, especially children. >> the third thing? >> the third thing is separating children from their mothers which is massive deportations. expanding the criteria of who is a violent criminal felon and actually making mothers and
nannies criminal felons and separating children from their mothers. so those are three big issues for us in california. >> well, kevin de leon, one of eight americans live in california, sixth-largest economy in the world. it could have a huge affect on the rest of the country. as california goes, so maybe goes the nation. kevin de leone, thank you for being with us. >> thank you very much. coming up, why donald trump would take the word of julian assange over u.s. intelligence. a look at trump's recent love for wikileaks after this quick break. did russia give you this
>> wikileaks chief julian assange in an interview on fox news last night denying the russian government was the source of thousands of hacked democratic party e-mails released by wikileaks during the campaign. notably, assange specifically rules out his source was a "state party." meaning he didn't exactly say the leaks had no connection to russia. nevertheless, his denial seems to have impressed one donald j. trump who used his favorite means of communications to state this morning "julian assange said a 14-year-old could have hacked podesta, hillary clinton's campaign chair -- why was dean see so careless. also said russians did not give him the info." exclamation point. one would ask why the soon to be president of the united states
would take the word of the guy said to have leaked stolen u.s. e-mails over the entire u.s. intelligence community delivered with yunnan timty. today was the day trump said he would reveal his own secret information about the hacks, still no word on that. this isn't the first time trump has appeared to favor assange and his organization. during the campaign, he repeatedly hailed wikileaks for releasing information that hurt his opponent, hillary clinton. >> this just came out. this just came out. wikileaks, i love wikileaks. wikileaks has provided things that are unbelievable. boy, that wikileaks has done a job on her, hasn't it? oh, we love wikileaks. boy, they have really -- wikileaks. wikileaks. wikileaks. >> but it was just a few short years ago that trump was singing a very different tune. in 2010, wikileaks released hundreds of thousands of military communications and diplomatic cables which, at the time, were seen as damaging to the u.s. trump was asked about it backstage at fox news.
>> he claims it will be on, he'll talk about wikileaks, you had nothing to do with wikileaks. >> no, but i think it's disgraceful. i think there should be death penalty or something. >> same goes for fox news host sean hannity who flew all the way to the uk this week to interview assange at the ecuadorian embassy in london where the australian has been living since granted asylum there in 2012. assange still faces extradition to sweden on charges of rape and sexual assault. hannity has been full of praise for his interview subject, including once telling assange "i do hope you get free one day." but it was a very different story back in 2010 when he devoted an entire segment to questioning why the obama administration had yet to put assange behind bars. >> these are real lives that are now in jeopardy and in danger. that was step one. then 390,000 other documents were released, many of them classified documents and now we have this. what is -- why? why didn't they go after this guy? why didn't they arrest him? why didn't they stop this from being published when we had so much time to do it. >> even sarah palin, who was
herself hacked by wikileaks in 2008 and who later called assange "an anti-american operative with blood on his hands" even she did an about-face today, actually apologizing to assange on her facebook page. she apologized. not even -- not every republican is jumping on the wikileaks bandwagon. today house speaker paul ryan called julian assange "a sycophant for russia." well, senator lindsey graham had a forceful message for donald trump. >> i hope the president-elect will get his information and trust the american patriots who work in the intelligence community who swear oath and allegiance to the constitution and not some guy hiding from the law who has a record of undercutting and undermining american democracy. >> tonight, a new report suggests trump's friction with the intelligence community is not just rhetorical. the president-elect's plans for the u.s. top spy agency next.
you take on the intelligence community they have six ways from sunday to get back at you. so even for a practical supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this. >> what do you think the intelligence community would do if they were motivated to? >> i don't know, but from what i am told they are very upset about how he has treated them and talked about them. >> i'm joined by congressman adam schiff, democratic ranking member on the house intelligence committee.
thank you for being here. i will ask you the same question my colleague rachel maddow asked chuck schumer. you sit on the intelligence community, what has been the reaction of the leaders of the intelligence community to just being essentially spurned by the incoming president? >> i think people are really incredulous that he continues to take the side of the kremlin that essentially he disregards what the intelligence community has to say of the enormous consensus among the intelligence agencies that basically because the facts are at odds with his own preferred version of events, he is going to shun and ig near the intelligence community has to say. i'm running out of adjectives and expletives to describe the situation. it's really so appalling and here he is taking the side of julian assange, you know, i think what it does show more than anything else is that in donald trump's world, you're for him or against him. here during the campaign what the russians did was helpful,
he's not going to bite the hand that fed him and what wikileaks did was helpful and so he's going to praise them but as you saw in those clips that you played of sean hannity before and after, donald trump before and after there there's no consistency here at all far from it. one final point i would make because i think the president spoke to this so eloquently during his press conference a couple weeks ago, what we are seeing here is such a hyperpartisan environment within the gop that they are willing to overlook all the qualms that they have about russia over the last half century or more. they're willing to overlook the way that julian assange has endangered our national interests. if it's good for the republicans and bad for the democrats and that is a terrible development in our democracy. >> congressman, do you get the sense that is lasting? that republicans and donald
trump are going to continue to have this fealty or to give russia a huge pass on even spying on american and hacking into american e-mails and give assange a huge pass? is that lasting or temporary because they don't want donald trump's election to seem invalidated? >> i think it's temporary because a lot of the members of the house and some in the senate have districts or states where trump is more popular than they are, they're afraid of their own shadow, but you have courageous gop member who are speaking out, peek like mccain who won't sit idly by while trump takes actions that are inanymore mickable to our government and cozying up to the kremlin. >> in the "wall street journal" they're reporting the incoming trump administration is looking to make serious restructuring, a change both the director of national intelligence office to essentially cut it and also make changes and restructuring to the cia. cutting back on staffing at the virginia headquarters, moving
people into field posts, that kind of thing. that seems alarming and a response, maybe, to what donald trump doesn't believe or believes from the intelligence agency. what do you make of those proposals? >> that's exactly right. if this "wall street journal" report is accurate, under the guise, ironically, of saying we want to depoliticize the office of the director of national intelligence or the cia, what the president-elect would be doing is exactly the opposite, would be politicizing it, would be effectively punishing the intelligence agencies for speaking the truth. punishing them for speaking out about russian interference in our democracy. that would be a terrible step. >> it would be unprecedented. congressman adam schiff, thank you very much. >> thank you. coming up, top celebrities are making big plans for inauguration day -- to do just about anything but attend the actual event. why donald trump can't stand the celebrity snubs, ahead.
thing 1 tonight. after congressional republicans ill-fated attempt to gut the house office of congressional ethics, we've heard a lot about the cases of corruption both large and small that congress's independent watchdog has investigated over the years. today we learned interesting details about a hair-raising investigation by the oversight office that involves a gop congressman and his pet rabbit. that story is thing 2 in 60 seconds.
just yesterday, the house office of congressional ethics survived an 11th-hour attempt by the new republican congress to gut its oversight powers. already we're seeing the benefits of having a watchdog overseeing the behavior of those in congress. for the past year, the oce had been investigating congressman duncan hunter, that's him vaping during a congressional hearing, for misuse of campaign funds. the investigation into
congressman hunter's alleged misuse of funds has been public for some time now but thanks to a comment made by his office in response to questions about the oce, we now know that one of the things representative hunter was specifically being investigated for was spending $600 of his campaign's money on "in cabin rabbit transport fees." in other words, the congressman spent $600 in campaign donations on airfare for his family's pet rabbit. rascally. now a spokesperson for representative hunter's office told a local paper that the $600 rabbit ride was mistakenly charged to his campaign account and that might be true. but how to explain some other expenses that the oce as well as the federal elections commission have been investigating? expenses like $1,300 in steam video games spent over the course of two months. another alleged mistake his office blamed on his teenaged son. or how about nearly $300 in food from jack-in-the-box. also a mistake.
$1,200 in utility bill payments. also a mistake. the list of mistakes goes on and on. so far, the congressman has yet to repay his campaign upwards of $49,000 and the full report is set to come out some time soon, perhaps forcing the poor hunter family rabbit to fly coach. >> show biz and big biz, music's . only touch of gray uses oxygen to gently blend away some gray, but not all for that perfect salt and pepper look. satisfaction guaranteed. just you and the look you want. just for men touch of gray
>> show biz and big biz, music's magic man and the mogul ran the media gauntlet to open the world's glitziest casino. donald trump gave michael jackson a personal tour of his $1.2 billion extravaganza. >> to have michael at the taj mahal, he's my friend, he's a tremendous talent and it's really my honor. it's a big day for me. so for all his efforts to sell himself as a supremely successful businessman and author of books on being a successful businessman, donald trump has always sold himself as a celebrity, a showman.
that's been a very important part of his persona to who he thinks he is. why else would he star the apprentice and celebty apprentice. and it bothers him that having attain it had presidency he feels he's being robbed of the praise he feels he deserves. the frustration was showing when trump tweeted "jackie evancho's album sales have skyrocketed." what trump calls skyrocketing others call a bump that coincided with a tv appearance she made. the 16-year-old's america's got talent runner-up has accept, so has country band big and rich and now trump can start fuming about comparisons to his predecessor president barack obama who had performers like arena franklin sing at his actual inauguration and hadden zell washington, bruce springsteen, mary j. blige,
booked. >> because they don't want to -- >> it's two weeks away. >> they don't want to play for donald trump. >> bull. >> this is a republic. >> bull. >> you are not summoned to perform for the king or for the dictator. in some places if kim jong-un calls you to sing you better show up. >> celebrities refusing to participate in the trump inauguration is getting plenty of attention. joining me now, nancy jiles, a contributor for buz "60 minutes" -- >> sunday morning. >> that's right. and randall pinkett, winning contestant on "the apprentice" which was hosted by one donald j. trump. i have added you to other shows. >> i love it. >> correct your check. i'll go to you first, nancy, on this. it's a bitter schadenfreude the way he cannot pull celebrities but is there anything to this idea put forward, let's give him a break --
>> the bill o'reilly idea? >> not that they don't want to perform for donald trump, but they're afraid that somehow the left will destroy them. >> no, there's nothing to it. and who would have ever thought in the history of my life i'd be sitting here with the two of you saying i agree with charles krauthammer. that's really weird. bill o'reilly is locked in the '50s where at that time the studio heads did have a lot of power and there were fears of being on the wrong list or accusedover being a communist and people lost work and did control their talent come on, the stars control things way more than the studios do and it's a funny thing. if you start your campaign saying mexicans are drug dealers and rapists, if you say things to black people like your lives are hell, what do you have to lose? if you say mean things about women, about grabbing their body parts and saying that's all right, it might offend people and make them not necessarily want to lend their talents to your presidency. it's weird, isn't it? >> who'd have thunk it?
randall, the other spin coming out of trump world is that donald trump doesn't want those people, he wants the people. he wants jackie evanchko because she's the movement. do you -- knowing donald trump, having worked with donald trump and been on the show with him, do you think it's legit that he doesn't care whether celebrities show up? >> oh, no, no donald's go is damaged right now. it's bruised and an gotha can fill the room there's no mystery that he wants the most famous inaugural celebration and he has to be fuming right now and what i've heard is we know mark burnett is producing the inauguration. >> who produced "the apprentice." >> and he brought in suzanne bender, a former dancing with the stars and "american idol" producer at the last minute to pull off a hail mary to try to get celebrities to sign on because they've had such a difficult time doing it. so i know donald's ego feeds off celebrity. it fed off "the apprentice," it fed off "celebrity apprentice"
and he's not happy. >> do you think donald trump is capable of admitting that maybe the kind of campaign he ran and attacks on these groups offend people in the arts community who have lots of lgbt people and people of color? >> i don't think donald will give the entertain community the credit they deserve from the standpoint i think people are standing on principle and you could look at the opportunity that they might have to gain favor with donald, we've seen that with the auto industry and for them to decline in my opinion when the opportunity to perform at the inauguration has been considered an honor, to decline that means you must be standing on principle because you could have incredible publicity. >> and nancy, what do you think it says on the other side of it that there has been so much cohesion in the arts community in opposing trump? >> i'm happy to hear that, it gives me hope because it's been a hopeless kind of time for me since the election and i'm glad to know people that are creative and open and want to express themselves and create art and move this world forward in many ways are united against hateful speech.
at the very least, even if it turns out he doesn't believe anything he said he still ran his campaign on smut, basically, smack. >> right. >> and that don't play with the arts. >> indeed. and i have to ask you before we go, randall, there's been a to-do about talladega's marching band, a historically black college, their band was supposed to perform, a lot of alumni are not happy about it, it's in my social media feed. the president said the school hadn't decided. do you know whether they'll perform? >> the last report i got was that the talladega marching band will perform at the inauguration. there was a big debate amongst alumni and students, many on the side of saying the school should not perform because it would give the appearance of support of the president which is the big issue we're talking about and the last report i heard is they will perform. >> wow. >> interesting. we shall see. there won't be a lot of them. there are no d.c. bands. nancy jiles and randall pinkett, thank you both. that is all for "all in" this evening.
the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening, i'm sure beyonce would perform two times at your inaugural! >> depending on what i was being inaugurated to, joy. >> that is true. >> depending. >> to anything. >> good to see you. thanks to you at home for being with us this hour. there's a lot going on. it's going to be an exciting show. before barack obama had his first inauguration as president eight years ago, before him the president who turned out the biggest crowd ever to witness his inauguration was lbj in 1965. not what you would imagine, right? but it's true. he held the record, more than a million people turned out to see lyndon baines johnson inaugurated in january of 1965 that was interestingly his second inauguration, right? of course his first inauguration happened under very different very extreme circumstances