so that's one thing. secondly, it creates an explanation for all their travails. it's a, don't look at us, look at these people who are disserving the public, and have the worst of motives for our country. it's sick. >> bob garfield, thank you. that is "all in" for this evening. good evening, rachel. >> thanks, my friend, appreciate it. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. happy wednesday. the governor of ohio is, pop quiz, governor of ohio, you're right, john kasich. john kasich is a republican. he's currently ohio governor. he ran for president last year. he won almost nothing in terms of presidential primaries. but oddly, he still had quite a lot of longevity as a primary candidate. john kasich was the last man standing against trump in the competition for the republican presidential nomination. but i think, this is maybe arguable, but arguably more so

than any other republican presidential candidate last year, kasich really ran directly against trump from the very beginning. even before 2016, in november 2015 john kasich ran this unconventional sobering serious ad against trump. >> i would like anyone who is listening to consider some thoughts that i've paraphrased from the words of german pastor martin d. mueller, you might not care if donald trump says muslims must register with their government because you're not one, and you might not care if trump says he'll round up all the hispanic immigrants because you're not one. you might not care if donald trump says it's okay to rough up black protesters, because you're not one. and you might not care if donald trump wants to suppress journalists, because you're not one. think about this.

if he keeps going, and he actually becomes president, he might just get around to you, and you better hope that there's someone left to help you. ♪ >> john kasich ran that ad in november 2015. even before the republican primary contest had started. donald trump responded by saying he was going to sue john kasich for running that ad. despite that threat, donald trump did not actually sue john kasich for that ad. by that very early point in the presidential campaign, that was still 2015, even by then, trump had already established this part of his m.o. as a candidate. weeks before he threatened to sue john kasich over that ad, and didn't actually sue him,

he'd had his lawyers send a threatening "i'm going to sue you" letter to a conservative activist group when they ran another negative ad against trump. in that instance as well, like he did with john kasich, although trump pounds his chest and sent the threatening letter saying, i'm going to sue you, he didn't actually sue them. an amazingly long list, the number of times he has done it, looking at it, it's like a trip down rich guy threatening to be litigious lane. after he said he would sue jan kasich and he did not, he then threatened to sue a super pac for running another negative ad against trump. but he didn't actually sue them either. that was in november 2015. by december 2015, a jeb bush donor in florida had taken out a big newspaper ad criticizing trump. trump responded by saying, i'm

going to sue you for that ad. trump did not sue that guy for that ad. then in january he announced that he would sue the "washington post" for their reporting on one of his casinos going bankrupt in a particularly spectacular way. he said he would sue the "washington post" for that article. he did not sue them for that article. that then kicked off an amazing two-week period in february of last year when donald trump threatened to sue ted cruz three different times for three different things in less than two weeks. first, he threatened to sue ted cruz for winning the iowa caucuses. then he threatened to sue ted cruz for not being a natural born citizen. then he threatened to sue ted cruz for what he most likes to sue about, negative ads. a negative anti-donald trump ad that ted cruz had run. threatened to sue him for all those things. at which point ted cruz, he actually got up in front of

reporters at that point and said, please, sue me. you keep saying you're going to sue me. do it. file the lawsuit. this would be fun in court. donald trump never filed the lawsuit. donald trump never filed any of the lawsuits against ted cruz. that was his busy february of not suing peemg. people. in march, he got busy not suing the republican national committee. he threatened to sue the republican party over him not getting enough delegates out of louisiana. he did not actually sue them. in april, the associated press ran an article about a business catastrophe that was a trump branded condo project in the nation of panama. a.p. published their panama article about him. he said he would sue for that article. he did not sue the a.p. for that article. later that month, reporter david k. johnston, you remember him, he got those two pages of trump's federal tax returns a couple of months ago, david k. johnston was working on a piece

about donald trump last spring. he talked to donald trump in reporting about that piece. donald trump said he would sue him for his reporting. he did not sue david confident johnston. the month after that in may, he said he would sue the "washington post" again for a different article. he did not sue the "washington post" that time either. last summer, in july, the guy who had been his ghostwriter on the book "the art of a deal," he gave comments to the "new yorker" magazine for an article they were writing on trump. he was talking about what it was like to work with trump on "the art of the deal." he called that guy personally and told him, i'm going to sue you. trump did not sue him. this went on all the way through the campaign. in october, just a month before the election, he told "the new york times" that he was going to sue them when they published an article about some of his state tax returns. he told them he was going to sue them. he did not sue them. eight days after that, he told the "times" he was going to sue them again. this time for an article about women who said they had been sexually assaulted by donald

trump. he told the "times" he was going to sue them for publishing that article. he did not sue them for publishing that article. ten days later, by which point more than a dozen women had emerged, who said they had been sexually assaulted by donald trump, he announced he would sue all of those dozen women, individually. he did not sue any of them. pretending to file lawsuits against people, announcing that he's taking legal action against somebody, when he actually does nothing of the sort. that is a tactic that donald trump was known for in his business life. i don't think anybody quite knew whether it would carry over into his life as a public figure, but you saw the way he behaved in the campaign. i guess we should have known by then that's how he was going to do as president, too. this is what he does. this is what he's always done. on june 8th, of this year, fired fbi director james comey testified that president trump,

before he fired comey, he had had multiple one-on-one communications with comey, in which trump pressured him about the fbi's ongoing russia investigation. that opened up a whole new line of potential criminal inquiry into the white house and into the president specifically, because of obstruction of justice can be a criminal matter. after comey testified on june 8th about his conversations with the president, about the russia investigation, after he testified june 8th, the president's personal lawyer who had previously represented trump in things like threatening to sue "the new york times," his personal lawyer put out word the day after that comey testimony, put out word that the president was going to respond to that testimony from james comey by taking legal action against james comey. it's kind of hard just to flat-out sue somebody for saying something that's apparently true under oath that you can't rebut. the president's private lawyer

said he would be filing legal complaints against james comey for that testimony. he would be filing complaints with the committee that he testified in front of. james comey is not a member of any congressional committee. he is not a member of congress. what would a complaint to a committee of congress do? nobody knows. but it would be a complaint. also, trump's lawyer threatened there would be a complaint filed against james comey with the department of justice inspector general. ooh! at that point, james comey was no longer an employee of the department of justice. remember, trump had fired him. it's not clear what the department of justice inspector general would do with this complaint about somebody who did not work at that agency. but trump and his lawyers came out, pounded their chests, and said, watch out, james comey, here come the legal-ish filings against you. better mortgage your house. better get yourself some lawyers. they made those threats on june

9th. the day after james comey had given his congressional testimony. and that opened up this interesting waiting game. would the president and his lawyer follow through on these threats. this is not the kind of thing a president usually does, right? is the president really going to file legal complaints about somebody who gave congressional testimony against him? what would these complaints look like? sort of wait with baited breath here? a week after they said they were going to file those complaints, friendly reporters at the fox business channel announced they had a scoop on this subject. they had just heard from trump's lawyers that those legal complaints against james comey, that they had been threatening, they were not ready yet. the filing of the civil complaints against james comey would be, quote, slipping to next week. that next week has now come and gone. still no legal complaints have been filed by the president, or his lawyers, against james comey. and now bloomberg was first to report today that there's not

going to be any legal complaints filed against james comey at all. as a businessman, even as a candidate for president, the patented trump threat to sue is kind of its own reward, right? you seem tough, you seem pugnacious, you seem like you won't take anybody's insults, you make other people think twice about lobbing any other criticism at you, because they keep hearing about you filing all these lawsuits. if nothing else, it sounds very expensive. as a businessman, even as a candidate for office, the threat itself was presumably the point. trump has always been able to count on people not following up in the end to see if he actually filed all those lawsuits that he threatened. when you're president, though, somebody's always going to follow up everything you say. especially when you do something as unpresidential as threatening somebody who's probably going to end up being a very important witness in a legal proceedings that may arise against the president in the near future.

so the comey legal complaint threat climb-down has ended up being a headline. because president trump made this threat as president. and people follow up on what presidents say. so it's news today that they had made this threat to james comey, to go after him legally, and now they're climbing down from that. and with that climb-down today, thus collapses one part of the broader effort by this white house and their allies to try to smear and discredit the people who were investigating him, or who are still investigating him, on the russia issue, and now on obstruction of justice. now, because james comey and robert mueller are republicans, because they are life-long law enforcement officials, because they've had decades in public service in which they earned reputations that don't rub off easily, neither bob mueller nor james comey is a particularly easy target for the white house, and their allies, to try to take apart. when it comes to comey and his role specifically in the

obstruction of justice investigation, that centers on this president, the difficult thing about this strategy of trying to smear james comey, as if he's unreliable or somebody who shouldn't be trusted or somebody whose integrity is in question, look, there are these legal complaints we've heard are being filed against him, the problem with going after james comey and what he can testify to as to whether or not the president was pressuring him on the russia investigation before he fired him, the problem with going after comey is that comey, as we know, took great care to make sure there was corroboration for his testimony to that fact. yesterday in congress, a serving high ranking fbi official, head of the national security division at the fbi, testified in the senate under oath that, yes, he had been briefed james comey about comey's interactions with trump. so there's one high ranking currently serving fbi official who can be called on under oath to testify whether or not -- as to whether or not comey's story

about his conversations with the president stands up. and that fbi official is head of the national security division. he's about one of a half dozen high-ranking fbi officials who are likely to be called to testify in that regard. in addition to those high ranking fbi officials who are all going to make very credible witnesses because they're all high ranking fbi officials, tonight we also learned that the senate intelligence committee has reached an agreement presumably with special counsel bob mueller, they have reached an agreement to obtain the memos that james comey wrote contemporaneously right after he had his interactions with the president that are now subject of this criminal obstruction of justice investigation. senate intelligence committee is getting the comey memos. two questions to ask yourself about that. number one, does that mean we ever get to see the james comey memos? because the senate intelligence committee does lots of its work in secret, in classified settings. even though everybody thinks all

of congress leaks like a sieve, the senate intelligence committee doesn't really leak. trust me. i try to get everybody to leak. that's my job. they do not leak. senate intelligence committee, they squeak when you try to squeeze them. very frustrating. so if they're the ones who are getting comey's memo from the fbi, i don't know if that means as we humans, we citizens are ever going to get to lay eyes on it. second question to ask yourself about this tonight. why is it that the senate intelligence committee that's getting that memo? they explicitly, according to their chairman, are not investigating the obstruction of justice. the comey memo, according to what we've heard about it, is specifically about president trump pressuring james comey, pressuring the fbi director to drop an open investigation. materially, for the purposes of obstruction of justice, it doesn't really matter what the investigation was about.

if a president tells an fbi director to shut down an fbi investigation, that's an obstruction of justice issue. obstruction of justice is not being investigated by the senate intelligence committee. so why are they the ones getting the memo? where they are supposedly investigating the obstruction of justice is in the judiciary committee. there's something a little bit weird going on over there that you should know about. this president and white house have been so pressured by these unprecedented, ongoing, very serious investigations that have already resulted in at least one federal grand jury being impaneled in virginia, already resulted in the appointment of a very formidable special counsel in bob mueller, and resulted in five separate investigations into the administration's behavior up to and including in some cases the behavior of the president of the united states himself, as we have watched this white house and this presidency feel the heat over the

seriousness of this scandal that has surrounded them even in the early days of this presidency, it has been fascinating in human terms to watch the president himself and his administration in terms of how they've responded, how they would like to try to discredit the investigators who are looking into them. how they would like to do anything they can to try to shut this thing down. but you know what, it's not just them alone. it is increasingly clear that they are not having to do that all on their own. the idea here is that when trump does this stuff, when he tries to discredit the investigators looking at him, he does it in his like crazy trump-y way. he has his, you know, very aggressive, good-haired, new york lawyer threaten to sue you, or threaten to file legal complaints against you. and it's not real, but it's supposed to be threatening anyhow. that's a strange and lurid way

this president behaves and that's interesting. it turns out we're now seeing in addition to him and all of his interesting craziness, he has normal republican politician allies. normal republicans who are now trying to do the same thing that he is doing. they're trying to short-circuit and discredit the investigation. at least they appear to be doing that. but they are not like trump. they are doing it through normal political ways that we have seen before. that's next. i'm leaving you, wesley. but why? you haven't noticed me in two years. i was in a coma. well, i still deserve appreciation. who was there for you when you had amnesia? you know i can't remember that. stop this madness. if it's appreciation you want you should both get snapshot from progressive. it rewards good drivers with big discounts on car insurance. i have also awoken from my coma. ♪ it's called a nap, susan lucci. ♪

pain's kind of self-defining. not when it hurts, it hurts. when i can't do something, it makes me feel isolated. with aleve, you can stay strong longer because only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. tylenol can't do that. i get to be present and enjoy what i love. this is my pain. but i am stronger. aleve. all day strong. all day long. yogig-speed internet.me?

you know what's not awesome? when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids. and these guys. him. ah. oh hello- that lady. these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh. sure. still yes! you can get it too. welcome to the party. introducing gig-speed internet from xfinity. finally, gig for your neighborhood too. during watergate, nixon supporters tried to say a special prosecutor was a partisan democrat, a political

hit man who was out to destroy the nixon presidency for political reasons. the george w. bush administration created a lethal scandal of their claims about weapons of mass destruction in iraq. paul wolfowitz at the pentagon reportedly asked the cia to investigate the top u.n. weapons inspector in iraq who turned up no evidence of saddam having any wmd. when the cia's report came back without enough evidence to smear hans blix, paul wolfowitz reportedly went through the roof in response, hit the ceiling. when the c.i.a. itself sent an envoy to check out if iraq was pursuing nuclear materials in africa, the envoy found that saddam was not doing that. the bush administration nevertheless said he was doing that. the brush administration said they fed the conservative media, damaging material about that envoy who the cia had sent to africa, including the fact that his wife was a covert operative for the cia. they named her. they outed her.

in the ensuing investigation into that, patrick fitzgerald got appointed as a special prosecutor to look into the outing of that c.i.a. agent. the bush folks and the allies in the conservative media went after him, too. bill crystal went on fox news and said this patrick fitzgerald, he's just a partisan. he's just out to politically wound the bush administration. you know, in this current administration, we're used to this new president doing stuff his own way. he does stuff in kind of a crazy way for politicians, right? but going after the investigators who are looking into a president, or looking into a scandal, trying to smear the investigators? that's not something that only crazy seeming presidents do. that's what normal political figures do and have done since the beginning of time. we're now seeing a concerted effort on the right to try to attack former fbi director james comey and former fbi director

robert mueller. trying to destroy two former fbi directors. that is a hard sell. beyond that, we've also seen a turn in the conservative media just in the past few days where they have also started to attack the acting director now of the fbi, andrew mccabe. and now here's the thing to watch that's happening in the united states senate. in the u.s. senate, it's the judiciary committee that's supposedly investigating obstruction of justice. obstruction of justice, question of among other things whether the president might have fired james comey to try to stop or pervert the fbi's open investigation into various matters related to russia. this judiciary committee is apparently not getting its hands on the comey memo about his interactions with the president. that's going somewhere else in the senate. that's strange enough in its own right. but in terms of their own work in the judiciary committee, where they're supposed to be investigating obstruction of justice, we're now seeing the republicans on that committee start to go after the investigation itself.

in a way that hasn't really been picked up on. it hasn't really been widely reported today. but it's happening in plain sight. republican chairman of that crucial committee is chuck grassley, iowa senator chuck grassley. and senator lindsay graham of south carolina. grassley and graham have sent a request to the fbi that the fbi hand over, look at this, all fisa warrants and requests for fisa warrants that the fbi had issued in their russia investigation, and in the investigation into whether or not the trump campaign colluded with russia in that attack. hand over all the foreign surveillance warrants that you have asked for? tell us what you have requested? that would be a really remarkable intrusion into the fbi's investigation. this is an ongoing investigation into the russian attacks. if in the middle of that investigation, the fbi has to hand over all of their draft

requests for warrants, all of their requests for warrants, and the response they got from the courts, they were requesting those warrants from, that would essentially lay bare everything they are doing in the middle of them doing it. this is a remarkable request. we have posted this letter to the fbi that chuck grassley and lindsay graham just requested today. we posted it so you can see it if you're interested in this stuff. check this out. this is weird. you can see from the way they've written it, that not only do they want to basically access all of the core materials from these ongoing fbi investigations into russia, these warrants, they also appear to be driving at the question of why the fbi started its investigation into potential collusion by the trump campaign in the first place. remember that fbi investigation started last summer, last july. these republicans on the senate judiciary committee are now asking about why you started that investigation, what you had, what did you submit to the court, how did you get your warrants. what they appear to be up to is

basically trying to discredit the fbi for having started this investigation at all. what they're implying is the whole fbi investigation all stemmed from that dossier of allegations against trump and his campaign. that one that was published in buzz feed in january. they're saying, implicitly, that that dossier of material is unproven and suspect, and that that's what the fbi's whole investigation is all based on. therefore, it's all nonsense. president trump is flamboyant and, you know, prone to outrageous seeming conduct, like threatening legal action against his political opponents. his republican allies, though, including those who are supposedly leading some of the investigations into him, they are not flamboyant. they are not outrageous in the same way that he is. they did these things in subtler ways. but just do me a favor, look at this letter we just posted on our website tonight. you can see there in black and white, and in blue signature at

the end, you can see the senate republicans basically trying to take apart the fbi for having done these investigations of trump at all. the attacks on the fbi are happening in the conservative media, they're happening from the white house, they're now happening in the official correspondence to the fbi from the republicans in the united states senate who are supposed to be participating in this investigation on their own terms. heads-up on that, they are trying to stop this thing in its tracks before it comes to its conclusion. heads-up. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ (vo) you can pass down a subaru forester. (dad) she's all yours. (vo) but you get to keep the memories. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru.

is to always keep track of your employees.r micromanage them. make sure they're producing. woo! employee of the month! you really shouldn't leave their side. vita coco coconut water, hydration comes naturally.

great sleep we engineered every inch of the casper mattress to make it possible a subtle bounce just the right sink we even designed a unique foam, that's breathable, for all night coolness it now has more than 30,000 reviews with an average of 4.8 stars you can try it home for 100 nights with free shipping and free returns try it the internet's favorite mattress at casper.com

some new polling came out on the republican plan to kill the affordable care act today. four different polls shows approval ranges from a high of 27%, which is terrible, down to a low of 12% support, which is just astonishingly inhumanly bad. 12% approval. people would rather get hit by a car. nevertheless, the senate says they're still trying to pass this thing. so washington today looked like this. >> my medicine costs almost $3,000 a month. without it, i'll go back to paralysis. i don't want to die. >> i don't want to die!

>> we don't want to die. >> we don't want to die! >> shame on you! shame on you! >> today in washington, it was like this everywhere. about a dozen of colorado senator cory gardner's constituents staking out his off today. at one point today, capitol hill reporters noted that every single floor in the whole russell senate office building had at least one protest going on all at once against the republican senators on the health bill. protesters sat down under a cluster of american flags outside lisa murkowski's office. they sat down inside senator rob portman's office, in the sitting area at his office. portman asked the capitol police not to make any arrests of the protesters. the police nevertheless brought

out the zip ties and arrested some of those people anyway. marco rubio's office, a makeshift march in a tight senate hallway outside his office door. people got thrown out of the capital there. pat toomey had a small human blockade sitting outside his d.c. office today. one of those protesters was arrested and dragged away by his arms. this friendly looking group here swung by arkansas senator tom cotton's office, a lot of them from the indivisible chapter that calls them the ozark chapter of indivisible. katy mcfarland uses a wheelchair, and she told senator cotton's office that the medicaid cuts in the republican bill would kill her. she was arrested today. her hands put up in zip ties. by the end of the day, at least 40 people were arrested after the u.s. capitol today in protest against the senate republicans' health bill. protests were outside the senate

offices, too, in considerable numbers. more than 2,000 people reportedly in the streets today protesting against the republicans' bill. in the face of all this pressure, republicans in the senate failed to bring their bill to a vote this week. they pulled it because they knew it would fail. their hope now is mumabpresumab go dark for a while. with the hopes they can twist the arms of the no votes hard enough that they can get this bill passed down the road, where fewer people will be paying attention and fewer people will be showing up at their offices. but you know what? this weekend, the u.s. senate leaves d.c. and they all go home for their holiday recess. you can guess what will be waiting on their doob steps to welcome them home. joining us now is the one and only chris hayes, the host of "all in." thank you for sticking around, my friend. >> my pleasure. >> you have been reporting on this more than anybody else. you're not here just because i like you, i learned more about

this from you than anybody else. what do you think is the most important thing to watch in terms of whether or not the republicans are going to pass this, and if they do pass it, will it be something that we would recognize or a whole new bill? >> so, they have to do this very difficult thing, which is to move the bill to the left and right at the same time. you would say, it's a see-saw, it will go this way, but there's this thing they do in washington, remember when i was at the white house reporting, there's a way to deregulate and throw money. this is the washington tradition of achieving bipartisanship or appeasing both sides. to do something like what's in the house bill, which is, you know, the states can waive out of all these regulations -- >> everybody's health care gets much worse. >> particularly, particularly, this is what's so insidious, particularly in states controlled by republican governors. so you give the conservatives that. and at the same time you give the moderates billions of dollars. that is the way that they could

conceivably get there. here is the big problem. medicaid. sitting at the core of it. medicaid cuts are the most unpopular part of the bill and the biggest thing the bill is doing for budgetary reasons. the people in the hallways are the people whose lives are on the line. >> immediate i cared the single most provider of health insurance in the united states. nobody is covered by more. i mean, people think of it as like this niche thing that covers the poor, that covers the disabled, nursing homes. medicaid covers more people than any other type of insurance in the country. >> not only that, it covers -- there's 32% of households in west virginia have someone on medicaid. a key vote here, anything resembling this would be one of the most remarkable acts of state self-sabotage by an elected representative than i ever witnessed, and possibly in the recent legislative history

of the united states, were she to vote for anything in the ballpark of what they are proposing. >> given the importance of medicaid in her state. since medicaid is the spine on which this whole thing happening, the whole strategy, everything they're doing here is about cutting medicaid, that since they can't get around that, no matter what else they do around the edges, it's never going to be enough to bring over enough people to pass it? >> unless people really knuckle under. that's really the question. forget the conservatives for a while. people want to rely on rand paul. watch rob portman, susan collins, all republicans who represent states that have medicaid expansion. they need to do things for their constituents. and ultimately, the bill will come down to, do they actually care about their constituents on medicaid in the states? or are they willing to take some kind of symbolic tweak that lets them vote for it? that to me is the real question at the core of this. you are correct, they can't -- they have to cut medicaid because they want to repeal

taxes. and the only place -- why do you rob a bank? that's where the money is. why do you go to medicaid? that's where the spending is. if they go to medicaid, it will be brutal. those are the people to watch. >> that is very helpful. all of this nonsense that other people who don't understand this as well say, oh, look, how interesting, mike lee is opposed. >> keep your eyes on the medicaid. >> thank you. >> all right. >> you've been doing a great service on this. i thank you. >> thank you. we've got a special guest here tonight for "the interview." she is right in the middle of what is becoming a brand-new scandal in washington. she personally stood up and blew the whistle on it to make that so. that's "the interview" tonight that's coming up. stay with us.

(singsong) budget meeting. sweet. if you compare last quarter... it's no wonder everything seems a little better with the creamy taste of philly, made with no artificial preservatives, flavours or dyes. if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, preservatives, and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works by focusing right in the gi-tract to help control damaging inflammation and is clinically proven to begin helping many patients achieve both symptom relief as well as remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment.

entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. while not reported with entyvio, pml, a rare, serious brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections, or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's medication isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. lobster and shrimp are teaming up in so many new dishes.fest,

like coastal lobster and shrimp, with shrimp crusted with kettle chips. or new, over-the-top lobster and shrimp overboard. but it can't last, so hurry in. a lot of things are very different in this new administration compared to the last one. compared to all previous administrations. but we've been following with particular interest the new administration's overhaul of the epa, the environmental protection agency. because it appears to be an agency that they are using to very quickly and with a lot of determination up-end a lot of rules that took a long time to put in place, that are rules designed to protect public health and safety. we've been watching the epa closely. we've been watching the epa from the start, including this salient moment in february. >> should i give this pen to andrew? i think maybe, right?

>> andrew. andrew? the president there signing an order for agencies to start the wholesale deletion of health and safety rules that sort of keep industry in check. and then he looked around, thanked by name, andrew. andrew, the head of dow chemical. andrew, welcome to the oval office. have a ceremonial pen. you're the guy we're working for now. we got some new news today about where the boss of dow chemical has been hanging out with regard to the new administration. the a.p. reporting today the dow chemical ceo met with the head of the epa while the epa was deciding the fate of a particular dow chemical pest side. here's the entry on epa chief scott pruitt's calendar, which we have obtained. march 9th, 3:05 to 3:30, meet with andrew with dow chemical. and then three weeks later, the

head of the epa brushed aside the findings of epa scientists and said, no, i'm not siding with you, instead i'm siding with dow chemical. whose ceo i just met in that hotel room. he declared dow chemical's pest side would be just fine. there would be no ban. never mind what the epa scientists had already said about it. we've seen so many whiplash changes from the last administration to the new one. but the sidelining of science is one thing you've been able to watch in realtime. last month we got the news that epa was canning several members of an important science advisory board. apparently after the scientists had initially been told they could stay. one of the ousted scientists said the cuts, quote, just came out of nowhere. for the record, the epa says no one was fired. the agency said the scientists could all reapply for their jobs if they wanted to, send in your resume. soon after the epa showed those scientists the door, the remaining chair of the board was

called by congress to testify. the house science committee wanted to hear from her about what was going on inside the epa, how she saw the role of science in government help make decisions. here's the thing, when officials at the epa found out about that, when they found out that she planned to testify as a scientist, they sort of went bananas. this is from the chief of staff, the new trump administration chief of staff at the epa, the day before that scientist's scheduled appearance saying he needed to, quote, get a copy of her testimony and discuss her question period. sending her talking points that the epa wanted her to use in her testimony as a scientist. telling her it would be important to clarify her testimony, which she had already submitted. telling her it would be important to say the scientists that were serving with her on her board, they hadn't really been fired. but by the time the epa chief of staff tried to send her those

talking points and instructions, that scientist had already filed her own written testimony with the congressional committee. she told them, the epa she was not going to change her words. she told "the new york times" this week she did not at all appreciate the interference from the epa chief of staff, trying to change her testimony as a scientist. quote, i was stunned that he was pushing me to, quote, correct something in my testimony. quote, i was factual, and he was not. despite the pressure from on high at the epa, that scientist did get up there on capitol hill and she testified. just as she planned to do, in her own words, as a scientist. she has been unwavering in her response in the epa and the way they've been trying to pressure her as a scientist. and she joins us here for "the interview" next. ...it starts a chain reaction... ...that's heard throughout the connected business world. at&t network security helps protect business, from the largest financial markets to the smallest transactions,

by sensing cyber-attacks in near real time and automatically deploying countermeasures. keeping the world of business connected and protected. that's the power of and. the only bed smart enough to change sleep as we know it. it senses your every move and automatically adjusts

on both sides to keep you comfortable. and snoring.... does your bed do that? right now save on sleep number 360 smart beds. plus, it's the lowest prices of the season with savings of $500 on our most popular p5 bed. ends saturday.

trust #1 doctor recommended dulcolax. use dulcolax tablets for gentle dependable relief. suppositories for relief in minutes. and dulcoease for comfortable relief of hard stools. dulcolax. designed for dependable relief. tthat's why at comcast,t to be connected 24/7. we're always working to make our services more reliable. with technology that can update itself. and advanced fiber network infrastructure.

new, more reliable equipment for your home. and a new culture built around customer service. it all adds up to our most reliable network ever. one that keeps you connected to what matters most. if you personally were called upon to stand up to the president of the united states or a brand-new federal administration in the u.s. government, you could scarcely come to that moment with a better god-given name. >> my name is deb swakhammer and i'm a former professor from the university of minnesota. >> swakhammer. you heard her right. scientist deborah swakhammer appeared before congress last month to testify about the need for robust and independent science and making governmental decisions about public health and safety. professor swakhammer was there to give basically a warning about the appearance of

politicizing and marginalizing science within the epa. down to that hollowing out of academic scientists on the epa board that she chairs. we now know that behind the scenes, the epa was trying to get her to change her testimony so she would be more in line with agency talking points. professor swakhammer responded, quote, my testimony is submitted and embargoed. i assure you my main message is mine, mine, mine alone, and it is that strong science is needed to ensure public health. and then scientist deborah swakhammer went to capitol hill exactly as she promised she would, and she delivered her testimony despite that pressure. joining us now for the interview tonight is deborah swakhammer. she's professor emeritus of environmental health sciences at the university of minnesota. professor, thank you very much for being here. i really appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> you are currently chair of the board of scientific counselors at the epa.

>> that's correct. >> what is the role of that board? >> this board reports to the assistant administrator of research and development at epa, and we guide the assistant administrator in the research that's done internally at epa. >> okay. >> so it's all about just what's going on in epa. we don't deal with regulations. we don't deal with policy. we're dealing with kind of the basic science that's going into eventually maybe to support regulations. but we're overseeing that science and giving advice on is it the right science? are they doing it with the best methodology? is it, you know, the gold standard? is it going to withstand scrutiny when it goes -- >> so you're helping the decision makers, the active decision makers at epa make sense of and understand the import and the solidity of the science that's going into epa decisions? >> and it's even a little further upstream than that. is it good science? is it the right science? >> what is the state of that board now? >> well, many of the -- most of the members have been told they are not going to be continued into a second term, and so the

board that used to be about 68 members is now going to end up being 11 members as of september 1 because so many of those members were going to have the first term renewal, but now those members aren't going to have a first term renewal. so basically the board has been kind of decimated. >> mm-hmm. >> and our activities have been essentially suspended. we're sort of in suspended animation because all of our future meetings have also been canceled. >> all of your future meetings? >> yes. we had six scheduled in the fall, and then we were in the process of deciding how those -- what the agendas were going to be and how those meetings were going to move forward. and they all were canceled because there are no committee members to attend them. we don't have enough warm bodies to keep bosc going. >> given what the role of this board is, which seems crucial when you describe it in the terms you just skrished it, is it your sense that epa is

replacing the role of this science advisory board with something else? are they getting advice on how to interpret scientific problems and scientific work and the science done within the epa from people other than the scientists who used to do it. >> jong how they're going to be doing that unless they're doing it internally. if you're going to have really good science to support strong regulations because you go to court and have to have robust science in order to withstand that, you have to have peer review of that science. so you do the science, and then i look at it as an outsider, and i say, you know, you could have tweaked this, or maybe you want to do that, or you didn't include this study and you should have, you know. then you're getting that outside review, a fresh set of eyes, an objective review. without that, you can really go astray. you really don't have strong science. so epa is going to continue to do science, but they're not going to have that really strong outside, independent viewpoint for some time because bosc , its going to take them six to nine

months to probably get that repopulated, get new meetings scheduled and actually do anything. so they're going to miss about a year of valid, important, kind of critical science advice. it's a very critical time right now for them. >> how unusual was it for you to get this pressure that you got from the new chief of staff at the epa about your congressional testimony? >> well, it was highly unusual for me because i've only testified in front of congress a few times. so that alone was a pretty unusual experience. but getting these e-mails the night before was very disturbing. it was very -- i have to say i was pretty intimidated because i had made it very clear to everyone that i was testifying as an independent scientific expert, and i was not testifying as an epa witness. and i had told epa that and cleared it with their ethics folks. so i knew what i could and could not do given that i was also chair of this committee. so i was following what i thought were the right rules, and after the first exchange of e-mails, we kind of sorted out

that i'm not an epa witness. but then i kept getting these e-mails. and then i got that final e-mail which was, we want you to change your testimony. and it was a minor point, but it was changing the message i was giving. it was changing the wording, and i thought who are they to be telling me what i'm supposed to be saying when it's my testimony? and further more, i've already submitted it. so i was very intimidated by that. i wasn't happy about that. >> and you gave your testimony as you intended to give your testimony. >> absolutely. >> deborah swakhammer, chair of the epa's board of scientific counselors, thank you for helping us understand this at all levels. and thank you for what you did. >> thank you so much. >> good to meet you. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back.

a millie dresselhaus doll! happy birthday, sweetie! oh, millies. trick or treat! we're so glad to have you here. ♪ what if we treated great female scientists like they were stars? ♪ yasss queen! what if millie dresselhaus, the first woman to win the national medal of science in engineering, were as famous as any celebrity? [millie dresselhaus was seen having lunch today...] ♪ [...rumors of the new discovery...] what if we lived in a world like that? (crowd applauding) ♪

we know a place that's already working on it. ♪ at johnsonville, naturally hardwood smoked. 100% premium pork. no fillers. period. i'm nick, that's my brother brett and we're proud to say it's made the johnsonville way. "how to win at business." step one: point decisively with the arm of your glasses. abracadabra. the stage is yours. step two: choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly and win at business.

where does the time go? that does it. i was totally preparing to do a whole nother segment. control room just got in my ear and said, mad doe, time's up. sorry. got an amazing thing to tell you tomorrow. that does it for us tonight. we will see you again then. now it's time for "the last word" with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> rachel, you can't do a cliff-hanger like that. come on. how long would it take for you to say this amazing thing right now? >> it involves a prop and control room is not going to give it to me. they're laughing at me in my earpiece. >> these control rooms conspiring against the art of this with these crazy limits like the one-our thing on