Maxine Waters calls for open hearings. TRANSCRIPT: 1/28/2019, All In w. Chris Hayes.

Guests:
Katherine Clark, Sam Seder, Christina Greer, Maxine Waters, Sam Nunberg
Transcript:

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
Date: January 28, 2019
Guest: Katherine Clark, Sam Seder, Christina Greer, Maxine Waters, Sam
Nunberg


CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: And that`s HARDBALL for now. And tonight, be
sure to tune in at 10:00 p.m. Eastern. Senator Elizabeth Warren joins
Lawrence O`Donnell. And “ALL IN” with Chris Hayes, of course, starts right
now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on ALL IN.

MATTHEW WHITAKER, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES: I`ve been fully
briefed on the investigation.

HAYES: Rare comments on the Mueller probe from Donald Trump`s acting
Attorney General.

WHITAKER: The investigation is I think close to being completed and I hope
that we can get the report from Director Mueller as soon as possible.

HAYES: Tonight, why Matt Whitaker is commenting on an active
investigation. What it means for the Special Counsel with Congresswoman
Maxine Waters. Then, Michael Cohen agrees to appear privately before
Congress as Roger Stone heads to court.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you willing to cut a deal with Mueller to avoid the
case going to trial?

HAYES: Sam Nunberg on the chances his former mentor will flip. And as the
damage from the Trump shutdown comes into focus –

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just think the President cares way too much about
people in the media.

HAYES: Why the people he listens to are itching for another one.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is the President really prepared to shut down the
government again in three weeks?

MICK MULVANEY, ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, WHITE HOUSE: Yes. I think he
actually is.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Good evening from New York I`m Chris Hayes. As the world waits for
the next shoe to drop after Roger Stone`s indictment on Friday, the
President`s Acting Attorney General says we don`t have much longer to wait.
In what appears to have been a pretty flagrant breach of Justice Department
protocol, Acting A.G. Matt Whitaker said today that Robert Mueller`s work
is almost done.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WHITAKER: Right now you know, the investigation is I think close to being
completed and I hope that we can get the report from Director Mueller as
soon as we – as possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: OK. After speaking up to contradict that BuzzFeed report a couple
weeks ago, the Special Counsel is now declining to comment. But keep in
mind that for months the President`s allies and I think we can count
Whitaker as one of them have been insisting Mueller`s investigation is
about to wrap up, though Whitaker appears to be the first one who`s
actually read in on the probe.

We also know that FBI agents just executed search warrants on two of Roger
Stone`s residences on Friday suggesting they haven`t quite finished
examining his conduct. And in the wake of Stone`s pre-dawn arrest and the
seven criminal counts on which he`s set to be arraigned tomorrow, it`s hard
not to think of this report from last month. But the president lashed out
directly at Whitaker after being implicated in the proceedings against his
former warrior Michael Cohen.

So you can only imagine just think for a moment how the President might
react to the apprehension and indictment of a close associate going back
almost four decades. Did he reach out to Whitaker over the weekend, give
him an earphone? It`s not clear that Whitaker meant to make a big
revelation about the Mueller Pro today. His comments came in response to a
somewhat unrelated question during an entirely unrelated press conference
his first ever we should note as Attorney General so here`s his full answer
in context.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Before you came into your current role, you are
publicly critical of the Special Counsel investigation. Now, since you
have received your briefings, is there anything that you`ve seen or read
that gives you concern about Special Counsel Robert Mueller or his
investigation?

WHITAKER: You know, I`ve been fully briefed on the investigation and you
know, I look forward to Director Mueller delivering the final report and I
really am Not going to talk about open and ongoing investigation otherwise
but you know, sort of the statements that I made whereas a private citizen
only with publicly available information.

And you know I am – I am comfortable that the decisions that were made are
going to be reviewed you know, either through the various means we have.
But right now you don`t the investigation is I think close to being
completed and I hope that we can get the report from Director Mueller as
soon as we – as possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: To help make sense of those comments by the Acting Attorney
General, I`m joined by MSNBC Legal Analyst Jill Wine-Banks a former
Watergate Prosecutor and MSNBC Justice and National Security Analyst Matt
Miller who`s a former Chief Spokesperson for the Justice Department during
the Obama administration. Jill, the propriety of those comments, what do
you think?

JILL WINE-BANKS, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: I think he should not have reached
out to say that particularly since he wasn`t directly asked a question. It
must have been something that was on his mind that he did for a reason.
And we know the danger of commenting on ongoing investigations and raising
the hope that the report will be coming out soon maybe as you have just
suggested a response to something that Donald Trump called upon him over
the weekend saying how did you let Roger Stone get indicted. And so he`s
being defensive now.

His body language, his tone, his phrasing was certainly uncomfortable. It
was not a professional – he used a lot of ohms and pauses and repeats. So
there was something wrong with his answering in that way.

HAYES: Yes. You can watch – there`s a whole Shakespearean drama playing
out in his eyes and forehead as he was going through that, Matt. It was is
about as sure-footed as a toddler on ice skates. I mean, it was – he was
trying to figure out what to do. I guess one question is do you take him
at his word or was this him speculating, kind of unclear?

MATT MILLER, MSNBC JUSTICE AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I do take him at
his word. I think he made clear that he was briefed on it. And look,
usually – look, you can tell he was very nervous. You mentioned – look
at his head, I mean, he was he was sweating, he was stammering. And
usually, in those moments when you let something slip like that, you let
something slip that`s true. I`ve seen previous attorneys general let`s
stuff slip that they didn`t mean to.

And so I think that probably does mean that we`re close to the end of the
investigation. That would track with the reporting from Pete Williams and
Ken Dilanian who said that we were likely to see something in
February/March. It would track with some of the reporting about Rod
Rosenstein`s departure and what he expects to be done before he finishes
up.

And so, I think that he likely let slip something unintentionally that he
didn`t mean to. And now the big question is what other shoes dropped
before the end of it. Was Roger stone the last thing to drop other than a
report to the Attorney General that may get turned over to Congress, that
may be released publicly or is there still one big indictment to come? And
I don`t think we know the answer is that, obviously.

HAYES: Jill, William Barr today also submitted his questions to the
committee, the written answers to questions, and there`s something
important in there about the report should it become public and whether
will become public. I want to read you one of the things he says in these
written answers submitted today. Again, he`s being nominated succeed
Whitaker who is the acting right now.

The justice manual cautions prosecutors to be sensitive to privacy and
reputational interests of uncharged third parties. Hillary Clinton reads
that solemnly and nods. It is also my understanding that is the department
policy and practice not to criticize individuals for conduct that does not
warrant prosecution. It seems to say we won`t be including any public
hearing of people who aren`t indicted but when it comes to present United
States he can`t be indicted by the Justice Department`s own policy that
seems to be a little circular. Am I wrong?

BANKS: No, you are absolutely correct. I think that Mr. Barr`s answers
were very carefully crafted and were intended to allay a lot of the fears
about his past public statements. They contradict some of what he has said
in the past and give some hope that he would allow public information. But
when you read it carefully, I`m not confident of that and I think that we
may need to rely on Congress both in terms of the Grassley-Blumenthal
legislation that`s pending and hopefully could pass to protect Robert
Mueller, but also just in terms of the public`s right to know.

I`m not saying impeachment and I don`t want anyone to misinterpret what I`m
saying, but I think public hearings where witnesses are forward in front of
the people so that voters can assess for themselves. We now have Michael
Cohen testifying not in public anymore but in private, and that`s not a way
that we are going to ever really feel comfortable that we know. If there
is no action taken against the President, it could be because they don`t
want to indict a sitting president or it could be because there`s nothing
there and we need to know that.

HAYES: We should note, you just mentioned this that Michael Cohen now has
agreed to closed-door testimony before the House Intelligence Committee but
the February 7th public testimony was going to give to the Oversight
Committee, that remains in limbo. We`ll see if they come to an arrangement
or he ends up being subpoenaed for that.

I want to read you what Adam Schiff was the head of House Intel had to say
about Whitaker`s comments, Matt, and get your response. An Acting Attorney
General who refuses to follow the advice of Ethics lawyers and recuse
himself from an investigation in which he has shown a clear bias is the
last person who should speak for the Special Counsel. While the probe is
ongoing Mueller can speak for himself although he declined to do so. Do
you make anything of that and given what they did with BuzzFeed?

MILLER: No. I think that`s back to standard operating procedure where
he`s not going to decline unless it`s a really extraordinary circumstance.
Look, I don`t, in theory, have anything –any real objection to what Matt
Whittaker said today. Attorneys general will often say something like this
investigation is close to an end. That`s – that in itself is not that
uncommon. The problem is the attorney general who is delivering those
remarks.

And because he`s so hopefully compromised both because of his public
comments before he took office, the – his actions and meetings with the
president when he was chief of staff and then his refusal to follow the
career ethics advice, it has made it impossible for him to deliver remarks
about this investigation that the public can trust which by the way is why
the recusal system is set up in the first place so you don`t find yourself
with an A.G. who the public can`t trust out delivering remarks that just
lead people to question whether justice is actually being done at the
department or not.

HAYES: Well, we also have a situation which the President himself has been
flagrantly essentially threatening witnesses in front of everyone in public
and we also have reporting that he called and berated Whitaker once before
when he didn`t like what happened at the lower levels of his Justice
Department. It`s fair to ask whether there were any calls or contact made
this weekend although I should say Whittaker will before the Judiciary
Committee chair by Jerry Nadler I think also on for parades so we may get
some answers there.

MILLER: Maybe, Chris. I predict that the Republicans in the Senate are
going to rush as fast as they can to get Bill Barr confirmed before that
hearing so Whitaker can try to back gracefully out. If you watch that
performance today, they do not want to see him sitting taking questions.
That was exactly what I thought as I watched him up on that day. Jill
Wine-banks and Matt Miller, great to have you both.

BANKS: Thank you.

HAYES: For more on the Acting A.G. and the status in the Mueller
investigation, I`m joined by Democratic congressman Maxine Waters of
California, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, a member of
the Democratic leadership team. Congressman, first your reaction to the
Acting Attorney General making that pronouncement the first time an
official has said anything like that in the history of this probe.

REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA), CHAIR, HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE: Well,
let me just say that there`s been a lot of speculation about when Mueller
is going to complete the investigation. I consider it just speculation.
They don`t know. Mueller has not shared that kind of information I don`t
think with anyone. He has held this investigation closely to the chest.
And so I just take it as speculation. I don`t –

HAYES: Wait, you don`t think he`s shared that – you don`t think he`s
shared that with the – with the Attorney General of the United States, the
Acting Attorney General.

WATERS: No, not necessarily. I don`t think so.

HAYES: That`s very interesting.

WATERS: Yes.

HAYES: There`s also the question about public hearings in all this.
Michael Cohen agreed to public testimony on February 7th. He then backed
out citing threats from the President. He`s now agreed to closed-door
testimony in February. Do you think it`s important that he give open
public testimony?

WATERS: Absolutely. I am adamantly opposed to all of these close
testimony hearings with various people who are involved with this whole
question whether or not the president was involved with collusion are
obstructed justice etcetera, etcetera. No, I don`t like the fact that
Cohen will be in a closed hearing with members testifying on anything that
he said, he`s not said. I think you should be out in the public.

The public wants to know this investigation has been going on for a
considerable amount of time and not only should we hear from all of those
who are continuing to be called but when this report, this investigative
report is completed, I want it to be public and I`m starting right now
saying that I and many others do not agree that it should be so redacted,
that you can`t understand it, that it won`t be released, that only members
of Congress can get it. The public needs to know what is going on. I
demanded it. And I`m trying to organize everybody that I can to call for
this republic – this report to be released to the public.

HAYES: There`s Senate legislation if I`m not mistaken introduced today by
Chuck Grassley and Richard Blumenthal that would essentially require a
public version of the report I think with exceptions made for redacting
classified information. Do you foresee something like that passing out of
the House in short order?

HAYES: Well, I think it could pass out of the House. Let me just say
this. The public has been very patient. They have been waiting. We have
heard bits and pieces here and there and we want to know and the public
deserves to know. And so I support the legislation that it should be made
public. And if there`s classified information that has to be redacted, so
be it, but make this report public.

HAYES: Steve Mnuchin was one of the people who`s been making the case
about these sanctions for Oleg Deripaska, the Russian oligarch who of
course also employed Paul Manafort, had a contact since indicted
intermediary name Konstantin Kilimnik who would go back and forth between
them. Deripaska businesses have essentially escaped now the sanctions acts
from the Department of Treasury because they reorganized in ways the
Treasury Department says they`re happy with. A lot of people unhappy on
Capitol Hill. What`s your response to the administration`s actions?

WATERS: I`m not happy with it at all. I think that the – you know, at
the center of this question about whether or not the President colluded
with Russia, with Putin, or the oligarchs etcetera, is the question of
sanctions. We know that Putin wants these sanctions lifted and I`ve said
from the beginning that I believe and I don`t have the proof but I believe
that Manafort was sent to the campaign to be there to ensure that they get
Trump reflected in every way that they possibly could and this is in
exchange for him lifting the sanctions.

And don`t forget, our president has said that he believes the sanctions
should be listed one way or the other. So I just believe that Mnuchin is
of course guided by the President. They`re all a part of you know this
relationship that they have with Russia, and with Putin, and with
oligarchs. I mean, when you take a look at all of the allies of this
president that`s involved in this whole question, you cannot help but ask
yourself what`s at the bottom of this.

And I think it has been asked more than one time why they are lying. I
think it`s about sanctions and I think it`s very important for us to
continue to pressure to get those sanctions continued and enforced and not
to do what we`ve just witnessed they`re trying to do, and that is be
involved with delisting on these sanctions.

HAYES: All right, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, thank you for your time
tonight.

WATERS: You`re welcome. Thank you.

HAYES: Next, will Roger Stone testify against President Trump. I`ll talk
to someone who once considered Roger Stone his mentor. Sam Nunberg on what
angle he thinks tone is playing in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: There are lots of people in Trump world that like to talk like
they`re extras in Goodfellas when it comes to law enforcement. And then
before you know it they`re all cooperating. Here`s Roger Stone on Friday
after his arrest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGER STONE, FORMER CAMPAIGN ADVISER, TRUMP CAMPAIGN: I have made it clear
I will not testify against the President because I would have to bear false
witness against the President.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: And here`s Roger stone earlier today appearing to walk that back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there a line you wouldn`t cross to protect the
President?

STONE: I`m not going to lie. I`m never going to say anything that`s not
truthful under oath or otherwise. That`s the line.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: There`s also President Trump`s former lawyer Michael Cohen who
famously told Vanity Fair I`m the guy who would take a bullet for the
president. This was Cohen last month after pleading guilty to lying to
Congress.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER LAWYER OF DONALD TRUMP: Nothing at the Trump
Organization was ever done unless it was a run through Mr. Trump. He
directed me to make the payments. He directed me to become involved in
these matters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: You might remember this guy Sam Nunberg on this network saying
basically I`ll never roll on Roger Stone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAM NUNBERG, FORMER AIDE, TRUMP CAMPAIGN: They`re trying to set up a
perjury case against Roger Stone and I`m not going to have that. Roger is
my mentor. Roger is like family to me and I`m not going to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: This picture is from a few days later when Nunberg did indeed
comply with Robert Mueller`s subpoena to go and talk about Roger. Sam
Nunberg joins me now. He`s a former aide to Donald Trump and work with him
for four years. Good to have you here.

NUNBERG: Thank you very much, Chris.

HAYES: What do you think Roger`s calculation is?

NUNBERG: Rogers calculation I think at this point is the same calculation
that Michael probably had. Remember, early on, the President and his team
said that Michael was a good man. They – the President said it was very
wrong that they raid in Michael`s office. They were extremely loyal. They
kept him within the loop. I don`t know what happened behind the scenes but
at that point, that`s similar to what we`ve seen now.

So this whole idea of while the President and his team have given mild
statements, they`ve basically just said so far. They said well, Roger,
this has nothing to do with the campaign. My God, this is just another
process crime. Let`s see what happens a month or so from now.

Roger – just to finished very quickly, Roger and Donald Trump have a very
complicated love-hate relationship.

HAYES: What do you mean – elaborate on that.

NUNBERG: Well, they`ve been – they`ve known each other for over forty
years. They`re very close – I mean, at least since the `80s. And these
are people that they`ve not spoken for three years, they`ve fought they –
fought publicly. They`ve fought behind the scenes. There was litigation
involved between them just like litigation between –

HAYES: I think they`re kind of similar. That`s probably an issue. Don`t
you agree?

NUNBERG: Yes. They are they are very similar personalities. Look, I said
last night, I mean, I`ve said – I consider Roger in terms of media and
things like that more of a sophisticated Donald Trump piece.

HAYES: You knew Roger you have tremendous loyalty to him. You know him.
You cooperated ultimately. Does the – does the weight of making that
calculation for all the same on everyone ultimately?

NUNBERG: Well, that was – that was the issue I never understood what
Roger was doing throughout this process in terms of giving out these
statements where he was saying negative things about people like Randy
Credico which is now in the indictment about me which I didn`t mind.

I consider witness tampering the same as Randy did apparently, and I don`t
understand taking such an adversarial – but here`s the problem when you go
in. Let me just explain. When you go in, for me as someone who was on the
campaign all the six weeks, I don`t believe Donald Trump treated as fairly
and they`re just looking right into Roger as a target in terms of the
entire relationship between Roger and Donald Trump.

Roger is in this position because of the Special Counsel because Trump
hosted the Russians after he fired Comey.

HAYES: Well, let me ask you this. You talk about Credico – so this is a
big question. Rachel I thought did a great job of this on Friday night.
When you read the full complaint, basically this the extent of the cover-up
is that Roger Stone used one guy Jerome Corsi to get to WikiLeaks but told
people he used another guy Randy Credico.

NUNBERG: Right.

HAYES: That`s basically the some of the plot. Who cares? Who cares? Why
go through all this rigmarole? Why suborn perjury, tampering with
witnesses, intimidate people, go to private chat messaging service, get
people to lie to Congress to cover up this one fact?

NUNBERG: It doesn`t make any sense to me. I think there could be one or
two reasons. Reading the indictment, I think the government`s case will be
because Roger started talking to Corsi after he was contacted by senior
Trump campaign officials. The other argument could be –

HAYES: I see.

NUNBERG: – possibly – and this is just conjecture by me but at that
point, they were both working at Infowars so perhaps Roger didn`t want a
lot of you know, for oversight into Infowars.

HAYES: What Infowars is up to.

NUNBERG: Correct. That could be another reason. I don`t – I don`t know.
But here`s – but here`s the issue. If Roger had simply told the truth,
nothing would – nothing would have happened. He will not be indicted. So
I don`t understand what the problem was about saying if it was Corsi –

HAYES: Well, he`s – is it – am I wrong that it`s not credible for him to
be like I won`t lie. I mean, the guy has hosted for 40 years about what a
liar he is.

NUNBERG: Well, I think that there`s a difference under oath. I would say

HAYES: He`s just got charged for lying under oath.

NUNBERG: He certainly did so I would – I would say that – look, I think
he was asked a hypothetical question about Mueller, the same way I would
say that I saw on chyron of cable stations, Chris, that they were saying
that the White House doesn`t rule out a pardon for Roger Stone. That`s not
exactly the way I saw it when Sarah Huckabee took the question either. I
think I looked at that more of a hypothetical.

But I also don`t think Robert Mueller really needs to wants to talk to
Roger Stone because he could have already spoken to him.

HAYES: Let me ask you a final question.

NUNBERG: Yes.

HAYES: What is the deal with the culture of these people around the
current President of the United States that everybody is like a wannabe
wise guy? I`m serious. It`s a weird culture. Everyone is rolling around
and it`s like – why is everyone constantly acting like they`re in the mob
or up to shady stuff or criminals if they`re not?

NUNBERG: I think that there was a lot of – particularly with this on
other networks, there was a lot of testosterone being pushed out that this
was a witch-hunt, that Donald Trump was not with – that there was a plot
against him. And frankly I didn`t really look into it until I was –

HAYES: No, no, I`m not asking for that. I`m asking you about the general
culture of the people the President keeps around him.

NUNBERG: It`s a New York –

HAYES: You, Cohen, and Roger Stone, there`s like this mentality that just
makes me think, honestly, like these are not trustworthy people who tell
the truth.

NUNBERG: It`s I think that – It`s a New York construction different type
of – look, I don`t think it was more of a mafia. I looked at Donald Trump
as he like to be called the boss. He used to hang around with
Steinbrenner. I don`t look at it like La Cosa Nostra, I looked at it more
of we were all in–fighting a lot and this was something that he had
learned from Roy Cohn`s other client, George Steinbrenner. He loved to
manipulate people and have people fight with each other.

HAYES: But do people – but when you were working for him, do people lying
to each other all the time?

NUNBERG: I think people were certainly going after each other all the time
and lying about each other to Donald Trump. Sure. That`s what I think.

HAYES: Final prediction. You do think Roger Stone ends up talking?

NUNBERG: I don`t know. I don`t know if Mueller wants him, Chris. That`s
the issue because what does Mueller at this point need from Roger that he
wouldn`t have after – especially after seizing unless he find something in
those materials that he seized from his house.

HAYES: Right.

NUNBERG: And he`s never called him in as of yet for questioning then I
don`t remember – they called Gates in first. They –

HAYES: They never called Roger.

NUNBERG: They`ve never called Roger and they`ve had over at least I know
of, eight, eight of his associates including me.

HAYES: When was the last time you and him talked, you and Roger Stone?

NUNBERG: The Saturday before my grand jury testimony, I talked to him on
the phone. I`ve had one or two e-mails with him but not since May.

HAYES: Anything substantive?

NUNBERG: Its substantive on when I spoke to before the grand jury.

HAYES: No, is he telling you – what is he telling you in the e-mail?

NUNBERG: No. The e-mails were thank you for these nice statements or
Roger I like – I liked your new book. Look, what I said was – but what I
said –

HAYES: That`s a lie. See, that`s what I`m getting at.

NUNBERG: No it isn`t.

HAYES: No, I`m just kidding.

NUNBERG: No it isn`t. What I said was Roger was insulted because I said
after leaving that grand jury, I can`t talk to Roger anymore. Look, Roger
should not have been speaking to Credico during the (INAUDIBLE) testimony.
So I think he was up - he – that`s when he started cursing me out
publicly. No, I have not had any substantive conversations with him.

HAYES: All right, Sam Nunberg, thank you for coming by.

NUNBERG: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: I really appreciate it. Coming up, the Trump shutdown is over but
another one is looming. There`s fresh evidence the President has not
learned a thing. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: The Trump shutdown is over for now, but another Trump shutdown is
now looming in less than three weeks and it appears the President has
learned absolutely nothing. Today, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office estimated that the shutdown cost the U.S. economy $11 billion,
including $3 billion that will never be recovered. In other words, the
president effectively lit that money on fire in a fruitless effort to get
funding for a wall he famously promised Mexico would pay for.

In the briefing room today, the White House simply refused to acknowledge
the finding.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY KUDLOW, WHITE HOUSE ECONOMIC COUNCIL: No, I won`t acknowledge any
of that right now. Now that the government is reopened, the switch goes
right back on. There`s certainly no permanent damage to the economy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: No, no, everything is swell, just tell that to the federal
contractors who lost their health insurance during the shutdown and remain
in limbo, or the federal employees who still cannot afford diapers as they
await their paychecks.

All of this suffering came in pursuit of a transparent con by the president
who never really cared about the wall. As you might remember, the promise
to build the wall reportedly began as a memory trick for an undisciplined
candidate, a mnemonic device to get Trump to remember to talk about getting
tough on immigration.

And if you think he truly cares about the supposed scourge of undocumented
immigrants flooding into the country, well, we now know that at least a
dozen were quietly working at the president`s own Westchester Golf Club
until last month, when the club fired the undocumented workers amid the
showdown over the border wall.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (subtitles): For them to tell you, from one day to
another “You know what? This is over and that is it.” They change your
life from one day to another without thinking. How can they be so cruel to
us to simply say that it is over after so many years of employment?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Without a new deal, the government will shut down again on February
15. Trump said yesterday that he doesn`t believe congressional negotiators
will strike a deal over border wall funding that he could accept. And
despite a string of polls showing his approval rating falling dramatically
during the shutdown, Politico reports that his campaign is now telling
Trump that he was actually bolstered by the shutdown. So after all this,
we seem to be right back where we started.

You would think Trump might have learned something from his failed
shutdown, but if his career is a testament to one thing, it is never, ever
learning a lesson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is the president really prepared to shut down the
government again in three weeks?

MICK MULVANEY, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Yeah, I think he actually is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Joining me now, a member House Democratic Leadership, which is now
negotiating to try to avoid another shutdown, Democratic Congresswoman
Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, vice chair of the Democratic Caucus.

Do you think Mulvaney and the White House are bluffing on this?

REP. KATHERINE CLARK, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: I certainly hope so. I wish they
could have been in the room with me with federal workers as we watched the
president address the country from the Rose Garden. They were just
sickened. Happy the government was going to open, but just filled with
dread that in three weeks we`d be right back in this same situation.

It`s the problem when we`re negotiating with a political applause line.
Nobody knows what the president wants, and he is clearly completely
disconnected from the true suffering that he caused with this shutdown.

HAYES: You know, part of the problem it seems to me is the way forward now
is there`s a conference committee, which is a standard part of the
legislative process. When the House and Senate differ, they put together a
conference committee. They try to hammer something out. There`s Democrats
and Republicans who are going to be in that conference committee from the
two sides, but there`s no guarantee the president just doesn`t rip up the
deal. Am I missing something here?

CLARK: There is no guarantee. But I think one thing really speaks to this
president, and that`s his poll numbers. And he saw those decline. So even
though he has no feeling or empathy for what he did to our economy, the $11
billion figure that the CBO cited today, and to what he did to families,
hopefully his own numbers, and that steep decline that this shutdown
caused, will speak to him and get him to come to reason.

HAYES: Although I should note there is reporting today he got a briefing
today from campaign folks that it actually helped his numbers.

CLARK: Well, we`ve seen no sign of that.

HAYES: I don`t think you`re wrong. I`m just telling you what information
he`s getting.

CLARK: And I think that he only needs to speak to his Republican
counterparts in the Senate. They understand this is very much now about
their elections in 2020. And that, I think, is going to
be the pressure point on this president.

And you know, we in the House, we`re anxious to have this discussion around
border security, and we`re just as anxious to get to those things that the
American people told us loudly and clearly in the midterms they want us to
work on: make sure we`re getting corruption out of politics, investing in
America with our infrastructure, tackling health care costs, specifically
prescription medication, these are the issues that Americans want congress
to come together and work on, not send our front line of national security
to work without pay and take $3 billion permanently out of this economy
with the shutdown.

HAYES: Final question, the president has dangled the idea of declaring
some kind of national emergency for a while now. He`s still dangling it.
There`s a piece in The Atlantic that says he`s destroying his own case for
national emergency, because he keeps delaying it, and it sort of vitiates
the idea it`s an emergency if you can delay it. What is your position on
the declaration of a national
emergency?

CLARK: Well, I think the president is desperately looking for an exit
ramp. You know, he did a 180 on congress back in December, decided to
listen to “President” Coulter and let her make the
decisions for him. And so I think the emergency is something that he is
trying to use as a possible way to get out of the jam he put himself in.

We will let the courts decide, but as you noted for the last two years when
there has been a
Republican majority in the House and the Senate and a Republican in the
White House, this emergency for the wall did not exist. If so, it would
have been funded.

They waited until the verge of Democrats taking over in the House. And I
think the president got into this on false information, from what you just
said, using the wall as a mnemonic to remember to talk about immigration.
And it really is an emperor has no clothes situation. And we need the
court jesters to remind him that this is real people, real lives, real
national security, and to come together and have a serious negotiation
about how we strengthen our borders.

HAYES: All right, Congresswoman Katherine Clark, thank you for your time
tonight.

Still to come, Kamala Harris launched her campaign in Oakland to rave
reviews. And then there was Howard Schultz. We`ll judge just what`s
happening with our new 2020 contenders ahead. Plus tonight`s Thing One,
Thing Two starts next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: We know that Thing One tonight, we know that conservative
pundit/insult comic
Ann Coulter was one of the driving forces directing the president
throughout the government shutdown. Back when the shutdown was in its
infancy a mere 24 days old, Coulter went on Vice TV to brag about how she
influenced the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANN COULTER, CONSERVATIVE PUNDIT: He reads my stuff, as everyone should.
I`ve been advising the president whether on Twitter, columns or in private
conversations that you`re not allowed to know about, since election day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Now that idea that the president was taking direction from Coulter
and her peer and the right wing did not sit well with most people.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: What started the shutdown was Ann
Coulter and Rush Limbaugh saying we have to shut down the government or –
or, you know, we`re going to abandon the president.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His only goal is to appeal to Ann Coulter, Laura
Ingraham and
Rush Limbaugh.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You should go listen to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and
Ann Coulter because they`re running this government.

JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Republicans
overwhelmingly voted to keep the government open and then Rush Limbaugh and
the conservative blonde woman says he`s losing his base, and so he`s
changed his mind.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So Ann Coulter calling the president a fraud and a
wienie is what is stopping this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Nice, I don`t know her touch there by Joe Biden. But as the
shutdown came to a close, the cozy relationship between the president and
Ann Coulter seriously soured.

On Friday afternoon, she tweeted “good news for George Herbert Walker Bush.
As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as president of
the United States.”

Trump responded coldly to The Wall Street Journal, “I hear she`s become
very hostile. Maybe I didn`t return her phone call or something.”

Man, in a fight between Donald Trump and Ann Coulter, it`s just so hard to
pick who to root for. What if we throw in Newt Gingrich? That`s Thing Two
in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: So while Ann Coulter has been attacking her former friend advisee,
Donald Trump, pretty much everybody else has been busy attacking her,
including Trump sycophant Newt Gingrich who went on Trump TV this morning
to speak directly to the commander-in-chief.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: He should not pay any
attention to Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter has never run for office. She
doesn`t know anything about how you put a majority together. She`s off
here in some fantasyland where she gets to be noisy, which helps her sell
books.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Oh, helps her sell books. A pity. Ouch.

Good news for everyone else is Coulter versus Gingrich is now the fight to
watch. Quote, “riddle the day, how do you break Newt Gingrich`s nose?
Answer, kick Donald Trump in the ass.”

Wait, that`s – oh, wow.

Poor Newt.

At least Rudy got a job. And little known literary fact, the emperor`s new
clothes had to be
edited for space, lost was the scene where court haberdasher Newt Gingrich
said, “sir, you look splendid.” That one is a little overwrought, I think.

But don`t you just hate to see people you love fighting like this?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: The trillion dollars in tax cuts for rich people and corporations
just turned one year old, and it is unquestionably the single biggest
domestic accomplishment of the Trump administration, congressional
Republicans and their allies and enablers.

Now at the time it was being debated many people, such as myself, argued it
would amount
to a vast redistribution of wealth upwards, towards shareholders, CEOs and
other rich people. One of the arguments by Trump and his fellow
Republicans was that, no, this was not just handing cash to rich
corporations so they could give it to their shareholders and make them even
richer, instead it was going to unlock a brand new era of capital
investment in America.

The argument was that our, quote unquote, “uncompetitive tax policy” was
forcing these poor
companies to hoard cash rather than invest in America and expand hiring.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL RYAN, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: But we also say to corporations
not only are we going to let you bring your money back from overseas, which
is trapped overseas, we`re going to tax you at a rate that is on par with
the rest of the world but we`re going to give you an incentive to invest in
American jobs and American businesses. You can write off your investments
if you do it in America by hiring more people when you purchase new plants
and equipment. So we are convinced, and the studies are really clear,
workers benefit, wages go up, more jobs occur, but most importantly we need
to put the American economy in a better competitive position so that we can
compete and win jobs and get faster economic growth.”

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The studies are clear, accepts the wonk prince. At the time, many
of us pointed out this was preposterous, corporate America was swimming in
capital with ultra low interest rates and no obstacles to investing more.

Far likelier, critics argued, was that the extra trillion plus dollars just
would be plowed back into what are called share buybacks, which is an
effort to boost stock prices and reward shareholders.

Well, it`s been a full year since the tax law went into effect and the
results are in, drum roll, please, the $1.5 trillion tax cut had no major
impact on business spending, according to a new survey by the National
Association for Business Economics. Only 10 percent, I`m not misstating
that, 10 percent of business economists said their companies had sped up
investments because of the tax law, and a mere 4 percent said they had
redirected hiring and investment to the U.S. because of the tax law.

In other words, the critics were right and Trump and the Republicans were
wrong, which doesn`t really matter for the wealthy people and corporations
who cashed in. And you would be forgiven for taken the cynical that that
was the whole point anyway no matter the terrible arguments.

I would just urge you to keep that in mind the next time the same people
come around selling their latest round of tax cuts.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, (D) CALIFORNIA: Let`s never forget that on the
fundamental issues, we all have so much more in common than what separates
us. And you know, some will say we need to search to find that common
ground. Here is what I say, I think we need to recognize we are already
standing on common ground.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Senator Kamala Harris officially launched her presidential bid
yesterday in her hometown of Oakland, California in front of more than
20,000 people. It is way early but Harris is already making a big showing.
She raised $1.5 million in just 24 hours after announcing her candidacy,
which along with yesterday`s rather impressive crowd, clearly demonstrates
there is a constituency for Kamala Harris in the 2020 presidential race.

It`s really unclear, however, if there`s a constituency for this guy,
former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD SCHULTZ, FORMER STARBUCKS CEO: I am seriously thinking of running
for president. I will run as a centrist independent outside of the two
party system.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Fellow billionaire Michael Bloomberg agreed to that announcement
with a thinly veiled tweet basically asking what the heck are you doing?
In 2020, the great likelihood is that an independent would just split the
anti-Trump vote and end up reelecting the president. To talk more about
the ever growing 2020 field, I`m joined by Christina Greer, associate
professor of political science at Fordham University; Sam Seder, MSNBC
contributor and host of The Majority Report.

You know, I have to say, in these decisive times, one thing that I did
think was interesting was Howard Schultz really did bring them together.
Like it was sort of amazing, he accomplished his goal of everybody was
dunking on Howard Schultz today.

CHRISTINE GREER, FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Right. First of all, if anyone has
ever stood in a 12-minute Starbucks line you know it`s not the most
efficiently run organization right there. But also, we don`t need this,
right. With the exception of 1992 Ross Perot, we know that when you have
incumbent Republicans, when you have someone as a third party, they end up
helping to reelect the Republican president and this is, for many
Democrats, not the time where we need someone who is inexperienced, who is
a millionaire/billionaire who just says, you know what, I want to be in it
too.

Now granted, the constitution says he is more than welcome to. He`s over
35 years old. He`s a citizen, I get it. But this is – we have bigger
fish to fry. And there are a lot of qualified Democrats
who will come through, and I really don`t think a lot of citizens want to
see a repeat of 2016.

HAYES: Right, so that`s the political argument. There is also the
substantive argument which it that like who does Howard Schultz represent?

SAM SEDER, HOST, MAJORITY REPORT: No one. I mean, he represents – let me
put it this way, you can fit those people in this room.

HAYES: There is a bigger constituency for the wall in America far larger
than a constituency for Howard Schultz`s centrist independent…

HAYES: He, though, I think put a very fine point on one of the problems
that we have in our
political system. The idea that people were clambering to hear his
potential announcement. I mean, I understand that he`s a wealthy man. I
understand that he built a big coffee company. The idea that he`s on “60
minute” as if there is legions of people just waiting to find out if he`s
going to run for president is just bizarre.

HAYES: The seriously considering is kind of funny. Like, OK. Do you
thing.

GREER: We have a conflation in this country of just because you have
money, people assume that you are brilliant, smart, interesting, and have
intelligence. That`s not always the case.

HAYES: What you would think the last two years – I mean, that`s what is
so ironic. You would think the last two years – I mean, in Schultz`
defense, part of the reason – American ballot access laws are such that
you only can really plausibly run as a centrist independent if you are a
billionaire who can self-fund, because it`s impossible so basically
impossible to go and get on the ballot in every state, which is not his
fault, but it also means that that`s who the job selects for.

GREER: Right.

SEDER: Honestly, the Michael Bloomberg response was the most fascinating
thing today.

HAYES: I totally agree.

SEDER: Because he was basically like.

HAYES: I thought of this.

SEDER: I`m going to be the billionaire who runs and I found that this
would be incredibly irresponsible, and so you`re not going to jump to the
front of the line. I`m already there. I`ve already said it`s
irresponsible.

It is fascinating to watch these guys argue with each other in this
respect.

But there is no constituency and it`s a fascinating look into the self-
aggrandizement of the oligarchs in this country.

HAYES: Kamala Harris, I have to say – you know, of everyone that has come
out so far
just in terms of like descriptively, where people are at, not like
substantively – I mean, it is a formidable thing, like getting 20,000
people to come out is a – that`s…

GREER: Well, here is the thing, I`m not even talking about Oakland. I`m
still on MLK Day and the first roll-out that lasted three days and then the
successful roll-out in Oakland.

I mean, I was talking to my students about it today when we were saying
it`s like, well, you also want to go where the media is. You want to go
where you have support and energy, and you think about someone like
Elizabeth Warren who goes on television, awkward commercial, and asks her
husband do you want to have a beer and he says no thank you, OK.

And then you have Kirsten Gillibrand who goes to Troy, New York, because
when you think about metropolis, you think about Troy, New York.

HAYES: Yeah, although that`s also her talking about reaching out.

GREER: We get it. But that`s a governance type.

HAYES: Oh, I see.

GREER: That`s a political statement, that`s not a roll-out.

HAYES: You`re saying there is a statement being made in the choice to do
it in Oakland.

GREER: Exactly. And so I think the way that Senator Harris has been able
to capture not just the media`s attention, but clearly she`s proven, unlike
Schultz, there are people who want to be here, right? I mean, not just the
Shirley Chisholm colors, but you see the people who are in the audience,
it`s
like this is a very, when I say diverse in the true sense of the word,
we`re seeing Americans who are saying she`s actually for us and we want
her.

SEDER: Yeah, I mean, it`s hard to argue seeing that if this race comes
down to three or four people at one point, that she won`t be one of them.

HAYES: It feels that way this early.

SEDER: It feels this early – I mean, things can change, of course. And I
think, you know, she, as far as you can tell, she has yet to really express
a programmatic vision. And this very early, obviously…

HAYES: Yeah, a very thematic speech.

SEDER: But I – it`s hard for me to point to what he two years in the
Senate have been about. She was very good on the Judiciary Committee, but
she doesn`t have a brand per se that – like Gillibrand to a certain extent
has a brand in some issues…

GREER: That`s going to protect her to a certain extent. She`s still
introducing herself.

SEDER: That`s my point, there will be a lot of people in those debates,
and that`s a great way of avoiding it.

HAYES: Yeah. Christina Greer and Sam Seder, thank you both for joining
us.

That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts right now.
Good evening, Rachel.

END


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are
protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the
prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the
content.>