Justice Dep warns Mueller to limit testimony. TRANSCRIPT: 7/22/19, All In w/ Chris Hayes.

Guests:
David Jolly, Elizabeth Holtzman, William Barber, Cornell Belcher, Dave Weigel, Wendy Davis
Transcript:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST:  Instead of delivering us from evil, it would

deliver us to evil.  It`s something to be said about looking toward 2020. 

It could be the most important thing to think about.  And that`s HARDBALL

for now.  Thanks for being with us.  “ALL IN” with Chris Hayes starts right

now.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST:  Tonight on ALL IN.

 

ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL:  If we had had confidence that the

president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

 

REID:  All eyes on Robert Mueller.

 

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  No, I`m not going to be

watching, probably.  Maybe I`ll see a little bit of it.

 

REID:  Tonight how Democrats are approaching the last best chance to hold

the President accountable.

 

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY):  The report presents very substantial evidence

that the president is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

REID:  And why this week could be make-or-break for impeachment.

 

NADLER:  That Mueller presents those facts to the American people and then

see where we go from there.

 

REID:  Then –

 

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES:  The president was very clear.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Was he?

 

PENCE:  That he wasn`t happy about it.

 

REID:  Reverend William Barber on the moral outrage of the president`s

ongoing attacks on four Congresswomen.  Plus, what we`re learning about the

elite company listed alongside Donald Trump in Jeffery Epstein`s black

book.  And my exclusive interview with former Texas State Senator Wendy

Davis on her new run for office.

 

AMERICAN CROWD:  Wendy.  Wendy.

 

REID:  ALL IN starts now.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

REID:  Good evening from Washington D.C. I`m Joy Reid in for Chris Hayes. 

Well, we are just 36 hours away from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller

scheduled congressional testimony before both the House Judiciary Committee

and the House Intelligence Committee.

 

His almost 500-page report was released back in April and we did not hear

from Robert Mueller until the following month when he spoke for only around

10 minutes.  Wednesday will be the first time we get to hear from Mueller

at length before multiple committees discussing the findings in his report.

 

Tonight Trump`s Justice Department is warning Robert Mueller about his

upcoming testimony in this letter that was dated today, “Any testimony must

remain within the boundaries of your public report because matters within

the scope of your investigation were covered by executive privilege

including information protected by law enforcement, deliberative process,

attorney work product, and presidential communications privileges.”

 

The Department of Justice is going out of its way to detail the scope of

Robert Mueller`s belated testimony.  And yesterday the man who will be

overseeing the first half of Mueller`s testimony House Judiciary Chair

Jerry Nadler set the stakes for what Democrats are hoping to get.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

NADLER:  I think there was very substantial – well, the report presents

very substantial evidence that the president is guilty of high crimes and

misdemeanors and we have to present that – or that Mueller presents those

facts to the American people and then see where we go from there.  Because

the administration must be held accountable and no president can be – can

be above the law.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

REID:  The report presents very substantial evidence that the president is

guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.  Congressman Nadler chose those

words very specifically because as you`ll remember Article 2 Section 4 of

the Constitution reads, “the President shall be removed from office on

impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, and other high crimes

and misdemeanors.

 

And if House Democrats want to move toward impeachment establishing

evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, it seems like a pretty good place

to start.  The Washington Post reports today “aides say Nadler has

privately voiced support for impeachment proceedings against Trump but he

has stopped short of publicly calling for such a move.”

 

Chairman Nadler appears to be trying to get on the right side of history

without getting on the wrong side of the House speaker and while letting

Mueller do the heavy lifting.  This as the number of House members in favor

of impeachment proceedings is growing.

 

And we know this because we have a new whip count from the House floor last

week where 95 Democrats voted in favor of a resolution to impeach the

president.  Congressman Nadler was not among them.  Either way, there`s no

guarantee that the special counsel`s testimony will be a slam dunk for

Democrats.

 

Remember in his lone a press conference back in May, Mueller himself made

his reluctance to testify very clear.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

MUELLER:  There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. 

Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report.  It contains

our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made.  We

chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself and the report

is my testimony.

 

I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any

appearance before Congress.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

REID:  Joining me now for a look ahead to the Mueller hearing are Chuck

Rosenberg former U.S. Attorney and senior FBI official, now an MSNBC

Contributor and Cynthia Alksne former Federal Prosecutor who worked

alongside Robert Mueller in the attorney`s office in Washington and she`s

now an MSNBC Legal Analyst.

 

Thank you both for being here.  So first let`s talk about this

constriction, Chuck, that the Department of Justice has preemptively placed

on Mueller saying that his testimony must remain within the boundaries of

his public report.  It sounds like a bit of a threat that if he tries to go

off-script and not just literally read what`s in the report, could it be in

some kind of trouble?

 

CHUCK ROSENBERG, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR:  Well it sounds like a bit of a threat,

Joy, but it`s really no different than the constriction that Mueller put on

himself.  He was incredibly clear, I`m not going beyond my report.  So it

seems somewhat perfunctory if Mueller says he`s not going to do something.

 

Having worked for the man and having worked with the man, I can tell you

he`s not going to do something so I don`t think they need to worry about.

 

REID:  But I mean, would it be going outside the constrictions of the

report for instance if he was asked, did you intend for the Attorney

General of the United States to give the interpretation of your report or

did you intend for him to make the decision as he said about whether or not

prosecution could happen.  Is that outside the scope of his report?

 

ROSENBERG:  I don`t think so but again, he`s an extraordinarily cautious

man, right?  And so if it calls for conversations that he had with an

official who is his boss, right, Bill Barr is his boss when he was working

as Special Counsel.  I think Mueller is going to be respectful of that

relationship.

 

Look, that`s the cloth from which he is cut.  He doesn`t sort of randomly,

haphazardly talk about conversations with his boss.  And so I don`t think

the White House has very much to worry about.

 

REID:  Yes.  And so OK, let`s talk about Mueller.  He`s testified 88 times

going back to 1990.  He`s a very reluctant witness to say the least.  He

doesn`t want to really be there.  He makes it pretty clear doesn`t want to

be there.  He`s had past go ins with Jim Jordan will probably – you know,

I mean, Republicans are probably going to attack him.

 

OK, they`re probably going to try to say he was biased, etcetera.  Is he

the kind of guy who if attacked would actually step outside of just saying

read page 223 of my report?

 

CYNTHIA ALKSNE, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST:  No.  He`s not going to do what he

does – he`s not going to be goaded into breaking his own code of ethics. 

That`s not going to happen.  And so people think there`s going to be

fireworks and he`s going to make big conclusions.  I just don`t see that. 

I agree with you.

 

That`s not why he has a reputation – this stellar reputation as this

honorable, respectful, venerable prosecutor as prosecutor.  He didn`t get

that because Jim Jordan can push him a little bit and he blows up and loses

his temper and says but he hadn`t planned on it.  That just isn`t going to

happen.

 

REID:  Yes.  This is sort of may seem like an obvious question, but you

know, this report came out months ago.  You know, most Americans haven`t

read it and this is actually heading up the New York Times bestseller but

most people haven`t read it.

 

ALKSNE:  Right.

 

REID:  Were the conclusions in the report from both of your point of view

clear enough that it isn`t necessary for Robert Mueller to say refer to

page 223 and do it in person?  Is there something different we`re going to

get out of him saying it?

 

ALKSNE:  Well, yes.  Well, you`re definitely going to get something more

out of it.  But if he`s – if someone says to him isn`t it true you found

there was substantial evidence of an attempt to fire you or to get McGahn

to lie or to limit the scope of the investigation, he`ll say yes, and he

may give up page citation.

 

Could you please catalogue for us what is the evidence that supports that

in your report and why you found it compelling?

 

REID:  Yes.

 

ALKSNE:  And then get that out of him.

 

REID:  Yes, just get him to say that.

 

ALKSNE:  Get him to say that.  And then you have something to show the

American people.  And we do need that.  And there`s plenty in this report. 

This is – this is evidence of obstruction of justice.  It`s right here.

 

REID:  I mean, what if – what if let`s say for instance a Democratic

member were to ask Robert Mueller if the same set of evidence appeared

before you and the person was not president, would you indict them?  Would

he answer that?

 

ROSENBERG:  No, he won`t.

 

REID:  You don`t think he will answer that?  I mean that`s not in the

report.  That`s not restricted.

 

ROSENBERG:  If you were to ask me what question would I most like to hear

him answer, that`s it right.  I mean, if it was Joy Reid or Cynthia Alksne

who did these things, would you indict her?

 

REID:  Right.

 

ROSENBERG:  Absolutely.  It`s clear as day.

 

REID:  And he wouldn`t answer that.

 

ROSENBERG:  I don`t see how he could because the Department of Justice

policy says that you can`t charge a sitting president.  Mueller took that a

step further and I think appropriately so, which is if you can`t charge a

sitting president nor can you recommend charging a sitting president.  So

again, to Cynthia`s point, I don`t think Bob Mueller at a hearing is going

to sort of cast an aspersion on Donald Trump.  Look, you want to cast

aspersions on Donald Trump, read the report.  It`s right there.

 

ALKSNE:  Yes, here`s the wrinkle in that.  I mean, I agree with your

ultimate conclusion but here`s the wrinkle, and that is that Barr announced

in that interview that he did in Alaska, well, he – there`s no reason why

he couldn`t have come to a conclusion., and Barr said that.

 

So there`s going to be some pressure in the hearing quoting bar saying,

well Barr said you could have come to a conclusion.  And I do think there

will be those questions, but ultimately you know, we are who we are when

were four as my mother always said and he is who he is and I don`t think he

will do it either.

 

ROSENBERG:  I think you`re right.  There will be pressure to do it but Bob

Mueller won`t.  I mean, this is not a guy who has bent in the wind over the

course of a long and honorable career.  No reason why that`s going to start

on Wednesday.

 

REID:  Yes, yes, I`ve said it before.  He is not waking up that morning and

putting on his Superman cape and coming in to save American Donald Trump. 

That is not what he`s there to do.  He`s not going to do it.  Chuck

Rosenberg and Cynthia Alksne, thank you both.  It`ll be interesting to hear

from him.

 

Here now for more on the people who will be questioning Robert Mueller,

former Florida Congressman David Jolly.  He left the Republican Party this

past year.  He`s now an Independent.  And Elizabeth Holtzman former

Democratic Congresswoman from New York and the author of the Case for

Impeaching Trump.

 

OK, so David Jolly, I`m going to start with you because my supposition is

that as measured as Robert Mueller is and as he`s going to be in as these

two experts who know him I`ve just said he`s going to be, Republicans

aren`t going to be measured.

 

Republicans are going to come in there and attack the guy.  They`re going

to come in there and their strategy is going to be to say you`re biased and

bring up Strzok and Page and all the rest of the stuff.  Is that what you

expect them to do and do you think that would be at all effective for them?

 

DAVID JOLLY, FORMER CONGRESSMAN:  Well, it will be effective for their

base.  To your point, Joy, what we have seen and every one of these

hearings is Republicans never ask hard questions to try to get to the facts

of the investigation.  What they do is they try to impugn the witnesses and

those who testified with Mueller.

 

Matt Gaetz said what they`re going to do on Wednesday is re-elect Donald

Trump as president.  That`s clearly how the Republicans are going into

this.  I think when the final gavel hits Wednesday night, Joy, though, the

eyes of the nation once again turned to Nancy Pelosi.

 

This is a political case to be made for impeachment and Democrats seem to

be hoping that Bob Mueller will convince the nation on Wednesday. 

Democrats seem to remind the nation hey, voters you haven`t read the report

yet.

 

But at the end of the day, if we are to be led to a convincing case for

impeachment, that has to come through political leadership and it has to

come from the person who occupies the highest constitutional office outside

the White House.  That is Speaker Pelosi come Wednesday night.  The eyes of

the nation are going to be looking at her to ask what next right.

 

REID:  Right.  I mean, even if, Elizabeth, if all that Mueller did was

referred to what`s in the report and he literally read it, right, he will

then be speaking the exact same facts that nearly a thousand former

prosecutors said were at least ten instances of obstruction of justice. 

That is one of the causes that – for which you can – for which you can

impeach a president.

 

So I wonder from your point of view, what should Democrats do?  They put

the theater off for a month and a half.  What should they do with their

time now knowing they`re not going to get a whole lot of theatrics out of -

- out of Mueller?

 

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, FORMER CONGRESSWOMAN:  Yes.  Let me just deal with the

theatrics moment issue for one moment and I just want to go back to

Watergate because those Republicans who use the Watergate hearings that the

House Judiciary Committee held to defend the president led to the huge

victory for Democrats in the midterm elections.

 

Why?  Because the Democrats conducted themselves with dignity and sincerity

and the Republicans were just out there defending the president and that

did not sit well with the American people.  So I just want to bring that

little historical fact, Joy, out here.

 

Now the critical – the critical point is that most people have not read

the Mueller report.  The Democrats and really anybody who`s sincere about

trying to educate the American people so that they can help make a judgment

about whether the president should be held to an impeachment standard, they

need to make sure that the American people understand the facts.

 

So getting Mueller to read the report or put the report in his own words or

restate it is the critical thing.  And particularly the critical thing is

to get him to confirm that there was evidence of conspiracy with the

Russians, just not enough evidence to permit an indictment.  And secondly,

that there was substantial evidence with regard to obstruction of justice,

that they couldn`t clear him and they couldn`t exonerate him.

 

The American people need to know that.  So we have someone sitting in the

White House the president the United States who could not be exonerated of

obstruction of justice and who could not even be exonerated of contacts

with the Russians that could amount to conspiracy we had ore facts. That`s

something the American people have to know.  That`s scary.  That`s

dangerous.  And it`s up to the people really to demand that Congress hold

him accountable.

 

REID:  Well, can we just for a second, David, talk about that, that second

half of it, that second hearing that`s going to be before House Intel.  How

important – I mean, if everyone is going to be focused on the obstruction

side of it, meaning the judiciary side because that`s the thing that could

be – lead to impeachment.

 

But how important is it for Democrats to get the fact that it make people -

- make it really clear to people what Russia did to this country and you

think that is possible with Mueller sticking to the script?

 

JOLLY:  You know, so we focus on obstruction because that is the

criminality if you will.  That`s where we see this three-part test of

criminality.  It appears Donald Trump solves that.  But at the end of the

day, what we want the American people to know is what Elizabeth Warren

continues to tell them.

 

The three elements of impeachment are Russia tried to attack our democracy,

Donald Trump`s campaign welcomed the attacks at every turn when they were

presented with making a choice whether to welcome it or to turn away the

interference, and when our government tried to investigate that

interference, Donald Trump obstructed it at every turn.

 

That is the case for impeachment.  Now, to have two hearings, one before

Judiciary, one before Intelligence where each member is going to get five

minutes to question Bob Mueller who will be an imperfect witness.  He will

provide some moments and some theater but at the same time he will fall

flat for what Democrats are trying to provide.

 

It will take political leadership to wrap that in a bow at the end of the

day if the case is to be made.  Elizabeth Warren and a few other Democrats

have been able to succinctly try to make that case.  We`ve yet to hear from

house leadership.  And, Joy, my biggest concern is there`s one more week

before the House adjourns for five weeks and takes a summer vacation.

 

There will be little urgency around this come ten days from now and that is

where I think many in the nation are begging for political leadership.

 

REID:  Very quickly Liz Holtzman, is that the big concern that they`ll –

that the Democrats will have this testimony on the books and then we`ll do

nothing because there will be – what else could they possibly have in

order if they`re going to proceed on impeachment, they`ve got Mueller now

talking?

 

HOLTZMAN:  Right.  I think if he makes the point clearly, the Democrats

really have a responsibility to the Constitution and to the American people

to start the process.  You don`t need to show a crime.  You need to show a

high crime and misdemeanor.  In other words, an assault on our democracy by

the President and abuse of his power and I think there`s ample evidence of

that.  And that`s the kind of case that needs to be made because yeah

otherwise our democracy is in danger.

 

REID:  Indeed.  David Jolly, Liz Holtzman, thank you both.  I really

appreciate you guys.

 

HOLTZMAN:  Thank you.

 

JOLLY:  Thanks, Joy.

 

REID:  Thank you.  And up next, the President`s continued attacks on four

Congresswomen of color.  Rev. William Barber is here to talk about racist

comments coming from the nation`s highest office right after this.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

REID:  You may have seen the media coverage of a sign posted outside a

Virginia church that went viral last week saying “America: love it or leave

it.  Some of the congregation at Friendship Baptist Church in Appomattox,

Virginia reportedly walked out of a service yesterday in protest of the

sign which the pastor says went up weeks ago.

 

But it certainly echoes the sentiments expressed recently by Donald Trump

who said last week that four Democratic Congresswomen of color known as The

Squad should go back to the places where they came from even though they

are American.

 

The President continues to rage tweet about The Squad.  This morning, he

called them “a very racist group of troublemakers who are young,

inexperienced, and not very smart.”  These comments come on the heels of

reports from – of some disturbing social media posts targeting the four

congresswomen.

 

A photo depicting the four as the jihad squad was posted on a Facebook page

of the Illinois Republican County Chairman`s Association Friday night.  And

a police officer in Gretna, Louisiana has just been suspended after he was

busted on Facebook for writing about Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-

Cortez, “this vile idiot needs a round and I don`t mean the kind she used

to serve.”

 

I`m joined now by Reverend Dr. William Barber, co-chair of the National

Poor People`s Campaign and author of Revive Us Again: Vision and Action in

Moral Organizing.  And Bishop Barber, let`s talk about first of all this

statement “love it or leave it.”  Can you just talk a little bit about the

origins of that and what connection it had to anti integrationists and

segregationists back in the – in the 1950s.

 

WILLIAM BARBER, CO-CHAIR, NATIONAL POOR PEOPLE`S CAMPAIGN:  I`m here in

Iowa with the Disciples of Christ – Christian Church Disciples of Christ,

Joy, and we have thousands of people who are saying welcome, but there`s

always been this other side of perverted – I called it Racist Americanity

that is not true Christianity, and those signs were put up by the Klan.

 

At one County from over where I live in Eastern North Carolina, it used to

be a County got a signed up.  They said this is Klan country.  America love

it – you know, love it or leave it.  It is a strange form of extremism to

have people who come and take other people`s land to them now say go back

to where you come from.

 

It is a form of engendering hate and racism and actually, it`s a trick of

racism, it`s a trick of fascism when you don`t have the answers for the

real problem so what you do is you sow division as cover-up, as cover-up

for the failure of policies.  And a lot of times, Joy, this is a strange

thing, policies that not only hurt people of color but also hurt poor white

people.

 

So here we are talking about tweets and racist tweets and go back but not

about 140 million poor and low-income people in this country, 66 million of

them which are white.  It`s not about the 62 million people who don`t make

a living wage.

 

We`re not talking about how his administration is blocking living wages and

his party his blocking liberal wages and blocking health care and thousands

of people are dying because these tweets, these racist tweets and racist

saying used in history by racism and fascism are always kind of a

psychological burden as King said, being fair to people so that they don`t

pay attention to the real destruction that`s happening in their lives.

 

REID:  Well, and I think it`s an important point because you know, it is

interesting the way that the far-right, the racist elements in the country

have been able to use this kind of you know tweaking people on their racial

insecurities, push them toward a more full sort of open racism while at the

same time robbing them, you know, like taking away their hospitals, making

their schools worst, making them poor.

 

BARBER:  Right, right, really.  So, for instance, the Trump was in Pitt

County the other day.  You know, Pitt County it didn`t go for Trump.  It

didn`t go for any of that.  And he was about 35 miles from a hospital that

was closed in North Carolina because the Republicans in our state refusing

to expand Medicaid.

 

But – so you – they don`t have answer so you use this cover.  Now here`s

another cautionary thing.  We cannot act like this is new.  When George

Bush first ran for Congress back in the late 60s, he said I`m running

because I`m against the Civil Rights Act because I`m for that 84 percent

not the 14 percent.

 

Ronald Reagan when he ran, he often talked about welfare queens taking from

people, he ran against fair housing saying that a person should have a

right to discriminate if it`s their property and he began part of his

campaign in the same county where the four civil rights leaders were killed

– the three civil rights leaders were killed in Mississippi.

 

So this coating and this tweeting is not new, it`s just more of it, it`s

more pushed out because we have a 24 news out of cycle, but it is not new,

and it always is a cover-up for the other policies that are actually

hurting people of color and I want the audience to hear this, and poor

white people of whom there are 66 million poor and low-income white people

that while this hate is being spread their lives are being damaged.

 

REID:  Right.  And I wonder then what is the proper response to it because

there`s been some you know, some Democrats, some never-Trumper Republicans

say well, the response to it is just ignore what Donald Trump is saying,

ignore the racism, pretend it isn`t there and talk about health care.  Is

that – do you agree with that?

 

BARBER:  No, no, no, no.  You can`t – you can`t – you cannot ignore it. 

Thank God for those people that walked out of that church over what went up

on the sign.  But what you cannot do is just focus on the sign and the

tweets are not the negative policies that lie underneath the tweet.

 

So here`s what I would suggest.  If Democrats are really going to respond

to this, they ought to have a press conference.  They ought not be on the

tweets.  They ought to list the top 25 to 30 policies driven by racial

discrimination and their impact on black, brown, and white people.

 

In other words, they should say while he`s tweeting and fooling you, you

should know what`s happening in terms of judges on the bench.  You should

know how your health care is being blocked.  You should know how they`re

gearing up now to block a vote on the living wage bill that was just passed

in the House.

 

We have to connect the racism to the policies.  We have to show people. 

Listen, do you know the same people that are doing these tweets, they

engage in racist voter suppression.  Well, do you know that the people who

get elected by racist voter suppression when they get elected they use

their power to block living wages and block health care.  We`ve got to

expose the truth of the lies of what`s going on, otherwise, racism and

fascism win.

 

REID:  Yes, indeed.  Reverend Dr. William Barber, good advice.  Hopefully,

somebody out there will take it.  Thank you very much.  I appreciate your

time.  And coming up, my exclusive interview with former Texas state

senator Wendy Davis on her new congressional bid.  And new details about

Geoffrey Epstein`s mysterious black book, what we`re learning about the big

names found inside it.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

REID:  There has been one question that has continued to surface around the

renewed prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, the uber-connected financier

convicted sex offender and accused sex

trafficker, who else will be implicated?

 

Both before and after Epstein`s 2008 sweetheart deal with federal

prosecutors, he was known to socialize in elite circles, presidents and

politicians of both parties, and princes, too.  And now that Epstein, who

has pleaded not guilty – who has pleaded not guilty sits in a New York

jail awaiting trial, there is renewed interest in just who the accused sex

trafficker was spending his time with and how.

 

Many of the names Epstein`s associates can be – many of the names of

Epstein`s associates  can be found in his infamous black book, the contents

of which were first published on Gawker in 2015.  The black book contains

names and numbers of hundreds of people, many who were known associates of

Epstein`s, and others who say they have never spoken to or met Epstein.

 

There are people like Donald Trump.  Jeffrey Epstein had 14 Trump-related

phone numbers in his black book.

 

Now, we simply don`t know how much – don`t know much about the nature of

the relationships

between Epstein and the people listed in his black book, but reporters are

digging in.

 

This morning New York magazine published a deep dive into the world of

Jeffrey Epstein using the book as a map.  One name among the many rich and

powerful they investigated is Charlie Rose, the former TV host, who has

been accused of sexual harassment by more than 30 women.

 

According to phone logs obtained by New York magazine, Epstein used to make

recommendations to Rose of women to hire.  Written call logs from 2005 and

2006 show Epstein and his own assistant calling dozens of times.  Epstein

called with a total of five women`s names and phone  numbers.

 

According to the reporting, Rose went on to hire 3 of the 5 women that

Epstein recommended,  including one woman who later said that Rose sexually

harassed her.

 

When reached, she was stunned to learn she was one of many women Epstein

recommended for the job, quote “I was being offered up for abuse,” said the

woman who was 22 at the time she worked for Rose.

 

The representative for Charlie Rose said, quote, “Jeffrey Epstein from time

to time recommended various candidates for open positions at The Charlie

Rose Show, but said the ex-host only learned about Epstein`s alleged abuse

years later when he pleaded guilty in Florida.

 

Now, we don`t know if or how much prosecutors are using the black book in

their case.  My guess is that many people in the book are feeling a little

nervous right now.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

REID:  OK, it is time for a special Thing One, Thing Two without the

commercial break in the middle tonight.

 

Wilbur Ross has been in the news a lot lately over his botched attempt to

rig the census, but allow me to take you back two years ago to the commerce

secretary`s first news making event just days after he was confirmed.  It

was the slippers.  $600 slippers Wilbur Ross wore to Donald Trump`s very

first presidential address to congress in early 2017, apparently custom

made and emblazoned with the Department of Commerce logo to warm Wilbur`s

little footsies.

 

They appeared to be a pair of smoking slippers, like the ones you can buy

from a particular

Palm Beach company which makes, quote, “proper handmade genuine slippers.”

 

No one has ever really explained why the secretary of the Department of

Commerce would  need custom made proper slippers, or why on Earth he would

wear them out in public, but, and here`s Thing Two, maybe it`s because the

guy is napping so much he just needs to always be in his P.J.s.

 

Ross was famously caught sleeping during Trump`s speech to Muslim leaders

in Saudi Arabia back in may of 2017.  Now there are reports that Trump was

irritated by the secretary falling asleep in meetings in early 2018. 

 

Today, there is reporting on just how much the napping has contributed to

new heights of dysfunction at Commerce.  Now, former outside adviser tells

Politico, quote, “because he tends to  fall asleep in meetings, they try

not to put him in a position where that could happen.  So they`re very

careful and conscious about how they schedule certain meetings.  There`s a

small window where he`s able to focus and pay attention and not fall

asleep.”

 

You know, I know how you feel, Wilbur.  I mean, I`m sleepy all the time. 

I`m sleepy right now.  But there`s a thought, you know, you could actually

get more sleep and even add a full-on onesie to your proper slippers and

just nap it out all day if you stop being the secretary of commerce and

just  went home.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

TRUMP:  A man who is another legend on Wall Street, truly a legend.  They

just call him Wilbur.  How about Wall Street?  Wall Street`s big and

strong.  He`s just known as Wilbur.

 

Carl Icahn called me up.  He said, Donald, I heard you got Wilbur.  That

was it.  It wasn`t Wilbur Ross, but there is Wilbur Ross and he`s doing a

fantastic job.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

REID:  You might remember her from her sneakers.  Then Texas state senator

Wendy Davis led an 11-hour filibuster against some oust harshest abortion

restrictions in this country in June 2013.  She literally spoke   for 11

hours on her feet.

 

The following year, Wendy Davis ran for governor of Texas, a state that has

not seen a Democrat in that office since 1995.  She did not win.  But she

stayed active in state and national politics and today Wendy Davis

announced that she is running for office in Texas again, this time for

congress in a district that includes parts of blue, blue Austin but also

went for Donald Trump by an

overwhelming 10 points in the 2016 election.

 

And Wendy Davis is here with me now.  Good to talk to you, Wendy. 

 

So let`s talk about this race.  What`s your plan?  How do you plan to win?

 

WENDY DAVIS, CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, TEXAS:  We plan to win by connecting

with people on the issues that really matter to them, Joy.  And, of course,

people in this district, as is the case all over Texas and all over the

country, are feeling like their issues of concern aren`t being heard, that

making sure they have a job that can earn a family income or that they have

affordable health care, if they have health care at all in this particular

state where we have the highest number and highest percentage of people who

are uninsured, people who care about making sure after a lifetime of hard

work they can retire with dignity, and, of course, that their kids are

going to safe, quality schools, drinking clean water, breathing clean air.

 

They want to know that they have people working for them in Washington who

are looking to  address these solutions.

 

REID:  OK.

 

DAVIS:  And the person who`s…

 

REID:  Quickly.  Go ahead. sorry.

 

DAVIS:  …the person who is in this office right now, former Ted Cruz

chief of staff Chip Roy, is

someone who has demonstrated that even in instances where Democrats and

Republicans are coming together on things, he continues to be the standout

person who is voting against them.  He`s so out of step with bipartisan

ability to get things done that he was one of only three people in

congress, for

example, who voted to raise taxes on the military gold-star families, who

voted against the Violence Against Women Act, and who has consistently

voted against existing – protecting pre-existing condition coverage in our

health care, and, of course, lowering costs in prescription drugs.

 

REID:  Right.

 

DAVIS:  So he`s shown himself to be out of the step with the district and

he barely won this district in 2018.

 

REID:  Right.  So he won it with 50.3 percent, Chip Roy, who is your

opponent, who is the incumbent.

 

You mentioned jobs.  You mentioned health care.  You mentioned

bipartisanship.  You didn`t mention a woman`s right to choose.  Now, you –

what you were known for…

 

DAVIS:  Yes.

 

REID:  When you first burst on to the national scene was that you held this

11-hour filibuster.  We`re now seeing a record number of states going after

women`s liberty, going after women`s right to choose.  Is this something

that you`re going to run into?  Is this something you`re going to mention

in your campaign?  Are you – because you didn`t mention it as an important

thing of why you should be elected?

 

DAVIS:  Yes, of course, Joy.  You know, I think looking at the polls

nationally and in Texas as

well, it`s very clear where Americans stand on this issue.  The vast

majority of people believe that Roe v. Wade should stand.  That is

something that obviously I am known to support and will continue making

sure that I carry the message on and continue to fight for as a part of

this campaign and as a  congressional member, if I have the privilege of

representing this district in the future.

 

REID:  Yeah.  And, you know, when you talked about the things that you`re

going to do, that you want to do and want to say in your message to run for

congress is that a pretty standard – like pretty standard like Democratic

lines.  This is not a standard period of political history.  It feels like

what Democrats want to do – and, you know, yourself, maybe you can say you

don`t agree with what I`m about to say – is that Democrats want to run

sort of a standard the way that you run for, you know, city, state, and

federal government with a standard set of issues, but  Republicans are

running asymmetrically.  They`re running on things like, you know, very

racialized nationalism.  You might want to say white nationalism.  They`re

running on saying that brown people don`t belong here, that they need to

leave.

 

Is it possible for a Democrat to win by running a standard campaign when

Republicans are using that kind of asymmetry.

 

DAVIS:  You know, I think it`s a little bit of both.  Obviously, Democrats

were wildly successful in 2018 by addressing the issues that really matter

to people.  And while that may sound like standard fare, it`s important

that we continue to be the standard bearers for demonstrating that we are

going to fight for issues that really matter in people`s day to day lives.

 

REID:  And what issues do you think those are?  What issues would you say

those were?

 

DAVIS:  Those that I just outlined.  People who want to make sure that they

have a job that can

support a family income, that they have the ability to afford health care

and have a  health care plan that`s actually going to cover their needs…

 

REID:  Yeah, but hold on a second because you went through those issues –

I`m sorry to cut

you off…

 

DAVIS:  It`s OK.

 

REID:  The question I have whenever people say that is, what about health

care?  Because I don`t think that the 2018 election just my read of it was

in general about jobs and health care.  It was a very specific thing about

health care, that Donald Trump was going to take your health care.

 

DAVIS:  T hat`s right.

 

REID:  So when Democrats say it`s just health care, do you mean just a

proactive idea about  health care or defending health care against this

president?

 

DAVIS:  Absolutely defending against the attacks on health care.  And I`m

sitting in Texas, where you probably know, Joy, there is the lawsuit that`s

going on to try to deal the final blow to the Affordable Care Act.  It`s

being led by our attorney general, Ken Paxton, here.  And so on the minds

of many Texans is exactly that, that Republican leaders from the top to

here at the state level are working tremendously hard to take away a health

care benefit that they currently have.  And they not only want to see us

not work on taking it away, they want to make sure that we`re making it

stronger.

 

REID:  Right.

 

DAVIS:  I, as someone who has just a  few employees, understand how

expensive it is every month.

 

REID:  Yep.

 

DAVIS:  And how high our deductible is.  They want to make sure that we`re

fighting to make sure that they cannot only afford it, but that it`s

actually going to provide the kind of coverage that they need.

 

REID:  We are out of time, but I need a yes or no answer from you.  If you

are elected to congress and an impeachment proceeding comes your way in the

House of  Representatives, would you vote to impeach Donald Trump?

 

DAVIS:  If an impeachment vote comes my way, I think people are going to

vote really in November in 2020 in that regard, and I`m anxious to hear

exactly what Mueller says.

 

REID:  So that`s a no.

 

DAVIS:  …on Wednesday.

 

No, I`m not saying it`s a no at all.

 

REID:  OK.

 

DAVIS:  I`m saying just like the rest of the American people, I`m anxious

to hear what he has to

say tomorrow.

 

REID:  OK.

 

DAVIS:  And I hope as I go forward in the campaign people will go to my

website, wendydavisforcongress.com and discover more about what those

positions are.  I appreciate the time, Joy.

 

REID:  No problem.  You got the website in there.  All right, good

marketing.  Wendy Davis, thank you for your time.

 

DAVIS:  All right – thank you.

 

Coming up, should presidential candidates take on Donald Trump on the

campaign trail or just pretend he doesn`t exist?  The debate over how to

beat Trump is next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

REID:  If I had a dollar for every opinion piece out there telling

Democrats that the only way to beat Trump in 2020 is to avoid talking about

him and to hide anything that makes them seem too Democraticy so that they

don`t scare off Rust Belt Trump voters.  You know, the goal is to try and

woo those Trump voters, Trump voting White working class voters, with

kitchen table issues like health care, but not really like liberally scary

health care, more like just saying the word health care a lot, but not too

loudly or too liberal soundingy.  And just to pretend Trump isn`t there. 

If I had a dollar for every column like that, I`d be really rich. 

 

I`m obviously exaggerating here – a little.  But the point is that the

conventional Democratic and never Trumper wisdom seems to be that if

Democrats focus their attention on all the terrible things Trump says and

does then that will only make him stronger and get him reelected.

 

But on my show over the weekend, writer and anti-racism activist Tim Wise,

who worked on the independent campaigns to stop David Duke, the former

grand wizard of the KKK, from winning state-wise office in Louisiana in the

1990s explained why he sees it very differently.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

TIM WISE, ANTI-RACIST EDUCATOR:  These are people who are not believers in

small government or low taxes.  It is increasingly a white identity cult. 

And unless the rest of us understand that, including Democratic candidates

and talk about this election as the existential threat that it is to

pluralistic, multicultural democracy, we are going to lose, we`re going to

blow it, because they are motivated by that belief that the America they

love is being lost.  We had better take the election just as seriously. 

And it`s not going to be done with a bunch of great policy papers and

policy positions, it`s going to be done the way it was done in Louisiana

making people understand that David Duke was a

threat to the America that we care about.

 

Donald Trump is also that threat.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

REID:  To talk about that, I am joined by Cornell Belcher, Democratic

pollster and MSNBC political analyst, David Weigel, national political

correspondent for The Washington Post.  Thank you guys both for being here. 

 

And we`ve talked about this before – or Cornell, I feel like – because so

what Tim Wise was saying, and what he said a little bit more in that

segment, is that the goal of Democrats has to be to separate the average

White voter from the extremists that are going with Donald Trump and that,

you know, in his experience in Louisiana most White Americans don`t want to

be associated with racism, but they have to make it clear that this isn`t

just one person`s version of health care versus Trump`s version of health

care, that this side is extreme.  He says that`s important to do.  What do

you make of that?

 

CORNELL BELCHER, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER:  You know, I guess, god bless him,

Wise, because I think, Joy, this is something that we have been talking

about for a while.  I guess you have to be a white guy to say it for you to

be taken seriously.  But he is absolutely right.

 

As opposed to Democrats chasing Trump voters, you`ve got to understand what

Trump did.  Take Wisconsin, for example, Trump did one point better than

Mitt Romney did.  Hillary did 7 points worse in Wisconsin than Barack Obama

did.  So if I could – if I follow the conventional thinking here, we

should spend all our time and recourses chasing that 1 percent and not

chasing that 7 percent, or almost 200,000 voters, that we lost in the

process.  We should take all of our time and chase  Trump voters.  It is

nonsense. 

 

Conventional Democrat wisdom, by the way, up until Barack Obama in 2008

when we actually flipped the script on a lot of conventional wisdom, has

been losing a lot of national elections.  And what I fear, Joy, is that a

lot of that conventional wisdom that was front and center before Barack

Obama is reestablishing itself and we`re going to run campaigns like it`s

1990 again.

 

REID:  Well, see that is the point.  You know, Dave, it does seem like

Democrats are skipping the two elections in which the Democratic candidate,

Barack Obama, won by 10 million and 5 million votes and going all the way

back to the 90s and say, no, we are going to run that strategy where we

sort of try to tamp down the differences between ourselves and the

Republicans, run more like them, seem like them, and be moderate and sort

of somehow convince white voters to come back over.

 

But that`s not what Barack Obama did.  I mean, there are seven million

Barack Obama voters in 2012 who just stayed home in 2016.  And Democrats

don`t seem – they seem to be ignoring them and just fixating on these

voters who have already gone to Donald Trump.

 

DAVE WEIGEL, THE WASHINGTON POST:  Yeah, well, I think it depend what is

Democrats

are you talking about.  If you are talking about people who write columns

or who have think tanks in D.C. that depend on this message, yes, you hear

that all the time.  It gets a huge megaphone throughout the press.  I`m in

Wisconsin now.  I spent time with the new chair of the Democratic Party

today in the state.  I spent some time a canvasser.  I spent time with

Republican canvassers. 

 

Neither campaign is really thinking of things that way.  The Republicans

are trying to hold on to the Trump base and maybe pull out some voters,

registered voters who like Trump didn`t vote last time.  And for Democrats,

it`s a multi – almost multi-year persuasion campaign.  They really got

started a few months ago in talking to voters ahead of 2020, the idea being

you have those conversations, you get people who are not satisfied with

Trump – weren`t satisfied with Hillary Clinton and you change the numbers.

 

It is a lot – you mentioned the Obama campaign, it`s a lot more like

those.  I was just talking to Republicans on the way here who – their

emphasis is not anything Trump did right in 2016 – I mean, they think he

did some things right, it`s Obama`s campaign – registering 2 million

voters in 2008, 2 million voters in 2012, and that`s more of the model that

you`re hearing from Democrats in the Midwest now, not we need to tack this

message, we need to be quiet about this.  I don`t hear that quite as much.

 

REID:  And you know – that`s actually good news to hear.

 

And Cornell, the other issue is what would get those 7 million Obama voters

who stayed home?  Because we talked so much about the 9 million who flipped

to Trump, but the 7 million who already lean Democratic who just didn`t

vote.

 

There is also the conventional wisdom that the way to somehow get them is

with sort of very moderate sort of quasi-Republican policy that is not too

scary and that somehow that – is that – just as

somebody who does the data, would that get these nonvoters off the benches?

 

BELCHER:  Well, a couple of things.  One is, you know, I sort punched

serious holes in this mythical big Trump-Obama vote.  Did some Obama voters

vote Trump?  Yeah, they did.  But did of Romney voters vote for Clinton? 

Absolutely, they did or Trump would have actually gotten a better – much

better percentage than Mitt Romney.

 

But put that aside.

 

Look, I think Democrats can`t make the mistake of trying to run like a

1990s campaign.  We have got to be inspirational.  We`ve got to give people

a vision.  We`ve got to give them something to vote for.

 

The big difference between John Kerry, quite frankly, and Barack Obama is

when we dove inside this data at the DNC under Governor Howard Dean, what

we found is that a majority of John Kerry`s voters were actually voting

against George Bush, not for John Kerry.  We flipped that around in 2008

and the majority of Obama voters were, in fact, voting for Barack Obama. 

We have to give them something to vote for, we have to give them something

to cling to.  We`ve got to offer a progressive alternative future vision

for the future and one that`s not about 1950s, because America is not going

backwards.  We are going to be a brown country.  And we have got to learn

to live with each other.

 

REID:  And in your mind, Dave Weigel, can Democrats afford to just ignore

Trump?

 

WEIGEL:  I don`t think they are ignoring him.  But I take my queues really

from all the campaign events I cover, the candidates who talked to voters,

the candidates who appear at forums.  They usually kind of clear their

throats about the threat of Trump and then they talk about their policy.

 

No one I think has figured out the sweet spot here on how much you talk

about Trump without the only message of the day being Trump.  But honestly,

if you are on the trail with the candidates, he  comes up as something that

needs to be replaced and the result of decades long trends and not let`s

respond to the tweet of the day.

 

REID:  Yeah, indeed.

 

Cornell Belcher and Dave Weigel, you guys are all smart.  Thank you guys

very much for joining.

 

And that is ALL IN for this evening.  Chris Hayes, will be back in the

anchor chair tonight.  And as always, you can find me on “A.M. JOY”

weekends at 10:00 a.m.

 

“THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” starts right now. 

 

 

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.>