North Carolina House erupts. TRANSCRIPT: 9/11/19, All In w/ Chris Hayes.

Guests:
Roy Cooper, Ro Khanna, Jodi Kantor, Megan Twohey, Lawrence Wilkerson, Phil Murphy
Transcript:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST:  And more than that, the proud sense of country

we felt so many of us knowing that we had those among us who would race to

their duty on such a day.

 

And that`s HARDBALL for now.  “ALL IN” with Chris Hayes starts right now.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC ANCHOR:  Tonight on ALL IN.

 

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  John wasn`t in line with

what we were doing and actually in some cases he thought it was too tough

what we were doing, Mr. Tough Guy.

 

VELSHI:  The Bolton fallout from the Iran negotiations, to nuking a

hurricane, to North Korea.

 

TRUMP:  I don`t blame Kim Jong-un for what he said after that, and he

wanted nothing to do with John Bolton.

 

VELSHI:  Tonight, new details about exactly why Trump no longer has the

National Security Adviser.  Plus, breaking news, Michael Cohen makes a new

agreement to tell all about the Trump Organization.  Then –

 

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA):  People are dying but Senator McConnell hasn`t

acted.

 

VELSHI:  New pressure to resolve the gun impasse as states start taking

matters into their own hands.  And the scheme pulled off by North Carolina

Republicans while Democrats were at a 9/11 commemoration.

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  If this is the way you believe democracy works, shame

on you.

 

VELSHI:  Wen ALL IN starts right now.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

VELSHI:  Good evening from New York I`m Ali Velshi in for Chris Hayes. 

It`s been only a day since President Trump fired his National Security

Adviser John Bolton or since John Bolton quit depending on whom you ask,

and already the numerous disputes between the men are being aired in the

open.

 

It`s hard to pin down the exact reason for the split between the

President`s comments and different reports.  It seems the two men disagreed

on just about everything.  For one, we now know that one of the reasons

Trump got rid of Bolton was because some of Trump`s friends didn`t like him

either.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

TRUMP:  Take a look at what happened to Gaddafi with the Libyan model, and

he`s using that to make a deal with North Korea?  And I don`t Kim Jong-un

for what he said after that, and he wanted nothing to do with John Bolton.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

VELSHI:  So the North Korean dictator who imprisons and murders his own

people didn`t like John Bolton.  CBS reports that Trump fired Bolton for

publicly embarrassing him.  The main irritant that drove Mr. Trump to

distraction was his belief that Bolton or those close to Bolton leaked a

story about Mr. Trump asking about whether nuclear weapons could be used to

abate hurricanes.

 

Multiple reports have centered around the two men disagreeing on how to

deal with Iran.  Bloomberg reports that Trump discussed easing Iran

sanctions and meeting with the country`s president causing the notoriously

hawkish Bolton to push back.

 

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports “in June, following Trump`s decision

not to order a military attack on Iran after it downed an unmanned U.S.

drone, Bolton was devastated.  Yet another point of contention between

Trump and his former National Security Adviser was the President`s secret

plan to host Taliban leaders at Camp David that he later canceled.

 

Here`s how Politico described it.  Bolton`s ousting “came after widespread

reports that Bolton tried to stop Trump from inviting leaders of the Afghan

Taliban to Camp David for peace talks.  Trump ultimately scrapped the idea

but multiple people familiar with the issue said the news reports about

Bolton`s dissent believed to have been planted by Bolton`s aides infuriated

Trump.

 

Donald Trump wanted to host leaders from the Taliban at Camp David.  That

was the plan just days before the 18th anniversary of 9/11 which is today. 

Americans across the country held solemn vigils to honor the nearly 3,000

people who died that day.  President Trump held a moment of silence at the

White House and spoke at the Pentagon warning the Taliban not to mess with

the United States.

 

But here`s the weird thing.  Donald Trump is the guy who invited the

Taliban to Camp David on the week of 9/11.  It is unclear exactly what

happens now.  But one thing we do know is that Trump appears to be bumbling

his way through foreign policy at a time when American leadership is most

needed on the global stage.

 

Joining me now is a man who worked with John Bolton in the George W. Bush

administration retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson.  He was a

chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell.  Colonel, good to see

you.

 

If you didn`t know what John Bolton was about, if Donald Trump is surprised

by John Bolton, he`s about the only person in the world surprised by John

Bolton, John Bolton has been exactly who John Bolton is for 30 years.

 

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON (RET.), FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO SECRETARY OF STATE

COLIN POWELL:  Well, you just put your finger on it.  I said John Bolton

wouldn`t last very long when he was appointed.  I didn`t think he would

last as long as he did.  But you just put your finger on it.  It`s a

reflection of the president and his ability to select people who are not

just compatible with his views and with his personality but compatible with

the strategies and policies he wants America to pursue, if you can find

any.

 

So this is as much a reflection of Trump`s inability to get along with

other human beings and to select people who are good for the job as it is

Bolton`s irascibility, warmongering, and noted penchant to be a hard-nosed

character.

 

VELSHI:  Well, if Martians landed on earth and said, earthlings, what is

this war hawk that you speak of?  You could direct them to a definition of

John Bolton.  The Wall Street Journal reporting from January of 2019 that

after militants fired three mortars into Baghdad`s sprawling diplomatic

quarter, Baghdad, of course, being allied with Iran, Mr. Trump`s National

Security team led by John Bolton conducted a series of meetings to discuss

a forceful U.S. response including what many saw as the unusual request for

options to strike Iran.

 

“It definitely rattled people, A former senior U.S. administration official

said of the request.  People were shocked.  It was mind-boggling how

cavalier they were about hitting Iran.  John Bolton has invested a lot of

time in the same way that Peter Navarro has invested a lot of time in

getting the President to impose tariffs on China.  John Bolton invested a

lot of time in getting the President to get out of the Iran deal and to

take a hawkish militaristic position with Iran.

 

WILKERSON:  Absolutely.  And Bolton is as far as I can see the crafter of

the security policies such as they are that we`ve seen to this point. 

Let`s remember, Ronald Reagan wanting to be President of the United States. 

Regardless of what we think of Ronald Reagan, he wanted to be President of

the United States.

 

He had six national security advisors in eight years.  No one said much

about it.  We moved all the way from in the beginning people who weren`t

even allowed to see the president to at the end Colin Powell and Frank

Carlucci who got in almost any time they needed to.  This is not Ronald

Reagan, though.

 

This is a president who doesn`t get along with people.  This is a president

who can`t manage policy except that the policy is his and his alone and

we`ve seen how disastrous that sort of policy is, if you can even say we

have a policy, foreign or security policy.  North Korea, Russia, China, you

name it, we`re in disarray right now.  John Bolton wasn`t responsible for

that disarray.  The president is responsible for that disarray.

 

VELSHI:  So what does success look like for a National Security Adviser?  I

think it`s an interesting point that you brought up that Ronald Reagan had

six in eight years.  We`re now at three in the time that Donald Trump has

been in office.  So maybe the time is not the issue, it`s the who.

 

You need a National Security Adviser who is prepared to stand up to the

president.  At the same time, you need someone who`s got a good strategic

sense of national security policy.

 

WILKERSON:  And the compatibility with the president.  If you want to look

at the ideal National Security Adviser, you look at George Herbert Walker

Bush and Brent Scowcroft.

 

VELSHI:  Right.

 

WILKERSON:  That was the most effective national security and foreign

policy decision-making team since Eisenhower.  That`s the way it`s supposed

to be.

 

VELSHI:  What makes that work?

 

WILKERSON:  It may – what makes it work is the personality of the

President and the personality of the National Security Adviser and the

experience of both, both.  He was Vice President of Ronald Reagan for eight

years.  He was an ambassador to China.  He was head of the RNC.  He was

Director of the CIA.  He had experience.

 

Scowcroft had been Gerry Ford`s National Security Adviser.  He`d run the

tower commission report changes in the national security council. 

Scowcroft knew it, experience.  If there`s one word that says what you

ought to have in the White House in both men President and National

Security Adviser is experience.  And if you don`t have it in the president

and you often don`t –

 

VELSHI:  We`re not going to fix that problem.

 

WILKERSON:  Yes, you need the National Security Adviser.

 

VELSHI:  Let me ask you this.  There`s some late reporting tonight from

CNN.  The President is considering Mike Pompeo to remain as Secretary of

State and take on this position.

 

WILKERSON:  Henry Kissinger did that.  We saw how that worked.  It didn`t

work at all.  The Congress should take great exception to that because

you`ve got a person with no portfolio that`s subject to their advice and

consent, not elected in the National Security Adviser, but immensely

powerful because of his proximity to the president and a cabinet officer

who`s subject to all of that and equally powerful.

 

VELSHI:  That`s interesting.

 

WILKERSON:  So you don`t – you don`t want someone with both portfolios.

 

VELSHI:  Colonel, thank you for your time in your analysis tonight, Colonel

Lawrence Wilkerson.  All right, John Bolton`s out.  Yesterday, President

Trump`s first National Security Advisor Mike Flynn learned he`s going to be

sentenced later this year for lying to the FBI.

 

And now tonight, we have learned that Donald Trump`s former personal lawyer

Michael Cohen is cooperating with officials from behind bars.  He signed a

proffer agreement with the Manhattan district attorney`s office.

 

Now the proffer means Cohen will cooperate with the investigation and get

limited protection against prosecution in return.  The D.A. is looking into

the possibility that the Trump Organization was falsifying business

records.

 

Joining me now are two of our legal experts Cynthia Alksne a former

Prosecutor in the Department of Justice`s Civil Rights Division and a

former Assistant U.S. attorney, she`s now an MSNBC Legal Analyst, and Nick

Ackerman former Assistant Special Watergate Prosecutor, also a former

Assistant U.S. Attorney.  Thanks to both of you for being here.

 

Cynthia, let me just start with you.  What does this mean the proffer

agreement?  I think we`ve been out of this business for a while of talking

about Michael Cohen and what he`s up to.  What does this mean?

 

CYNTHIA ALKSNE, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST:  Well, it means that Cy Vance`s team

has picked up the investigation into falsifying business records in the

Trump Organization.  It means that they`re sort of tugging that piece of

yarn in the sweater and seeing what – how it unravels.

 

This is interesting on lots of different levels not only on how they would

do it and what they would find but can they really get information from

Cohen so that they know where to go to find more information, so that

eventually he never has to be a witness because you know he`s not a very

good witness –

 

VELSHI:  Right, right.

 

ALKSNE:  – because of his convictions.  But they can get information on

this falsifying business records.  It could be a felony and a serious

offense and it could lead as you tug on that yarn in the sweater from

falsifying business to some kind of a criminal tax fraud case.

 

And so we just have to wait and see what they get in addition.  What they

got out of AMI, what they`ve gotten out of the records from the Trump

Organization.  And in the course of their investigation, have people in the

Trump Organization lied to them?  Is that another charge?  So this is just

the beginning to pull this yarn on this sweater.

 

VELSHI:  Let`s – let me ask you this, Nick.  For people – you know,

Cynthia was just talking about Cy Vance, a Manhattan district attorney.  We

have mostly known about Michael Cohen through the work of the Southern

District of New York.  What`s the importance of difference here?

 

NICK AKERMAN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST:  The big difference here is that Cy

Vance is the local prosecutor.  He is the state prosecutor in New York

County.  So he is not concerned with federal crimes, he`s concerned with

state crimes.  But I think we have a continuous theme here that pervades

all of this.  And it`s simply that all roads lead to Donald Trump`s tax

returns.

 

To make this a serious crime in a serious felony, falsifying business

records is usually associated with falsifying numbers so that they falsify

in turn the tax returns.

 

VELSHI:  Interesting.

 

AKERMAN:  So in this particular case, it could very well be that they are

looking at the false state tax returns that have been filed by the Trump

Organization, filed by Donald Trump.  And there could be all kinds of

people who have criminal liability here.

 

If it`s just Donald Trump, obviously, the problem there is indicting a

sitting president although the Manhattan DA`s office is not under the same

stricture as the Department of Justice could indict a sitting president.

 

VELSHI:  Right.

 

AKERMAN:  Secondly, there are lots of people around Donald Trump who could

be indicted for aiding and abetting and assisting in this.  For example, in

the Watergate prosecution, we could have indicted Richard Nixon up until

the point that he was pardoned by President Ford.

 

However, we wound up indicting four other people who assisted Nixon in the

preparation of his false returns.  So here you`ve got people like

Weisselberger given immunity by the feds, but that immunity doesn`t carry

over to the state.

 

You`ve got people who were involved in actually dealing with this hush

money, dealing with the books and records.  So there are lots of potential

defendants here who could be charged with crimes related –

 

VELSHI:  This is the pulling of the yarn.  Cynthia, what can Cy Vance offer

Michael?  Why would he do this?  What does he get return for it?

 

ALKSNE:  Well, first of all, revenge is a wonderful motivation which is

another reason why you don`t want him on the stand.  You know, Cy Vance

isn`t in a position to do anything about his federal time because that`s –

he`s serving time in a federal prison and he can`t really do anything about

that.

 

So I would say you know, Cohen obviously feels it`s deeply unfair, and I

would agree with him, that he`s the only person serving time for the

campaign finance violation.  And it has inspired him to find ways to make

sure the authorities in New York State know about the violation and will

follow all the leads.

 

Because after all, in the New York State prosecution, there is no bar to

shut it down.  You know, the Attorney General.  There is no OLC memo and

there`s no pardon power associated with the state court crimes.

 

VELSHI:  The OLC memo is the thing that prevents federal prosecutors from

indicting a sitting president.

 

ALKSNE:  Exactly.

 

VELSHI:  So Nick, one will remember that Michael Cohen was not jumping over

himself to cooperate with authorities the whole way.  There was always

something there that prevented him from fessing up to everything he`s done. 

He`s worried about something.

 

AKERMAN:  Well, he`s really worried of spending three years behind bars.  I

mean, I can guarantee you he is not sitting there now just making license

plates.  I mean, he is looking for ways that he can cooperate and get his

cooperation before Judge Pauline in the Southern District of New York so

that he can rack up those brownie points and bring down that sentence.

 

I`m sure he`s cooperating with Jerry Nadler investigation, he`s cooperating

with the DA`s office, and at some point his lawyers are going to go before

Judge Pauline, they`re going to list all this cooperation.  They`re going

to say that Michael Cohen, while he`s been in, has cooperated with a whole

series of investigations and therefore, Judge, you should lower his

sentence.  And that`s what he`s going to try and do.

 

VELSHI:  Thank you to both of you, Cynthia Alksne, Nick Akerman.  We

appreciate it.  Coming up next, while Republicans continue to obstruct gun

legislation, Democrats are finding new ways to get things done.  How one

governor is taking matters into his own hands, after this.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REP. LUCY MCBATH (D-GA):  I know the pain of losing a child to gun

violence.  And not anyone in this room, anyone in this country should ever

be faced with that pain.  And for every single day that we fall into not

taking action, mothers and fathers across this country will live to the

same nightmare that I did.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

VELSHI:  That was Congresswoman Lucy McBath of Georgia yesterday before the

House Judiciary Committee voted to advance three bills designed to counter

the gun violence epidemic in this country including one that would allow

authorities to take guns away from dangerous people known as a red flag

law.

 

It`s the latest gun safety push from the Democrat-controlled House which

voted earlier this year to require background checks on almost all gun

sales, something supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

 

But Senate Republicans have refused to take up any gun safety legislation

with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell insisting that he needs to know

what Donald Trump would sign before he brings a bill to the floor which is

unusual because the Senate is part of the Congress which is a co-equal

branch of government.  It`s not actually necessary for them to know what

the president will sign before voting on legislation.

 

But today Donald Trump said he was working with the Senate lawmakers on gun

safety measures that will be “acceptable to everybody.”  Another things

that seems unattainable.  But he appears unlikely to support even moderate

gun safety measures despite a recent spate of mass shootings.

 

Just last month, he reportedly assured the NRA that universal background

checks are off the table.  With Republicans continuing to instruct gun

safety measures at the federal level, some states are stepping up.

 

In New Jersey this week, Governor Phil Murphy signed an executive order

mandating that his state not do business with gun manufacturers and dealers

that do not adopt more stringent gun safety policies.

 

Joining me now to tell me more about this, New Jersey Democratic Governor

Phil Murphy.  Governor, good to see you.  Thank you for being with us.

 

GOV. PHIL MURPHY (D-NJ):  Thank you for having me, Ali.

 

VELSHI:  We have seen across this country over the last few years – gun

safety advocates point this out all the time that while the focus seems to

be on the failure of Congress to pass meaningful legislation on guns since

1994, in fact, there has been meaningful legislation passed in states

across the country including things like red flag laws which your state

has.  And they argue that in fact a lot of progress is being made on that

front.

 

MURPHY:  Ali, it`s quite appropriate to have a discussion on public safety

on this most solemn of day, so god rest the souls of all we lost 18 years

ago.  Yes, there`s been progress at the state level because we frankly have

no choice.  There`s inaction in Washington.

 

I hope the president has seen the light in Senator McConnell.  I`ll believe

that when I see it.  But we have from day one in our administration taking

a whole series of actions, executive orders, legislative action, forming a

coalition with other like-minded states called States for Gun Safety.

 

And yesterday, as you pointed out, an executive order that would require

gun vendors, financial institutions that financed those vendors, as well as

insurance companies to adhere to a set of principles that we think are

consistent with the values associated with a smart gun safety state.

 

And we`ll keep at it because at the end of the day we all need – we all

know that we need Congress to act.  But in the absence of that, we can`t

stop them, we`ll continue to stay at it.

 

VELSHI:  Governor, we have a Second Amendment in this country.  It is the

law of the land regardless of whether people like it or not or think that

rulings about it have made sense.  It is what it is.  How does your new

executive order stand up to that when you say that these vendors, these

companies and financier of insurance companies live up to a set of

standards that you think are acceptable?  How do you do that while we`re

standing up to a potential court challenge?

 

MURPHY:  So we enter this executive order and the execution of it in a

spirit of goodwill.  So we`re hoping to find common ground with the vendors

and that`s guns, ammunition, other equipment.  We`ve spent over the recent

period of time about $70 million.  We have right now six vendors that deal

with the state.  Again, we enter that with a spirit of goodwill.

 

Financial institutions we spent a lot more in fees.  I think we spent about

$1 billion in fees with financial institutions.  And lastly, on the

insurance carrier side, it`s unclear yet what the exact magnitude is.

 

But not of what we`re doing in any way challenges the Second Amendment. 

This is asking vendors to adhere to a set of principles that they respect

universal background checks, that they won`t sell to straw purchasers, that

they`ll take training and communication seriously.  And likewise, the

financial institutions will choose in their dealings to finance only the

vendors whether they be retailer manufacturers, that also adhere to those

principles.

 

I don`t think any of that goes near the Second Amendment and I think we can

make that case quite clearly.  And I would hope that we could continue to

do so not just in New Jersey but that we could – we could do that across

our country.

 

VELSHI:  Governor, I want to ask you really quickly.  The President says

he`s going to come up with something that everybody will be happy with. 

There`s no gun law that everybody`s going to be happy with, but there is

common ground.

 

And those red flag laws across this country are an example of common ground

where gun safety advocates have worked with gun advocates to come up with

something that does not skirt the rule of law and due process in saying

that there are people who are dangerous who maybe shouldn`t have guns but

that will be adjudicated.

 

MURPHY:  Yes, red flag laws are a good example of steps that are broadly if

not overwhelmingly supported by Americans of all political stripes. 

Universal background checks I think clocks in at 90 percent.  It`s

completely shameful that Congress in this administration have enacted

already on those steps.

 

I`m hopeful that they will, but in the meantime, I`ll hope for the best it

will prepare for the worst and keep at it here in New Jersey.

 

VELSHI:  Governor, thanks for joining me tonight.  We appreciate it,

Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey.  Coming up next, new courting tonight

the White House was involved in the ultimatum to NOAA, either back up the

President or lose your job.  The details of that next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

VELSHI:  Another day and another round of reporting on the White House

pressuring a government agency to back up President Trump`s incorrect claim

that Hurricane Dorian was threatening the state of Alabama.

 

What had devolved into the ridiculous when Trump held up an outdated

hurricane trap – track which had been sharp heed by him according to the

Washington Post citing an unnamed White House official became far more

serious when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or NOAA

actually issued an unsigned statement backing President Trump up and

rebuking the National Weather Service in Birmingham for correcting the

president.

 

That`s not it.  Then we learned that Wilbur Ross, the Secretary of the

Commerce Department which oversees NOAA, reportedly personally directed the

acting administrator of NOAA to issue that statement or risk having top

political appointees at NOAA fired, that`s according to The New York Times.

 

Wilbur Ross denies that, and now there`s new reporting that the pressure on

NOAA came straight from the White House.  The New York Times is reporting

that, quote, Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff told

Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, to have NOAA publicly

disavow the forecasters position that Alabama was not at risk.

 

And The Washington Post reporting that, quote, President Trump told his

staff that NOAA needed to deal with a tweet that seemed to contradict his

statement that Hurricane Dorian posed a significant threat to Alabama,

senior administration officials said.

 

When asked today if he had directed Mulvaney to do that, the president

denied it calling it a hoax by the fake news.  But that has not stopped the

inspector general of the Commerce Department from investigating that

unsigned statement made by NOAA saying this was a matter of, quote,

scientific integrity.

 

Earlier this week in an email to the staff of NOAA`s acting chief scientist

Craig McClain he condemned the agency`s response as political and a, quote,

danger to public health and safety.  And

he`s investigate why NOAA issued that statement.

 

So this is far from over. 

 

As for President Trump`s treatment of actual victims of Hurricane Dorian,

Bahamian people

displaced by the catastrophe, we`re going to talk to Congressman Ro Khanna

about that next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

VELSHI:  As thousands remain missing, then tens of thousands more are

homeless in the Bahamas in the wake of Hurricane Dorian, a Trump

administration official tells NBC News that the United States will not

grant protected status to people who are displaced by the storm.

 

Now that status would allow Bahamians to work and live in the United States

until it`s deemed safe to return home.  It`s the same status that was

granted, for example, to victims of Haiti`s earthquake in 2010. 

 

Bahamians can still come to the U.S. temporarily if they have the right

travel documents, which is proving complicated in some places.  And this

news comes on the same day that, quote, Bahama`s emergency services listed

2,500 people as missing. 

 

A government official says the list has not been checked against government

records of who is staying in shelters or who has been evacuated.  The

number of people confirmed killed in the Bahama`s stands at 50 tonight. 

That number is almost certain to rise.

 

Joining me now is Congressman Ro Khanna of California, a member of the

House oversight committee.  Congressman, good to see you.  Thank you for

being with us.

 

REP. RO KHANNA, (D) CALIFORNIA:  Ali, good to be on.

 

VELSHI:  In the wake of a humanitarian disaster, which I saw with my own

eyes, as I just returned from the Bahamas, the president uttered language

he`s used about all asylum seekers, and some Mexicans, he talked about

criminals, drug dealers, gangs, people who are not legally in the Bahamas. 

And actually a lot of that is a reference to the Haitians who went

thereafter the earthquake in Haiti. 

 

The – it is not the normal tone you would expect in the face of a

humanitarian disaster that the

Bahamas is facing.

 

KHANNA:  Ali, it`s morally outrageous.  Let`s be clear what this

administration is doing, they`re turning away poor black people who are

coming after having faced a category 5 hurricane, and they`re coming here

for temporary relief.  These are climate refugees.  I mean, they faced a

more severe hurricane, because of the warming of the ocean caused in part

by our carbon policies.  The least we can do is to allow them here on a

temporary basis.  And this administration is just really despicable that

they`re being turned away.

 

VELSHI:  And to be clear, we have systems in place for doing this.  The

temporary protected status law allows for us to bring people in with

documentation, know where they are, monitor it when the temporary

protective status ends, they would go back.  This isn`t a they`re invading

us thing.

 

KHANNA:  Not at all.  And in fact, Senator Marco Rubio is asking they be

allowed in.  I mean, the idea that you`re going to require first

documentation when they`ve just gone through a hurricane

and you expect that they have their passport or visa defies any common

sense.

 

And second, almost any president in the past has allowed people, when there

is a natural disaster to come here, they get to work, stay here temporarily

and then they go back.  We`ve done this when there was a natural disaster

in Haiti.  We`ve done in natural disasters in other parts of the world.

 

So this president – what this president is doing is also unprecedented.

 

VELSHI:  It`s worth noting that a lot of people in the Bahamas are

descended from American loyalists who went there in many cases with slaves,

so the connection is very strong.

 

Let`s talk about this whole NOAA thing, the president, the Sharpie, the

Alabama thing.  Would have been bad enough if it just happened, but the

president continued to keep this in the news, continued to talk about it,

and then it went a step further.  It wasn`t just the doctored map, it went

somewhere else.  And with each passing few hours, we`re getting more

information about how close the order to issue a statement to NOAA came

from the president.

 

KHANNA:  Well, as they say in Washington the cover up is almost always

worse than the  original misconduct.  I mean, the president – all the

president had to do was admit a mistake, but this

president is incapable of ever admitting that he`s wrong.  And so he`s

engaged in this elaborate cover-up to the point where the chief of staff to

the president is allegedly directing an independent agency to put out a

tweet defending the president and interfering in an independent process.

 

So it just shows what can go wrong in a democracy when you have a leader

who has a disregard for facts and who has no sense of humility, no sense of

willingness to admit that he made a mistake.

 

VELSHI:  I have to say I have a lot of reasons as a guy who`s reported on

hurricanes to not want the administration or the National Weather Service

or NOAA or journalists to misrepresent storms because people already have

issues taking it seriously.

 

But the idea that the chief of staff may have called the commerce secretary

who may have called the head of NOAA to cause them to put out a public

statement, because they didn`t want to contradict the president seems to be

a greater offense to democracy.

 

KHANNA:  It is.  And it is a pattern with this administration.  I mean,

this is what got the president in trouble with the Mueller report, that he

was trying to interfere with the Justice Department.  He has tried to

interfere with the fed.  He`s now trying to interfere with the Commerce

Department.  He`s not king.  He`s not a dictator.  He lives in a

constitutional democracy, and there are independent agencies that operate

totally independent from his power.  And he refuses to acknowledge the very

basics of the checks and balances in our constitutional democracy.

 

VELSHI:  Congressman, good to see you as always.  Thank you for joining me. 

Congressman Ro Khanna.

 

KHANNA:  Ali, great to be on.

 

VELSHI:  All right, coming up next, did North Carolina Republicans really

stage a legislative coup in the middle of a September 11 memorial event? 

The governor of the state, Roy Cooper, joins me to break down what happened

after this.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

VELSHI:  All right, in North Carolina one day after special congressional

elections netted

two Republican seats, Republicans in the state legislator pulled off a move

that the Raleigh News and Observer called a quote shameless theft of

democracy.  While the governor and some Democratic lawmakers were at

services commemorating 9/11, North Carolina Republicans called for a

surprise vote to override the governor`s budget veto.

 

Democrats say the vote was not scheduled.  They were under the impression

they didn`t need to be there, so only 12 Democrats were in the statehouse

when it all went down.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

STATE REP. DEB BUTLER, (D) NORTH CAROLINA:  Mr. Speaker, you are making a

mockery of this process.  You are deceiving all of North Carolina.  Your

leadership is an embarrassment to the history of this great state.  At this

moment in time you are doing the unspeakable.  Is this the legacy you want? 

Are you proud of this?  Are you proud of yourselves?

 

Look at you.  There`s no one here because we have been deceived.  The

trustworthiness is gone.  We will not yield.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

VELSHI:  All right, joining me now to talk about what exactly is going on

in North Carolina is the governor of the great state, Democrat Roy Cooper.

 

Governor, I was just in your state last week as we were covering the

hurricanes and I never cease to tell people what a beautiful state it is

with great people and terrific food.  What is going on with your politics?

 

GOV. ROY COOPER, (D) NORTH CAROLINA:  Well, there`s no question that North

Carolina is a great place to live and raise your family.  But, Ali, what we

saw today was an assault on democracy by the Republican leadership.

 

I vetoed this bad  budget because it  valued corporate tax cuts over

investment in public education and denied health insurance to 500,000

working North Carolinians with Medicaid expansion.

 

For over two months, instead of negotiating with me to come to some

consensus, this Republican legislature continued to tried to override my

veto.  They did by bribing legislators, even offering to move the entire

department of health and human services to any legislator`s county who

would vote to override my veto.  They couldn`t get the votes.

 

So what they did was lied.  They told Democratic legislators and they told

the media that there would not be votes at 8:30 this morning on 9/11, a day

when Americans should be standing in solidarity.  They scheduled this vote

and overrode the veto.  And the people of North Carolina lost today,

teachers lost today.  Working North Carolinians who don`t have health

insurance lost today.  And it is wrong.  It is wrong.

 

VELSHI:  Wrong it may be.  Is it illegal?

 

COOPER:  I believe that it is.  I also believe that it is unethical, and

the way they did it – these legislators are citizen legislators, and they

have been showing up every day there`s a session for over two months.  One

legislator had to get off her chemotherapy bed to get there.  They missed

family events.  They have missed work in order to be there.

 

And there have been some days when the Republican leadership has told them

there`s not going to be a vote.  And this was one of those days.

 

And I think it`s all part and parcel of this Republican leadership and our

legislature, which in fact has not reflective of who we are as North

Carolinians.  They were elected under illegal gerrymandered districts.  And

in fact, I think one of the reasons we`re seeing this – it is the last

gasp of a dying majority here, because I was elected governor in 2016.  I

issued a strong, clean  energy executive order.  I appointed by far the

most diverse and qualified cabinet in the history of our state.  I`ve been

fighting offshore drilling, issued an anti-discrimination order, pushed for

public education. 

 

And then we went last year and recruited enough people to run for the state

legislature.  And even under terrible districts, we were able to break the

super majority in both the house and the senate.  And this year we`ve been

stopping bad legislation, so they had to resort to trickery.    And now our

state courts, unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, our state courts have found

partisan gerrymandering to be  unconstitutional.  So now they`re having to

redraw their districts.

 

And every single one of those house members and state senators are going to

be up for election

next year along with me running for re-election for governor.  And there

will be a judgment day in North Carolina.

 

VELSHI:  Gerrymandering is an important and serious issue across this

country and it is driven home in North Carolina.  In fact, I`m just showing

our viewers a picture of North Carolina`s 12th congressional district which

was formerly the most gerrymandered district in the United States.

 

 

One doesn`t have to explain gerrymandering, one can just look at a picture

of that district and say that`s not really a thing, right, that`s not

possible.

 

This Republican legislator – dominated legislature – in North Carolina,

has been up to this for awhile.  When you became governor, they attempted

to strip you of most of your important powers.

 

COOPER:  They did.  We were able to sue them and get a lot of it back.  But

you`re talking about a legislative leadership when they drew these

congressional districts, they did it with partisanship in mind first and

foremost.  And in fact we are a state that votes pretty evenly Democrat and

Republican, and they drew districts that resulted in 10 Republicans and

only three Democrats.  And when asked this particular leader who told our

Democrats today that there had be no votes at the 8:30 session, this leader

when asked how in the world when it`s so even in North Carolina can you end

up with 10 Republicans and three Democrats, his answer was we couldn`t

figure out a way to make it 11-2.

 

Now, that, that is straight partisan game playing gerrymandering, and it is

wrong to the core.  It`s resulted in the extremism we have seen from our

legislator in North Carolina.

 

But we are winning here.  We are turning things around.  We still have a

fight in the senate.  We broke the super majority in the Senate as well, so

we`re going to fight it.  But our best chance was in the

House, and they had to use lies and deception in order to get this done

today.  And it`s wrong.

 

And I believe the people are going to react positively next year when every

one of them are up for election.

 

VELSHI:  Governor, good to talk to you.  Thank you for talking to me. 

North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper.

 

All right, coming up, the remarkable reporting that launched a national

reckoning.  Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor on their new book detailing how

they broke the Harvey Weinstein story.  They join me next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

VELSHI:  It`s been nearly two years since two reporters for The New York

Times broke open one of the most consequence stories of our time about

sexual harassment claims against Harvey Weinstein whose trial on rape and

sexual assault charges will begin in January, by the way.

 

Now that story galvanized the #metoo movement, reaching dozens of men in

the highest echelons of power.  And now the two Pulitzer Prize-winning New

York Times reporters, Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor are telling the story

behind their reporting, and the massive cultural change they kicked off in

a new book released this week titled “She Said.”  Megan Twohey and Jodi

Kantor join me now.  Thank you.  Congratulations on the recognition that

your waiting has justly been given.

 

But in this book you tell of a journey.  This is not just reporting a

story, this has intrigue and mystery and threats and confidential sources. 

Two years ahead of this, two years from when this first

started, what has changed in your mind?  What is different today?

 

MEGAN TWOHEY, CO-AUTHOR, SHE SAID:  Well, there is no question that this

story helped break the silence that had basically governed Hollywood and so

many other industries in which women were scared to speak out and go on the

record their allegations of sexual harassment and sexual  assault.

 

But we realized that our Weinstein story, our first Weinstein story was

just the beginning.  We had been able in that first story to connect some

of the dots of his alleged predation going back over the years and how it

was covered up.  But since then, we`ve been able to piece together so many

other additional pieces of the puzzle, the machinery that was in place to

silence women and try to stop our investigation, and also the way that

individuals and institutions can become complicit in abuse.  And that`s

something that really goes beyond the Weinstein story to all these – you

know, to this issue as it plays out across the country.

 

Let me ask you, Jodi, what – when people say that because of #metoo, women

can make uncorroborated claims against men and they`re taken seriously. 

Your reporting shows otherwise, that there`s not – that`s not how this all

went down.

 

JODI KANTOR, CO-AUTHOR, SHE SAID:  Well, that`s certainly not how we

operate.  One of the things we explain in the book is that every one of

those allegations we talked about has to be vetted, it has to be

corroborated.  We were writing under legal threat.

 

But I think you are also talking about something more general now, which is

a fear that #me too has somehow gone too far.  What Megan and I have seen

in our reporting is that there are three questions about #metoo that are

very unresolved.  Number one, what kind of behaviors are under

scrutiny?  Is this just about serious claims of assault or is it also about

bad deeds, is it a bout bad jokes, is it about bra snapping in school

hallways?

 

Number two, how do we evaluate these claims?  What are the tools we use? 

What`s the process we use for figuring out the truth.

 

Number three, what is punishment and accountability look like?  And in

these very controversial cases what you often see is that all three of

those questions are tortuously mixed up.

 

VELSHI:  Are they answerable?  Do we know in each case – when you get a

report of something that you need to pursue, do you know how to answer

those questions?

 

TWOHEY:  Well, so with we are able to walk readers through is the way that

journalism works.  And so there was – I just got my – I started my career

at a newspaper in Wisconsin and my editor had a saying above his desk, if

your mom tells you she loves you, check it out, which I think applies to

all types of reporting and investigating of all different types of

allegations.

 

I think people can mistakenly think that, especially in this #metoo era,

that if a woman comes

forward to a newspaper with an allegation that the newspaper turns around

and publishes it.  And what we are able to is walk readers through the

rigorous amount of work that`s required to go to print with a story like

this.

 

You know, this is – we were able to basically amass a financial trail of

payoffs that Weinstein had been able to – that he used to pay off and

silence women over the years.  We were able to extract internal company

records documenting complaints against him, this in addition to women going

on the

records with their stories and the corroboration we used in those cases.

 

And so what you are able to see is that – and also in the final stretch

that we go to Weinstein himself to give him adequate time to respond.

 

VELSHI:  Who then came to your offices right as this was about to go to

press?

 

KANTOR:  Yes.  He – well, we got this strange call very close to when the

article was ready, and it said Harvey Weinstein is on his way over.  And we

said, what?  He is coming to the office?  And he was going to show up

within a matter of minutes.  And actually my partner Megan decided to take

the meeting.

 

TWOHEY:  Yeah, he basically barged into The New York Times with many high-

powered lawyers by his side, including Lisa Bloom, the feminist attorney

who is one of his staunchest defenders as he tried to beat back this

investigation, and he came in with folders that he had containing

information and photographs that he thought he would be able to use to

smear the woman who were preparing to go on the record for our story.

 

VELSHI:  This is remarkable. 

 

You mentioned that you were able to follow a financial trail.  You had a

source that was helping you with that?

 

KANTOR:  We did.  One of the things – it`s sort of a relief to finally be

able to tell certain stories in this book and to take people into these

events.  And one of the things we can finally disclose is that there was a

kind of Deep Throat figure in the Weinstein investigation and his name is

Irwin Rider (ph), Harvey Weinstein`s own accountant for his companies for

about 30 years, so he was very much an insider.  He still worked at the

Weinstein company when I started meeting with him late at night in the fall

of 2017.

 

And he provided crucial information about more recent allegations that

helped us nail the story.

 

VELSHI:  What a remarkable story.  Did you – when you started this, did

you get how big this was?

 

TWOHEY:  We certainly had no idea what the impact would be.  At The New

York Times all we know in 2017 is that we were committed to reporting on

sexual harassment across a variety of industries from the restaurant

industry to Silicon Valley to Hollywood to auto plants, and our hope,

obviously, was that they would help bring about change, but we couldn`t be

sure what was going to have what impact.

 

VELSHI:  Amazing.  It was the tip of the spear.

 

Thank you for not only your remarkable reporting, but for this book that

tells us about how it all went down.

 

Megan Twohey, Jodi Kantor.

 

And that`s it for ALL IN this evening.  “THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” starts

right now. 

 

Good evening, Rachel.

 

 

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.>