President Trump lashes out. TRANSCRIPT: 10/10/19, All In w/ Chris Hayes.

Guests:
Aruna Viswanatha, Michael Sallah, Jamie Raskin, Greg Miller, John Podesta, Charles Fried, Jonathan Adler, Mehdi Hassan
Transcript:

STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT:  And he was headed

to political oblivion.  Then everything changed.  And now, all these years

later, it may be changing again.

 

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

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST:  Tonight on ALL IN.

 

GEOFFREY BERMAN, U.S. ATTORNEY, SDNY:  Parnas and Fruman were arrested as

they were about to board an international flight with one-way tickets.

 

HAYES:  The first arrest of the impeachment era.

 

BERMAN:  And I want to add that this investigation is continuing.

 

HAYES:  Two men working with Rudy Giuliani to manufacture dirt on the

President`s political opponents arrested trying to flee the country.

 

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Maybe I`ll ask Rudy to say a

few words.

 

HAYES:  Tonight, what we know about the two men.  Is Rudy Giuliani now

under investigation?  And what did the President know and when did he know

it?

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  What conversations have you had with Lev Parnas and

Igor Fruman?

 

TRUMP:  I don`t know those gentlemen.

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  You`re in pictures with them.

 

HAYES:  Plus, Bill Clinton`s Chief of Staff during impeachment, and Hillary

Clinton`s campaign manager John Podesta on what he makes on the push to

impeach Trump.  And as the president stews over Republican defections –

 

TRUMP:  No Republicans have raised concern.

 

HAYES:  The new call from conservative lawyers who say a speedy impeachment

inquiry is necessary, when ALL IN starts right now.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes.  The first arrest of

the impeachment era happened today.  Two suspects now by the FBI and the

Washington D.C. airport, attempting to leave the country with one-way

tickets, get this, only hours after they launched – after they launched

with their business associate and lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

 

Let me take a minute to explain these two suspects who probably are not

that familiar to you.  They`ve been floating around the coverage of the

Ukraine scandal.  They`ve been close to Rudy Giuliani from the very

beginning.  Lev Parnas, on the left, was born in Ukraine.  Igor Fruman, on

the right, was born in Belarus.  They`re American citizens naturalized.

 

They`re described in the federal indictment and in reporting as businessmen

although, to be honest, their current businesses sort of unclear.  They`ve

been working hand in hand tightly with Rudy Giuliani on the Ukraine

operations since the very beginning.  They have been setting up meetings in

Ukraine acting as intermediaries abroad, meeting with people in the Trump

circle.

 

They have been a crucial part of the scheme by Rudy Giuliani and President

Trump to apply maximal pressure to the Ukrainian government to manufacture

dirt on the President`s political rival to interfere in the next election

so that Trump can win reelection.  They`ve been part of this impeachable

act from the beginning.

 

They`ve been so integral to it that shortly after the indictment was

reported, they were subpoenaed by the House committees leading the

impeachment investigation.  In fact, today was the day that this guy on the

left – not the one with the saucily unbuttoned shirt, the guy who`s

dressed a little more modestly, he was supposed to give a deposition before

those committees.  The guy with the open shirt was supposed to do that

tomorrow.  Oh, and yes, that is Don Jr. on the other side of the table with

those gentlemen.

 

Anyway, those you guys were supposed to get depositions before the House

today and tomorrow.  But a few days ago, the President`s former lawyer, and

now these gentlemen`s lawyer, John Dowd, wrote a letter to Congress in the

most professional font, Comic Sans, explaining that they couldn`t appear

because, and I`m quoting here, “Messrs Parnas and Fruman, assisted Mr.

Giuliani in connection with his representation of President Trump.”

 

In other words, they are part of the President`s legal team, one big happy

family representing the president, and that`s why they can`t testify for

Congress.  And I`m quoting their own lawyer here.  I`m not making this up. 

He said it.  They assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his

representation of President Trump.  So they can`t talk to the Congress. 

Sorry.

 

That was a week ago, OK.  And the Wall Street Journal which broke this

whole story this morning reports that those two gentlemen had lunch with

Giuliani himself at the Trump International Hotel in Washington on

Wednesday.  That would be yesterday, Giuliani and the two men having lunch.

 

And then we know from U.S. Attorney hours at later, that`s hours after

lunch with Giuliani at the Trump hotel, Parnas and Fruman were arrested at

a D.C. airport as they were about to board an international flight with

one-way tickets.

 

Now, what they are indicted for is a scheme to funnel foreign money into

American elections.  Interesting.  They`re trying to have foreign nationals

– foreign governments, maybe, meddling American elections.

 

Here`s how the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey

Berman, a Trump appointee explained it.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

BERMAN:  As alleged in the indictment, the defendants broke the law to gain

political influence while avoiding disclosure of who was actually making

the donations and where the money was coming from.  They saw political

influence not only to advance their own financial interests but to advance

the political interests of at least one foreign official, a Ukrainian

government official who sought the dismissal of the U.S. Ambassador to

Ukraine.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  They were advocating for the dismissal for the U.S. Ambassador of

Ukraine.  That sure sounds familiar.  Oh, right.  It`s because the Journal

reported last week that Trump himself ordered that U.S. Ambassador to

Ukraine removed after complaints from Giuliani and “others.”

 

Take a listen to how the President responded today when asked about his

communications with the men who were, again, according to their own lawyer,

part of the President`s legal team.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

What conversations have you had with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman?

 

TRUMP:  I don`t know those gentlemen.

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  You`re in pictures with them.

 

TRUMP:  Now, it`s possible I have a picture with them because I have a

picture with everybody.  I don`t know them.  I don`t know about them.  I

don`t know what they do.  But I don`t know, maybe they were clients of Rudy

and you have to ask Rudy.  I just don`t know.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Sorry to this man.  It`s true.  The President isn`t going to

remember everyone who takes picture with him, and the Vice President, and

his personal attorney, and his son, but you wouldn`t think he would

remember members of his legal team who had to dinner with him personally,

just last spring, right before they donated into a super PAC.

 

But just to keep track of all this, two men from the former USSR, who told

Congress they were part of the President`s legal team, and who had been

working actively with Rudy Giuliani to push the Ukraine scandal that now

has the President on the edge of impeachment, were arrested last night

while attempting to leave the country with one way tickets.

 

Joining me now are two people who know the ins and outs of this story Aruna

Viswanatha, Justice Department Reporter for The Wall Street Journal who

earlier today broke the story about Parnas and Fruman`s arrest, and Michael

Sallah, Senior Investigations and Projects Editor for BuzzFeed News, who

reported back in July that Parnas and Fruman privately lobbied Ukraine to

bid to help President Trump win in 2020.

 

Aruna, let me start with you.  Can you just take us through what this

indictment alleges about, what the scheme these gentlemen were involved in

was?

 

ARUNA VISWANATHA, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: 

Sure.  So it`s actually a pretty complicated set of allegations, and there

are basically two sets of allegations.  One has very little to do with the

dealings with Ukraine and with Giuliani.  It has to do with marijuana

business.  They were trying to get off the ground in Nevada, and then

allegedly getting money from a Russian national to benefit this business,

making donations to try to grease the wheels to get this business off the

ground.

 

The other set of allegations squarely has to do with their work with

Giuliani.  Those allegations are that they were making large donations to a

pro-Trump super PAC.  And part of that effort was to get more access to do

what a Ukrainian government official wanted them to do, which is try to get

the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine pushed out.

 

HAYES:  There – I mean, we should know there`s hundreds of thousands of

dollars.  There`s $350,000, I think, that they give the Trump super PAC. 

There are tons of donations to all kinds of Republicans coming from these

individuals, some of which are being returned.

 

One of the people is a congressman, Michael Sallah, who gets a bunch of

money from them.  We now know it`s Pete Sessions who represented the – I

think the Houston suburbs, if I`m not mistaken, who lost in 2018.  But

after he met with him, wrote a letter trying to get rid of the Ukrainian

ambassador?

 

MICHAEL SALLAH, REPORTER, BUZZFEED:  The very day, yes, Chris.  They met

with Congressman – then-Congressman Sessions and the –during the course

of that conversation, we interviewed both the congressman and obviously we

spent a lot of time with Lev Parnas.  They both made it very clear that

Marie Yovanovitch was the center of much of their conversation.

 

It had to do with the – they`re not they weren`t happy with her.  And they

felt like she was standing in the way of President Trump and a lot of his

policies there, and that she wasn`t loyal to the President.  And so that

day, he fired off a letter to Secretary Mike Pompeo basically just saying,

she needs to go.  You should consider removing her from her – from her

position.

 

HAYES:  We should – we should note, they give them money, they meet with

him.  He writes a letter.  The President`s attorney tweets about her, the

president`s son tweets about her.  Eventually, she is removed.  She`s seen

according reporting an obstacle to the scheme that was being cooked up.

 

Aruna, what is the deal with these two?  Like, how did they get connected

in any way shape or form to what appears to be like essentially the inner

circle of the President`s attorney, if not the President himself?

 

VISWANATHA:  That part is still a little unclear to us.  But from what we

know, they started making a lot of big campaign donations in 2018, and then

started talking to Mr. Giuliani about his concerns about what Ukraine had

been up to in the 2016 election, starts introducing him to people in

Ukraine and seems to be delivering what Mr. Giuliani wants, and so ends up

in his inner circle.

 

HAYES:  Michael, you guys were on these two from the jump back in this

summer.  What sort of tip you off that these were key players in this

entire operation?

 

SALLAH:  Well, you know, it actually started with one of our reporters or

colleagues from the organized crime reporting project who spotted them at a

hookah bar basically with some other friends, and it was just on the eve of

the inauguration of President Zelensky.  And we kind of work backwards from

there, who are these characters, what have they been doing swirling around

Ukraine and in essentially working as operatives for Rudy Giuliani.

 

And we were – in the course of that – our investigation, we ended up

interviewing Mr. Parnas several times, and he was quite open about their

work that they were doing, setting up meetings with Mr. Giuliani, with

Ukraine prosecutors, and pushing very hard for information on the Biden`s

and trying to get them to basically open up an investigation into Joe Biden

and his son Hunter, and also to look into the origins of the release of the

black ledger, which was the information that largely told people the

millions of dollars that Paul Manafort had taken.  And that was really our

– the origins of that work that we did.

 

HAYES:  Wait, just to clarify.  The hookah bar was in – was it in Kiev?

 

SALLAH:  It was in Kiev.  It was – it was a hookah bar on the balcony of

the Hilton – the Hilton Hotel there.

 

HAYES:  Amazing.  All right, Aruna Viswanatha and Michael Sallah, great

reporting to both of you.  Thank you both.

 

VISWANATHA:  Thank you.

 

SALLAH:  Thank you.

 

HAYES:  Joining me now, one of the members of Congress leading the impeach

investigation into President Trump, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of

Maryland, member of both the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. 

First, your reaction to witnesses that the investigative committees have

called, being nabbed in an airport with one-way tickets to Vienna.

 

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD):  Well, it`s starting to feel more and more like

Watergate, I think, to the people who remember Watergate.  Except it`s kind

of an upside-down Watergate because they`re – these kinds of characters

were found first during the Watergate break-in.

 

HAYES:  Right.

 

RASKIN:  You know, the Ehrlichman`s, and the Haldeman`s, and McCord`s, and

then they worked their way up to the president.  Here, the President

started or was discovered first because of the fateful phone call where he

kind of clinched the shakedown deal against President Zelensky.

 

But what`s coming out now is the whole team behind the shakedown operation,

and all of Giuliani`s people who were engaged in this very insidious

shadowy campaign in Ukraine to do a number of different political duties

and execute a number of different political schemes for the President.

 

HAYES:  Do you want to – I mean, we found out today that – so these guys

had tickets to Vienna when they get nabbed at the airport.  They have lunch

with Rudy Giuliani.  Rudy Giuliani had told Elaina Plott at The Atlantic

that he was flying to Vienna just coincidentally.  Do you want to know

more?  I mean, are you going to get to talk to any of these people as part

of your investigation independent of what other SDNY does?

 

RASKIN:  Well, I haven`t spoken to anybody in the committee staffs about

this, but I`m personally fascinated by what they were doing.  Where they

just trying to escape?  Where they, you know, trying to leave the country? 

Did they understand that the heat was drawing in on them?  Were they

continuing to conduct the other schemes on behalf of Giuliani and the

president?

 

All of these things are fascinating.  But the critical thing that`s going

on politically here, Chris, is that America has woken up to the corrupt and

lawless character of the White House.  And everybody understands the basic

contours of the Ukrainian episode.

 

The President of the United States engaged in a shakedown of a vulnerable

American ally and partner in President Zelensky in order to political dirt

on his political opponent back home.  Nobody has ever seen anything like

it.

 

And that shakedown is a complete sellout of American values, and it`s a

sellout of our election.  And what we`re seeing from, you know, this

illegal funneling of money from abroad through a campaign finance scheme

that these guys were involved in, is that they do not have respect for

American elections.

 

You know, I disagree with everything that Jim Jordan says, but I respect

entirely his right to be involved in our elections.  It`s not true of

Russian spies and Ukrainian researchers and Chinese operatives and the

United Arab Emirates, and the Saudis and all these other people, they`re

trying to get involved in our election.

 

Can`t they find any Americans who support them?  Why do they need to be

bringing in all of this power and money from abroad to interfere with this

election?  And we`re talking about this election in 2020.  It`s just an

outrage and a scandal after what they did to us in 2016.

 

HAYES:  Final question for you is about Mare Yovanovitch who is a pivotal

figure in this, a career Foreign Service, had been the U.S. Ambassador

Ukraine, the target of a sort of smears from Rudy Giuliani with a packet of

files he sent to Mike Pompeo that were being circulated on the State

Department, the target of these men to the extent that they were giving

donations and meeting with a congressman to get them to write a letter. 

Like she clearly becomes a target of Rudy Giuliani and Don Jr. and these

indicted gentlemen and a whole lot of other people.  She is supposed to

testify tomorrow or will be deposed, I suppose, tomorrow.  Is it your

understanding that she`s going to be there?

 

RASKIN:  I have no reason to think that she won`t be there tomorrow.  I`ve

been out making some speeches for the last several hours so I don`t know

whether there have been any changes in these, you know, developments

relating to her appearance.

 

But I will say, there was clearly a campaign of sabotage directed at her. 

Anybody who basically was I`m going to play ball and subordinate their

professional commitment to the President was going to be targeted by them,

and they did it.  But we got to remember this, Chris, this is not exactly

an Agatha Christie mystery at this point.

 

HAYES:  No, we learned –

 

RASKIN:  We know exactly what happened.  We`re trying to fill in –

 

HAYES:  Yes, we got – we got – well, basically the –

 

RASKIN:  We`re just filling in the details at this point.

 

HAYES:  Yes.  The crime was admitted to in the first page of this novel. 

We`re just like learning – we`re now on the flashback mode and figure out

how you know, how did we actually get there.  Congressman Jamie Raskin,

thank you very much.

 

OK, there`s more breaking news at this hour.  Two big stories coming in. 

NBC News is now reporting exclusively tonight that one of the former Trump

administration officials slated to testify before Congress next week is

going to reveal that Rudy Giuliani and E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland

circumvented the National Security Council and the normal White House

process to pursue a shadow policy on Ukraine.

 

And this comes as the Washington Post is reporting that at least four

national security official raised alarms about the Trump administration`s

attempts to pressure Ukraine for political purposes, both after and before

the infamous July 25th call between President Trump and Zelensky.

 

That is where we begin tonight with Greg Miller Pulitzer Prize-winning

National Security Correspondent for The Washington Post who broke this

story.  He joins me by phone.  Greg, what have you learned?

 

GREG MILLER, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE WASHINGTON POST:  Well,

what was learned is that that, you know, I think it`s significant that

there were alarms that were being raised inside official White House

channels well before the whistleblower complaint is even submitted to the

Intelligence Community Inspector General.

 

Starting in July, early July, even before the July 25th call that you just

described as infamous, you know, there are people going to the National

Security Council`s top lawyer expressing alarm and concern about what is

happening on Ukraine, citing a series of developments over the preceding

months that made them very worried about what Trump was doing in his

attempts to extract political ammunition from Kiev.

 

HAYES:  Just to be clear, when you say White House officials here, and I

know you don`t want to out your sources, and I respect that, but we`re

talking about people that are hired by the President that work for the

President.

 

MILLER:  I mean, I think you`re going to find that there`s a combination of

them here.  And although our story says at least four – I mean, I think

that`s a conservative estimate of the number of people who were involved

here in trying to raise these issues internally.

 

And so I think that, you know, there are – there are people who work

directly for and interact, you know, daily with the President and then

there are others who are – who are a little bit farther down the food

chain.  I mean, there`s an important quote, in our story from one of the

officials we talked to that say, you know, these are – these people aren`t

a swamp, it`s not a deep state.  These are people who have a conscience and

they`re really concerned and they`re fearful that this is not how they

think the government should run.

 

HAYES:  Two more details that turned out to me.  The idea that they`re

worried about the phone call before the phone call happens, that there`s

this concern that the President is essentially going to do something that

abuses his power that is corrupt, that is possibly criminal, which is what

the you know, part of the whistleblower complaint is about, that – you`re

reporting indicates people were worried about the phone call for that

reason.

 

MILLER:  I mean, they`re – this phone call is a source of particular worry

because it – because it raises issues of election interference and people

are highly sensitive to that.  You know, people who are coming from

intelligence agencies to work the National Security Council lived through

2016.  They remember that.  This is a sore spot for them.  They don`t want

that to happen again.

 

But I can tell you, Chris, that this wasn`t confined to just this one

subject or this one country.  There were people at the White House who were

trying to head off Trump calls with other world leaders because they just

were constantly worried about the risk.  What was he going to say, what was

he going to ask for, what was he going to promise, and was it going to be

anything close to what U.S. national security interests were?

 

HAYES:  And then there`s – the chain of events that happens afterwards was

also striking to me.  Basically, there are people who – there is no

whistleblower process in the White House.  There`s nothing to be done. 

They go to the lawyer for the NSC, the National Security Council, who is

that individual and what does he do with them?

 

MILLER:  So the lawyer for National Security Council is somebody named John

Eisenberg.  He`s been there from the very beginning of the administration

and he is, you know, a respected attorney and a veteran of the Justice

Department.

 

But, you know, as you just mentioned, there is no equivalent of an

inspector general in the White House.  There was some confusion among

people that were we supposed to go with this?  And I think that is partly

what accounts for some of these people turning outside the walls of the

White House and turning to the CIA officer, who then collects all this

material for a whistleblower complaint.

 

Eisenberg, one of the core – one of our big questions and weren`t quite

able to answer is what does he do with the situation?  The white – the

White House would not respond to our questions today about what Eisenberg

did when he handled this stuff.  But we know that the whistleblower

complaint itself says that White House lawyers were the ones who directed

that the record of that call be quickly stuffed into a highly classified

computer network out of sight.

 

HAYES:  Right.  Greg Miller, great reporting, and thank you for joining us

on short notice.  I appreciate it.

 

MILLER:  Thank you.

 

HAYES:  Turning now to NBC News National Political Reporter Josh Lederman

who worked on this other major story breaking tonight, the exclusive report

about what a former national security official intends to tell Congress

next week.  Josh, what did you learn?

 

JOSH LEDERMAN, NBC NEWS NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER:  Well, earlier today,

Chris, we learned that Fiona Hill who until recently was the top Russia and

Europe official at the White House plans to testify before Congress next

week.  Now we`re learning about what she plans to say.

 

According to a source that`s familiar with her testimony, Fiona Hill plans

to testify that Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Rudy Giuliani essentially

pulled an end-run around the normal White House policymaking process on

Ukraine and we`re running a shadow foreign policy that circumvented

officials like Fiona Hill, like former National Security Advisor John

Bolton, and that basically they had a direct line into Trump to do Ukraine

policy that differed from the normal process that`s used across the

government to come up with policy on Foreign Relations.

 

HAYES:  Hill had been there I think from the very beginning, right?  She`s,

she`s a Russia expert.  When did – she left in the summer, is that right?

 

LEDERMAN:  She started winding down her role there over this summer.  She

was no longer in the top Russia job on the day that Trump had that now-

infamous call with President Zelensky, but she was upright until those

final days.  So she would have had full knowledge of all of the events that

would have led up to this phone call.

 

HAYES:  You know, it strikes me that your story and Greg Miller`s story are

of a piece.  I mean, what we`re seeing coming to focus is a picture of

bunch of people in the White House where White House officials were fairly

high up who are anxious to tell people whether or not honestly or in this

case testimony that they – this was not their policy.

 

LEDERMAN:  Exactly.  There were concerns we now know from top levels of the

White House that what these outside folks Rudy Giuliani and Ambassador

Sondland and others were doing was really going around the way that things

were supposed to be done to have a cohesive foreign policy.

 

And it`s also important for another reason, Chris, which is that the fact

that Fiona Hill is going to testify next week, if that goes through his

plan is really a key test for whether Congress is going to be able to

obtain testimony from former officials, because we know there`s the threat. 

The White House could try to assert executive privilege over these

officials.

 

That`s a pretty murky area legally when it comes to former officials who

are now private citizens.  So if this all goes forward as planned, we

should expect to see Congress try to get a whole bunch of other former

faces potentially including John Bolton, others who worked for him to tell

Congress what they know as well.

 

HAYES:  Do we know who makes that determination?  I mean, I know that

former officials in the past when the White House is invoked executive

privilege, which they`ve done multiple times, the people involved had sort

of deferred to it as if they have no choice.  But it`s not clear to me

that`s the case.

 

LEDERMAN:  Right.  So for current officials, they work for the government

so it`s essentially their employer basically instructing them to do

something.  For former officials, it`s not totally clear.  We know this

came up with Don McGahn when Congress subpoenaed him, he didn`t testify. 

There`s now litigation by the House Judiciary Committee.

 

But essentially, there`s an OLC opinion, that`s the legal counsel office of

the Justice Department that tries to say, these officials should have to

respect executive privilege.  It`s never really been fully tested in the

courts.  And so this is something that if the Congress – I`m sorry, if the

White House were to try to assert that privilege, we could expect that to

be another matter for litigation.

 

HAYES:  All right, Josh Lederman, thank you so much for joining me.

 

LEDERMAN:  Absolutely.

 

HAYES:  Don`t go away. Coming up next, we have someone with a unique

perspective on this day`s events.  He ran the Hillary Clinton campaign

2016, he ran the White House during the last impeachment of a president. 

John Podesta is here next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

HAYES:  The last time the President was impeached, a man serving as his

chief of staff was John Podesta whose name probably rings a bell.  Podesta

would go on to found the Center for American Progress and then work for

President Obama and then quite famously chair Hillary Clinton`s 2016

presidential run and have his inbox hacked by Russian hackers who then

leaked to the WikiLeaks.

 

So we thought who better to process what we`re seeing now than the man

himself.  John Podesta joins me now.  Thanks for – thanks for coming on,

John.

 

JOHN PODESTA, FORMER CHAIRMAN, HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN:  Nice to be back

with you, Chris.

 

HAYES:  I guess the first thing is do you support the President`s

impeachment?  Do you think the facts as we know them support an

impeachment?

 

PODESTA:  Well, I think they certainly support the impeachment inquiry. 

And I would say yes, they support an impeachment.  You know, he`s really

tried to almost blackmail a foreign leader to try to get them to interfere

in our election.

 

You know, the Founding Fathers really were concerned about this when they

wrote the Constitution and included the clause for impeachment about

foreign interference in U.S. elections.  And I think when once the House

Judiciary Committee and in House Intelligence Committee dig into this, I

think that`s what they`re going to find.

 

We learn new facts every day.  Donald Trump says he was trying to prevent

corruption in Ukraine.  Now we see the two indictments of Rudy Giuliani`s

sidekicks today.  It looks like they were trying to foment corruption

rather than fight it.

 

HAYES:  You know, you are – you worked with several White Houses as White

House chief of staff.  I`m wondering what you made when you heard that call

– those call notes of that phone call having been in on calls between the

U.S. president and a foreign head of state.  Did it strike you as

horrifying as it apparently struck some people in the White House?

 

PODESTA:  Yes.  I think it`s, you know, Houston, we have a problem.  He`s

clearly saying, you know, I`ll get around to the meeting.  I`ll get around. 

I`m going to hold back the money that Congress has appropriated.  But

first, I need a favor.  And what`s the favor?  To investigate my principal

opponent or a principal opponent in the upcoming election, asking them

directly to interfere and intervene in the U.S. election.

 

I think that is an abuse of power and something that obviously the Congress

is going to need to look into.  You know, Nancy Pelosi was reluctant to go

down this path but I think once that whistleblower complaint came out, once

that memcon was released by the White House I think she had no choice.  And

I think the right thing to do is to – is to investigate this and then

render a judgment, whether he, in fact, abused his office.  But I think the

facts are pretty plain in the – in that memorandum.

 

HAYES:  You know, you worked in White Houses and I know people that have

worked there.  My wife was in the White House Counsel`s Office in Barack

Obama`s administration.  And those folks tend to be pretty – they tend to

take seriously the executive power and executive prerogative, right?  They

take seriously the assertions of executive privilege.  They don`t want

Congress to just be able to get their hands on anything that happens in a

White House.

 

As someone that comes from that background, has that experience, what do

you make of the assertion the White House is making in that eight page

letter and other places that basically congress can`t get anything?

 

JOHN PODESTA, FORM. WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON: 

Well, look, it goes against hundreds of years of constitutional history and

a hundred years of constitutional jurisprudence where the Supreme Court has

clearly recognized congress`s power to investigate.  It`s an inherent power

in the constitution.  They`ve affirmed it again and again.

 

The first cases, of course, were what was always thought of as the most

corrupt administration

in history, the Harding administration.  But I think Trump may outdo that.

 

But the Supreme Court has always recognized the power of congress to

investigate,  and that includes the power to engage in an impeachment

inquiry.

 

I think they`ve handled this seriously.  They`ve tried to develop the

factual basis for this.  And all they`ve been met with is a giant stonewall

and a laughable letter from the White House counsel.

 

HAYES:  You were the chief of staff during the last impeachment that

happened with Republicans in the House and President Clinton in the White

House.  Compare that experience and the

context there to what we`re seeing now.

 

PODESTA:  Well, look, I think, you know, again, this was an exercise – it

began with the Starr

investigation, it went on and on and on, and ultimately resulted in the

referral by Mr. Starr of his report to the House.  The House voted articles

of impeachment.  They rejected a couple.  They went to the Senate.  The

Senate ultimately heard the evidence.  They conducted a trial.  They

listened to the president`s lawyers.  They concluded while I think most

people in the Senate thought what the president had done was worthy of, you

know, some scorn, that it was not an impeachable offense.  He did not abuse

the power and the office of the presidency.

 

I think this is quite different.  And because this is the president using

his office, using his power, using the instruments of government, trying to

insert Rudy Giuliani into the direct, you know, instruments of U.S. foreign

policy, to do what?  To help himself personally, to help his campaign and

to get a foreign government to directly interfere with the United States

election.  And I think they are quite different. 

 

And I think that this is at the heart, again, of what the founders were

worried about when we`re a young nation.  And they were worried about

foreign interference, the big European powers exerting  influence on the

electoral process, on our president and other leaders of our government. 

And that`s why they put this power to remove a president into the

constitution.

 

HAYES:  You`re still associated with CAP I know and today I`m talking to

you as millions of folks, 2 million I think in California, have their power

shutdown as PG&E, the utility there, prophylactically shuts it down to

maybe avoid wildfires.  This is this kind of like cocktail of climate

disaster in which like delayed infrastructure investments meet rising

temperatures.

 

CAP has a big climate plan you guys unveiled today.  How big is the scope? 

Is this in the same category as a kind of Green New Deal that we`ve heard

about?

 

PODESTA:  Yeah, I think the transformation of our economy that is science

is asking for, and dictating really, is that we have to go from a very

highly polluting energy system to what people refer to as net zero.  We

have to eliminate emissions.  We have to be able to draw carbon dioxide out

of the atmosphere.  That`s an awesome task, but it`s also a chance of great

opportunity to put people to work, to build new industries.

 

But what it`s going to mean is, for example, all new vehicles by 2035 are

going to have to be zero emission.  All new buildings and appliances are

going to have to be run on electricity.  All that electricity is going to

have be powered by zero carbon electricity, from renewable resources and

other means of getting zero carbon electricity. 

 

That`s a lot of work.  It`s trillions of dollars of investments.  It`s an

exciting opportunity.  And I think, Chris, really 30 years from now people

may look back and judge Donald Trump`s biggest crime as the fact that he`s

been on a rampage to send the country in the wrong direction, not deal with

this  existential threat to our planet and humanity.

 

But I`m confident that Democrats are stepping up to this in the

presidential campaign and we can get the job done.

 

HAYES:  Quickly, final question, If you were chief of staff and you saw

what was happening

now, if you were Donald Trump`s chief of staff and you saw what was

happening now, if you were Donald Trump`s chief of staff, tough thought

experiment, you saw the leaks, you saw all the people coming forward, would

you be nervous about where this is going?

 

PODESTA:  Absolutely.

 

I think first of all, you don`t know what the facts are.  Again, these

indictment today are really shocking because these were people who met with

the president, evidently, who Giuliani was using as a conduit to the

Ukrainian government, who were trying to steer contacts to Trump friendly

people in the United States.  You really don`t know where that`s going to

end. 

 

You have Rick Perry over there trying to put Trump-friendly people onto the

Ukrainian gas  utility. 

 

You know, I think they`ve projected onto Biden the kind of corruption that

they`re engaged in themselves.

 

HAYES:  John Podesta, thank you so much for making time.

 

PODESTA:  Thanks, Chris.

 

HAYES:  Ahead, as Kurds flee the Turkish assault in Syria tonight, there`s

growing outrage that the president`s concession.  One elected Republican is

now saying He will no longer support Donald

Trump`s re-election.  That story next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

HAYES:  As the president continues to defend his decision to allow Turkey

to move into northeastern Syria and attack America`s allies the Kurds,

Turkey continues to that area with air strikes.  More than 60,000 civilians

have been displaced so far. 

 

This is still going on even now.  And the president keeps making all sorts

of noises about recriminations for Turkey if they don`t, quote, “do it in a

soft manner.”  But literally no one

knows what that actually means, including the Turks.

 

At home, bipartisan condemnation continues to grow, including retiring

Republican Congressman John Shimkus who said in an interview with a local

radio station that he was, quote shocked, embarrassed and angered by

Trump`s decision to allow Turkey to attack Kurdish allies and he no longer

supports the president`s reelection.

 

Here with me now, a journalist who has been closely following this story,

Mehdi Hassan, columnist and senior contributor at The Intercept.

 

It`s remarkable to me – two things, Mehdi, both the sort of scale of human

suffering we`re seeing as people are fleeing this attack and the just

unanimity of condemnation you see across the globe and across the political

spectrum.

 

MEHDI HASSAN, THE INTERCEPT:  Yes, and as you mentioned just then, Chris,

60,000  people in the first 24 hours displaced from their homes.  Aid

groups say that could go up to 300,000 if this conflict, if this escalation

continues, so it`s no wonder that the secretary-general of the UN, among

others, are saying deescalation needs to be the priority.  There has been

universal condemnation,  it`s been interesting to see Republicans coming

out and slamming Trump from Lindsey Graham to the outgoing member of

congress you just mentioned. 

 

I mean, call me cynical, but, you know, these are the same Republicans who

didn`t turn on him when he was a racist, when he was corrupt.  They didn`t

turn on him when he had a Muslim ban on refugees coming in from Syria.  So,

you know, I take that with a bit of a grain of salt.

 

But, yes, they clearly are very angry and they`re making a lot of noises. 

It`s also interesting because these are the same Republicans who we`re told

are too scared to challenge Trump on Ukraine phone calls or brazen

corruption or telling the squad to go back to where they came from, but

they`re not scared when it comes to Trump doing something on foreign policy

or foreign war that they don`t like.  I always find that quite ironic.

 

HAYES:  I mean, it`s quite clear – I mean, Lindsey Graham is talking about

a bipartisan sanctions bill, I think you`re right that we should all note

that they can criticize Trump, they can cross Trump, they can go across him

when they care about the issue.  They clearly do care.  It just shows what

they do and do not care about.

 

HASSAN:  Although you have Lindsey Graham on a phone call now – you see, I

don`t know if your viewers have seen the Russian prankster who got Lindsey

Graham on the phone where he`s telling them actually he thinks he`s talking

to the Turkish defense minister and when he thinks he`s talking in private

to the Turkish government he says, oh, yeah you`ve got a problem with the

Kurds and they are a threat to you, and you know, we never should have

allied with the YPG, with the Kurdish People`s Protection units who are now

under assault. 

 

So, you know, Lindsey Graham surprise surprise is saying one thing in

public and one thing in private.

 

But, yes, this is mess, Chris.  And it`s a mess because that part of the

world I think a lot of your viewers may quite get the contradictions and

the paradoxes involved here.  In the last few days we`ve heard a lot of

people say, for example, that the Kurds, America`s ally are being betrayed. 

And they are.  But at the same time, Turkey is also an ally of America,

it`s a member of NATO.  It hosts 50 tactical nuclear weapons on its soil, 

U.S. nuclear weapons.

 

For example, you have this idea of Trump giving Erdogan his blessings to

invade Syria and then you have Iran and Israel – Iran and Israel together

saying no, no, no, this is bad thing, this will lead to

more problems.

 

You have another – take another example, Chris, you have anti-war lefties

saying American soldiers shouldn`t be on the ground in Syria, it`s illegal. 

There`s no congressional approval for this, it`s a good thing that Trump is

winding down the war, but then people on the anti-war left, I would include

myself here, also don`t want to see Kurds slaughtered as American  forces

pull out.

 

So, there`s a bunch of contradictions and paradoxes involved in every level

of this mess.

 

HAYES:  And we should say that the sort of Lindsey Graham talking out of

both sides of his mouth on the phone is a stand-in for American foreign

policy more writ-large where it was always like, well, there`s going to be

– someone is going to have to pay the piper here at the end of this when

these

folks have battled and died against ISIS and we all knew Turkey was going

to move against them.

 

But there is the question of how this decision happened.  I mean, it really

does look like – and this is what`s so remarkable – a single phone call

to Erdogan, no prep work, no staff work, no process run through DOD or

State, I mean, literally gets him on the phone.  You`ve got to wonder,

like, why is Trump so ready to say yes to Erdogan?

 

HASSAN:  Indeed.  And I`d love to see the call summary of that phone call

to it go with the call to the Ukrainian president.

 

Look, Trump has a bunch of financial ties, surprise surprise, with Turkey

and in Turkey.  He has a major conflict of interest here, and these are not

my words, these are his words.  In 2015, Chris, Trump did an interview

with, of all people, Steve Bannon, then at Breitbart, and said I have a

little conflict of interest.  I have a major, major building in Istanbul. 

It`s called Trump Towers.

 

We know that he`s being paid millions of dollars in licensing fees for

giving his name to Trump Towers.  We know that Ivanka Trump welcomed

Erdogan to the opening of Trump Towers in 2012.  We know that Erdogan in

2016 got angry about the Muslim ban and said Trump`s name should be removed

from those towers until Trump backed his crackdown after the failed coup

against Erdogan.

 

We know all of this.  We know that Michael Flynn, Trump`s first national

security adviser, was

being paid half a million dollars by a Turkish company linked to Erdogan to

lobby on behalf of the Turkish government in the U.S.

 

I mean, these are major financial ties. 

 

Yes, American policy has always been built on hypocrisy and contradictions

and trying to get

arms deals.  But I can`t think of a time in modern American history where

the president himself could be financially benefiting from national

security decisions.

 

HAYES:  All right, Mehdi Hassan, thank you so much for that.

 

Coming up, a group of prominent conservative lawyers come out in support of

a speedy impeachment inquiry.  Two of them join me to talk about their

decision ahead.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

HAYES:  Do you remember when the big concern among Democrats was whether

impeachment would be terrible for Democratic members of congress,

especially the ones in competitive seats?  Well, with a plurality of the

nation supporting impeachment, most Democrats don`t seem too worried, it`s

the Republicans who are up in 2020, like Senator Cory Gardener of Colorado

who are tying themselves into knots when confronted with the simplest of

questions.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Do you believe it`s appropriate for the president of

the United States to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival,

yes or no?

 

SEN. CORY GARDNER, (R) COLORADO:  Well, look, this is what we`re going to

get into.  The Senate intelligence committee is having an investigation, a

bipartisan investigation.

 

Unfortunately, though, what we`ve seen is a very political process take

over.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  But is it…

 

GARDNER:  Joe, I`ve answered your question.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  No, you did want.  Is it appropriate.

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  It`s a yes or no.

 

GARDNER:  Well, here`s what we`ve seen in the House of Representatives, you

see a very partisan process taking place.

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  But the question is is it appropriate for a

president…

 

GARDNER:  Look, I think we`re going to have an investigation.  And it`s a

nonpartisan investigation.

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  But, senator, it`s a yes or no question.

 

GARDNER:  It`s a nonpartisan investigation.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  You don`t need an investigation, you`ve got the call notes.  It`s

really easy to answer.

 

That was really bad.

 

But Iowa Senator Joni Ernst might have been even worse.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Is it appropriate for a president to ask a foreign

power to investigate a domestic political rival, yes or no?

 

SEN. JONI ERNST, (R) IOWA:  Well, again, IO think we`re going to have to go

back, just as I said last week, we`ll have to wait…

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  But is it appropriate just the ask itself?

 

ERNST:  Again, we don`t have all the facts in front of us.

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I`m asking you if it`s appropriate for a president to

ask a foreign

power to investigate his domestic political rival, yes or no?

 

ERNST:  Again, I would say that I don`t know that we have that information

in front of us and I`ll just stick with what I`ve said all along.

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Why won`t you answer the question?  Are you concerned

about

retribution?

 

ERNST:  No, I am not.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Well, clearly, she is.

 

The obvious thing for all these Republicans to say it`s just, yes, it`s

inappropriate.  I don`t like it.  It`s bad.  It`s not impeachable.  But

they can`t say that, because it will enrage the president, and not enraging

the president, well, that`s also clearly on the mind of Mike Pence, who is

also trying desperately to escape further incrimination.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Were you ever aware, Mr. Vice President, interest in

the Bidens, that interest in investigating the Bidens was at least part of

the reason for aid to Ukraine being held up?  Were you ever aware?

 

MIKE PENCE,VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED S TATES:  I never discussed the

issue

of – the issue of the Bidens with President Zelensky…

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Were you ever aware within the administration, though?

 

PENCE:  What I can tell you is that all of our discussions internally,

between the president and our team and our contacts in my office and

Ukraine were entirely focused on the broader issues of the lack of European

support…

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  But were you aware of interest in the Bidens being

investigated and that being tied to aid to Ukraine being held up?

 

PENCE:  That`s your question.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

HAYES:  Now there are some prominent conservatives who have had enough. 

I`m going to talk to two who have come out for impeachment right after

this.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

HAYES:  There`s a lot of political analysts who seem to take for granted

the Republican Party and the base will stick by Donald Trump, but Trump

himself does not seem so sure.  According to one report, he`s calling Mitch

McConnell as much as three times a day, though a McConnell spokesperson

denied it.

 

Today, today he railed against Fox News after the network released a poll

showing majority support for impeachment and removal. 

 

Now Trump generally just seems really nervous about his support buckling. 

And he certainly can`t be pleased with a new statement from a group of 16

esteemed conservative and libertarian lawyers who are now calling for an

expeditious impeachment investigation, citing numerous facts that are

undisputed they write that it has become clear to any observer of current

events, the president is abusing the office of the presidency for personal,

political objectives.

 

I`m joined now by two of the signatories to that statement, Harvard Law

Professor Charles Fried, who was solicitor general under President Ronald

Reagan, and Jonathan Adler, law professor at Case Western Reserve.

 

Professor Fried, let me start with you.  When did you or how did you come

to believe that an impeachment inquiry, or an impeachment itself, should be

launched against the president?

 

CHARLES FRIED, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL:  Well, let me back up one moment.  I was

born in a vibrant democracy, Czechoslovakia, and I fled with my family

because of a dictator who invaded it.  I came to this country and it took

us in, and I`ve had a wonderful life here.  I love it, as do my children

and my grandchildren.  And this man terrifies me.

 

HAYES:  Why?

 

FRIED:  Because of the way he thinks, what he says about himself.  He says

that the constitution said, and he said this to a bunch of high school

students, I can do whatever I want.  That`s what Article 2 says.

 

Well, it doesn`t.  Any lawyer knows that.  Any lawyer except maybe Bill

Barr and Mr. Cipollone. Everybody who studied the constitution, which I

teach, knows that.

 

Our fidelity is to the law and to the office, not to a man.

 

HAYES:  Professor Adler, the White House has to Professor Fried`s points, 

sort of operationalized the president`s broad view of executive authority,

if you could even call it something

that sophisticated.  In its letter to congress, and the idea that congress

just has no right to do any of this, what they`re conducting is a kangaroo

court, what do you think of those assertions?

 

JONATHAN ADLER, CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY:  The letter makes

political

arguments, not legal arguments.  The point of the letter is to give people

rhetoric and talking points, but as a legal matter, congress has the

authority to do this.  Congress has the authority to not merely investigate

the president, but the House has the authority to impeach the president.

 

There is enough undisputed material – there are undisputed facts that

alone establish that the president is not upholding his oath to preserve

and protect the United States and to faithfully execute the laws of the

United States.

 

And ideally, we would be able to have a bipartisan inquiry to figure out

how deep the rot goes.  But there is enough on the record that the question

should be put forward do these acts rise to the level where the president

should be removed.

 

HAYES:  Professor Fried, you teach constitutional law.  You were solicitor

general under President Reagan.  There are people who use the term

“constitution crisis.”  And it`s always hard to define precisely what that

means.  A law professor, Noah Feldman, wrote a piece recently I think just

the other day saying we are in one.

 

Do you see us as in a constitutional crisis at this moment?

 

FRIED:  Yes, because if the president succeeds in stonewalling the lawful,

constitutionally  provided processes of the House of Representatives, then

something will have to be done.  The various officials who will not

testify, because they have been told not to and they`re scared of this

thug, will have to be sanctioned.  They are in contempt.  Of course he is

in contempt.

 

HAYES:  What do you think, Professor Adler?

 

ADLER:  Well, I don`t know if I`d use the phrase constitutional crisis. 

The House has enough information to act.  It has the ability to inquire

further.  And as we know in the case of Richard Nixon and Watergate, if the

White House refuses to cooperate, refuses to respond to lawful demands for

information, then that itself can be a further grounding for impeachment.

 

But, again, we have in the quid pro quo with Ukraine, we have in the Volker

texts and email and so on, more than enough material on the record that

shows that this White House is not following the law, that this president

is not upholding his oath, and that`s something that the House should

consider  expeditiously.

 

And as your setup noted, senators should be in a position where they have

to answer the question at what point does this justify removal from office?

 

HAYES:  Professor Fried…

 

FRIED:  I would add the second – I would add the second part of the

Mueller report, which quite dutifully would not say that the president can

be indicted for obstruction of justice, because his instructions from the

Justice Department said so, but he said I will not exonerate him.  That is

in another place.  But of course, that`s the congress.  And Bill Barr lied

about what that report said when he thought that we weren`t going to see

it.

 

HAYES:  Well, let me – Professor Fried, let me follow up and I`ll ask you

the same question, Professor Adler.  Professor  Fried, you`re sort of

conservative legal legend, I think it`s fair to say.  I mean, you have had

many students throughout the years, you are extremely highly regarded.  You

have been part of American conservatism for a very long time.  What are the

conversations you have with people that you would consider, you know, for

lack of a better word cheekily fellow travelers about what is happening

with this president and the rule of law?

 

FRIED:  They are horrified.  It is the very opposite of the great

Republicans, the great Republicans like Ronald Reagan, like Dwight – can

you imagine Dwight Eisenhower speaking the

way this man speaks?  Or Lincoln?  Or Teddy Roosevelt?  This man is

ignorant and foul-mouthed.

 

HAYES:  Professor Adler, what are your conversations like with fellow

conservatives?

 

I consider you a sort of libertarian conservative lawyer in good standing

in many ways.  You`re active in – no, you`re active in contemporary stuff. 

I mean, you opposed some of the legal argumentation to justify Obamacare. 

What are those conversations like for you?

 

ADLER:  Well, I mean I think in a lot of cases, and one of the reasons we

form checks and balances is there are a lot of folks who consider

themselves legal conservatives, because of their  views about the rule of

law, because of their rules about the nature of American government and the

obligations that government officials have that are very uncomfortable not

only with the way the president conducts himself, but also with a number of

people in the administration and in congress that enable the president.

 

And so part of the whole point of creating checks and balances in the first

place and issuing statements like this is to let those that feel this way

know that they`re not alone.  And certainly I have many conversations with

conservative students, young members of the Federalist Society and the

like,

who have these concerns and who worry that being a legal conservative means

exonerating or enabling this conduct.  And the point we`re trying to make

is that that`s just not so.

 

HAYES:  Charles Fried, Jonathan Adler, thank you both very much for your

time tonight.

 

That is ALL IN for 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.>