Hardball with Chris Matthews: Trump Defends Son, Transcript 7/17/17 Draws Contrast with Clinton

Guests:
Susan Page, Jackie Speier, Jonathan Turley, Astead Herndon, Shannon Pettypiece
Transcript:

Show: HARDBALL
Date: July 17, 2017
Guest: Susan Page, Jackie Speier, Jonathan Turley, Astead Herndon, Shannon
Pettypiece

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: So what if it was Chelsea?

Let`s play HARDBALL.

Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in San Francisco.

Let`s call it the Chelsea test. A new Monmouth University poll shows that
29 percent of Americans say they do not think it was wrong for Donald
Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner to meet with Russians to get
dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Kremlin. This is their position, they
say, the 29 percent, that even if it is proven that the Trump people did it
specifically so they could get dirt on Hillary, it was fine.

Well, now the Chelsea test. If it were the other way around and Hillary
Clinton had lost the popular vote last year by three million votes but
managed to win in the Electoral College after news that the Russians had
worked to swing the election for her and it then came out that her
daughter, Chelsea, had organized a meeting last year with Russians close to
the Kremlin, would that 29 percent of hard-core Trump people be saying the
same thing if it was Chelsea Clinton organizing that meeting?

And I tell you, they`d be going nuts. They`d be demanding Hillary be
thrown from office and that she and her daughter brought up on criminal
charges. Can`t these hard-line Trump defenders see that? Can`t they see
the basic wrongness in these dealings with the Russians, in engaging with
people who are out to interfere in an American election, no matter which
candidate`s people did it.

And this is the dirty game Trump is playing right now. He knows he`s
putting out dishonest statements that even his amen chorus cannot truly
believe. He knows that the Secret Service was not detailed back then to
protect his son Donald, Jr. Yet his paid-by-the-hour lawyer throws blame
on courageous professionals now who protect our leaders with their lives
just to feed the Trump bitter-enders with someone to blame.

Well, this debate over the Russians is no longer just about what happened,
it`s between people who think it important to guard our democracy from
outside interference and those who say they don`t, even though they would
be saying the very opposite, let`s face it, if the shoe were on the other
political foot.

Joining me right now is Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor and MSNBC
legal analyst and author of the new book, “Chokehold: Policing Black Men.”
Glenn Thrush is White House correspondent for “The New York Times” and an
MSNBC political analyst. And Susan Page is Washington bureau chief for
“USA Today.”

Let me start with Paul Butler on this and – let me try that on you. How
do these people deal with the fact – I`m stunned by this number, that 29
percent say even if it`s proven they were over there trying to get dirt in
Trump Tower, bringing those Russians in just for the purpose of getting
some espionage on Hillary from the people over in Moscow, that they say
that`s fine. And I don`t think they`d be saying that if this was the other
way around.

PAUL BUTLER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: You know,
Chris, today, Attorney General Jeff Sessions did another one of his tough
on crime speeches where he wants to bring back the war on drugs and “stop
and frisk” and all these policies that target young black men.

And when you compare that to the way the Republicans respond to Donald
Trump in this investigation, where, frankly, all of the targets are rich
white dudes, the Trump folks are all, like, Well, we don`t see the problem
with that. What`s wrong with conspiring with the U.S.`s sworn enemy to
take over and subvert our democracy?

Well, fortunately, Special Counsel Bob Mueller shouldn`t go by that double
standard. I think he`ll go by the U.S. federal criminal code, which makes
what Donald Trump, Jr., is alleged to have done a federal crime.

MATTHEWS: Susan, let me – what do you think about this? What`s – what`s
in the mentality of the Trump bitter-enders, the 30 percent, 29 percent,
31? I`ve been trying to narrow it down by the latest Monmouth poll
numbers. They seem to be saying whatever Trump does is fine with them,
even if it`s playing ball with the Russians.

SUSAN PAGE, “USA TODAY”: You know, it`s very tribal. If you look at the
crosstabs in this Monmouth poll, you see that 9 out of 10 Democrats say it
was the wrong thing to do, but only about a third of Republicans said it
was the wrong thing to do. So it`s really as though you put – you know,
you put the label on it and say this is something the Trump people did or
are alleged to have done, and there are a lot of Republicans – a majority
of Republicans actually say they don`t see anything wrong with it.

We see this even when you look at things like the assessments of how the
economy is doing. That now has a partisan tinge. It`s as though facts no
longer matter. It`s really just whatever team you`re on.

MATTHEWS: Why don`t – why don`t the pollsters as, Suppose Hillary Clinton
had done it and Chelsea had been the one setting up the meeting and force
them to have to acknowledge the lack of objectivity of what they`re saying?

PAGE: Well, that`d be – that`d be an interesting thing to see because I
quite agree with you that if the situation were reversed, the Republicans
who now say it was all right for Donald Trump, Jr., to do this would
certainly protest most strongly if they thought Chelsea Clinton had done
it.

MATTHEWS: Glenn, it`s like “Simon Says.” If they say Simon says, the
Republicans do it.

THRUSH: Well, look, you know, one of the things that Steve Bannon has been
telling people around the White House as these polls come out – and we
should say we`ve had a slate of polls in the last week, three of them, that
are absolutely brutal. The best news out of these polls is that Trump is
at 40 percent nationally, the worst is at 36 percent.

But what Bannon has been telling people for months is Trump has retained
something between 90 and 95 percent of the people who voted for him last
time. And to the folks in the White House right now, that`s good enough.
This is all about – Chris, this is all about holding a beachhead. These
guys are in a defensive position.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

THRUSH: They`re not moving ahead and getting other voters. So right now,
all they care about is holding onto the – you know, what`s our number
here, 35 to 42 percent of the electorate that`s going to stick with him.
That is not a long-term sustainable strategy. You can`t get a lot of stuff
passed. But this is where they are right now. It`s trench warfare.

MATTHEWS: But Glenn, I understood to large extent – not to the point of
understanding he would win – but I certainly understood the pull of this
nationalistic push by saying this country ought to look out for itself and
not be pushed around by other countries, not be manipulated by other
countries.

Here`s a case where we were being manipulated, and these people that were
supposedly so pro-Trump and so pro-nationalist going along with the Russian
manipulation of our democracy. And it doesn`t seem to – that
contradiction doesn`t seem to click with them.

THRUSH: But this isn`t about words! It`s not about policy. It`s about
where you are living in the United States. It`s about what your income
level is. It`s about culturally what you`re exposed to. People are not
absorbing any of this stuff, Chris. They voted for Donald Trump, a lot of
folks, because he wasn`t Hillary Clinton. He didn`t represent the coastal
Democrats.

So as this – there`s not an internal – necessarily an internal logic to
all this stuff. The logic is more cultural. And as long as Trump broadly
represents what they believe, they`re going to stick with him.

MATTHEWS: Well, I`m going to bring that contradiction home to these guys
as much as possible.

Anyway, meanwhile, in an attempted damage control – at damage control, a
member of the president`s legal team, that`s his lawyer Jay Sekulow – he
blanketed the talk shows on Sunday, repeatedly saying that nothing about
the meeting was illegal. Here he goes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY SEKULOW, TRUMP LEGAL TEAM: Everybody`s coming to the same conclusion
regarding the legality. There`s nothing illegal about that meeting.

None of that is violation of the law. That`s more process.

– we – of course, and as almost every legal expert says it`s not
illegal.

What we know took place was not in violation of the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well, you can always find somebody to defend a president.
Anyway, when asked if the campaign should have reported the meeting by the
(INAUDIBLE) Sekulow blamed the Secret Service. This is pretty sleazy.
Here he goes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEKULOW: I wonder why the Secret Service – if this was nefarious, why did
the Secret Service allow these people in? The president had Secret Service
protection at that point. That raised a question with me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: That is sleazeball. Anyway, responding to that charge a
spokesman for the Secret Service itself told Reuters, quote, `Donald Trump,
Jr., was not a protectee of the U.S. Secret Service in June of 2016. Thus,
we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time.” And
Sekulow knows that!

This is supposed to be – let me go back to Paul Butler on that. Paul, you
know, these guys, whatever – I don`t know what your – I don`t know
anybody that doesn`t like the Secret Service. They protect people at the
top with their lives. They take the bullet. And here`s a guy just
choosing to use them for his practice game here of getting some of the
delusionary Trump people to buy into a nonsensical argument that somehow,
the Secret Service should have put a phalanx around Donald Trump, Jr.,
keeping away the Russians!

BUTLER: Oh, boy, Chris. This is what defense attorneys do when they don`t
have a case. They weave and they bob and they try to change the subject.

The interesting thing here is that this is President Donald Trump, Sr.`s,
lawyer, not Donald Trump, Jr.`s lawyer. So I think he perceives that
Trump, Jr., is in big trouble. He`s got to decide whether he wants his
client, the president, to go down with his son, or whether he wants to
align his interests with Donald Trump, which I don`t really think is in the
best interests of the president.

MATTHEWS: And you can indict a president`s son.

BUTLER: You absolutely can. The president would have to wait until he
resigns or is impeached, and then he could be indicted if there`s probable
cause of a crime. But Trump, Jr., could be indicted tomorrow if Special
Counsel Mueller decides there`s a case.

MATTHEWS: OK. Well, let me go back to Susan on this. I thought it was
illegal to take a campaign gift or contribution of any sort, in kind or in
cash, from a foreigner, someone from another country or certainly
representing another government. How can this guy Sekulow, say, We all
agree this was legal? I don`t think Bob Mueller is in on that total
agreement at all.

PAGE: Yes, that`s right. And in fact, we don`t know what – we don`t know
everything that`s happened. And we also don`t know what the legalities
might be. This is – it`s not up to Jay Sekulow. It will be in the end up
to Bob Mueller and his investigators. So this is at least premature.

It`s also an interesting standard to set that as long as it didn`t violate
the law…

MATTHEWS: Yes, it`s cool.

PAGE: … it was OK to go ahead and do. I mean, there are things that
don`t violate the law that we choose not to do every day because they`re
the wrong thing to do.

MATTHEWS: Well, Governor Chris Christie – he`s back – of New Jersey said
in a press conference today that accepting opposition research from a
foreign government is probably illegal. Let`s watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R-NJ), FMR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, I think it
would be. I think it would be. I don`t think there`s any evidence that
they did, but I do think it would be. Sure. And I think, quite frankly,
it`s probably against the law, Michael (ph), in addition to being
inappropriate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Glenn, that`s powerful stuff coming from the president`s ally.

THRUSH: Well, Chris Christie has this nasty habit of remembering that he
used to be a federal prosecutor, right?

MATTHEWS: Right.

THRUSH: And the other thing about it – let`s just say not a ton of love
lost between Chris Christie, and say, Jared Kushner, even though they sort
of came together a little bit later. Christie was ousted from the
transition. But look…

MATTHEWS: Explain that background. Explain the background of the family
issue there.

THRUSH: So Chris Christie was running the transition, and he was ousted by
a group of Trump folks. Christie had actually sort of organized the
transition in a really conventional kind of way. He`d done an
organizational book that was rejected out of hand by three people, by Jared
Kushner, by Steve Bannon and Vice President Mike Pence. And he was ousted
and Pence then took over the transition.

And as we know, what happened after that? Mike Flynn. So Christie was –
Christie has continued to informally advise the president, oftentimes, we
are told, on issues relating peripherally to legal matters. He doesn`t act
as an attorney, but he clearly has a lot of experience. But the point
is…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: … Kushner`s old man in prison, didn`t he?

THRUSH: Yes, he put Jared – yes, he did. He put Jared Kushner`s father
in prison. Curiously enough, however, it appears that over the past four
or five months or so, the two of them, Christie and Kushner, have made
something that resembles amends.

But the issue here is Trump is not listening, Chris, to anybody. He
listens to Trump. This is a problem that is occurring with his attorney,
Marc Kasowitz. He just got this Ty Cobb to join as special counsel. Trump
continues to heed his own counsel. And we`re seeing – I suspect we`re
going to see a lot of dissonance between the Donald Trump, Jr., legal team
and the president`s legal team. I think that`s the next area where we`re
going to see some news stories breaking.

MATTHEWS: Yes, I think he`s got more lawyers now than ambassadors.

Anyway, this weekend, President Trump offered up plenty of red meat to keep
his base happy, that 29 percent behind him. Despite the fact that his own
son released e-mails showing the clearest evidence of collusion already,
Trump accused the media of undermining democracy. Quote, “With all its
phony unnamed sources and highly slanted and even fraudulent reporting,
fake news is distorting democracy (INAUDIBLE).” That`s the latest tweet
from Trump. Attempting to justify his son`s behavior, he wrote, quote,
“Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like this one Don, Jr.,
attended in order to get info on an opponent. That`s politics.”

Anyway, is there – is there a chance – let me go to Paul Butler. Is
there a chance that Trump would actually pardon his son? He can pardon a
whole slew of these guys, his son-in-law, everybody.

BUTLER: He absolutely could under the law, Chris, but that would just be
more evidence in the obstruction of justice case that Special Counsel
Mueller is investigating against President Trump. It would be like when he
fired the FBI director, like when he`s threatened to fire Special Counsel
Mueller. You know what President Trump? You can`t fire everybody who`s
going to hurt you who might be wanting to do a good faith investigation
against you. That`s not the way our system of justice works.

MATTHEWS: Glenn, when`s the breaking point going to come with Trump? Is
he – he doesn`t seem to have any advisers left. He`s plenty of lawyers
trying to keep him out of legal trouble, but I don`t sense anything coming
together in the White House. I don`t think we have a presidency yet.

THRUSH: I think that`s a good observation in terms of the presidency. It
seems like we have a president who sort of operates on his own and then six
or seven small clusters within the White House now composed of, like, his
legal team.

I don`t know where the breaking point – you`re right to focus on the
polling. The other thing I would look at, this health care debate, which
is happening in parallel to everything that`s going on with the Russia
investigation. It`s equally as damaging and will eventually intersect with
the Russia investigation as senators get used to saying no.

When senators and members of the House realize that there`s not a political
price to be paid for flouting the president, challenging him on
legislation, that is when the trouble is really going to start. We haven`t
seen it yet. There`s been sort of conspiracy of silence. They`ll walk
away from cameras. There`s been a great deal of reporting on they`re
figuring out a way to dodge reporters.

They`re not going to be able to do that forever, and they can read a poll,
too.

MATTHEWS: I don`t think they want this Trump raining (ph) on them the rest
of their careers, any of these people.

Anyway, thank you, Paul Butler. Thank you, Glenn Thrush and Susan Page.
Great front page piece in “USA Today,” Susan. Thank you.

Coming up, much more on the Trump Russian investigation, including the
pressure building on Trump`s family. Jared Kushner is under the microscope
now with renewed calls for his resignation. As I`ve been saying from the
start, that`s the trouble with nepotism. I told you from the – this is a
bad news story.

Plus, polling shows President Trump`s base is holding strong, but catch
this. Independent voters who helped him win are starting to turn on him,
and that`s pushing his approval numbers into record low territory. Watch
the independents.

And why is the Republican Party going along with Trump on the Russians? Is
the GOP becoming the Putin party? I love saying that, by the way, the
Putin party. That`s the question. And it`s raising concerns that this
president and his party are putting their interests ahead of the country`s.

Finally, let me finish tonight with “Trump Watch.” He won`t like it.

And this is HARDBALL, where the action is.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: The White House has dubbed this week “Made in America Week” in
an effort to promote products made in this country. Trump Kicked things
off today by hopping into a driver`s seat of a fire truck that was parked
on the South Lawn of the White House. The president also took a moment to
try on a personalized Stetson cowboy hat.

Despite all that, plenty of reporters were quick to point out the obvious,
that for all that “Made in America” talk, the president does not practice
what he preaches.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

QUESTION: He has shirts made in China and Bangladesh and India. Other
products made – like Trump vodka made in the Netherlands. So give me a
sense, if you could, about whether the president is the right vessel for
the message that he`s going to deliver later today before the press.

SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Yes, I actually look at it in a
very different way, which is the president`s been a very successful
businessman on a number of fronts, in a number of areas and industries, and
to understand very firsthand what the tax burden and what the regulatory
burden do to a business that wants to grow or expand here or hire here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: By the way, haven`t we noticed a few “Made in Russia” labels on
last year`s election? Just reminding you.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

As the Russian investigation continues to spread, Jared Kushner and Donald
Trump Jr. are becoming increasingly central figures in this saga. It`s
hardly surprising, given the role that nepotism has played in Trump world
itself.

President Trump enlisted his family members to help him get elected and to
help run the White House. Their collective governing experience, however,
zero.

And now you have a son-in-law who is, according to various reports, a
central focus in Robert Mueller`s investigation, and another son who openly
admits now to meeting with a Russian lawyer to discuss potentially damaging
material related to Hillary Clinton.

Over the past few months, I warned against this. I`m not always right, but
I was right about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: These people are really powerful. Imagine getting into a fight
in the office with Jared or Ivanka. They have enormous power.

And they`re always going to be there.

He`s the son-in-law of the president. He will be like a viceroy. And if
he gets a secretary and he gets a desk and he gets a phone and a title, and
he`s working in the West Wing, then who cares whether he`s getting a salary
or not?

This seems to me a violation of the spirit of the anti-nepotism law.

The law is the law. We need our president to obey it. We need to let him
know he has to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: With each passing day, we learn more troubling news, like the
fact that the president`s son-in-law, who has no political or foreign
policy experience, failed to disclose foreign meetings on his application
for security clearances.

Three times, he did it. And as the Russian trouble continues to set in,
some Republicans are calling to cut out part of the problem. Let`s watch.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

REP. BILL FLORES (R), TEXAS: I`m going out on a limb here, but I would say
I think it would be in the president`s best interest if he removed all of
his children from the White House, not only Donald Trump, but Ivanka and
Jared Kushner.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well, for the latest, I`m joined right now U.S. Congresswoman
Jackie Speier of California. She`s a Democrat, a member of the House
Intelligence Committee.

Congresswoman, you know, there`s a reason why throughout history nepotism
has been frowned upon, because it create these situations where these
princelings and princesses have this incredible power that the public
didn`t give them, they didn`t earn through work or background or experience
or in any kind of way.

They were credentialed for these jobs. They inherited them. And that`s
why we have democracy, so that we don`t have royal families like the
Romanovs running our country. But now we do. What can we do about it?

REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, we really have to make it apply
to the White House, as well as to all of the departments.

The Robert Kennedy amendment came as a result of him being made the A.G.
And so you can`t have any family members in any of the departments, but we
should have also included the White House, never thinking, frankly, that
anyone would put their family member in a position of authority within the
White House.

Now, all members of Congress too are under that same restriction. We can`t
have any family members working for us. And it makes all the sense in the
world. If your son-in-law screws up, what are you going to do? You`re not
going to fire him. You have to have Thanksgiving dinner with him.

So, I think this is way past any rational reason to keep both Ivanka and
Jared in the White House. I mean, when you realize that Jared has had to
amend his SF-86 form about foreign meetings three times, he`s had 100
meetings that he didn`t disclose, and then we find out that he was also
negotiating with the Russian banker of VEB Bank, that he was negotiating
with Qatar for financing for his Manhattan property, and also with an
insurance company in China.

With Ivanka, you have a situation where, as she was meeting with the
Japanese president, Abe, she was negotiating a deal with a clothing company
in Japan that went through. And then, when she was with President Xi of
China, she was, on that same day, granted three trademarks, and a couple of
days later, four more trademarks.

I mean, this is not what you should be doing as someone working in public
service, gaining personally from that public service. And both of them are
doing that.

MATTHEWS: I know. I wish the Democrats had yelled loud when this first
started. I tried to yell loud, because this situation, if it was Chelsea
in these meetings, if she was working in the White House, it`s – they
would be going crazy, the Republicans, right now, wouldn`t they?

SPEIER: Absolutely.

I thought about, if it wasn`t Ivanka in that G20 meeting sitting, keeping
the chair warm for her father, if it was Chelsea, you would have just
pandemonium in these chambers right now.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Especially if she was meeting with the Russians, with all their
dirt coming from the Kremlin. I think they would be thinking more than
getting angry.

Anyway, U.S. Congresswoman Jackie Speier, please keep coming back on the
program.

SPEIER: I will. Thank you.

MATTHEWS: In an opinion piece, by the way, entitled “The Decline and Fall
of Jared and Donald Jr.: Nepotism Often Ends Badly,” law professor Jonathan
Turley writes: “Does the president have any choice but to continue to
defend his relatives? With his comments today, Trump has assumed the costs
directly for their actions. And that`s the real cost of nepotism. It
reduces the range of motion in dealing with scandals. There`s no option
for political triage when the family is on the line.”

I`m now joined by Jonathan Turley himself, the Shapiro professor of public
interest law at George Washington University and also a member of “USA
Today”`s Board of Contributors.

Thank you so much, Jonathan, professor.

Let`s get to this. Why do we have nepotism laws, and why are the Trumps
getting away with breaking them, breaking the spirit of them?

JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY:
Well, nepotism laws have existed in various countries for centuries.

The term nepotism actually comes from papal abuses, where popes would take
their nephews – that`s where the term comes from – and give them cardinal
hats, even ones aged 14, 15.

MATTHEWS: Really?

TURLEY: And it was abusive back then.

And what is interesting is that it almost uniformly worked against the
sponsors, because, as you have already noted, it adds a vulnerability to
you, because a failure of a family member becomes your failure.

And people like the Clintons found that out. When Bill Clinton made
Hillary Clinton the head of the task force for health care reform, it was a
terrible idea, because her failure would become his failure. And they lost
any real chance of reform in doing that.

And so what is fascinating is that Trump has gone down the same path, but
even more so.

MATTHEWS: What about Trump`s impulsiveness? If you tied that to his
insistence of having the comfort of his family around him, including
Ivanka, her husband, his son, he seems to need – some athletes are like
that. They need to have their old friends hanging around them all the
time, even to travel with them.

There`s something about the comfort. But I don`t know what the public
service comes from. There`s no evidence that these people are good at
anything. There`s nothing with them personally, I don`t think, but where`s
the credentials of these people to be serving as the Middle East envoy for
President Trump and our country?

Jared Kushner is our expert now. He`s the new Henry Kissinger over there.
Anyway…

TURLEY: It`s rare that there`s a public value to this.

Ulysses S. Grant had somewhere in the range of 40 relatives working in the
federal government. And they were involved in a host of corrupt scandals,
including his son-in-laws. And it helped destroy his administration.

That is the strange thing about nepotism, is, it draws people close because
of this comfort factor, but it almost always results in great vulnerability
and often great damage.

MATTHEWS: What do you think? I guess the last notorious pardoning was
President Clinton pardoning Marc Rich, the notorious international whatever
you want to call him.

What do you think about Trump just impulsively just say, I`m going to
pardon all these people preemptively? He can do it, can`t he, so they
don`t have to face investigation?

(CROSSTALK)

TURLEY: He can.

And actually one of the greatest abuses back then was when Bill Clinton
pardoned his own brother, which was outrageous.

But the problem with that is that if you push down on the criminal side, it
tends to push up political issues on the impeachment side.

Actually, Clinton – Trump would be much better fighting on the criminal
side. I`m not convinced that this meeting was a compelling basis for a
crime. I still don`t see the crime. He might be better fighting it out
there.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you about that. You`re opening a door there,
counselor.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: I`m just going to ask you, was it a contribution to the Trump
campaign to get an offer of dirt on Hillary?

Opposition research is a product. It`s an asset. And they were offered
that for the purpose of that meeting. Isn`t that accepting assets from a
foreign source, which I understand to be illegal?

TURLEY: Chris, look, you`re a great advocate of the First Amendment. And
I respect that.

And there`s where I would caution you, that if you start to treat the
exchange of information as if it`s equivalent to a political contribution,
it would bring a host of political speech within the criminal code that`s
never been done. It would cover a foreign academic or environmental group.

MATTHEWS: But this was offered as not just as a conversation, but the
product of espionage, of digging up dirt on Hillary Clinton. This wasn`t
just some conversation they were going to have. It was, here we have got
some stuff, like the dossier.

I think the dossier could be considered a product, yes, a product of work,
a work product, yes.

TURLEY: The problem with that, Chris, is there`s no limiting principle
that would play a role here.

If a foreign person giving information to a campaign could suddenly become
a federal crime, you`re handing the federal government a huge amount of
power to regulate campaigns.

MATTHEWS: Well, maybe in this case, it would be good power.

Thank you, Jonathan Turley. I have great respect for you and I love to
argue with you.

TURLEY: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: And I can argue too.

Up next: The Russian scandal is consuming the Trump White House, and it`s
hurting him with independent voters. We haven`t talked about them. Yes,
the Russian – the Russians – the Republicans fall in line, not in love,
but apparently independents don`t fall in line. And they`re not in line
with Trump anymore.

This is HARDBALL, where the action is.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

We have talked here a lot about President Trump`s support among his core
supporters, but it was independent voters who helped give him his victory
obviously in 2016.

And now a new “Washington Post”/ABC News poll shows the president`s support
among that group, the independents, may be cracking. Just 32 percent of
independents now say they approve of the ways he`s doing his job, down from
38 percent in April.

Well, 82 percent of Republicans, of course, still approve of his
performance, by the way. And in Iowa, a state Trump won, a “Des Moines
Register” poll now shows that 59 percent of self-identified independents in
that state at least now disapprove of the president`s job performance, up
nine points from February.

For more, I`m joined right now by Robert Costa, national political reporter
for “The Washington Post” and an MSNBC political analyst.

You know President Trump and you knew candidate Trump as well as any
reporter covering him.

What do you think? I want to ask my question. Maybe it`s my rant tonight.
Did they see the contradiction in saying, even if Trump is guilty of his
son meeting with the Russians and trying to get dirt from the Kremlin and
all that, even if that`s all true, 29 percent say it`s fine with them?

Do they see the contradiction in the way they would judge, say, if Hillary
Clinton and Chelsea Clinton had been involved in the same sort of fandango?

ROBERT COSTA, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: When it comes to the family, you`re
talking about a president who came from a family enterprise, only really
knows a family enterprise. His father ran one. He inherited it.

Now he`s brought that same ethos to the White House. I think your polling
data is intriguing, because this is a presidency that is also running a
base-centric strategy.

When you think about what Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon, the strategists
inside of the White House, are doing, they`re running to keep that base, to
cultivate that base, but they`re seeing a cost. Independents now, at that
six-month mark, are wondering, is Trump really the disruptive outsider they
wanted?

MATTHEWS: I have a sense, when I study the numbers – and I don`t believe
many numbers anymore because of how wrong they were in catching those swing
final – those tough swing states back in last November. They got them
wrong.

But I do think it`s interesting to study how many people are core Trumpees
and how many are sort of for him because they hate the establishment and
they may hate Hillary. For all I know, they may hate the Republicans like
Jeb.

But they`re not crazy. They`re not completely down-and-out dead-enders.
So, it looks like to me like it`s about 30 percent of people that will
defend anything Trump does, any meeting that is held. Anything that is
used against him, they will defend.

But somewhere between 30 and 40 percent are in the middle. And they go,
you know, if he`s had a pretty good run for three or four days, they will
be with him. And if he doesn`t, they will fade against him.

Tell me how you see that edge, that independent edge of the Trump support.

COSTA: It`s a difficult question to answer, because you have got to
wonder, Chris.

This erosion on the Trump number, is it because of his temperament, because
of Russia and this cloud that hangs over the campaign, or is it because he
embraced House Speaker Paul Ryan in the Republican agenda?

If you`re an independent voter, what bothers you more as you look ahead to
2018, all these Russia controversies and scandals or is it because the
president is pursuing a health care bill that goes after the Medicaid
expansion, that maybe even goes after your own coverage?

MATTHEWS: That would explain why the real right-wing – I don`t mean
right-wing – very conservative people like Paul Ryan, ideological, Ayn
Rand-type people, total ideologues that way – they seem to like him.

We got a figure now in the poll. The new poll say – it`s your poll, by
the way, at “The Post” – 90 percent of self-identified conservative
Republicans, nine out of 10 – I have never seen a poll like that for
anybody – are with Trump.

So, at the same time he`s coddling up to a relationship with Paul Ryan on
ideology, you say he`s losing the independents, maybe?

COSTA: I think it`s not just the ideology.

If you think about what the Republican Party does today to gin up that
base, it`s a grievance party. It runs against the media more than it even
runs against the Democrats at times.

If you think about some people in the White House calling the media the
enemy of the people, and so if you`re a Republican who think about politics
in that framework, Trump is actually successful in your mind. That`s why
I`m not surprised by these eight out of 10, nine out of 10 Republicans,
because, to them, Trump is a hammer to the establishment, even if he`s not
successful when it comes to legislation.

MATTHEWS: You, sir, are Trump`s Boswell.

Thank you so much, Robert Costa of “The Washington Post.”

Up next: President Trump says that most politicians would have gone to
that meeting with the Kremlin-linked lawyer and her fellow person.

Anyway, but if Chelsea Clinton had done it, don`t you think Republicans
would be going nuts right now?

You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Since word of Donald Trump, Jr.`s meeting broke, the White House story has
spiraled from a denial that the campaign had any contact with Russia to an
admission that the president`s son and top advisers met with two Russians
close to the Kremlin, specifically to get dirt on Hillary Clinton, to help
them in a campaign.

Well, despite that, President Trump says that is nothing out of the
ordinary, tweeting this morning in fact that, quote, most politicians would
have gone to a meeting like that, one that Don Jr. attended in order to get
info on the opponent. That`s politics.

Well, that`s Trump talking. Even White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer
still claims that the meeting was about adoptions. Let`s watch.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That it`s quite often for people
who are given information during the heat of the campaign to ask what that
is. That`s what simply he did, the president has made it clear through his
tweets, and there was nothing, as far as we know, that would lead anyone to
believe that there was anything except for a discussion about adoption, the
Magnitsky Act.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: I think Sean will say anything, anything. Adoptions? That`s
not why they went to the meeting.

Republicans have been forced to bend over backwards to try to defend the
meeting. Let`s watch them in action.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. SEAN DUFFY (R), WISCONSIN: If I got the information, I could run it
down within my team, I can report it to the FBI. There`s a number of
different things I could do with that information. But I have no problem
with a meeting that this could turn into nothing. You have to recognize
Don, Jr. had a 20-minute meeting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well, in his latest “New York Magazine” column entitled if
Republicans loved their country, when will they show it, conservative
commentator Andrew Sullivan argues, quote, it`s really well written here.

This is not about being dumb. It`s not about being ruthless. It`s not
about oppo research. It`s not even about dirty tricks. This is about a
very basic level of patriotism. It`s about a deep question of how you were
brought up and what your values are.

The question is whether we can trust this president to put the interest of
the U.S. before himself or a foreign enemy, or some horribly compromised
combination of the last two. If there`s any doubt about this, the doubt
has been, well, has to be removed.

Let`s bring in tonight`s HARDBALL round table. Astead Herndon is the
national political reporter for “The Boston Globe”, Shannon Pettypiece is a
White House reporter for “Bloomberg News”, and Jeremy Peters is a reporter
with “The New York Times” and an MSNBC contributor.

Astead, it seems to me the Republican parties are running the risk of being
identified as the Putin Party, a party that fought the Cold War the hard
way for years, was proud of its opposition to communism in Russia. It`s
now seemingly happy with Russian nationalism as our ally.

How do they avoid the blame game when the time comes to see who was on
Putin`s side and who was against him?

ASTEAD HERNDON, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, THE BOSTON GLOBE: All
Republicans need to do is hold true to the values that they said that they
cared about for a long time. They have been the party that has talked
about being tough on foreign adversaries, on people like Russia until Trump
came along. And so, what we need to see from Republicans is to what people
are asking for Republicans to do.

I think what that column calls for is to move beyond just the words of
being troubled or concerned, but really hold consequences – hold the White
House responsible and accountable. And if they do see a string of things
that are concerning to them, to really put weight behind that in terms of
policy. And that`s what people are trying to pressure them to do.

SHANNON PETTYPIECE, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, BLOOMBERG NEWS: Well, you know,
it`s also interesting because when you look at the rhetoric coming out of
Republicans in Congress, it couldn`t be any difference than what the White
House is saying. You look at the sanctions bill that`s in the Senate, and
really, the hard liners in Russia are still there in the Republican Party.
They`re just not in the White House.

But, I think, you know, you`ve been talking earlier on the show about a lot
of polling data out there. For the Republican Party and for their base and
for their voters, there are a lot more issues than Russia and whether the
party is tough on Russia. Health care, terrorism, security, the economy,
taxes.

And so, I think there`s this wiggle room, though, where they can maintain
the base, and they can, you know, maintain their identity without the
president having to even go after Russia on some of these issues.

MATTHEWS: Well, Jeremy, over the weekend, you wrote that, quote, Mr.
Trump`s opponents have tried repeatedly to make an issue of the mutual
admiration between him and the Russian president, Putin, of course,
anticipating that Republicans would not tolerate any whiff of sympathy for
one of their own toward the leader of what Ronald Reagan called the evil
empire.

But Mr. Trump has never had to wait long for conservatives to leap to his
defense and, often, Mr. Putin says, well, there you go again, as Ronald
Reagan used to say, there they go again. I`m sorry. But this acceptance
of Putin messing with our election, this casualness to which they defend,
no matter what`s proven – I`m still taken aback. I know these people on
the hard right are patriotic normally.

But why are they so unpatriotic when it comes to letting the Russians mess
with us? That`s not a patriotic position to be in. It just isn`t
objectively.

JEREMY PETERS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: It`s stunning. It`s this head-spinning
role reversal from the party that was tough on communists and tough on the
Soviet Union. I mean, this used to be a prerequisite for being a
Republican, being tough on them.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

PETERS: And now, all of a sudden, you have this band of conservatives who
are basically apologists for Putin. And what`s I think really undergirding
this, Chris, is it`s wrapped up in anti-Obamaism. For a lot of
conservatives like Sarah Palin and eventually Donald Trump himself, Putin
was the ultimate fuel for Obama.

He was more of a man than Obama was. He was more of a leader. He was
decisive. He seized countries. He rode a horse shirtless and he went
tiger hunting in the Russian wilderness.

So for them, he kind of took on this Paul Bunyan type quality.

MATTHEWS: Who does this bare-chested, tiger hunting image, who does that
work for? It`s pretty primordial. I mean, give me a break here. Is this
how they decide their politics? I liked Teddy Roosevelt, but this was a
retrained version of this. I don`t know what to say.

PETERS: He almost became like this Paul Bunyan-like figure for a lot of
conservatives because to them, he represented somebody who was emasculating
and humiliating Barack Obama on the world stage. And because of that,
almost any other transgression could be forgiven.

MATTHEWS: Let me go back to Astead on this, because I`ve said this before
on the show that I do understand, in fact, I appreciate, in fact,
positively, the notion that America should be looking out for America most
of the time. Of course, we`re globalists and we understand the need to be
part of a community of nations.

But don`t get screw us on trade. Don`t get us into stupid wars for
somebody else`s interest. Don`t – I mean, I understand that kind of
nationalism, I do. And also, immigration has to be controlled at some
point, on some level.

But Trump here doesn`t seem to mind being played around with by Putin.
When you see the meeting together, Putin knows everything about Trump`s
misbehavior. He knows about everything about their meetings and secret
relations and everything. He seems to be the guy in charge. I don`t know
why the Trump people like that or even abide by it.

HERNDON: I mean, that is – that is the stunning part, is that the person
who was holding the cards here is Vladimir Putin. He knows exactly what
efforts Russia took to meddle in the U.S. election.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

HERNDON: And he knows the extent to which on each one of these political
fire storms, someone is lying or telling the truth or who messed with who
at each time. And that`s what intelligence communities, that`s what stuns
them about the president`s statements consistently, is that at many times,
it seems like he`s siding with the Russians and not with our own
intelligence community.

And so, that`s the real crux of it, is what is that patriotic question? Is
it that by conceding what Democrats and other people are saying, is Russian
meddling, that Donald Trump in the White House would be less American?
They`re saying, and that`s what they`re asking for. And so, I think that
the real – what they need to look at is what is Russia trying to do and if
– and should the White House be stepping back to it?

MATTHEWS: OK, the roundtable – go ahead, Shannon. Quickly. Go ahead.
I`m sorry.

PETTYPIECE: Oh, I was going to say, the administration sees a foreign
policy play here though, too. That if Putin can help with ISIS and Syria,
Putin can help with North Korea, then they`re willing to do deals with
them. But the concern is they`re going to sort of sell us up the river in
the process and look at other the way on other things more important to us
than, you know, ISIS and Syria.

MATTHEWS: I think we`re still waiting for that hamburger.

Anyway, the roundtable is sticking with us, and up next, these three will
tell me something I don`t know. We`re coming back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Well, a federal judge has now ruled that President Trump must
release some of the – catch this – visitor logs at Mar-a-Lago. Since
becoming, President Trump has spent 25 days at Mar-a-Lago using that place
to entertain high profile guests, public guests like the Chinese president
and the Japanese prime minister. That said, it`s unclear who else Trump
has met with while staying down there at the so-called winter White House.

Well, the government watchdog group that sued for the record says that it
will make public any information it receives. The scope of the visitor
logs is unknown, but the Secret Service is expected to hand them over by
September 8th.

Well, that`s news. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: We are back with the HARDBALL round table.

Astead, tell me something I don`t know.

HERNDON: Well, last week, I was at a private talk with former Trump
campaign advisor, Roger Stone, and he questioned the events of 9/11, and
more importantly, he said the president may also be a 9/11 truther, saying
he shares their curiosity about the events, and that the president has,
quote, a number of unanswered questions, according to Roger Stone.

MATTHEWS: Well, that`s fairly sick.

Shannon?

PETTYPIECE: I`ve got a story out a few minutes ago that Michael Flynn is
starting a legal defense fund to fund raise money to pay for his legal
bills for the Russia probe. And it`s possible we could see more of these,
especially from sort of the midlevel campaign and administration officials
because these legal bills could range from the tens to the hundreds of
thousands of dollars just to comply with all these subpoenas and
investigation requests.

MATTHEWS: Jeremy?

PETERS: As conservatives and Senate Republican leaders step up-to-pressure
to get an Obamacare repeal and replace vote to the Senate floor, there are
a number of senators who are privately thanking Susan Collins of Maine for
saying the she`d come out against the bill because not that the they don`t
want to vote on the health care bill, but they don`t want what would happen
before that, which should be this flurry of votes on amendments called the
vote-o-rama that would – are intended to embarrass voter – intended to
embarrass senators and can be used in commercials against you later on.

MATTHEWS: Great. I know they want the 30-second ads to use against them.

Thank you, Astead Herndon. Thank you, Sean Pettypiece and Jeremy Peters.

We`ll be right back with HARDBALL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Trump Watch, Monday, July 17, 2017.

This is addressed to those Trump folks who tell pollsters it`s all right to
do political business with the Russians when they`re interfering with our
elections. Well, it`s pretty simply. Just try it on the other guy`s foot.
Think about what your reaction, your gut reaction would be to hear that
Hillary Clinton, her crowd, had been doing precisely what your side`s been
caught doing red-handed.

I`ll tell you what you`d be doing. You`d be high-fiving that you caught
Chelsea and her mom in a Kremlin cookie jar. You`d be yelling treason.
You`d be in sheer delight that you caught the hated Clintons selling out
their country.

Now, stop for a second and think about your guy and his son doing all this,
along with good old Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort and what this band of
unmerry men were up to last summer when they invited the Russians into
Trump Tower to help them win the election. Just think again for a lonely
second precisely what your reaction would be if young Chelsea had been the
happy host of that affair.

This HARDBALL for now. “ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES” starts right now.

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

Copyright 2017 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.>