Trump adds controversial attorney to team. TRANSCRIPT: 03/19/2018. Hardball with Chris Matthews

Annie Linskey, P.J. O`Rourke, Eugene Scott

Date: March 19, 2018
Guest: Annie Linskey, P.J. O`Rourke, Eugene Scott

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: The new map will be on the books for the 2018
midterms. That`s one more story we are clocking.

I will see you tomorrow for our special on THE BEAT. I hope you tune in
for that.



Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington.

President Trump has unveiled a new more combative approach towards the
federal investigation of his Presidential campaign attacking prosecutors.
And for the first time singling out Robert Mueller by name.

It all began late Friday night when attorney general Jeff Sessions fired
deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe less than two days before McCabe would
become eligible for full pension benefits. President Trump, who has
publicly attacked McCabe since last summer celebrated McCabe`s abrupt
termination saying on twitter, Andrew McCabe fired, a great day for the
hardworking men and women of the FBI, a great day for democracy.
Sanctimonious James Comey was his boss and made McCabe look like a choir
boy. He knew all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest
levels of the FBI.

Well then on Saturday morning, Trump attorney John Dowd seized on McCabe`s
firing to call for an end to the special counsel`s probe. As he told the
“Daily Beast,” I pray that acting attorney general Rosenstein will follow
the brilliant and courageous example of the FBI and attorney general Jeff
Sessions and bring an end to the alleged Russian collusion investigation
manufactured by McCabe`s boss James Comey based upon a fraudulent and
corrupt dossier.

Well, Trump`s legal team later he downplayed the apparent threat to Robert
Mueller`s job. However, in a tweet storm that followed, an emboldened
President lashed out at the Russian probe and directly attacked the
credibility of Mueller, the special counsel.

Quote “the Mueller probe should never have been started in that there was
no collusion and there was no crime. It was based on fraudulent activities
and a fake dossier paid for by crooked Hillary. Witch-hunt!”

In another tweet, the President asked why does the Mueller team have 13
hardened Democrats, some big crooked Hillary supporters and zero
Republicans. Does anyone think this is fair?

Well, this comes as an outside adviser to the President tells the
“Associated Press that quote “Trump has fumed to confidantes that the
Mueller probe is going to choke the life out of his presidency if allowed
to continue unabated indefinitely.”

I`m joined right now by Shannon Pettypiece, White House correspondent from
Bloomberg News, Natasha Bertrand covers the Russia probe as a staff writer
for “the Atlantic.” Frank Montoya is a former special agent and Joyce
Vance is a former U.S. attorney.

Thank you all for joining us tonight.

It has change. What do you make of this, Shannon? Why is the President
attacking Mueller by name now? It`s personal. It`s just about destroying
this guy. He doesn`t have a legal case. Is that why he is doing it?

absolutely a shift going on. And the new lawyer he has brought on to his
legal team is a fighter who is pulling no punches, who believe there is a
conspiracy in the FBI to go after the President.

MATTHEWS: Says he believes.

PETTYPIECE: Yes, says he believes. So this is just the beginning.

MATTHEWS: Joe Digenova, a noted forever.

PETTYPIECE: Yes. Back in 1992, he worked on the passport scandal. He was
a big fighter public –.

MATTHEWS: So he is bulking up. Does he have – it looks to me like he is
getting personal, however, Natasha. He wants to destroy. Think (ph) me
about this. Tell me about this.

mean, the White House kind of had a victory when it managed to get
Mueller`s team to submit kind of written questions or at least topics to
the White House about a possible sit-down interview with the President.

MATTHEWS: Interview. Where does that word come from? Help me with that
word. Questioning, interrogation. Why it is an interview? I`m curious.
Everybody is using that word, everybody. What does it mean?

The President of the United States is a witness in this case, probably a
defendant. Why can`t they say question the guy and show up at this date or
you are under subpoena. And if you break the subpoena, we will hold you in
contempt. Why did they have to negotiate with the President? I don`t get


MATTHEWS: Send me your question – they are talking about written
questions. What, are you kidding me?

PETTYPIECE: Yes, exactly?

MATTHEWS: Take-home exams?

PETTYPIECE: Well, and that, you mentioned the subpoena because, listen,
they only have - I mean, this is typical lawyering. Clinton`s lawyers did
it too.

MATTHEWS: But they are leaking all that stuff to the press. Why do you
guys buy the fact that they have a choice? Don`t they have to answer to a

PETTYPIECE: There will be a subpoena. If Trump`s lawyers know they can
only push so far and so long or they will receive a subpoena. And then
it`s going to have to be walk down to the courthouse without your lawyers
and you are testifying under oath, yes.

MATTHEWS: Back to you. Tell me about the interview. Everybody use the
word. I`m not knocking you, but it seems so soft.

BERTRAND: Right. And now you see, it was a complete shift. I mean, John
Dowd kind of riding high off of the firing I guess of Andy McCabe on Friday
night, kind of issued this off-the-cuff statement to the “Daily Beast,”
saying, you know, I hope this witch-hunt comes to an end. And it was very,
very Trumpian in its language. And this is not exactly a lawyer who is
known for his discreetness, I should say. He and Ty Cobb were kind of
sitting at a restaurant last summer talking about the Russia investigation.

MATTHEWS: I remember that scene. They were overheard.

Let me ask Joyce about this. Let`s get back to a couple of things here.
The questions that they have apparently leaked out somehow gotten hold of
the line of questioning seems to focus. They want to ask the question
mainly about obstruction stuff. What does that tell you?

JOYCE VANCE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, first, Chris, to go back to
your comment about the interview process seeming a little bit soft, I would
just point out that prosecutors learn an awful lot about where a witness is
coming from during these negotiations over an interview. So, yes,
absolutely true, the President will have to show up and be interviewed, or
whatever you want to call it at some point in time.

But in this back and forth, I suspect Mueller`s team is learning an awful
lot about what sorts of concerns they have, what the pressure points are,
and maybe even how firm the President is in this red line assessment.

But look, the focus on the obstruction issue and the questions doesn`t in
any way limit what Mueller can question the President about. Anything is
fair game, whether this is an interview or a grand jury sort of an
inquisition setting. The President will have to answer questions that the
Mueller team deems it essential to hear from his mouth. And at the end of
the day, that`s what will happen.

MATTHEWS: Let me go – let me go to Frank Montoya, the same question. The
President could be questioned on anything. In other words, if he shows up,
I don`t know whether Bill Clinton, that President Clinton, was warned they
were going to talk about Monica when he was asked about the Paula Jones
case. But they sure as hell asked the questions. None of this preview of
coming attractions crap where there is we are going to ask you all these
tricky questions. Get him in the booth. Get him under oath and start
grilling him. That seems to be the appropriate method. Your thinking?

FRANK MONTOYA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Yes. Once that get him down in
the chair, that exactly right. They are going to, you know, they are going
to start asking him questions about what they are investigating in. And he
is going to have to make decision about how he is going to answer those

Frankly, I think that`s what his lawyers are most worried about. Because
what is going to come out of his mouth when he is asked those hard
questions? Whether it`s about relations with Russians or it is obstruction
of justice or the money trail.

MATTHEWS: Let me go back to Natasha and start, both of you guys. It seems
to me that one of the goals if you are on Trump`s side, they want to catch
him in a perjury trap.


MATTHEWS: They want Trump to lie about obstruction. Because that`s where
I have always thought Mueller is coming from. He took this job as special
counsel because he is furious at the attack on the institution he loves,
which is the FBI by the firing of Comey. And he sees that as an
obstruction of what Comey was doing, which was to help investigate the
President, right? So it seems to me it would be appropriate for them to
really grill down on that and what did you say to Flynn? What did you say
to anybody working for you? Are you sure? And Trump will lie, and they
will catch him. That`s what they are trying to do.

BERTRAND: Right. They are going into this interview asking questions that
they already know the answer to. And I think when these reports come out
saying that the special counsel is focusing on the obstruction of justice
aspect, wanting to know what Trump`s intent and state of mind was when he
fired James Comey, when he asked for the investigation into Flynn could be
dropped, I think that kind of shrouds the collusion aspect, which is, OK,
well, they are asking him these questions about potential obstruction to
get to his state of mind, but also to get to the point of why he felt the
need to end the Russia investigation. Because that ultimately is why he
fired James Comey. He acknowledged that in an interview later as we all
know with Lester Holt.

So I think that when you ask the obstruction of justice questions, it`s not
that Mueller is no longer looking at the collusion question, he is perhaps
just using it as a kind of jumping board to get back to that.

MATTHEWS: Well, going back to Trump`s state of mind, which is an
interesting phrase right there, state of mind. Why is he attacking McCabe?
McCabe is going to be a witness against him. McCabe has kept
contemporaneous notes. And now he is attacking him saying these are lying
notes. He made it a fake memo. How about he is trying to phrase that in


MATTHEWS: Why would anybody make a note at the time of what happened in
the meeting with the President of the United States and make it up? It
doesn`t make sense.

PETTYPIECE: He is trying to attack McCabe because he is trying to undercut
and chip away at the entire basis of the investigation. That`s what he has
been doing. That`s what his lawyer, Jay Sekulow has been doing. That`s
what his allies have been doing. They are trying to chip away at the
individuals like the texts between Lisa Page and Strzok to show bias.
These attacks on McCabe, these attacks on how the FISA warrants. They are
going after the little bit here and there. Chip, chip, chip away. So
whatever they find, they can say well, this was a flawed, biased, illegally
conducted investigation.

MATTHEWS: Joyce, do you think that`s going to be a success? I don`t know
who their jury is. I wonder if it isn`t the jury of his supporters, the 35
to 40 – it`s up to 43. He is doing quite well right now, cyclically, the
President. But in somewhere below 50 percent, it is the Trump people. Is
that his jury? He doesn`t care what the government says.

VANCE: It has to be the court of public opinion. Because the way this
would play out in front of a jury if he were ever charged would be in a way
that would give I think great credit to those witnesses who could be heard
to be honest and truthful and who would have – you know, be able to tell
their full stories in court, along, frankly, with the President`s
witnesses. And I don`t have much doubt about how that would come out.

So what the President hopes to do here is to write off people like Andy
McCabe and Jim Comey as liars, as people who conspired against him. I
think we are all looking forward to Jim Comey`s book and seeing what sort
of truths he has to tell.

MATTHEWS: April 17th, that book comes out.

Anyway, the President`s attacks on McCabe, as I mentioned, Comey and
Mueller drew a strong rebuke from former members of the intelligence
community. Former CIA chief John Brennan responded to the President this

When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude and political
corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced
demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but
you will not destroy America. America will triumph over you.

And that was John Brennan. The former FBI director James Comey responded
to the President`s attack on him saying,

Mr. President, the American people will hear my story very soon. And they
can judge for themselves who is honorable and who is not.

Frank, back to you. I again, we go to who is the jury here. I think it`s
the deep state. And they already I think are against Trump on this. I
think he has a point there. Anybody who cares about the FBI doesn`t like
the way this guy has been behaving. And the whole justice of our country,
the way we do things, the way we treat witnesses, the way we treat civil
servants, lifetime civil servants like McCabe, enjoying firing him right
before he gets his pension, that sort of thing. But there must be Trump
people. Is that his jury?

MONTOYA: It`s a 60-40 split right now. These investigations that are
taking place neither the District of Columbia or in the eastern district of
Virginia. There are going to be folks that are supporters that are in
those jury pools. There are also going to be folks that are not his
supporters in that jury pool.

But I think the important thing here, you know, bottom line, baseline
essential aspect of this investigation, and the fact that Bob Mueller is
running it is that he is not going to be caring about public opinion. He
is not going to be caring about popular opinion. It`s going to be about
the fax. And then he is going to sit down and his prosecutors are going to
make the cases based on the fact. And then the jury is going to have to
make their decisions based on the instruction as they get from the court,
given the information that has presented as evidence, they are going to
have to make that decision. At least against defendants that are not the
President, you know.

If in fact we are able to indict the President or if there is an
impeachment, that`s a different story. But as far as the case is
concerned, as far as Mueller`s prosecution of this case, it`s going to be
all about the facts.

MATTHEWS: Let me go to Joyce in this, and then I will get back to the
journalists here.

This about blaming the government, saying the government is no good. The
prosecutors are no good. In this case, the police, the FBI are no good,
does sort of go back to the O.J. case. Because Johnnie Cochran, notorious
or popular whatever, successful certainly with his way of making the L.A.
police the issue in that murder case, double murder case. He made the
issue the police, whether they racist or not, whether they manipulated
evidence or not. And the jury went with that argument.

This time around it seems like Trump in the court of public opinion is
making the FBI the issue, the special counsel the issue, McCabe the issue,
everybody but himself the issue. That seems to be the O.J. strategy at
work here.

VANCE: Yes, I mean, it`s that old strategy that defense lawyers use when
the facts are on your side, pound the fax. When the law is on your side,
pound the law. When neither one is on your side, pound the table. And
usually when you are pounding the table, you are pounding the police.

Unlikely to work here simply because this investigation has been handled by
such professional people. They have undergone just crushing, as Andy
McCabe did, just crushing sorts of diatribes from folks in the President`s
circle. But their veracity and the process that they have used and the
clarity with which they have proceeded will hold up when the end of the
day, when they present this evidence, the evidence that they`re beginning
to compile is overwhelming at this point. And this sort of attack on them
as law enforcement officers won`t work.

MATTHEWS: Right now the positive approval of Mueller is 28 percent.
Negative is 19. So a lot of people haven`t weighed in yet because they
haven`t seen the evidence.

Thank you so much, Shannon Pettypiece and Natasha Bertrand and Frank
Montoya and Joyce Vance.

Coming up, some Republicans are finally starting to speak up against Trump.
Heard that?

Over the weekend, Lindsey Graham says if Trump fires Mueller, it would be
the end of his presidency or the beginning of the end of his presidency.

Trey Gowdy, no liberal, who relentlessly investigated Benghazi says if
Trump`s innocent, he ought to start acting like it.

But why are so many other Republicans, including the key Republicans in the
leadership of the House and the Senate staying so quiet? Well, that`s

Plus, Trump`s lawyers are hitting back against Stormy Daniels, filing suit
that she violated their confidentiality agreement at least 20 times. Where
is this case heading? I really want to know. Where is this going to be in
two weeks? And what is Trump into this fight for.

And look, ma, no hands. After weeks of White House departures, what we are
seeing from the oval office right now is a President who feels newly
emboldened to say what he feels like, maybe even what he thinks now that
the so-called moderating forces are out of the way. This is what it looks
like when you let Trump be Trump right now. That`s what it looks like.

Finally, let me finish tonight with Trump watch. He will not like tonight.

This is HARDBALL, where the action.


MATTHEWS: In what may be the biggest boost to Democrats so far in the
midterm election campaign, the United States Supreme Court today rejected a
challenge by Pennsylvania Republicans to the keystone state`s newly redrawn
congressional map. That means the new map, which corrects the most
gerrymandered map in the country, will likely go into effect this year.
The old map was drawn to give Republicans maximum advantage, especially in
the Philadelphia suburbs.

In 2016, they won 13 of the state`s 18 House seats. Well, Democrats need
to pick up 23 seats to win control of this House across the country. And
the redrawn map in Pennsylvania gives them a good shot at flipping possibly
as many as six of those seats right there in Pennsylvania alone.

We will be right back after this.



SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Well, as I said before, if he
tried to do that, that would be the beginning of the end of his presidency,
because we are a rule of law nation. But when it comes to Mr. Mueller, he
is following the evidence where it takes him. And I think it`s very
important he be allowed to do his job without interference. And there are
many Republicans who share my view.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

That was South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, warning President Trump not
to fire special counsel Mueller. The President`s weekend tweets about
Mueller`s credibility led a handful of other prominent Republicans to also
speak out. Let`s listen to them.


REP. TREY GOWDY (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Give him the time, the resources, the
independence to do his job. And when you are innocent, if the allegations
is collusion with the Russians and there is no evidence of that and you are
innocent of that, act like it.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: It is not a collusion probe. It is much
broader than that. Now, obviously, once you open that up and you start
looking, you can go in one direction or another. You go where the evidence
takes you. And that`s what I support.

SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R), ARIZONA: Talking to my colleagues all along, it was,
you know, once he goes after Mueller, then we will take action.

I think that people see that as a massive red line that can`t be crossed.
So, I hope that that`s the case. And I would just hope that enough people
would prevail on the president now, don`t go there. Don`t go there. We
have confidence in Mueller. I certainly do.


MATTHEWS: In a statement, Speaker Paul Ryan`s spokeswoman wrote: “As the
speaker has always said, Mr. Mueller and his team should be able to do
their job.”

But most other Republicans remain conspicuously silent, including Ryan`s
counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

And while concerns Trump may be considering drastic action towards Mueller
inspired some tough talk, it has translated into very little.

“The Washington Post” reports that, as some Republicans rallied around
Mueller, “There were no indications they planned to take legislative steps
to protect Mueller.” The report adds, “It has been almost eight months
since lawmakers introduced a pair of bipartisan bills to prevent Trump or
any president from being able to order the firing of a special counsel
without a reason that can pass muster.”

Well, back in January, McConnell dismissed the need to take up such
legislation. Let`s listen.


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: My understanding is, there
is no effort under way to undermine or to remove the special counsel.
Therefore, I don`t see any need to bring up legislation to protect someone
who appears to need no protection.


MATTHEWS: How wily of him.

Anyway, for more, I`m joined by Robert Costa, national political reporter
for “The Washington Post” and an MSNBC political analyst, and Steve
Schmidt, Republican strategist and MSNBC contributor.

Let`s put a lay of the land. It does seem that Lindsey, by the way, is
clearly a guy who believes in the institution of the United States Senate,
and he actually believes in the United States government. He believes in
it. He is a true believer. He is like a senator from 1,000 years ago. He
is for real.

So I can understand him being honest about this thing.

But what about the leadership? Why don`t they come out and say, Mr.
President, stay in your lane, you`re the one being investigated, you can`t
fire the investigator?

ROBERT COSTA, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Based on my reporting, they`re
saying it to him privately, to the president. But they`re wary of having
this public war with the president over the Mueller investigation.

They`re sitting, wishing, waiting, hoping he doesn`t make a move. But they
know, if he does make a move, that`s when – that`s the crucial moment.
That`s when they maybe have to make a decision.

MATTHEWS: But what about if he moves toward it by getting rid of Jeff
Sessions, although he has been kissing up to him today, I noticed, thanking
him for getting rid of McCabe, by the way?

COSTA: I have been talking to lawmakers all day, Republicans. And they
say they`re worried their base is with Trump on the Russia issue.

MATTHEWS: Eighty-four percent today.

COSTA: Eighty-four percent of the polls.

And they if we want – we already face a storm in the midterms. If we want
any of our voters to come out, we have to avoid having some kind of public
clash with Trump.

That`s what keeping them from having – they`re not echoing Senator Flake,
because they know their voters are pretty much with the president, watching
conservative media, watching his tweets.

MATTHEWS: You know, Steve, you`re the most political, smart Republican I
know around these days. So, let me ask you about this.

Aren`t there any Republicans who are discounting Trump, saying, hey, this
guy is going to be gone in a few years, I want to be one of the guys that
spoke up against him, I want to have the rep of the person, man or woman,
who said, this guy is no good for our party?

Where are those people, besides you, I mean?

STEVE SCHMIDT, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I don`t know, Chris. I wonder it
every day.

Look, if we were on Wall Street and we were selling stocks or buying
stocks, if you`re a stock picker, you`re going to go long on the Trump
stock or short on the Trump stock? And I just don`t understand why there`s
not more Republicans saying, I`m going to short the stock, looking at the
chaos, the incompetence, the general trajectory and the huge blue tsunami
that is building offshore coming to wipe way the Republican majorities.

I will say this, Chris. We know that Mitch McConnell was informed during
the campaign that the United States of America was under attack by Russia,
that our elections process was under attack, and he would not work with the
Democratic president to secure the country.

So the answer to the question about what Mitch McConnell will do if Donald
Trump were to launch a full-on attack on the rule of law in this country,
the answer is nothing. He is going to choose politics every time.

MATTHEWS: Well, it seems like that.

Robert, it seems like the number of people that are questioning the
president are almost zero. And I`m wondering whether – getting back to
this question, is he ever going to fall? I don`t know. I think the
Democrats will win the House this fall, just looking at the numbers. I
think they will get to 218. And they will go win the House.

And I think that Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, will begin hearings. And I can see there are 60-some Democrats
who already think the president should be impeached, so there will be
action. There will be hearings.

But I`m not going to get they get 218 for impeachment right now. It
depends on the sharpness of the report by Mueller and whether it really
gets to something that hits people politically in the solar plexus and make
even some Republicans say, whoa, this guy really broke the law. We have to
get rid of him.

I don`t see that happening. So, I wonder whether it`s a good bet right now
to bet against Trump, just simply that, because the Senate is going to –
they`re not going to convict him in the Senate. Two-thirds vote in the
United States Senate?

COSTA: Well, I don`t like to speculate.

MATTHEWS: That`s not speculating. Look what happened with – it`s never
happened before.

COSTA: Look, the Democrats…


MATTHEWS: Go ahead.

COSTA: Why aren`t Democrats running on Russia? Because they`re seeing the
same political dynamics you`re seeing.

They know that Russia is not going to automatically win them the House and
the Senate. Democratic candidates are saying – look at Dianne Feinstein
today from California. She said of course she wants to protect Mueller.
But there is not this huge eagerness among all Democrats to have

MATTHEWS: I think the Republicans are betting on Trump.

Anyway, the president`s attacks on Mueller came as a new NBC/”Wall Street
Journal” poll featured some numbers that don`t look good for Republicans.
The NBC poll gives Democrats a 10-point advantage over Republicans in the
generic congressional reference for this fall.

That`s why I think they will win. When asked their opinion of Robert
Mueller, 28 percent, as I said, had a positive opinion of the special
counsel, 19 negative. So, obviously, a lot of people haven`t thought about
him there.

Steve, I don`t know. Mueller looks clean as hell to me. I don`t think he
looks like a partisan Democrat to me. Nor does Comey. They look like
institutional people, professionals who are frightening if they`re on the
other side of the table from you. But I don`t think of – they certainly
don`t look like progressive political left people at all.

Which side are the Republican voters taking on these guys?


SCHMIDT: In the Republican Party of not too many years ago, these would
have been figures of deep admiration, both of them Republicans, a combat
veteran of the Vietnam War, a Marine Corps officer, highly decorated,
Robert Mueller, serving his country, keeping America safe after the 9/11

Now you turn on right-wing talk radio, FOX News on any given night, it`s
nonstop conspiracy theories, the calls to lock up senior leadership of the
intelligence community, the FBI, character assaults on both Mueller and
Comey, conspiracy theories around every aspect of this.

And so the Republican Party that has been captured and is in thrall to
Donald Trump and its complicit Republican leadership on the Hill, everybody
has lashed themselves to the Donald Trump mast, and we will see as this
plays out.

What`s for sure is that his firing Mueller would precipitate in this
country, a country can founded on the rule of law, that it would
precipitate a constitutional crisis, and the gravest maybe in the history
of the executive.

MATTHEWS: How can you blame Comey as being in the tank with the
Republicans when everybody says – and the Democrats, the way the
Republicans are arguing now and Trump is – when he was the guy, according
to Lanny Davis, and I think credibly argues, that by coming out 10 days
before the election with the news that the Anthony Weiner desktop had some
information of value to their investigation, which is what he did, didn`t
turn a lot of people who were wavering away from Hillary Clinton.

And certainly that wasn`t a pro-Democrat guy. And now they say having that
on the record, that everybody knows he did that, they`re all out there
saying, oh, he is working for the Dems.

Steve, what kind of mind comes up with that one?

SCHMIDT: Yes, I mean, look, James Comey at the time, I was very critical
of the decision. I think he broke FBI, Department of Justice procedure. I
think he politicized the end stage of an election. And he was criticized
roundly by many people. And I think he deserved it.

But, certainly, there is no evidence to suggest that James Comey has ever
acted dishonorably in his career, that he has ever acted in any way other
than what he thought was the right thing to do. And so those decisions,
those things that elected officials, senior leaders of the government too,
they should be open to criticism, open to review.

But the character assaults on these men who were so deeply admired in the
Republican Party long ago is really evidence of the corruption inside the
conservative movement and the Republican Party in this Trump era.

COSTA: There is anxiety inside of the West Wing tonight.

My sources are saying they hope the president is venting by bringing on
these new conservative lawyers that are going to go after the institutional
value of the investigation, but maybe that pulls him back from actually
pulling the trigger.

MATTHEWS: Are they up or down in the White House right now?

COSTA: They`re pretty down about the investigation, because they don`t
know where it goes for Kushner. They don`t know where it goes on
obstruction. And they`re already negotiating terms of a possible
conversation with Mueller, a meeting.

MATTHEWS: Why do – I`m going back to my fighting word. Why do they call
it conversations? Why do we call them interviews? Why isn`t the president
required under law to answer to the law? Why does he get to negotiate?

COSTA: He should be.

MATTHEWS: I`m going to do a written test. I`m going to take it home with

COSTA: They`re negotiating the parameters.

MATTHEWS: Why don`t they just tell him to do what he has to do?

COSTA: Well, they could with an indictment.

MATTHEWS: Oh, they have to indict him first?

COSTA: Well, I mean, that`s the process. If you`re not a target, then
it`s more of an interview process.


MATTHEWS: Yes. Well, Bill Clinton wasn`t indicted, and he had to go
before a grand jury.

COSTA: You can volunteer to appear.

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you, Robert Costa. I think they`re being too sweet.

Anyway, thank you, Steve Schmidt.

I would be a little tougher if I were Mueller.

Up next: Trump`s lawyers claim Stormy Daniels should pay $20 million for
violating their nondisclosure agreement. Why does Trump want any part of
this fight? Well, he`s in it personally.

This is HARDBALL, where the action is.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

President Trump finally weighed in on the Stormy Daniels drama. Trump and
his longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, requested that the adult film
actor`s lawsuit against them be moved to federal court.

They also claimed Daniels violated a hush agreement at least 20 times and
is going to have to pay, therefore, $20 million. It`s the first time
President Trump himself has weighed in on the case.

In a filing, a lawyer for Trump writes: “Mr. Trump intends to pursue his
rights to the fullest extent permitted by law.”

Well, that`s strong. Daniels in her lawsuit alleges she had a relationship
with the president from 2006 to 2007. President Trump, who was married at
the time, has denied the allegations. Her suit claims the agreement is
null and void because the president never signed it.

Well, in response to the president`s filing, Stormy Daniels` lawyer
tweeted: “How can President Donald Trump seek $20 million in damages
against my client based on an agreement that he and Mr. Cohen claim Mr.
Trump never was a party to and knew nothing about?”

For more, I`m joined by MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang.

Katie, bottom line first to start the evening off. Where is this heading?
I mean like the long-term future, like two weeks from now. Will we still -
- as we say in this journalism, will this story still have legs? Will it
still be worthy of our attention?

Will it be leading to some criminal charge against the president, something
like an FEC violation, or something like that, something to do with the tax
law? Are there opportunities here for prosecution?

KATIE PHANG, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: So, in the immediate event horizon,
Chris, where is this going?

Well, apparently, it`s going head to “60 Minutes” on Sunday. Michael Cohen
today in a “Vanity Fair” article says he actually hasn`t tried to stop CBS
from releasing that interview that Stormy Daniels has already done.

So, Chris, the question is, how much interest is America going to have
after Stormy Daniels tells her story in that interview when it airs on
Sunday? And depending upon the information that is revealed during that
interview, you may end up with more litigation. You may end up with more
FEC issues in terms of campaign finance violations.

It just depends. But the discovery in this case is going to be key,
because that will lead us to conclude whether or not Michael Cohen violated
with the full knowledge of the president of the United States campaign
finance laws when he gave $130,000 of his own money to Stormy Daniels.

MATTHEWS: Well, what about this question, without getting into the
lasciviousness of the whole thing, which we`re already in, I guess,
unfortunately, does she have something that goes beyond just, we had an
affair? Because now that`s known to everybody on the planet. So, as you
suggest there, what`s new?

Did he talk business around her? Did he talk politics around her? Does
she hear something that she shouldn`t have overheard? I wonder whether
there is something here that we`re just missing that suggests why his
lawyers are being so feverish in trying to squash her – or quash this

PHANG: So, we know that Trump has no problem admitting to grabbing stuff.


PHANG: He has no problem admitting to doing thanks things that are
inappropriate. So what do we know about Trump?

Well, there`s two people in the hemisphere of the Trump orbit that Trump
has serious problems not saying anything negative about. The man has no
problems tweeting out about everything, right?


PHANG: But there`s two people, Vladimir Putin and Stormy Daniels.

You don`t hear anything negative coming out of Trump about those two
people. And it makes you scratch your head and ask, why is that? Now,
both of them, we have seen bare-chested, some of us maybe, right?

But here is the bottom line. He has something to hide. And that is the
reason why he is not saying anything negative about her, and that`s the
reason why he is trying to quash this. But, unfortunately for Donald
Trump, even in the arbitration proceeding, discovery can be had.

And if discovery is had and things like a deposition have to happen, why is
that going to be an issue for him, unless there is something that he
doesn`t want the world to know about?

MATTHEWS: What about this physical threat thing that came out of Avenatti,
the lawyer?

PHANG: So, that`s a serious issue. If you think of the evolution of the
Stormy Daniels case, it went from I had an affair with a porn star, to I
might have violated campaign finance rules, to now there may have been a
physical threat of harm.

Now, the reason why this is important is the timing behind it. If a
physical threat of harm was made to Stormy Daniels prior to her executing
any agreement in this case, then that, in and of itself, could invalidate
that agreement.


PHANG: Think about it. If she signed it under fear, coercion, duress, and
if that happened, then a judge is going to say, uh-uh, bad agreement.

MATTHEWS: Yes, that`s Luca Brasi stuff out of “The Godfather.” Your
brains or your signature.

PHANG: Yes, that`s not going to – yes.

MATTHEWS: Yes. Yes. I get you. I get you. You`re always a step ahead
of me.


MATTHEWS: Katie, we`re going to have you. As long as you keep coming on -
- back on the show, we`re going to keep talking about this. Anyway, just

But you`re great on this. I love the way you`re succinct and make the
points that we have to make. Thank you so much you for coming on again.

PHANG: Sure.

MATTHEWS: Up next: These days Donald Trump is listening to one person,
Donald Trump. Allies say he is newly emboldened to say what he really
thinks and act from his gut.

And that may explain the fresh attacks on everybody right now, especially
Mueller. Look, mom, no hands. I think that`s the theme.

You`re watching HARDBALL.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

This weekend, President Trump went further than he ever has before,
directly attacking special counsel Robert Mueller. Over Twitter, according
to “The New York Times,” Trump is, quote newly emboldened to say what he
really feels and to ignore the cautions of those around him. “The Times”
goes on to report that that self-confidence has led to a series of
surprising comments and actions that have pushed the Trump presidency in an
ever more tumultuous direction.

Let`s listen to some of those comments from the past few weeks.


drug dealers, we`re wasting our time. Just remember that. We`re wasting
our time. And that toughness includes the death penalty.

North Korea, Kim Jong-un, would like to meet with President Trump? This
doesn`t happen. They say oh, well Obama could have done that. Trust me.
He couldn`t have done that.

Trudeau came to see me, he`s a good guy, Justin. He said, no, no, we have
no trade deficit with you. We have none. Donald, please, nice guy, good-
looking guy, comes in. Donald, we have no trade deficit. He was very
proud. Because everybody else, we`re getting killed. So he`s great.

I said, wrong, Justin. You do. I didn`t even know. Josh, I had no idea.
I said wrong. You know why? It was so stupid.

There will always be change, and I think you want to see change.


MATTHEWS: Well, the president continuing to ignore the advice of his
staffers and following his gut on issue likes the Russia investigation or
policy decisions like capital punishment. That`s up next with the HARDBALL
round table.



TRUMP: But let me tell you, the one that matters is me. I`m the only one
that matters, because when it comes to it, that`s what the policy is going
to be. You`ve seen that. You`ve seen it strongly.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

That was President Trump himself making it clear that when it comes to
everything, he is the one calling the shots. “The New York Times” is
reporting that Trump ultimately trusts only his own instincts, and now
believes he has settled into the job enough to rely on them, his instincts,
rather than the people who dare to advise him.

Let`s bring in our round table tonight. Annie Linskey is national reporter
for “The Boston Globe.” P.J. O`Rourke, what a get, P.J. O`Rourke is the
author of “How the Hell Did This Happen?: The Election of 2016”, the Eugene
Scott is political reporter for “The Washington Post.”

So, we`re all covered tonight. The establishment, the anti-establishment,
Bean Town and D.C.

Here is the thing. He does seem to be like a kid, having learned how to
ride the bike, waves both hands in the air, hey, look, mom, no hands.
That`s the presidency we got. But, look, mom, no – he doesn`t need
advisory, the handlebars, he doesn`t need brains. It`s all instinct.

what he says. He`ll make these bizarre comments. But then the right wing
is always able to bring him back to where they want him to be.

MATTHEWS: We don`t let the DACA kids off the hook. And what else do we
do? We don`t do anything about the gun owners.

LINSKEY: Right, right. Suddenly, you know, he wants to take away guns and
the NRA sat down with him.

MATTHEWS: So, he has little boss, he has bosses.

LINSKEY: He`s got bosses. They might not technically work in the
building, but they certainly have the ability to yank his chain.

MATTHEWS: Eugene, you`re shaking your head excitedly.


MATTHEWS: He is bossed by the right. He is not really the guy – the id-
driven guy he claims to be.

SCOTT: I think he is certainly bossed by his base. I think at the end of
the day, he thinks about what these people who sent him to the White House
want him to do, despite what may be advised by these people who actually do
have experience and knowledge on these issues. He is always thinking about
the people who sent him there, because those are the few people who
actually still approve of the job he is doing.

MATTHEWS: Well, he`s not really a demagogue, he is just another reed
shaken by the wind, as we say in the bible. Yes, P.J. O`Rourke?

the right, you know? And he is not listening to me. I`m not sure about

LINSKEY: You might not be far enough.

O`ROURKE: Maybe I`m not. But, you know, you can`t understand democracy
without understanding the fact that 50 percent of people are below average
in intelligence, mathematically fact.

SCOTT: Right, by definition.

O`ROURKE: Not to go sounding like Hillary Clinton here.

LINSKEY: Oh, here we go.

MATTHEWS: You are unfortunately making a much worse case. Much worse
case. So what your point, sir?

O`ROURKE: Well, I mean, he is one of them is my point, basically. I don`t
know where “The New York Times” –

MATTHEWS: By the way, that theory that half the people have lower I.Q.
than 100 by definition is true. But I never heard anybody say, I got an
84. You never hear anybody talking about those numbers.

O`ROURKE: No, the average person is much smarter than average. Just ask


MATTHEWS: So let`s get back to this guy and his ego. I think it came out
today, you and I were – Gene, we were talking before, capital punishment,
you know, it`s really not up to the president. I mean, it`s going to end
up in the Congress or the courts, probably the courts eventually. And most
people have a common sense, in certain cases, yes. I don`t really like to
cheer for the capital punishment. But there are cases.

LINSKEY: Sure, there are cases. But, you know, it`s interesting. I`m
working on a story right now for “The Boston Globe” about this. I mean,
the states have done this before. Florida has tried it. And it has not
worked particularly well.

MATTHEWS: Well, Texas seems to get in.

LINSKEY: And it`s certainly not a deterrent. I mean, any sort of capital
punishment expert you talk to will say it doesn`t deter.

MATTHEWS: Why doesn`t it? It makes sense it would be.

LINSKEY: It`s more – it`s retribution.

O`ROURKE: It seems like it. It worked with me.


MATTHEWS: They always said you`re going to the gas chamber. That`s an
exciting and evocative.


O`ROURKE: That would make me stop smoking.

LINSKEY: People still get murdered. I mean, in Baltimore, 350 people

MATTHEWS: A guy who robs a Starbucks, takes all the workers that work at
minimum wage, takes them down to basement, it happened in D.C.

SCOTT: Right.

MATTHEWS: Tapes their mouth, tapes them up, and actually executes one of
them, totally deliberately – totally deliberately executes people. I
think I would go. I`m not going to hold a candle for that guy.

LINSKEY: It`s about retribution, though. It`s not something that deters a

SCOTT: Yes. I think a lot of concern is rooted in the fact –

MATTHEWS: It is retribution. It`s called justice.

LINSKEY: An eye for an eye.

MATTHEWS: In that case.

SCOTT: The concern is that justice is not evenly and equally applied when
it comes to capital punishment. There are real concerns.


O`ROURKE: The rich people don`t go on a lethal gurney.

SCOTT: And poor people and people of color proportionally do.

MATTHEWS: It`s somebody for upper middle class white persons, it`s very
rare, these executions. In fact, it`s predictable it`s either a poor white
guy or African American it seems like all the time.

SCOTT: Right.

MATTHEWS: “The Washington Post” is reporting that senior staff White House
members were asked to and did sign nondisclosure agreements, vowing, I love
that, not to reveal confidential information – vowing – and exposing them
to damages if they violate their vows with, Marcus calls these agreements
not only oppressive, but – I agree with her – constitutionally repugnant.
And notes unlike employees of private enterprise such as the Trump
Organization or Trump campaign, White House aides have First Amendment
rights when it comes to their employer, the federal government.

I have written three or four books. They have mentioned my experience in
the White House. I never thought I was violating a nondisclosure –

O`ROURKE: A vow.


MATTHEWS: And what Ted Sorenson and what about Pierre Salinger, all these
guys wrote books over the years?

O`ROURKE: Everybody who has been in the White House has written a book.


LINSKEY: It`s part of why you sign up, right? Well, Trump clearly wants
to replicate what he had at the Trump Organization. And that is a time
when former employees left his employ and went out and wrote books that
he`s got very upset about. So, he is used to this.

MATTHEWS: They wrote his books too. He never wrote a book.

O`ROURKE: I know a person who didn`t read them that would be him.

MATTHEWS: I don`t think he did anyway. How do you explain the id
explosion of this guy? He seems like a guy who isn`t worried about saying
stuff about – Trump. He is bad-mouthing him all weekend, attacking Comey,
attacking McCabe. Just spewing it all over the place without any sense of,
like, brains.

SCOTT: Well, I think Trump is concerned that there are more people who
would come out and talk about him and talk what is happening in the White
House in this manner. You have to remember with the push to get these NDAs
came about when there was a time when leaks were really out of control in
the White House.

MATTHEWS: They haven`t stopped.

SCOTT: They haven`t stopped. That`s the point.

MATTHEWS: Talk to her. What`s new? What`s new?


O`ROURKE: You call the leak line.

SCOTT: And I don`t think these NDAs are going to do what Trump hopes they

O`ROURKE: Of course not.


MATTHEWS: Look at this. Do you think these people are quiet?

The round table is sticking with us. Can these people tell me something?
I don`t know. Hold your horses –



MATTHEWS: We`re back with the HARDBALL round table.

Annie, tell me something I don`t know.

LINSKEY: So, I`m sure you do know the gun march is coming up on Saturday.
But what you might not know is –

MATTHEWS: We`ve been covering it all day. I`ll be out there. Brian is
doing it. All the people. The whole team is going to be there.

LINSKEY: And you will not see a politician speaking because they are not
inviting politicians to speak at this event.

MATTHEWS: (INAUDIBLE), as the Germans would say. How come?

LINSKEY: So, they want politicians to be listening. They want young
people –

MATTHEWS: Showoffs.


MATTHEWS: Because Bernie was out there last time.


MATTHEWS: P.J., it`s great to have you on.

O`ROURKE: Great to be here.

MATTHEWS: Your book is called “How the Hell Did This Happen?” What`s it

O`ROURKE: What do you think?


O`ROURKE: And when you find out how it hell it happened, let me know.

MATTHEWS: It`s 2018. A little slow in the bell coming off the mat there.


MATTHEWS: Go ahead, we`re close.

O`ROURKE: If the Democrats win big in November, it`s going to destroy the
Democratic Party.

MATTHEWS: I think I have that theory down, because they will be blamed for


MATTHEWS: Go ahead.

SCOTT: Today, during Trump`s opioid epidemic speech, he actually ended up
praising a program from the Clinton Foundation used to help high schoolers
and college students overcome overdoses. And so, we don`t know if he
actually knew that he was doing that.

MATTHEWS: OK. I want to hear this. “The New Hampshire Union Leader” will
endorse John Kasich in 2020 for president in the primary up there in New

Thank you, Annie Linskey. Thank you, P.J. O`Rourke and Eugene Scott.

When we return, let me finish tonight with Trump watch. You`re watching


MATTHEWS: Trump Watch, Monday, March 19th, 2018.

Watching Mueller and Trump go at it, I`m reminded of biology lab back in my
sophomore year at LaSalle College High School. Remember the starfish and
the clam? I know we dissected one or the other, definitely the starfish.

Mueller reminds me of the starfish which gets itself tightly around the
clam and uses all its stuff to weaken and pry open the clam. Now, this is
a battle to the death as far as the clam is concerned. If the starfish is
able to open him even a little bit, he can open him all the way, and that`s
it, of course, for the clam. He is the starfish`s lunch.

I`ve watched a number of these starfishes along the way, the special
counsels or independent prosecutors, which is what we used to call them.
Like starfishes, they don`t give up. Their purpose in life is to open the
clam. Get what`s in them and devour it whole.

Whatever you can say about him, Robert Mueller is a perfect example of a
starfish. He will not stop until he has gotten Trump to open up. He will
use the charges he has against Trump`s family as leverage, the witnesses he
has gotten from plea bargains, the power of subpoena and time.

If you haven`t noticed, Mueller is in no hurry. He just keeps prying, and
that clam in the White House is now snugly in his grip. Does anyone think
this is going to end well for the clam?

That`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.

“ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES” starts right now.


Copyright 2018 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