McMaster to resign, will be replaced by Bolton. TRANSCRIPT: 03/22/2018. Hardball with Chris Matthews

Vivian Salama; Barry McCaffrey, Nicholas Kristof, Eric Swalwell, Kim Wehle, Jonathan Swan

Date: March 22, 2018
Guest: Vivian Salama; Barry McCaffrey, Nicholas Kristof, Eric Swalwell, Kim Wehle, Jonathan Swan

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: I want to thank my panelists, my reporter, my
esteemed colleagues and the senator. Thank you all for being part of the
breaking news coverage. It continues right now on HARDBALL.


Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington with breaking news from the
White House that could have major national security implications.
President Trump announced General H.R. McMaster is leaving his role as
national security adviser. He is out. He will be replaced by John Bolton,
former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

What that means for the direction of the country`s national security policy
is clear. McMaster`s was a moderating force in the White House who urged
the President not to rip up the nuclear deal with Iran. Bolton is hard-
liner and has called the deal with Iran the biggest single act of
appeasement by the west since Munich. In the past he has even called for
bombing of Iran.

I`m joined right now by NBC News Vivian Salama. And, of course, move that
back, please, Julia Ainsley, former state department official, Nayyera Haq
and retired General Barry McCaffrey.

I think you all four are going to be as stunned as I am by the news. I
don`t know if this is wag the dog, is this to get away from Stormy Daniels
and the whole rest of this hell or what, but to bring in the biggest neo-
con in the world. The one exact who so many millions of voters voted
against in 2016, who voted against stupid wars and bring in the biggest
hawk there`s ever been and put him as head of national security is awful.
And I don`t know anybody who disagrees with that, who thinks, your

VIVIAN SALAMA, NBC NEWS: Well, you just said the word hawk. That is
exactly what John Bolton is. He is no stranger –

MATTHEWS: He likes war. He wanted war with Iraq. He pushed and pushed
and pushed. He wanted to go to war with Syria. Name a country in the
Middle East he didn`t want to go to war with. And now he wants war with

SALAMA: One of the issues that he is particularly devout about is getting
this nuclear deal with Iran to just go away.

MATTHEWS: So that he can do what he wants to do, which is bomb.

SALAMA: He wants to scrap it.

MATTHEWS: He has said, I want to bomb.

SALAMA: He is very, very skeptical about the Iranian regime – yes, that`s
exactly the way.

MATTHEWS: His alternative plan has been, he has written about it
extensively, bomb.



AINSLEY: I mean, what we are seeing is a President going away from people
who are giving him that moderating voice of reason, because he doesn`t want
to hear it anymore. He doesn`t want to hear it on the Iran nuclear deal.
He doesn`t want to hear it with his own defense against Robert Mueller.
And we saw that today with the resignation of John Dowd. This is a pattern
that we are seeing play out, Chris. As the President wants to surround
himself with people pugnacious, who are going to be dogged and who will
tell him more of what he wants to hear.

I think Vivian knows a lot about his relationship with H.R. McMaster and
how he wanted to get away from someone who was that voice of reason.

MATTHEWS: Let me bring in Nayyera, because you know, the record is pretty
straight now that we have spent trillions of dollars on the war with Iraq
and of course with Afghanistan. And this fellow having supported both that
wars, now supports this - he made it clear in article I just read it a few
moments ago, there is still time to bomb Iran. He wrote that in 2015. He
is an all-out neo-con hawk. And that`s the kind of advice this President

in Iraq, you are going to love the one that John Bolton is going to declare
and pushed for in Iraq. And let`s not forget North Korea, too, where we
have another volatile leader that Donald Trump recently committed to
meeting face to face.

Listen. When John Bolton was at the United Nations, he was the architect
for reducing U.S. involvement in the national community. He has actually
said there`s no United Nations. There`s barely an international community
that the United States can lead. Unfortunately, in this era of Donald
Trump`s America first, we are talking about America alone. And an America
that is not interested this working on international agreements and
diplomatic resolutions to any of the challenges facing the world. And with
John Bolton and his tenure at the U.N. in which he is essentially pulled
back United States involvement, we are going to be looking at the United
States going at it alone once again.

MATTHEWS: General McCaffrey, I think I dare to say that a lot of people in
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, working guys and working
women voted for Trump because they thought he would stop stupid wars.
Because they are the kids, their kids are the ones who fight these wars.

And now they bring in Bolton. Bolton, who to whom war is like a
philosophy. And you know, you know who this guy is. And to put him in
charge, is this the distracted attention from the mishigas and helmets
affecting the guy personally and the legal threats the President faces and
the possibility of impeachment? Is this to be wagging the dog? Is this
what he`s doing now, Trump?

GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY, (RET.) U.S. ARMY: No, I think he now thinks he is
in-charge. So I think the President is rearranging the landscape. Bolton,
by the way, is extremely intelligent, very experienced, writes beautifully,
and probably is the most hard-edge person in 25 years in foreign policy.
He is replacing a guy, H.R. McMaster, by the way, who had a lot of
experience on the ground as a troop commander in combat. So H.R. and most
of the soldiers don`t want to fight. They know what it`s going to look
like. So I do think this is an extremely momentous turning point in the
way we can expect the White House to respond to foreign policy issues.

HAQ: And Chris this is –

MATTHEWS: Go ahead, jump in.

HAQ: Chris, this is the problem we have with someone like John Bolton in
charge of national security, it`s the classic civilians and their ideas as
war hawks of what works overruling and overriding the generals. That`s the
problems we saw in the Iraq war and it is a problem we are going to be
seeing coming out of the White House foreign policy going forward.

MATTHEWS: You know, we had these characters over in the state department,
the defense department under W. And they pushed and pushed for war. They
got a President of limited, W. Not a bad man, but of limited ability like
Cheney and the people like Bolton got them into the war. Fifteen years we
regretted that war. Fifteen years of lots of lost lives, not just American
lives and people disfigured and losing limbs, but hundreds of thousands of
people on the other side. We have to consider who are dead now because of

And what do we get? We lost the one buffer with Iran we had, Iraq. We
had, you know, we had a government, you know, who is willing to fight them,
that went to war with them. We had somebody between them and Israel.
Somebody between them and us. And now we are facing Iran, and this guy
now, when he has this opportunity, wants to go. You know he does.

SALAMA: Well, I mean, almost to Julia`s point earlier where you have this
individual who really speaks to the President`s interests in terms of being
really hawkish and tough in Iran, putting them in their place, undoing what
the Obama administration had done in Iran and being tougher on North Korea.
These are things that John Bolton really speaks to and appeals to.

Also important to note, John Bolton is a contributor for FOX News. This
President happens to really be into a lot of the television commentators
that he sees. A lot of people who he sees on television, he regards as
authorities. And it just so happens John Bolton is a very intelligent
person and does have a very long career in foreign policy, but he is
someone that the President also sees on a daily basis on television at FOX
News. And so he has always been on the President`s mind. John Bolton was
someone that the President spoke to during the transition and has
repeatedly revisited for a post in this administration.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let`s go back to Julia, wasn`t he camped out at the door
for a long time by John Kelly?

AINSLEY: Yes. I mean, John Kelly is someone who was very much the door
keeper. But we are starting to see that lessen a little bit.

MATTHEWS: He can`t keep Bolton out. Bolton is now his colleague as head
of the national security. Now, he is in the door meeting the President
today. He is now be calling the shots.

AINSLEY: And what I just keep thinking of also are all the people who
recently lost their security clearances, all the people who aren`t in the
room anymore, so that pull has gotten smaller. Even if people thought
Jared Kushner should have never been getting the Presidential daily
briefing, here he was a moderating voice. He tried to keep the President
kind of in a moderate line. That`s one person less that will be in the
room when he is being briefed by John Bolton.

MATTHEWS: What is it going to be like when we have a new coalition of
Jared Kushner, a hawk, with the (INAUDIBLE) financing of the mentality?
You can tell he is. Bolton is one of his guys, and who else is in this
mess? Who is going to say no? Who is going to say no, let`s cool it here?

SALAMA: Well, a lot of the moderates have been, you know, on the outs with
this administration. We had saw Gary Cohn who is leaving –.

MATTHEWS: He had common sense.

SALAMA: Exactly. McMaster considered a moderate, you just said that and a
number of others. Tillerson, of course. And that was one of the big
problems. The President last week when he was letting Tillerson go,
specifically cited his views on the Iran deal and said that that was just
not going to work. They had very different views. And now here you have
someone like John Bolton who speaks to what the President really wants to
do, which is shake things up, cancel the Iran nuclear deal and get tough
and crackdown. We will see what the limits are or if there are limits, but
they are going to crackdown on Iran.

MATTHEWS: Let`s go back to general McCaffrey.

MCCAFFREY: You have got to remember two things. One is, the Congress of
the United States. I think – the people that are most concerned about
this right now will be the Republican leadership in the Senate who will be
looking at the probable outcome of the foreign policy debate that will go
on with Bolton in such a key position.

The other fact to keep in mind is Secretary Jim Mattis who is a defense
intellectual, a very thoughtful law-abiding man who also had a lot of
machine gun rounds fired by his ears. So I think there`s going to be a
stabilizing coalition now between the Congress and the department of

Pompeo probably being extremely intelligent will be also weary of ending up
in a disaster with foreign policy. So that`s what we have to count on.

MATTHEWS: Who did you say was the moderating force besides Pompeo,

MCCAFFREY: Well, Secretary Jim Mattis, department of defense, you know.
He is actually been under fire multiple times. He is not going to want to
start – end up in a war with Iran, that would be the simply the stupidest
war we would ever engage in, but North Korea is the one to really watch,
not Iran.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let`s talk about that. Nayyera, I want you to come in here
and just lead this discussion a bit. It seems to me that the world
headlines are moving for tomorrow morning`s papers in Germany and the rest
of the world. They are all going to all be headlined. I think as somebody
said a moment ago, hardliner is a pretty good way to describe it.

So Obama, I`m sorry, President Trump, I said President Trump names
hardliner as national security chief. How is that going to sound around
the world?

HAQ: Well, look at the other hardliners that Donald Trump has met with
this week specifically the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, who was apparently
talking back at home how happy he was that Tillerson was now gone as a
moderating force.

The Saudis and the folks, the Emirates and the UAE are very excited about
the idea of the United States taking a harder line towards Iran. So you
are seeing their influence in the removal of General McMaster as well.
Again, this is taking a very particular side in the Middle East region, a
region right with conflict where the U.S. has previously been a moderating
and balancing force. This is not going to be in the long-term interest of
the U.S. troops or the American public to be taking the Saudi foreign
policy line.

MATTHEWS: So now, Vivian, we get rid of the secretary of state known for
being a moderating force, who wants to - who believes in climate change.
He thinks we should honor it. He also believes we should honor this truce
we have, this treaty we have with Iran and try to force all their nuclear
ambitions. And we bring in, getting rid of Tillerson. We get rid of him.
We get rid of McMaster and we bring in John Bolton.

I – this is – this is bringing in toe Joe. This is unbelievable, I`m
sorry. Sorry, general, your memory`s there. I`m telling you. It is
really bringing in a guy who is on the opposite side of moderation.

SALAMA: Well, one of the issues since day one of this administration was
the fact that President Trump himself was not very ideological. And so he
came in and he had these advisors that were coming from all sides of the
spectrum. And so, it was very hard to get things done because he was
literally getting opposing and conflicting advice from the adviser.


SALAMA: Now, we are starting to sort of funnel some of these people out.
And a lot of the moderates are being left out of this process. They are
being, you know, pushed out the door. And you do have a lot more
conservatives, a lot more hardliners in the administration. We saw with
China, today. We saw, you know, tough talk on China. It`s the same thing
all across the board.

MATTHEWS: Julia, let`s talk possible crazy, OK. The same day that the
train proposal cost the stock market over 700 points. It is getting scary.
This is big time, correct. It`s not corrected. It`s a problem he is
creating himself. Self-creating problem. The same day he fires his top
lawyer, John Dowd. The same day he fires the national security adviser,
basically pushes him out. What is he doing for, total mishigas, total
crazy in one day? Why does he was so much noise in one day?

AINSLEY: This President has never following the rule book that we see from
other White Houses. Sometimes we start to hear and we sort of back in the
previous administrations. We would hear rumors about a shake-up and then
we would wait until – we knew when they would announce it because it was
on a day, they wanted to distract from something else. And in this case,
we are not sure which one Trump is distracting from on any given day.
Maybe he doesn`t want us to be talking about –

MATTHEWS: He is like a kid throwing – just throw all the toys in, I`m in.
I`m getting rid of everything. It`s extraordinary. I`m sorry. This is -
I am a little emotional about this because it is. I have never seen a
President behave like this in one day - Vivian.

SALAMA: We knew that H.R. McMaster`s days were numbered. We have reported
here at NBC. This is not necessarily that shocking. But we are hoar –

MATTHEWS: On the same day, the market crashed to 7000 points.

SALAMA: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: Because of a trade move. He fires his lawyer and then fires the
national security adviser all within a matter of minutes. What is going

SALAMA: This is a President that knows how to control the media narrative.
And that is something that we have seen time and time again as Julia just
said. And so he does, he plans a lot of these announcements.

MATTHEWS: He has got a headline now. It is called war footing. The whole
world is going to see it. You bring in John Bolton. Just take a look at
that guy. Just put his picture on world newspapers. You don`t have to say
much more.

Thank you, Vivian Salama. Thank you, Joy Ainsley, Nayyera Haq and general

Coming up, much more on our late breaking news tonight. H.R. McMaster out
as national security adviser. John Bolton calling the shots on war and
peace. Think about that when you go to bed tonight.

Plus, it was not major departure in the Trump world today. Trump`s top
lawyer as I said in the Russian probe, John Dowd has resigned, I think.
What does this mean for the Mueller investigation? He was pushed out.

This is HARDBALL where the action is.


MATTHEWS: Well, it`s been a bad, wild world in Trump world today. And a
wild day on Wall Street. As I mentioned, the stock market plummeted today
amid fears of a trade war between the United States and China. The Dow
Jones closed down 724 points in just one day. And nearly three percent
drop in one day after President Trump announced what he will to impose,
that he will impose billions of dollars on Chinese imports. China has
already threatened to retaliate.

And today`s drop means that the Dow is now on the edge of correction
territory. That`s putting it nicely. It`s down nearly 10 percent from the
all-time high back in January.

We will be right back after this with more of this breaking news tonight
about the upheaval within the Trump administration.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

H.R. McMaster`s exit has foreshadowed another - overshadowed another big
departure today. “The New York Times” has said or said in the report or
first to report that after nine months of representing the President on the
Russia probe, John Dowd is resigning from the President`s legal team.

Mr. Dowd quote “ultimately concluded that Mr. Trump was ignoring his
advice.” However, the frustration was mutual. According to “The New York
Times,” Mr. Trump was pleased with Mr. Dowd`s resignation. Another words,
don`t let the door hit you on the way out, sir.

The development comes after the President butted heads with Dowd about how
to proceed with the Russian probe. According to “the New York Times` Dowd
had favored restraint, but Trump`s recent tweets indicated that he would
rather go on the offensive. Dowd has also advised the President not to
speak to Mueller`s prosecutors. However, Trump has said he wants to
testify and he reiterated his willingness to do that today.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you still like to testify before special counsel
Robert Mueller, sir?



MATTHEWS: For more – furthermore, NBC News is now reporting the shake-up
in President Trump`s legal team is part of preparations for a potential
Presidential interview, that`s a nice word, with special counsel Robert
Mueller. According to people familiar with the process. Trump`s recent
decision to hire Joseph DiGenova who has promoted unfounded conspiracy
theories about the investigation. This is a sign of President surrounding
himself with those who backed his approach to the special counsel`s probe.

NBC News reports further that DiGenova is expected to play a key role in
discussions with Mueller`s office about a presidential interview.

We`re going to get to that later.

But, first, I`m joined by Kim Wehle, a former assistant U.S. attorney, and
Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of California. He sits on the House
Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee.

Thank you so much.

I want to start with Kim.

I mean, part of this seems to be one day of rage. He goes hard-right on
foreign policy with this ultra-neocon war hawk, John Bolton. He fires
Dowd, who seemed to be Mr. Constraint, kind of a containment guy, and
brings in a political wild man, Joe DiGenova. I have known the guy
forever. He loves the gladiatorial fighting of this game, and he has got
all kinds of conspiracies about how the deep state is out to get Trump.

In other words, they are feeding Trump`s fever swamp of thinking.


It`s something that I think every American should worry about, because a
good lawyer tells their client hard information, stuff they don`t want to
hear. And if he`s letting go someone who has a good reputation, who is
well-respected, and bringing in someone that is going to be aggressive,
that doesn`t necessarily mean representing him in a way that is in his best
interest or certainly in the best interest of the country.

And my concern is, we`re setting this up for, you know, getting rid of
Mueller, which would be a disaster and a constitutional crisis.

MATTHEWS: Congressman, I`m going to ask you something you don`t want to
do, a little psychobabble. What the hell is going be on with Trump? He`s
like a kid throwing all his toys in the air.

I don`t want to hear any more constraints. I want to get out of this
playpen. I want to do what I want to do. I want to eat ice cream sodas.
I want everything. And he says, I want my hawkish guy for foreign policy
to distract attention. I want my kind of lawyer that does what I want him
to do. I want to be the lawyer. I want to be the chief of staff.

We also got a word today he was thinking of firing Kelly because he wanted
to have no chief of staff.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D), CALIFORNIA: Yes, but the problem…

MATTHEWS: It sounds like one situation with this guy in every direction.
I want it my way. I don`t like it your way.


The problem is not the lawyer. Clarence Darrow couldn`t save this guy.
The problem is the client. He`s is a flawed client and he`s a very
overexposed client as far as his criminal liability.

He should just sit down in the chair, go through the examination, finally
come clean about his relationship with Russia, and allow all of us to move
on. He`s just playing games right now, and I think it`s because he`s
afraid to get in that chair and he`s afraid about what this Bob Mueller…


MATTHEWS: But he says he wants a lawyer that will get him in that chair.

SWALWELL: Yes, I don`t buy it.

MATTHEWS: You think that`s a phony front?

SWALWELL: Yes. I don`t buy it at all. I think he knows if he puts
himself in that chair, they are not going to come at him unprepared. They
are going to come with everything that they have.

MATTHEWS: Do you think they have a conspiracy case against him in terms of
collusion? Do you think they have got it?

SWALWELL: I think he`s on the hook for money laundering. I think he`s on
the hook for what he knew about the efforts to work with Russia.

I think he`s on the hook for obstruction of justice.

MATTHEWS: Did he advance the Russian cause there? Did he help them?

SWALWELL: I think the question is, did he help them because he owed them


MATTHEWS: Yes. And you think he did?

SWALWELL: I think he owed them something. Whether or it was witting or
unwitting, he certainly liked…


MATTHEWS: Did he deliver?

SWALWELL: They invested in him.

MATTHEWS: Did he deliver?


SWALWELL: Oh, yes, he`s delivering. And there`s more goods to come for


MATTHEWS: Let`s talk about this from a client point of view.

If you think you`re a good guy – and most people think they are a good
person – you think you really didn`t do anything wrong, the way you see it
– you may find a lawyer that will help it who sees it your way, but you
would also find a lawyer who knew the law.

And one thing I remember from the Nixon era, a lot of these guys, you may
not like them, like Haldeman and Ehrlichman. They didn`t know they had
broken the law. They were told, you have just committed an obstruction of
justice, buddy, and that`s when they all realized they going to Lewisburg
or Allenwood to play – whatever, lift weights for two or three years.

They knew that only then.

WEHLE: Well, it is impossible to represent a client who makes conflicting
statements, including those that are not in his best interest, statements
that would support an obstruction of justice case, who doesn`t tell the
truth, who is not respectful of the rule of law.

And, again, I think it`s a problem that whoever replaces him, DiGenova or
who else, is not going to be one of the white shoe, really, really strong


MATTHEWS: For those who don`t live on the East Coast, white shoe means
expensive lawyer in a very high-tone law firm.

WEHLE: Right. And just very, very well-respected for a reason.

MATTHEWS: And they are all working for Mueller.

WEHLE: Well, and the other – and I think a different point of view with
respect to the sit-down meeting could be that he`s trying to make a case to
the American public for ending the Mueller investigation.

We`re attacking the FBI. We`re saying that it`s all a witch-hunt. We`re
letting go of McCabe for reasons that John Dowd actually connected with the
Russia probe somehow, which really doesn`t make a lot of sense.

But he could say, listen, I did my best. I said what I had to say, and
he`s still after me.

MATTHEWS: Do you have a sense, Congressman, that he`s letting the toys
fire? He fires his chief – he wants to fire his chief of staff. He fires
this lawyer. He fires his national security adviser.

He is all, I`m going to do it myself. I will do it the way – id. I`m
going to follow my id, in psychological terms.

I get the feeling he`s hedging towards – or edging towards getting rid of
Mueller somehow.

SWALWELL: I do, too.

MATTHEWS: I want my kind of prosecutor in there. I want to pick him.

SWALWELL: The problem is, he has allies in Congress. I don`t get the
sense that Congress would object at all, the Republican leaders, if he did

The House Republican intelligence members shut down our investigation.


MATTHEWS: I don`t think Mr. Nunes will stop him.


And they all – he all-caps retweeted their report, essentially. So
Congress has looked the other way, as far as the Republican leaders who
it`s going to take to stand up to him.

And when it comes to John Bolton, if Congress doesn`t want to go to war,
now is the time to start putting restraints on this president. And, again,
they have been giving him green lights all the way. There`s been no effort
at all by Republican leadership to stand up to him.

MATTHEWS: This may be the worst thing he`s done.


SWALWELL: … John Bolton and us closer to war?


MATTHEWS: John Bolton, Mr. Hawk, because he promised the working men and
women of those states that voted for him, the gritty factory workers and
other people, who didn`t like these wars, because their kids do all the
fighting and getting killed and losing their legs and everything else.

He said to them, no more stupid wars. Now he brings in the godfather of
stupid wars, John Bolton.

Anyway, the congressman has been with us.

Thank you so much, Eric Swalwell of California, and Kim Wehle, the expert
on prosecution.

Up next: After tonight`s news that Mr. H.R. McMaster is out as national
security adviser, are we hurtling toward a major conflict? I think so.

“New York Times” columnist Nick Kristof said that Trump is leading us down
a dangerous path when, one that mirrors what he saw in the run-up to the
war in Iraq.

This is HARDBALL, where the action is.



more unpredictable. We are totally predictable. We tell everything.
We`re sending troops, we tell them. We`re sending something else, we have
a news conference.

We have to be unpredictable. And we have to be unpredictable starting now.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

President Trump said during the campaign he would be unpredictable on
foreign policy, but with today`s hiring of John Bolton as national security
adviser, it seems the hawks are on the rise.

The president has done plenty of saber-rattling himself as of late. Let`s


TRUMP: We are doing things for this country that should have been done for
many, many years.

We have had this abuse by many other countries and groups of countries that
were put together in order to take advantage of the United States. And we
don`t want that to happen. We`re not going to let that happen. It`s
probably one of the reasons I was elected, maybe one of the main reasons.

But we`re not going to let that happen.

Well, we`re going to see what happens. The Iran deal is coming up. It`s
probably another month or so. And you are going to see what I do. But
Iran has not been treating that part of the world or the world itself

A lot of bad things are happening in Iran. The deal is coming up in one
month. And you will see what happens.

We are going to see what happens with North Korea. I will say, look, if
something can happen while we negotiate, I`m always open to that. But if
it`s going to be something other than negotiation, believe me, we`re ready,
more so than we have ever been.


MATTHEWS: Although Trump is planning to meet with North Korean dictator
Kim Jong-un, his past comments make it clear that diplomacy is not the only
option he`s considering.

“New York Times” columnist Nick Kristof writes that – quote – “I have a
grim feeling in my belly, a bit like I had in the run-up to the Iraq War,
that we have a president who is leading us toward reckless, catastrophic
conflict. Trump`s snap decision to accept Kim`s invitation to meet
underscores the risk of a mercurial president leaping into actions, which
is one of the reasons we got into the mess in Iraq.”

Nick Kristof joins us now.

Nothing is scarier, Nick, than somebody who has never read a book, really,
never read anything serious in their life, listening to people who have
been spent their lives pushing heavy theories like freedom agendas and the
neoconservative movement.

And they`re surrounded by people they never hung out with in college
because they thought were whatever. He thought they were nerds. Now they
thinks they are geniuses.

What about the combination of this president, who doesn`t read, in the
company now of John Bolton? What will they be like together?

feeling in my belly this morning. This evening, it`s doubled down.

And I think that the risks of a war, of a shooting war, with Iran and North
Korea are substantially greater than they were this morning. The
combination of Mike Pompeo at the State Department and John Bolton as
national security adviser, I think, underscores both that there will be
pressure to choose military solutions, and also that Trump himself, because
he`s made these choices, seems to prefer, perhaps, the military toolbox to
the diplomatic toolbox.

So – boy, the Dow lost 700 points today because it was concerned about a
trade war. I think, if the markets were fully rational, they would lose
rather more tomorrow. Because of Bolton, the risk of a shooting war is
substantially greater, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Let`s talk about Trump`s id and the way he behaves.

When things aren`t going his way in the hour, I mean in the moment
sometimes, he shakes things up. He has this amazing tendency to just shake
things up, knock the cards off the table. He`s playing “Monopoly,” knock
like everything off the table. Start over again. Reset. He does it all
the time.

And he seems to do it with a thunderclap. And today he did it with three
thunderclaps, with the trade thing, with getting rid of his lawyer, now
getting rid of his NSA, and ending up with John Bolton. It seemed like he
just wanted to shake things up, because, somehow, in shaking things up
every couple minutes, he keeps control.

What do you make of his behavior just basically to who he is?

KRISTOF: So, I think that you`re right. And I do think that actually it
is one mistake that we in the journalism world make, that we tend to be
distract by the latest shiny object, and Trump has been pretty good about
tossing shiny objects out to distract us.

But I do think that John Bolton is different. I really think that this
appointment is the most consequential news in a long time. I think it
dramatically increases the risk that a lot of Americans and Koreans,
perhaps Japanese, end up dead.

And this is – you know, I think one framework to look at the Trump
administration is, there are some things that he can do that will be bad
policies, will be unfortunate, but that will be correctable when the next
president comes along.

And then there are some things he can do that will be catastrophic and
lasting. A war with Iran or North Korea is the epitome of something that
would be catastrophic and could not be undone.

MATTHEWS: Let`s talk about the train or – the train or chain of
consequences if we kill the deal with Iran.

They resume their nuclear development, their weapons development, they move
forward, whoever is in Israel, the government of Netanyahu, or whoever, the
Likud bloc who is over there, begins very – gets very understandably
nervous. We get very nervous they are moving towards a nuclear weapons,
and they look like, with their rhetoric, they will use it.

Then we bomb them. I assume that`s the next step that Bolton has always
been for. And then we have created an act of war against Iran. Then it is
up to Iran how they react.

I think we are putting our future in the hands of the ayatollahs at that
point. Tell me how you see the chain of – and does Trump know this chain
of consequences that comes if he kills the deal?

KRISTOF: I don`t think he understands the Iran deal, and the fact that we
have a situation that is kind of working for right now.

And Trump and other critics of the Iran deal are correct, in that there are
genuine concerns about the long-term and what follows and so on. But, for
right now, the deal is absolutely working. And the idea that one would
shake that up and create a situation in which Iran could then revert to its
nuclear program, revive it, get those centrifuges spinning again, and
create the risk of conflict, as you say, with an Israeli strike – Saudi
Arabia seems to be – and the UAE seem to be ginning for a conflict as


KRISTOF: I should say that there`s some possibility that Iran will manage
the situation and, even if the U.S. pulls out on May 12, that`s it`s
conceivable that it would continue to adhere to the deal.

But that is – I would say that`s a long shot. And I think that there is
just going to be a lot of temptation in Tehran, if we pull out, to assert
their own national pride and to say, OK, we`re going to revive our program
as well. And then all bets are off.

MATTHEWS: Well, let`s look at the signs you see better than I do.

Look at the signs of the meeting, I mean, the former royal of the Iranian
royal family going to pray at Mecca and these – the crown prince having
this cozy relationship with Trump, and the Israelis, whatever they`re doing
under the table with the Saudis, and all this setting up kind of an
alliance, an active military alliance, perhaps a nuclear alliance against
the Iranians, assuming and anticipating, discounting they will go nuclear,
so we have a nuclear standoff?

KRISTOF: One of the common threads in military history, ever since Homer,
has been over-reliance on the military toolbox and an overconfidence about
how successful it will be.


KRISTOF: That`s the problem the Greeks ran into with the Trojans. It`s a
problem we ran into in Vietnam, in Iraq. It`s a problem the Saudis ran
into in Yemen. They thought, OK, they were going to tidy this up.

And I think it`s a problem that the Saudis and the Americans and certainly
John Bolton have in terms of what we can do vis-a-vis Iran and vis-a-vis
North Korea.

And there are a lot of messes – there are more problems in the field of
international relations than there are solutions. And military toolbox is
expensive, it`s lethal, and it doesn`t solve problems all that well, as we
have seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The idea that we would take a situation that is more or less working in
Iran, and then unleash – and open this Pandora`s box is, frankly, just

MATTHEWS: Would will the world – your colleagues around the world who
write opinion and commentary columns in London and Berlin and around the
world, in Paris, and in the Far East, how are they going to react tomorrow
and the next day to the appointment of John Bolton?

KRISTOF: There has been some sense of, you know, a little whisper of
reassurance in some foreign policy communities that there have been these
grownups in the room, that Secretary Tillerson, Secretary Mattis, H.R.
McMaster, Dina Powell earlier.

Some of these other people have been restraining forces, have been voices
of wisdom, that President Trump has in the past said some things regarding
NATO, things, and then indeed has not followed through on them.

But, in the last few weeks, I think my colleagues around the world, the
foreign leaders have been truly scared by the proposition that those adults
in the room are now being pushed out, and that some really belligerent,
aggressive people who were responsible for some of America`s worst mistakes
in recent history are now being given the steering wheel.

MATTHEWS: I think we see Dr. Strangelove at the table.

Anyway, thank you. Up next – thank you very much, Nick Kristof of “The
New York Times.” I read you all the time. Thank you, sir.

KRISTOF: Thanks, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Up next, the Roundtable weighs in on tonight`s breaking news.
It`s all bad, two major departments (sic) in the Trump world. McMaster is
out, as well as Trump`s top lawyer in the Russia probe.

He`s firing everybody.

You`re watching HARDBALL.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

We`re back with tonight`s breaking news. General H.R. McMaster is leaving
his role as national security adviser to be replaced by John Bolton, the
former ambassador to the U.N. McMaster was a moderating force on foreign
policy which made for an uncomfortable fit obviously with Trump.

“The New York Times” reports their tensions seep into public view in
February when General McMaster said at a security conference in Munich that
in the Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was beyond
dispute. But President Trump now attacking the credibility of the man
investigating Russia. Special counsel Robert Mueller, could he be next?

Let`s bring in the HARDBALL roundtable. Jonathan Swan, political reporter
for “Axios”, Heidi Przybyla, national political correspondent for NBC News,
and Michael Steele, former chair of the Republican National Committee and
an MSNBC political analyst.

I want to start here and down the row. He is like a little kid angry at
the day, upset, throwing his toys in the air. I don`t like the way things
are going. I`m getting rid of people, I want a whole new thing, I want to
do my own legal defense.

And the word even got out he wanted to get rid of General Kelly, he didn`t
want a chief of staff, he wanted to be his own chief of staff a couple
weeks ago, and now he`s firing the national security adviser, bringing in a
hawk to talk his language. It does seem like he`s on the verge of doing
anything he feels like, which means finding a way to get rid of Mueller.

JONATHAN SWAN, POLITICAL REPORTER, AXIOS: He certainly has felt that he
can get rid of people and he`s tired of having people that he disagrees
with. H.R. McMaster disagreed with him on Iran, trying to persuade him to
stay in the Iran deal. On North Korea, they clashed at certain up points
and you showed some of it there.

But the interesting thing about John Bolton, I love this. All the enemies
of H.R. McMaster on the outside who were trying to destroy him, the
Bannonites, their main argument was he`s a warmonger. Who is the
replacement? Who Bannon loves, by the way. It`s a guy who`s very, very
hawkish, very interventionist, John Bolton.

MATTHEWS: Could they make Michael Ledeen? I mean, Michael`s laughing. I
mean, they went looking for the worst neocon they could find, there are a
few out there, but they found probably the worst. But there are others.

SWAN: Look, that`s your words, not mine, Chris.


MATTHEWS: They don`t call themselves neocons. I don`t have to brand them.

Go ahead, Heidi?

just an indiscriminant temper tantrum. To your point, he`s taking out the
generals, the people who actually served in combat. McMaster had a Silver
Star for valor. He actually served in the Gulf War, and replacing them
with neocons who`ve never served.

MATTHEWS: Chicken hawks.

PRZYBYLA: Yes. And so, if you look, for example, in the not-to-distant
past, last month, Bolton wrote an op-ed in “The Wall Street Journal”
arguing his case, for the legal case for preemptive strike on North Korea,
making a very detailed case in history.

MATTHEWS: He wants us to go to war with North Korea and by attacking them
first. He wants to go to war with Iran. Is he going to volunteer to
fight? Who are these people going to this war for him, because when you
commit an act of war against the other countries, they go to war with you?

PRZYBYLA: Bringing in the combination of Pompeo and Bolton could mark a
very significant shift in our foreign policy, that`s for sure.

MATTHEWS: Is this the completion of axis of evil of W. and all the
zaniness? Let`s go to war with the one we haven`t gone to war with yet.
We went to war with Iran, or Iraq, of W. OK. Two left, North Korea and

Let`s go to war with all of them. This sounds like the Bolton plan to me.

bit of going back a little bit, reaching back and trying to reset or
correct the record from the past. In a sense that a lot of folks still
feel that, at a certain point, Bush pivoted off and away from the kind of
advice that he was given. Exactly, from Dick Cheney and those who
supported that interventionist policy.

This now with this president, it gives them an opportunity to not only go
back to those arguing – to those arguing points, but in terms of North
Korea in the future engagements, they now have someone who`s going to stay
steady with him.

MATTHEWS: Did Trump lie when he said they`ll be no more stupid wars? Did
he lie to us? Because that`s what he said. No more stupid wars. Everyone
knew he was talking about Iraq. Why did he say no more stupid wars?

STEELE: Remember, he was – he was for the war before he was against it.
He was against it before he was for it.

MATTHEWS: The people in Wisconsin and those places that got him to be
president in the Electoral College –

STEELE: Understood.

MATTHEWS: – they believed that their kids wouldn`t have to fight stupid
wars. And here he is saber-rattling, bringing in John Bolton who wants to
go to war with North Korea, nobody wants a Korean war.

STEELE: Nobody wants a Korean war.

MATTHEWS: Except Bolton, maybe.

STEELE: I wouldn`t prejudge this too quickly. Let`s just see how this –

MATTHEWS: You don`t go by the words.

STEELE: Yes. That`s clear in this instance, Chris, because we`re all over
the map on what the words are saying.

MATTHEWS: You`re poised to say something.

PRZYBYLA: Well, I saw a headline that Bolton promises not to start any
wars, literally. We just had that op-ed last week, the problem – or last
month. The problem is that this is a position that is not Senate
confirmed. We know his past statements. We know what he`s said. That`s
why you and very many people are alarmed.

We don`t know –

MATTHEWS: I know the history of these people.

PRZYBYLA: And he`s also been a hawk on Russia. So where does he stand now
on Russia?

STEELE: But there`s something else here, Chris.


MATTHEWS: They took a president of limited knowledge, not a bad guy, W.,
with limited knowledge. He hasn`t spent a lot of time studying anything, a
business school guy. Now, he`s got another business school guy, not a lot
of liberal arts education, a lot of history in these guys` heads.

Takes a guy with no sort of foundation to understand American history and
what we stand for in the world, brings – gets ahold of them, manipulates
them, it`s been done before, it`s called the Iraq war. I don`t want Bolton
having control of the mind of John, of the president, because the president
is not schooled in foreign policy. But Bolton is and he will use it to
drive a hard-line policy.

STEELE: But remember he`s ahead of the national security team. That is a
team of 17 other agencies and individuals who will also contribute to this
conversation. So, I don`t think you should lose sight of that.

And there`s also one other thing that`s important, Bolton does complete
something for Trump that is important, he goes on TV. He`s someone who can
be out there and voice that.

MATTHEWS: I`ve read 25 years of hawkish op-ed pieces in “The New York
Times” and “The Wall Street Journal” and “The Washington Post.” They are
one thing good at – they raise money for people like Adelson. They hire
them to work in place like the American Enterprise Institute. And all they
do was sit there and write op-ed pieces.

I`m telling you, it`s a powerful voice and we all knew where they stood –
war, war, war. They have been absolutely consistent and this guy still is.
This is trouble.


SWAN: The idea that he`s just going to be another person on the national
security team is just nonsense. He is going to be so forceful. H.R.
McMaster was a three-star and was sort of the little junior to Mattis. And
Mattis pushed him around a lot.

John Bolton is going to sit across the table and look at Mattis and say, I
don`t care about your four-star, this is what we`re doing. He`s going to
be a very forceful figure on that national security –


STEELE: I don`t know where you`re getting that from. I don`t know what
you`re basing that on in terms of engaging with these people. What are you
basing that on?

SWAN: Well, I`d rather not say.

STEELE: OK. Well, I`m just saying. We`re going to wait to see how this
plays itself out, but I think there are some other countervailing forces
that will have to be contended with as well.

PRZYBYLA: We know that Kelly has also been resistant to bringing Bolton on

And I bring you back to the suicide pact, right? Two of the three are
gone. Mattis is the one left standing. So, we`re not yet to Friday.

MATTHEWS: And Kelly`s not here for long, probably.

The roundtable is sticking with us. You`re watching HARDBALL.


MATTHEWS: We`ll be right back with the roundtable. And up next, these
three will tell me something I don`t know. You`re watching HARDBALL.


MATTHEWS: We are back with the HARDBALL roundtable.

Jonathan, tell me something I don`t know.

SWAN: Few details from the last few hours in the White House, from a
source familiar with the events. President Trump after meeting with Bolton
at 3:00, informed H.R. McMaster by telephone of his decision.

MATTHEWS: But they`re in the same building?

SWAN: Just telling you what I know. And the number of senior officials
found out shortly after 5:00 p.m.

MATTHEWS: He still doesn`t do it face-to-face.

Go ahead, Heidi.

PRZYBYLA: House Intelligence Committee –

MATTHEWS: He does it on television. You`re fired on television but not in
person. Go ahead. I`m sorry.

PRZYBYLA: House Intelligence Committee shuttered its investigation today,
concluding they had found no evidence of collusion. We`ll have a new
report today reported on today showing they overlooked 81 percent of the
known contacts between Trump officials and the Russians.

MATTHEWS: Nunes. Don`t know nothing.

STEELE: Don`t know nothing.

MATTHEWS: Don`t know nothing. Go ahead, Michael.

STEELE: Despite all of the excitement of the breaking news, a little
notice today was the administration said it would exempt the European Union
and four other allies, Australia, Argentina, South Korea, and Brazil from
steel and aluminum tariffs. So –

MATTHEWS: Exceptions.

Anyway, thank you, Jonathan. Thank you, Heidi. Thank you, Michael.

We`ll be right back.


MATTHEWS: Trump Watch, Thursday, March 22nd, 2018.

It`s been said a person who defends himself in court has a fool for a
client. That said, enter stage right. President Trump. Even before
replacing national security adviser H.R. McMaster with John Bolton, Trump
made unsettling news today, shoving aside John Dowd, overruling his
counsel, not to sit down with special counsel Robert Mueller, basically
grabbing hold of his own defense.

Donald Trump has clearly decided to become his own attorney. He, not some
legally trained lawyer, will decide on strategy, when to put himself in a
perjury situation, the works.

It`s also getting reported tonight that Mr. Trump has been on the verge of
deciding he doesn`t need a chief of staff. He considered dumping General
John Kelly and replacing him with himself, Donald J. Trump.

Well, this decision to let Dowd go and near decision to jettison General
Kelly opens an out of right field possibility. We`re not just talking let
Trump be Trump. We`re talking let Trump be Trump`s lawyer, let Trump be
Trump`s chief of staff.

Is this so far to imagine that this is headed to the big one, let Trump be
Trump`s prosecutor? That he decides to go all the way with his impulses
and get rid of Robert Mueller? If not, you tell me who`s going to stop
him. Who is still around to stop him?

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