Trump staffing shakeup and Russia pardons. TRANSCRIPT: 03/28/2018. Hardball with Chris Matthews

Sue Mi Terry, Philip Bump, Zerlina Maxwell, John Podhoretz

Date: March 28, 2018
Guest: Sue Mi Terry, Philip Bump, Zerlina Maxwell, John Podhoretz

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: I have a programming note. This Friday, 6:00 p.m.
eastern, we have a live BEAT special with a big breakdown of the crisis
hitting Donald Trump`s digital firm and a very special guest who hasn`t
spoken before. This Friday at 6:00.

As for right now, it`s HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS.

STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: Talk of a pardon. Let`s play HARDBALL.

Good evening. I`m Steve Kornacki in for Chris Matthews.

New revelations relating to the special counsel`s probe have today raised
serious questions about whether President Trump or his attorneys considered
an attempt to pardon witnesses in a possible effort to silence them. This
comes as the President announced his latest cabinet shake-up, firing his
Veterans Affairs secretary and promoting the White House doctor in a tweet.
Much more on that in just a minute.

But the breaking news first tonight. “The New York Times” is reporting
Trump`s now former lawyer John Dowd discussed the prospect that the
President could pardon two of his former top advisers, Michael Flynn and
Paul Manafort. Those discussions last summer with the attorneys
representing Flynn and Manafort quote “came as the special counsel was
building cases against both men.” They raised questions whether the lawyer
John Dowd was offering pardons to influence their decisions whether to
plead guilty and cooperate in the investigation.

Times adds that quote “the talks suggest Mr. Trump`s lawyers were concerned
about what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort might reveal were they to cut a deal
with the special counsel.”

It is not clear whether the President directed Dowd to discuss the
possibility of a pardon or whether he knew about the conversations at all.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders addressed that question
today and also said the conversations can described by the “Times” have not
taken place.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did the President direct John Dowd to you talk about
the attorney for Manafort and Flynn about potential pardons.

conversation of that nature at all.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did the President have a reaction to these
revelations of “New York Times”? Did you ask him specifically?

SANDERS: I did not talk to him about it specifically. But again, I have
been in a number of conversations. It has never come up. And Ty Cobb who
would be the lead representative for the White House on these matters is
also gone On the Record to discuss and declare that these conversations
haven`t taken place.


KORNACKI: For his part, however, Trump attorney Ty Cobb today said only
that the President is not currently weighing such an option. Quote “no
pardons are under discussion or under consideration at the White House.”

Dowd himself also denied the conversations with Flynn and Manafort`s
lawyers ever took place telling the “Times” there were no discussions,
period. He also said however, as far as I know no discussions.

I`m joined by Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal
analyst. Eli Stokols is an MSNBC contributor and Heather McGhee, she is
the president of DEMOS action and an MSNBC analyst.

Thanks to all of you for joining us.

Barbara, let me start with you. So the unknowns here, quite an explosive
story, but the unknowns here we don`t know if this did happen. We have
these denials here. If it did happen, we don`t know if the President knew
it happened. If the President knew it happened, we don`t know if he
ordered it to happen. If he ordered it to happen, we don`t know what his
motive was. Those variables right now, how significant from a legal
standpoint are each one of them?

BARBARA MCQUADE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Very significant. First, you know,
did it happen? That`s the first thing we`d have to figure out. But
assuming that it did, it`s one, hard to imagine that John Dowd would have
this conversation without first discussing at least with President Trump.
There`s a duty of a lawyer to communicate on significant matters with your
client. And so I can`t imagine that he would make this offer or discuss
pardons with them without at least consulting with President Trump.
Whether he ordered it is another matter. But he must at least have advised
him that he was going to have this conversation.

And then as you said, the intent is incredibly important here. Was it the
intent to trade a pardon in exchange for not cooperating with Robert
Mueller? But I think the mere fact, if this conversation occurred, the
mere fact that you would raise the issue I think creates at least an
impression that there was an expectation that they would do something in
exchange for President Trump because he has the power to pardon them
without getting their agreement. There`s no need to discuss it with them
unless you want to elicit something in exchange.

KORNACKI: And that`s where this starts is, just looking at this sort of as
a layman here, Heather. This is where it gets a little foggy to me because
that Presidential power to pardon, it`s absolute. A President can use it
for anyone at any reason at any time. And it sort of always there in a
situation like this. Any President who is under investigation could at any
moment say you know what, this person is a potentially a threat to me in
some way. I`m going to pardon them and take care of it that way. So in a
way, it is already there that line. And if you are going to broach it at
all, if that indeed happen, if this lawyer brought it up somehow, if Dowd
did bring it up somehow, is there any specific line a prosecutor might be
looking at here?

HEATHER MCGHEE, PRESIDENT, DEMOS ACTION: Well, part of the problem is it
happened, to my understanding, while the grand jury was empanelled, when it
was really clear that Flynn was in the crosshairs. And we know what did
happen months later. Flynn flipped and decided that he would both plead
guilty and cooperate with the Mueller investigation. So there was a sort
of clear and present threat of what exactly did happen which is

I also think on the question of the pardon. Yes, it is a virtually
unlimited power but like everything in our politics, it`s also limited by
norms. The President of the United States has to stand in front of the
American people and justify why he thinks this person has to be pardoned.
And we have not yet heard a decent in fact even colorable explanation for
why he would pardon Michael Flynn.

KORNACKI: And Barbara, let me bring you back for a second, too, because
another piece of this, it becomes from the – there`s – from the
standpoint of what would happen next, this supposedly happened, you know,
over the summer. These are still ongoing active cases. Is there a way to
read this, too, that there`s sort of an attempt here maybe to communicate
something that`s almost more of an ongoing offer?

MCQUADE: So in other words, making this public so that Paul Manafort knows
that this is out there and that Mike Flynn knows this is out there? That`s
an interesting theory.

KORNACKI: Yes. This topic of the pardon has sort of been an ongoing
thing. And of course, we ask about it, too. So it`s not just Trump is
bringing this up, but we ask about it. But just, again, it is sort of the
fact that it`s out there, it could, theoretically, Trump at any moment
could do it.

MCQUADE: Yes. In some ways, that`s really a brilliant strategy because if
you make it really overt like this, you can say there`s nothing underhanded
about it whatsoever. It was just in the public domain. So that is a
really interesting theory. But I suppose to the extent Paul Manafort and
Mike Flynn know that that`s a possibility, it`s something to think about.

But I think if this report is true that John Dowd did communicate to them
directly, I think that makes it much more compelling that there was
potential obstruction of justice because there would be no reason to have
that conversation with them unless you were seeking some quid pro quo
because the President has the power to pardon them at any time even without
their approval.

KORNACKI: And Eli, the relationship between the President and his now
former lawyer John Dowd, can you talk about that a little bit? Because
Barbara made the point that, you know, it would be sort of unlikely from
her view for John Dowd to have done anything like this without the
President knowing. What do you know about that relationship between them,
what that was that like last summer as this was playing out?

ELI STOKOLS, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, at the time, John Dowd was the
top lawyer defending the President in terms of the special counsel`s
investigation. And everything I know about it is that they had a pretty
close relationship at least in terms of Trump somewhat deferring to Dowd
following the strategy in terms of sort of you know, holding back his fire
against Bob Mueller publicly. And yet, it is hard to conceive of a
situation like there in which Dowd and Trump did not have a conversation
about this. They talk about all kinds of things.

And just from what we know about the President and the way he approaches
things, he is always taking the temperature talking to everybody, trying to
figure out what might work, sort of sending up trial balloons, testing
things out. His defenders will say, he is just asking, you know, he
doesn`t know. He is just trying to figure out, you know, what`s possible.

But it`s pretty clear from this report if it`s true that the President was
not acting with a completely clean conscience. Because if you have a clean
conscience about this, you are not contemplating pardoning people to
prevent them from rolling over and spilling everything to the special
counsel`s investigation.

KORNACKI: And the big question here, Heather, too, is how the special
counsel, how Robert Mueller, if this is what happened, if he determines
this is what happened, something like reported here, how he would react to
that, how he would treat it. Because one of the jobs of the special
counsel is ultimately to report back to Congress and say, you know, here is
what I found and maybe in some cases we saw this with Ken Starr two decades
ago to say, hey, I found things that I think might be impeachable offenses.
But impeachable offenses are ultimately subjective too, how you define what
obstruction of justice is or anything like that. That is the wildcard here
though, even if this is established. How does Mueller look at it?

MCGHEE: I think Bob Mueller is methodically building a case on two
separate streams, both of which are primary importance to the American
people. And I think we will look back at this time with a lot of respect
and gratitude for the way that he has kept this going.

First of all, what happened between Russia and the Trump campaign
potentially parts of the RNC to undermine our democracy? I mean, this is
still something that because of the partisan fog, because of the propaganda
coming out of the right wing media machine is going to be told in the
history books as a major breach of our sovereignty, and yet, we still have
basically one man sort of looking clear-eyed and trying to connect all the

So first of all, that has to be a part of the recommendation. That has to
be a part of the report. And I think it`s going to be up to the bipartisan
committees to actually take that, supplement it with what they have done,
and of course, it will be up to people in the media to make it clear to the
American people how secure our elections are, how complicity or not very
powerful people were in this breach of American sovereignty.

KORNACKI: And having been rebuffed by several top lawyers in Washington,
the President is promoting a little known member of his legal team Andrew
Ekonomou to a bigger - I don`t know if I said right.

But according to Reuters, he doesn`t have much experience with high profile
cases. Quote “in an interview, Ekonomou told Reuters that he prosecutes a
lot of murders for the DA in his hometown Brunswick, Georgia. However,
when asked about the biggest cases of late, Ekonomou said that is basically
it, nothing earth shaking. He also shared this detail about his life
following what he called a midlife crisis. He said he went back to school
and got his doctorate in medieval history from the Emory University in

Barbara, how significant legally is this? We are used to Presidents,
senators, high powerful members of government when they get into legal
trouble they call on sort of the highest priced most well-known, well-
established attorneys. There are some sort of high profile defenders out
there of various government officials. Not what we are seeing with the
White House from a legal standpoint from the President`s standpoint. How
significant is it that sort of talent he is relying on, positive or
negative, not traditional?

MCQUADE: You know, it`s been reported that many of these very well-known
high priced lawyers have turned Trump down for a variety of reasons,
conflict of interest. And I think some like Ted Olson just don`t want to
be affiliated with President Trump and their law firms don`t want to be
affiliated with them. And that it harms - I have been told the recruiting
efforts of these law firms to be affiliated with President Trump. So
instead, he has to look at another tier of lawyers who are less well-known.

I don`t know anything about this particular lawyer and I wouldn`t assume
just because he is not one of the very big names that he is not effective.
He is a former federal prosecutor and a former acting U.S. attorney.
Though it has been some time.

So I think there are plenty of lawyers out there whose reputations are not
quite as well-known who are likely to be effective. But I think what he
should be looking at is the qualifications as opposed to the reputation.
Is this someone who has experience? And recent experience might be
helpful. It sounds like maybe he doesn`t. Recent experience dealing with
the department of justice in negotiating plea agreements and negotiating
terms of things like interviews and grand jury appearances and a close
understanding of the way those things work. So I don`t know that
reputation matters so much as qualifications.

KORNACKI: And Eli, just again behind the scenes, we know the President
wasn`t ultimately too happy with his last attorney. How he feels about his
legal representation right now? Do we have clues of that now that he is
sort of changed course here?

STOKOLS: I think he will (INAUDIBLE) say that everything is fine. He
tweeted a few days ago, don`t believe the fake news. There are a lot of
lawyers lining up to work for me. But that is obviously not the case.
Most of the more qualified experienced Washington lawyers want nothing to
do with representing the President at this time. And you know, I think
that he, you know, a lot of times this President formulates his own
assessment of himself and his own situation based on what`s being reflected
back to him in the media. And I think that to some extent, bringing on
this other attorney or elevating this other attorney is a reaction to a lot
of news coverage. People, you know, stories – people writing stories
saying that this President has basically one lawyer now. One or two
lawyers who are representing him as he faces you know, a special counsel
investigation that seems to be gaining steam.

KORNACKI: And there is, speaking of that, also renewed concern on Capitol
Hill that the President may try to remove the special counsel, Robert
Mueller. In a bipartisan press release late yesterday, Republican senator
Tom Tillis from North Carolina, Democratic senator Chris Coons from
Delaware both called on Congress to pass legislation to protect the special
counsel from interference by the President. And this comes after the
President lashed out at Mueller by name earlier this month, a move that
instigated a pressure round of attacks from conservative media circles.

And Heather, that is the other – this story today, the possibility of
pardons, even if it`s from last summer, that again, I think would only
accentuate the concern of those senators are expressing there.

MCGHEE: I think what you are seeing here in the fact that the statement
that bipartisan statement needed to be happen - needed to happen today is
actually a reaction to what`s happening in the conservative news media

Bob Mueller is a very popular American right now. You have the majority of
the American people who say that his investigation should continue without
interference. Seventy-eight percent of Americans say that if asked, Donald
Trump should sit and testify under oath including the majority of

This is something that the American people even though they don`t think
it`s as important as the economy or healthcare, they want to get right on
this. We don`t - we actually feel a certain way about the potential
violation at the highest levels of our American democracy. And so there
has been a very concerted effort on the conservative news media to tarnish
the investigation. And it`s starting to take root.

It`s not going to affect independents and Democrats as much. But what they
want is a Republican base that is no longer what they think is pretty
scarily towards the center in adding to those poll numbers that show the
majority of Americans think if he has nothing to hide, then he should go
ahead and testify in this investigation should continue.

KORNACKI: All right. Heather McGee, Barbara McQaude, Eli Stokols, thanks
to you all for joining us.

And coming up, we haven`t seen President Trump at a public event for five
days and counting now. Why is he staying out of the spotlight? Does it
have anything to do with Stormy Daniels? That`s ahead.

Plus, Trump raises expectations for his summit with North Korea`s Kim Jung-
un. He says Kim will quote “do what`s right,” suggesting peace and
denuclearization is within reach? Was he setting the bar too high? Could
he possibly deliver?

And culture warrior. Trump hopes to lead Republicans to victory this
November by picking cultural battles. And today he is fighting on two
fronts, the second amendment and the border wall.

And finally, the return of Rose Anne. It was a huge hit in the ratings
last night. Maybe a surprise there. Was that because unlike most things
in the age of Trump, the show is trying to reach out to both sides of the
political divide.

This is HARDBALL where the action is.


KORNACKI: Well, there has been yet another shake-up in the Trump
administration, this time at the department of Veterans Affairs. President
Trump today fired the VA secretary David Shulkin. This comes after a
scathing inspector general`s report found that Shulkin had misused taxpayer
funds on a trip to Europe. Trump announced the staffing change on twitter
saying he plans quote “to nominate highly respected admiral Ronny Jackson
as the new secretary of veterans affairs.”

Now Dr. Jackson currently serves as the President`s personal physician.
This is a job he has held in the White House since 2013 for Barack Obama
before this. Earlier this year, he gave President Trump a clean bill of
health and touting his excellent genes.


overall health is excellent. Some people have just great genes, you know.
I told the President if he had a healthier – he might live to be 200 years
old. I don`t know. He has incredibly good genes and it just like


KORNACKI: And Dr. Jackson will need Senate approval before he takes over
at the VA.

We will be right back.


KORNACKI: And welcome back to HARDBALL.

Donald Trump has spent much of his adult life seeking the limelight. But
over the past five days, he is doing just the opposite. The last time the
president held a public event was all the way back on Friday. That was two
days before “60 Minutes” aired its interview with Stormy Daniels, who
alleges a sexual relationship with Trump.

White House officials denied that allegation again today.

White – press – excuse me – White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee
Sanders also addressed Trump`s notable absence the last few days.


QUESTION: Why haven`t we seen much of – so much of the president? Will
he commit to doing a formal news conference? He hasn`t done one of those
in more than a year.

has got a major speech tomorrow. He`s been incredibly active all week
long. We have taken major actions in trade negotiations, as well as
expelling had intel officers from Russia out of the country this week.

There have been a number of major things that the president has taken
action on and been engaged on. He`s giving a major speech tomorrow.


KORNACKI: As “The Washington Post” reports, Trump has complained the
Stormy Daniels controversy is a political hoax, but he hasn`t responded to
any of the salacious taunts from Daniels` lawyer.

Early this morning, that lawyer, Michael Avenatti filed, a new motion
seeking to depose the president and his lawyer, Michael Cohen. A judge
must now decide if that can happen.

Cohen`s lawyer, David Schwartz, called the motion – quote – “a reckless
use of the legal system in order to continue to inflate Michael Avenatti`s
deflated ego and keep himself relevant.”

For more, I`m joined by Yamiche Alcindor, White House correspondent for the
“PBS NewsHour,” and Bret Stephens is an op-ed columnist at “The New York
Times.” Both are MSNBC political contributors.

Yamiche, let me start with you.

So, Sarah Huckabee Sanders says, hey, nothing to see here. The president`s
going to be back out there tomorrow.

OK, it has been five days, though, since we have heard from him. Is it
just a coincidence, or is your sense that it is related to what happened on
“60 Minutes” the other night?

whether or not the president is silent because of Stormy Daniels.

What we can say is that it`s highly unlikely and highly unusual for him not
to comment on something that is such a big news story. The idea that we
have – I have been sitting in briefings where Raj, the deputy press
secretary, said that – he wouldn`t answer whether or not the president
actually saw the interview.

But then he start saying that the president also refused what was said in
the interview. So, obviously, the president has seen the interview with
Stormy Daniels. He has seen reporting of it, and he`s not saying anything,
which is just completely abnormal.

And the fact that Stormy Daniels` lawyer is not only talking about deposing
him, but has literally said, you need to get up on the podium and call my
client a liar, and if you don`t, then you`re sticking by – then you know
that she`s telling the truth, so I think it`s going to be remarkable the
first time that President Trump actually peeks his head out again in the
public, because he`s going to be inundated with questions about Stormy


And, Bret, that strikes me too. This is a president who has never shown
restraint. And, see, I remember in the campaign, it was Alicia Machado, a
former Miss Universe – I think that was his pageant – could not resist
getting into a multiday back and forth with her.

Nothing like that here. So, the question becomes, if that`s the case, why?
Is this a president who, from a legal standpoint, feels that there`s a risk
to him in engaging in a public fight with this lawyer? Who knows what the
lawyer might produce next, something like that?

Is it a president who feels strategically, maybe if he ignores this, it`s
more likely to go away? Do you have any sense of that?

BRET STEPHENS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Look, it`s speculation. Maybe it`s out
of respect for his wife and his young son. That might be a consideration.

Or the alternative is maybe Stormy Daniels has in effect read the president
his Miranda rights. Anything he says can and will be held against him.
And Trump has to be very careful about making statements that might end up
being legally actionable.

One of the ironies here is that some of the sort of case law that might
hold comes to us, of course, from the drama of Bill Clinton and Paula Jones
and later Monica Lewinsky, going back to 1998, when this time it was
Republicans who were eager to get a Democratic president on account of
alleged sexual peccadillos.

Well, those very – the very sort of legal case that Republicans made back
then about the ability to indict a president, depose a president, catch him
on lies, what is the meaning of the word is, all of that now comes back to
haunt them with the president and the porn star.

KORNACKI: Right. There was that effort by Bill Clinton to avoid giving a
deposition and testifying in that Paula Jones lawsuit midway through his

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer we have been talking about, says he`s been
playing a game of chess with the president and his lawyer, and he has
called out the president directly. Here`s a taste what he has had to say.


truth, let the president take to the podium and call her a liar. Let the
president come forward and say it never happened.


KORNACKI: And, Yamiche, I always – any lawyer, sort of high-profile
lawyer, I always try to take what they say with a grain of salt, because
there`s always some element of hype there. They`re always going to give
you sort of one version. But that`s the job of a lawyer certainly in the
limelight like that.

But I wonder, what`s your sense talking to folks around the White House?
What do they make of him? What do they make of these sort of threats that
he`s hinting at of more to come potentially?

ALCINDOR: People that I have talked to make it seem as though this lawyer
wouldn`t be making these threats if the president wasn`t in some real
issues, especially when you think about the fact that added just yesterday,
with Stormy Daniels yesterday saying that the president and/or his lawyer
may have violated actual law.

They may have violated campaign finance laws by the way that they paid that
$130,000. And they also added to the lawsuit that the president or his
lawyers were seeking to influence the 2016 election. So we`re not just
talking about someone who is saying, OK, yes, you might have cheated on
your wife. They`re saying that he might actually be going – this might be
something that`s criminal.

So, I think that that`s why people in the White House at least are kind of
dancing around this idea. Sarah Sanders has said several times that the
president denies these allegations. But the president himself not standing
up and taking to the podium, as this lawyer threatened him to do, is
remarkable, because we know who President Trump is. He is someone who
wants to punch back, and he`s not doing it.

KORNACKI: And, Bret, quickly, from a public opinion standpoint, it does
raise the question to me, though, does any of this ultimately matter? Was
a judgment made about Trump`s character before he was elected that this
merely affirms, or does this change something fundamental how people look
at him?

STEPHENS: Yes, I saw a poll that said that 61 percent of Republicans even
now see Donald Trump as a role model.

But, of course, what really matters isn`t the consensus view. It`s
opinions at the very margins which ultimately end up deciding elections.
And I think a lot of parents, those of us with young children, faced with a
conundrum of having to explain to 10-year-old, 11-year-old children exactly
what Ms. Clifford`s profession is, have a very hard time then justifying
the president.

It`s certainly one of the reasons why you see so many Republican incumbents
in the House leaving and, therefore, putting those seats that might
otherwise be safe seats into play. I think that`s where you`re going to
see the potential of a real political flip.

KORNACKI: Yes, Ryan Costello the latest Republican top announce his
resignation, retirement from the House. He said he didn`t want to be out
there talking about that.

Yamiche Alcindor, Bret Stephens, thanks to both of you for being with us.

And up next: Trump setting high expectations for his talks with North
Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. He says there is a good chance that peace is
within reach. Could he possibly deliver?

This is HARDBALL, where the action is.


KORNACKI: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

President Trump raised high hopes this morning for his upcoming meeting
with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. He tweeted: “For years and through
many administrations, everyone said that peace and the denuclearization of
the Korean Peninsula was not even a small possibility. Now there is a good
chance that Kim Jong-un will do what is right for his people and for
humanity. Look forward to our meeting.”

This came after Kim Jong-un recently visited China. It was his first known
visit out of North Korea since he took over from his father back in 2011.

President Trump tweeted: “Received message last night from the Xi in China
that his meeting with Kim Jong-un went well and that Kim looks forward to
his meeting with me. In the meantime and, unfortunately, maximum sanctions
and pressure must be maintained at all costs.”

For more, I`m joined by Sue Mi Terry, a senior fellow at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies. She was a senior analyst on Korean
issues at the CIA from 2001 to 2008.

Sue, thank you for joining me.

So, the president did raise some expectations there in that tweet I just
read. He said two things . He said peace and the – I would show you two
fingers, but I can`t show you these fingers. They`re wrapped up – but
peace and the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. He said that could

Is that a realistic expectation for this meeting?

SUE MI TERRY, FORMER CIA ANALYST: I`m glad he feels optimistic, but I feel
that we need to temper our expectation here.

North Korea has been pursuing a nuclear program for decades. Since Kim
Jong-un came into power, six-plus years ago, he conducted 90 missile tests,
four nuclear tests, including a hydrogen bomb, three intercontinental
ballistic missile tests.

He didn`t just wake up one day and decide to give it all up. And when he`s
talking about denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, what that means is
not just North Korea. That mean decoupling U.S.-South Korea alliance,
maybe kicking the U.S. forces off the Korean Peninsula, to stop the
extended nuclear umbrella over South Korea.

So, we need to temper our expectation a little bit here.

KORNACKI: Well, so, with that in mind, when President Trump goes and sits
down for this meeting, what is the most important message he should be
prepared to deliver?

TERRY: I think that if Kim Jong-un will be serious, if he could be serious
about potentially denuclearization, giving up nuclear weapons, that there
would be rewards, as well as a bad path forward.

I think that message has to be very, very clear. But, also, I think we
need to sort of – I think the most optimistic scenario, honestly, is that
they meet and agree on something in principle, and then sort of step back
from that.

I think it`s really unrealistic if you think we can solve this crisis in
that one meeting with Kim Jong-un. It`s not going to happen.

KORNACKI: All right, Sue Mi Terry, thank you for joining us. Appreciate

And coming up: President Trump is trying to rev up the GOP base ahead of
the midterms. And that means he`s returning to an old playbook. That is
next with the HARDBALL Roundtable.

You`re watching HARDBALL.


KORNACKI: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

President Trump is looking to help Republicans avoid a blue wave this
November. And he`s revving up his base by playing up the culture wars.

Of course, the cornerstone of Trump`s presidential campaign was a promise
to build a wall.


wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.
Mark my words.


TRUMP: We`re going to build a wall. Mexico`s going to pay for the wall.
We`re going to stop drugs from coming in.

The Trump administration will also secure and defend the borders of the
United States. And, yes, we will build a great wall, and Mexico will pay
for the wall, 100 percent.

So, a lot of politicians said, you can`t get Mexico to pay for the wall. I
said, oh, it`s going to be so easy. Going to be so easy.


KORNACKI: And Trump has since found that it isn`t that easy to convince
Mexico to pay for the wall, but he publicly at least remains undeterred.

“The Washington Post” reported Tuesday that Trump is privately pushing the
U.S. military to fund construction of his signature project. Meanwhile,
the president is eager to make the Second Amendment a campaign issue.
Trump responded to an op-ed written by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice
John Paul Stevens calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Trump wrote on Twitter: “The Second Amendment will never be repealed. As
much as Democrats would like to see this happen and despite the words
yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, no way. We need more
Republicans in 2018 and must always hold the Supreme Court.”

Let`s bring in the HARDBALL Roundtable. Philip Bump is a political
reporter for “The Washington Post.” Zerlina Maxwell is director of
progressive programming for SiriusXM and an MSNBC political analyst, and
John Podhoretz is editor of “Commentary” magazine.

Zerlina, let me start with you on the second thing we talked about there,


KORNACKI: Because that the op-ed from John Paul Stevens got a lot of
people talking yesterday.

Now, he`s 90-something. He`s no longer in office. But I think it`s clear
from that tweet that what Trump is looking for and I think what Republicans
are looking for is for folks on your side of the aisle here to start
staking out turf that`s not necessarily that safe, to feel emboldened, and
to sort of move on guns from, hey, we want background checks to, hey, look
what they`re doing in Australia or, hey, Stevens has a point here.

Is there a chance in this climate, in this atmosphere, with what we saw in
Florida, with just the Trump atmospherics, that that does happen on the

MAXWELL: I don`t think so. And here`s why.

I think what we saw on Saturday with the March For Our Lives is where the
progressive movement is going. And I say – and I say that in terms of an
intersectional, a younger, and more diverse coalition of interests, where
they understand that guns are a cultural issue in which people – there are

Like for example, in 2015, the University of Chicago did a study where they
found correlation between an opposition to more rights and privileges for
people of color and women correlated with in opposition to gun safety
legislation. So, the idea that the folks who on the right support the
Second Amendment and say we don`t want any regulations, don`t take away our
guns, they`re in opposition to this diverse coalition of young people who
are saying, we just want common sense regulations on guns so that we`re not
shot in school.

So, I don`t think that the left is moving to the position of Stevens. I
think that`s actually an outlier, which is helpful to that coalition of
diverse students because they have a more mainstream position.

KORNACKI t gets to a broader question, John, in terms of motivating the
Republican base to turn out this fall if you`re a Republican, if you`re
Trump. Is the way to do that by pointing to something positive, you know,
the tax cuts or the economy, something like that? Or does it require sort
of hey, remember who the Democrats are. You don`t want them getting near

John Paul Stevens` op-ed was a gift to the Trump and Republicans, though
probably too early. The key to understanding what`s going to happen in
November is not just the Democrats are charged up which they are, but
whether Republicans are going to be depressed, and whether Republicans are
saying, I`m not going to bother going to the polls and then Democrats will
ride away.

If Republicans can get heated up and if the argument is going to be they
got to turn out to the polls because the Democrats are moving on guns,
they`re moving on this, they`re moving on that, they are on the charge, and
if you don`t stop them, terrible things are going to happen. That is
exactly what the RNC, the National Republican Campaign Committee, that`s
what they want.

KORNACKI: What about, Phillip, the first part of that when he was talking
about the wall? Is this – does he have to deliver something on that or
show something? This is clearly on track to happen. Does he have to be
able to deliver that message to the base this fall or will they let him
skate on that? Because there was a lot of talk about that in `16 whether
they expected 2,000 miles of a wall or this was getting at something more
almost symbolic?

indication his base is deeply frustrated about the wall not moving forward.
It seems as though they`re giving him a ton of slack on that issue and a
lot of other issues. You know, his favorability remains high among
Republicans, remains pretty clearly high with his base, as well.

And I think it`s important to remember that we tend to attribute to Donald
Trump a lot off intentionality that I think may often be unjustified,
right? And I think that his response to the wall was, there are reports
that he basically spent the weekends watching FOX News, seeing that the
response to the omnibus bill that passed was negative in part because the
spending increased so much.

And I think that he feels as though he got burned a little bit on wall
funding in that bill as well. And, you know, this is a president well
before he was engaged in politics, electoral politics, he spent all of his
time talking about politics on Twitter. That`s why I feel like there`s an
aspect to this as well which is not him being intentional and thinking
about November, but him being mad about something he saw on TV and

KORNACKI: And I`m also thinking, we talk about the culture wars playing
out this fall. I`m thinking back to how that whole national debate that`s
played over, what, two, three weeks last fall about the national anthem,
the NFL players kneeling, that was the product it seemed to me of Donald
Trump riffing at a rally in Alabama and thinking, hey it`s a football
crowd. And he starts talking about college football. And the next thing,
you know, he gets them going.

I mean, he`s going to be out there campaigning this fall. That could
happen October 20th. He could just land on something by happenstance that
defines the fall election.

MAXWELL: You know, I think he likes to pander to his base and uses these
cultural issues like the national anthem and kneeling or guns. I think
that the coalition of voters that are going to come out in the midterms and
the young people we saw on Saturday who tied their protest with voter
registration, which I think is the key element that will make a difference,
I think the coalition of voters is going to be different than we`ve seen in
the past. I actually think the young millennial voter we think about in
every election, are young people going to show up, I think this year might
be the year that that actually problems true.

PODHORETZ: Yes, but this is a dialectic, right? So, what happens is,
Trump pushes a button and then Democrats respond. And if Democrats
respond, over-respond or respond in a way that will trigger a Republican
Party regular voter counter assault like they`re coming at us culturally in
a way we don`t like in October, you know, when he riffs an the at a rally,
then that could be helpful because it is not just that they want to come
out to support Trump. I don`t think anyone is going to come – that`s not
how people vote in the midterm.

But if they`re afraid, if they think that they are at risk and they are at
threat, that there is a real threat from the Democratic takeover of the
House and that the threat is immediate and Trump can really flash a light
on that, then Republicans do have a natural – have historically in the
last ten years, had a natural advantage in midterm elections. They turn
out more. They turn out – they tend to turn out in higher rates. So –

KORNACKI: That is the wildcard, too, is the turnout disparities we`ve


MAXWELL: That`s correct.

KORNACKI: Do they persist?

The roundtable is going to persist. They are staying with us.

And up next – I`ve been looking forward to this one all day – “Roseanne”
back on TV and getting mass – I mean, these were monster numbers this show
put up last night. The question is, the secret to the show`s success, its
ability to reach both sides of the political divide. I`m going over to the
board to show you the politics of the world of “Roseanne”.

That`s next. You`re watching HARDBALL.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How could you have voted for him, Roseanne?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He talked about jobs, Jackie. He said he`d shake
things up. I mean, this might come as a complete shock to you, but we
almost lost our house the way things are going.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have you looked at the news because now things are

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not on the real news.



KORNACKI: Were you watching that last night in the return of “Roseanne” 20
years later. A lot of people were, almost 20 million last night. Network,
sitcoms do not get numbers like that anymore. But this one did and not
coincidentally this is a show that got very political in that debut last

The setup, you know, Roseanne the character, she plays a Trump supporter in
the show. I think in real life, she is a Trump supporter, too. You saw
her sister there. Not a Trump supporter.

You`ve got the tension that a think a lot of families feel right now. But
the other thing is the setting for the show represents in some ways what
was the story of the 2016 election. Why is Donald Trump president?

Well, the easiest answer is you look at the voters who turned out for him
and flipped who normally voted Democratic or just weren`t voting in the
past. And they were in a particular part of the country, you could draw a
circle if you want to call it a circle around this area, sort of the
northern tier of the country.

This is where you saw a lot of Democrats flipping, white working class
urban – exurban or rural and Illinois here. That`s where “Roseanne” is
set. It`s a blue state. There are red parts of Illinois and parts that
got a lot redder because of Trump. That is the world of “Roseanne”, that
white working class world.

Where exactly in Illinois is “Roseanne” set? We got conflicting signals on
that show. Sometimes they placed down here, sometimes more up in this part
of the state. It`s a fictional town.

But the key is, you look at all those red counties outside the Chicago
area, a few other pockets in the state. That`s the “Roseanne” world –
white, working class, the Conner family. Those are the sorts of people,
the sorts of voters in 2016 in that region of the country that flipped made
Trump president.

And that`s what makes it in part that show so interesting to me to watch
now in the age of Trump. So, we`re going to talk about this a little bit
with the panel. We`re going to talk about the politics of “Roseanne”.

And also the bigger question, you got liberals and conservatives on the
same show. How often do you see that in culture anymore? Is that why it
was such a ratings hit last night?

We`ll talk about it in just a second.


KORNACKI: And welcome back to HARDBALL.

Well, the “Roseanne” revival as we said, it premiered last night to sky
high ratings, 18 million people tuning in. “Entertainment Weekly” reports
that according to ABC, this is the highest rated comedy telecast in any
network in nearly four years.

The roundtable is back with me.

I`m just going to throw it out to anybody. I give you just the bottom line
thing that I took away from the show is we see so much of pop culture right
now one way or the other. You`re either on this side or you`re on that
side. You play to one side of the aisle.

That episode last night for that first episode that aired last night, I
think it was something compelling for both sides of the aisle. They could
each feel represented. And look at those ratings numbers. I mean, this is
something bigger picture we don`t see the in pop culture that much anymore.

PODHORETZ: OK, but I think the story is that this is the first pop culture
fictional representation of a world in which Trump voters are working and
living and existing that was sympathetic to them. In which they were not
made fun of. And I think this is a gigantic, big, semaphore flag wave at
American pop culture domos (ph) about whether or not they understand if
they can talk about these people and portray their lives in a way that
isn`t simply paretic and calling them racist and monsters that they might
get a hearing and they might get an audience that they have underserved.

BLITZER: And I think a lot of people watching that last night could
probably in their own families relate to it. You`ll have Trump supporters
and you`ll have relatives calling them crazy.

MAXWELL: Well, I think that the important thing that they showed is the
debate between the two sisters because I`ve talked to so many people since
the election who say, well, I stopped talking to my uncle who voted for
Trump, or I stopped to this particular family member because of their
political views.

And I think it`s important for us to not stop talking to our relatives if
we disagree with them. We have to have the debate. We have to speak to
people who are on the other side. Otherwise, we`re never going to get

And I think what the show demonstrates is that it`s important for us to
speak to people who have opposing views and try to come to a common sense
understanding because we`re all Americans.

BUMP: So, I would say to John`s point, one of the fascinating tidbits
about those ratings is that the three cities where the ratings were the
highest were Tulsa, Oklahoma, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, right? These are the sort of, to your point, Trumpy areas.
I mean, not Pittsburgh itself, so much as outside Pittsburgh, but you get
my point.

And the thing that struck when I heard about this coming is, well, of
course, they`re bringing back “Roseanne”, it`s all those nostalgia right
now. They`re bringing back “Full House”. There`s “Full House”. I mean,
there are all these ways in which that is what Hollywood is doing right

But what`s fascinating about “Roseanne” is it`s not just nostalgia. It is
the same nostalgia that Trump brought to the campaign. It is nostalgia for
a working class world that “Roseanne” represented during her heyday, which
she was the most popular – I mean, it was – it`s important to remember,
this was a bananas popular show when it was first out, right?


BUMP: So, nostalgia, and a nostalgic moment for an extremely popular show
that also reflects exactly the nostalgia that Donald Trump himself is
trying to capture, I think all of those things combined helped contribute
on it.

KORNACKI: It`s also, I decided, the most optimistic show in all of America
because it proves there`s life after death, because in the final episode of
the original, they killed off the John Goodman character. Voila, he`s back
and he`s with us again. So, that was exciting too.

The roundtable is staying with us. Up next, these three are going to tell
me something I don`t know.

You`re watching HARDBALL.


BLITZER: And we`re back with the HARDBALL roundtable.

And, Philip, tell me something I don`t know.

BUMP: So, the Republicans are very hopeful with tax cuts they passed in
December will help them in November. CNBC had new poll though that showed
that 52 percent of Americans don`t see anything in their paychecks yet from
those cuts. However, 52 percent of Republicans said they did see something
in their paychecks.


KORNACKI: Everything is polarization.

MAXWELL: That`s funny. Next week is the commemoration of the
assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. And this week, I actually
confirmed a really funny family anecdote that I have when my mom was 8,
Martin Luther King came over for dinner. He gave her $5. It was her

She has always told me she was grossed out by the fact that he puts ketchup
on his mashed potatoes. I confirmed this week, I talked to Xernona
Clayton, a long time activist with the SCLC, a friend of Coretta Scott
King, and she said he does put ketchup on his mashed potatoes.

I think it was a fun little anecdote about an icon –

KORNACKI: Yes, I never tried it but it doesn`t sound that good.

PODHORETZ: My god, how could I top that.


PODHORETZ: I mean, you know, I was going to say that I believe if you come
back to me in three months, Trump will never tweet or mention Stormy
Daniels` name. He will never do it, never. He will never do it.

KORNACKI: He`s certainly up to an un-Trump-like start on the subject of
Stormy Daniels. We`ll see. That`s the bet John is making.

Thank to you to Philip Bump, Zerlina Maxwell, John Podhoretz.

And that is HARDBALL for now. Thank you for being with us.

“ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES” starts right now.


Copy: Content and programming copyright 2018 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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