Manafort pleads not guilty. TRANSCRIPT: 06/15/2018, Hardball with Chris Matthews

Philip Bump, Mara Gay

Date: June 15, 2018
Guest: Philip Bump, Mara Gay

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: For more of the interview, we are posting the
entire conversation on THE BEAT podcast where we put exclusive content that
you won`t see on a TV show and we post that every weekend.

That`s our show. “HARDBALL” starts now.

STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: Manafort goes to jail. Let`s play HARDBALL.

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

Tonight, President Trump`s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort is in
federal custody and will spend the remainder of his days pending trial in
jail. Already facing multiple counts of bank fraud, conspiracy and money
laundering, Paul Manafort arrived at a D.C. courthouse this morning
pleading not guilty to new federal charges of witness tampering. The judge
in the case then ultimately ruled that the severity of the alleged crime
violated the terms of Manafort`s bail agreement saying that allowing his
release would quote “harm the integrity of the justice system.”

NBC News reports that Manafort did not appear to react to that ruling. He
was then immediately taken into custody, giving a quick wave to his wife as
he was escorted from the courtroom. Manafort will now be held in pretrial
detention till September.

Reacting to the news, Manafort`s former client, President Trump was quick
to defend his reputation saying quote “wow, what a tough sentence for Paul
Manafort who has represented Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other top
political people in campaigns. Didn`t know Manafort was the head of the
mob. What about Comey and crooked Hillary and all of the others? Very

Now Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani is dangling a presidential pardon.
Responding to the news of Manafort`s incarceration, Giuliani telling the
“New York Daily News” quote “when the whole thing is over, things might get
cleared up with some Presidential pardons.” Giuliani adding, I don`t
understand the justification for putting him in jail. You put a guy in
jail if he is trying to kill witnesses, not talking to witnesses.”
However, he later downplayed those comments in an interview with NBC News
saying he would advise against a pardon. Some mixed signals there.

Joining me now, Ken Dilanian, national security reporter for NBC News,
Michael Schmidt is a reporter with the “New York Times” and MSNBC national
security contributor, Mimi Rocah is a former assistant U.S. attorney and
MSNBC legal analyst, and Carolina Polisi is a federal – a federal criminal
defense attorney. Thank you all for being with us.

And Ken, let me start with you. Just in terms of the bottom line now, Paul
Manafort`s in jail. He is probably till September at least now. Explain
what exactly it was that caused the judge to make that decision today.


It was Paul Manafort`s incredibly reckless decision in February to reach
out to some potential witnesses in the case against him that involved
allegedly illegal lobbying. And he reached out by phone and through
encrypted apps. And one of those witnesses was so rattled by this he
immediately called the FBI and turned over these encrypted messages to
prosecutors and actually said, look. I think Paul Manafort was trying to
tell me to lie. And that was essentially the basis for these allegations.

Not only did the prosecution file a motion to revoke Paul Manafort`s bail,
they filed a separate indictment. They charged him today with obstruction
of justice. He pled not guilty in court. But that led Judge Amy Berman
Jackson to say look, you have already – the prosecution has already met
the standard that I have to follow here which is probable cause to believe
that Paul Manafort committed these crimes. And so, she really had no
choice. She went through the range of possibilities. She said look, I`m
trying to find out what I can doing short of incarcerating you that would
deter you from committing these future crimes. And I can`t think of
anything. You are already wearing an ankle bracelet. She said at one
point, this isn`t middle school, I can`t just take your cell phone. And so
she sent him to jail, Steve.

And we don`t know where he is tonight. We have made attempts to try to
figure that out but a law enforcement official told me that normally
somebody who is a man with the custody in Washington would be sent to the
D.C. jail. Now the D.C. jail is a notoriously bad place. It has got a
roach and rat problem. It houses murderers and rapists. And it would be
just incredible to think of this high flying politico who is known for his
$7,000 suits to be spending the night in the concrete cell in the
Washington, D.C. jail.

KORNACKI: Let me just follow on that just to explain the procedure here
for folks like me who are kind of layman with this. If that is indeed
where he is, if that`s the normal procedure, would that also been normally
under normal procedure be the place where somebody in Manafort`s situation
stays for the next few months?

DILANIAN: Well, it could be. But don`t forget, he is in the custody of
the federal marshals. And they have discretion. They could take him
somewhere else. They could decide, for example, that you know, there is a
threat to him, he is a high profile prisoner. He is better suited in the
Alexandria jail which is where a lot of high profile white collar people
and up. And also he is facing trial in Virginia. So that would put him
closer to that venue.

We just don`t know at this point. The federal marshals are not commenting
on his status.

DILANIAN: Caroline, Ken is saying here the judge had no choice. You are a
guy who is facing trial communicating with these witnesses being told by
another judge not to do that. You got Rudy Giuliani out there, the
President`s lawyer now, was the United States attorney 20, 30 years ago in
New York, he is saying you only do that when they kill witnesses not when
they talk to witnesses. What`s your response to what Giuliani is saying

what Ken is referring to meaning it Amy Berman Jackson had no choice is
that under the bail reform act there`s a presumption, a rebuttable
presumption by Manafort and his attorneys that have to prove that he is
going not to commit crimes when he is out. And she just didn`t see that.

So I think, you know, also in this decision here, this isn`t the first time
that this judge has taken Manafort to task. Remember when he tried to
ghost write the op-ed with Konstantin Kilimnik.

Well, Konstantin Kilimnik is the person that is in the superseding
indictment that he is alleged to, you know, have reached out to alleged
witness tamper. So this isn`t like it is a first offense. She really
didn`t have another choice, I believe.

KORNACKI: Michael Schmidt, from the bigger picture standpoint here,
legally, it`s the question of the Mueller investigation where this all kind
of emerges from. How does this development with Paul Manafort today fit
into that broader picture of the Mueller investigation and his role in

going to find out here is whether Paul Manafort has something to offer or
if he really thinks he has been wrongfully charged and wants to go to

Mueller is trying to put as much pressure on Manafort as possible to get
him to plead. He has been one of the few people to be charged and not do
that. The deputy campaign chairman has pled. The former national security
adviser has pled. But Manafort has held out. He said look, I have nothing
to give the government. I have done nothing wrong. I want to find this to
the end of the earth.

Now he will face the pressure of jail-time. This is before the trial. So
the question that remains to be seen is what will happen with Manafort.
Will he change his view about this trial coming up in September? Would
they go to the prosecutors and say, well, maybe we can help you with
something else or will they continue to buckle down and fight this. And
Manafort has been steadfast in that.

KORNACKI: Is there any sense if there were some kind of deal with Manafort
if Manafort were to cooperate, what it is that Mueller thinks he is going
to get in particular?

SCHMIDT: No. And from a very basic standpoint, Mueller may just say look,
I want to know everything that Manafort knows. He was someone that had
ties to Eastern Europe, had ties to Russia, played an important role in the
campaign. I`m supposed to figure out was there a counterintelligence issue
here to complete that investigation. I need to sit down within Paul
Manafort and know everything that he knows. It could be that simple.

They could think there is something more nefarious. We really don`t know.
But if you are going to turn over every rock like Mueller has to, getting
Manafort`s testimony and understanding of what was going on in the
campaign, remember, Manafort was at the meeting at Trump tower in the
summer of 2016 when the Russians offered dirt to the President`s son. If
you are doing this investigation, to conclude it, you would need to talk to

KORNACKI: Then Mimi, the other piece of this today is Rudy Giuliani, the
President`s lawyer and his response to there. So his initial response
asked by the “New York Daily News” there is to say hey, ultimately this
thing might be resolved with some pardons, seeming to connect the news with
Manafort to the idea that a, President Trump could pardon him and could
pardon others. He then seemed to walk that back. What do you make of what
Rudy Giuliani said today?

very close, if he isn`t already over the line in terms of getting himself
involved in some potential obstruction charges because you know, there are
things, Giuliani says things all the time and it`s a little bit hard to
take him seriously. But the timing of this to say, to mention the
possibility of pardons at the end of this right when Manafort has been sent
to jail, it`s clearly him sending – I won`t even say a signal. I mean,
it`s him shouting across the room, hang in there. You know, a pardon is
coming down the road.

And you know, I understand that there`s all sorts of legal and
constitutional arguments about, you know, the President has the absolute
right to pardon. But the President`s lawyer does not have an absolute
right to essentially tell a witness, you know, don`t cooperate. We are
going to give you a pardon, which is really what he was doing today.

So I think Giuliani has just, you know, – and his statement about only mob
bosses you know go to jail for witness tampering. He is a former U.S.
attorney. That`s very disingenuous. He absolutely knows that`s not true.
And that this was a serious case of obstruction of justice and Manafort
needed to go in.

KORNACKI: Caroline what, do you make of that? Because you could make the
argument I imagine that from somebody trying to defend Rudy Giuliani here,
that hey yes, the President has the power to pardon. That`s very clear.
He can pardon anybody at any time for any reason. So if his lawyer goes
out there and simply says, hey, by the way, the President has this sort of
unbridled power here, could a case emerge from that.

POLISI: Well, we don`t need to be reminded that he has the sort of
unfettered power. That is true. That it says so in the constitution and
there are no limits except you can`t pardon. You can`t pardon for an
impeachment proceeding.

You know, we have seen Donald Trump sort of use the pardon power with
reckless abandon. You know, Scooter Libby Dinesh D`Souza, (INAUDIBLE)
pardon for Jack Johnson. I think what he is trying to do is really
normalize the pardoning process even though he does it in a way that is
inconsistent with the procedures that prior Presidents have done it.

And Giuliani and he are laying the groundwork to make the pardon seem kind
of like just a normal thing that many presidents do. So I think Giuliani
is coming at it more from a PR standpoint as opposed to a legal standpoint
in that regard.

KORNACKI: As we say the President criticized that decision by the judge to
revoke Paul Manafort`s bail. However in, a surprise Q&A earlier this
morning, Trump also tried to distance himself from his now incarcerated
former campaign chairman.


unfair. I mean, I look at some of them where they go back 12 years. Like
Manafort has nothing to do with our campaign. But I feel – I tell you, I
feel a little badly about it. They went back 12 years to get things that
he did 12 years ago. You know, Paul Manafort worked for me for a very
short period of time. He worked for me what, 49 days or something? A very
short period of time.


KORNACKI: The correct total number of days that Paul Manafort worked for
President Trump in case you were wondering during the 2016 campaign, almost
five months. It was 144 days. That tenure was longer than Kellyanne
Conway and Steve Bannon, both of them ending up, of course, with White
House jobs.

And also Trump praised Manafort on the campaign trail in 2016 a number of


TRUMP: I have fantastic people. Paul Manafort just came on. He is great.
He doesn`t have to do this like I don`t have to. He didn`t need to do this
but he wanted to.

Paul, Corey, Hope, I mean these people what we have been doing has been

And Paul Manafort has done an amazing job. He is here some place. Where`s
Paul? Paul Manafort. Oh, good. You made it.


KORNACKI: And Ken, is there any sense around the President, around his
legal team how they look at Manafort right now the?

DILANIAN: Well, Steve, you asked the question earlier what, could Paul
Manafort give Mueller. And Mike Schmidt right answered, we don`t know.
But in formed speculation suggests that he could be a crucial witness in
this question of whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian
election interference because he came into the campaign with significant
Russian ties. He earned tens of millions of dollars from a Ukrainian
politician who is essentially a Russian stooge. And during the campaign,
he was trying to monetize his service by offering private briefings to a
Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska (ph). And we know that he was in contact
with George Papadopoulos, that young aide who was told that but a Russian
agent that the Russians had hacked Democrat emails before that became
public. So one of the questions is did Manafort learned about that? Did
he discuss that with Donald Trump? Did he discussed the Trump tower
meeting with Donald Trump? Or was there ever any other kinds of discussion
about what the Russians had? What helped the Russians were offering to the

Please don`t forget, Donald Trump didn`t use email. So for Mueller to get
the evidence about what Trump knew when he is going to need witness
testimony. And I think that`s one of the reasons he is pressing Manafort
so hard. He wants his testimony about meetings with Donald Trump.

KORNACKI: Caroline, let me just – as a defense attorney, let me just ask
you from a strategic standpoint, if you are Paul Manafort`s lawyer, if you
are anybody else who gets jammed up some way or another in this Mueller
investigation who was on Trump`s team at some point, is part of your
strategy behind the scenes when you see comments like Rudy Giuliani today
saying this might ultimately be settled with pardons, is that part of your
strategic thinking in putting your defense together that hey, let`s maybe
not go too far in terms of making some kind of agreement with prosecutors
because there could ultimately be a pardon that obviates everything.

POLISI: Absolutely not. That it should play any calculus in any criminal
defense attorney. I mean, thought process throughout this. If you are
Paul Manafort`s defense attorney now, you are telling him he is an idiot
and why did he do what he did because it was reckless. I told my clients -

KORNACKI: Will they tell him to cut a deal do you think?

POLISI: Yes. I think they must be. Look. Preparing for trial when your
client is in custody, the bureau of prisons is supposed to make, you know,
federal people that are in detention available for preparing for trial, but
it`s very difficult to do so. This is going to hurt them in so many ways
and he has two trials to prepare for. They are coming up soon. He is
facing a lifetime in prison. Absolutely. I think that, you know, a deal
would be behoove him in this instance.

KORNACKI: And Mimi, just from a prosecutor standpoint that, OK, look, if
Manafort is key to answering a lot of these questions that is Mueller
presumably has about Russia, about meddling, about 2016, about anything, if
he offers potential key, potential answers on a lot of those, in terms of
giving him a deal from a prosecutor`s standpoint, how does that work? Do
you get some assurance up front that the information he is going to give is
going to lead to other prosecutions or did he just take a chance that hey,
maybe the information he provides doesn`t lead to anything but we still
kind of cut a favorable deal for him anyway?

ROCAH: Well, it`s a process. And if we are talking – by cutting a deal,
and if we are talking – if you meet by cutting a deal, if you mean, you
know, allowing him to cooperate, you know, the way it would work is
Manafort`s attorney, would say to the government that he wants to come in
and talk. He would have what`s called a proffer session with a proffer
agreement which means that the statements he gives at that the session
cannot be used against him directly to prosecute him. There are some
exceptions to that but that`s the general rule.

And they would basically just start, you know, asking him questions and
listening to what he has to say. And over time, you know, they would make
a decision about whether he had information that was useful. And if so,
then he would – they would negotiate what`s called a cooperation agreement
which is a plea agreement that also gives basically a promise that down the
road, the government is going to make the judge know and write the judge a
letter called a 5K1 letter that lets the judge know about his cooperation.

So it`s not necessarily negotiating a particular sentence or sort of
cutting him a deal. It depends on what the crimes are that he would have
to plead guilty to, but it`s really more of a process that takes time.
It`s not like they would say, he wants to cooperate and then tomorrow he
would, you know, or even in a week he would be in court pleading guilty.

KORNACKI: All right. Mimi Rocah, Caroline Polisi, Ken Dilanian and
Michael Schmidt, thank you all for being with us.

And coming up, President Trump is blasting the department of justice report
on the Clinton email investigation. But he also says it totally exonerates
him. We are going to cut through the President`s false claims about the IG
report next.

Plus the President says he has solved the North Korea situation. We will
run the numbers on what the public thinks of how he handled that summit
this week and how he is handling the issue in general.

We will try to make sense also of the President`s bizarre comment that he
wants his people to sit up at attention just like Kim Jung-un`s people do.

And then President Trump also trying to blame Democrats for his policy of
separating children from their parents at the border even as more
Republicans are speaking out against it.

And finally, the HARDBALL roundtable is here to tell us three things you
might not know.

This is HARDBALL where the action is.


KORNACKI: The pressure continues to mount on President Trump`s former
attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen in the southern district of New York.
According to court filings, prosecutors have quote “extracted more than 700
pages of messages sent using encrypted programs on phones seized from Cohen
in a reconstructed 16 pages from the contents of a shredding machine,”
comes as “the Wall Street Journal” now reports that Cohen is also being
investigated for positive illegal lobbying.

Additionally, there are new signs that Cohen may be closer to cooperating
with prosecutors. CBS News is reporting that Cohen believes the President
and his allies are turning against him and that he is increasingly feeling
isolated from Mr. Trump.

According to Cohen`s associates, he has become quote “irritated by
statements made in the media by the President`s lawyer Rudy Giuliani.”

Here`s how the President answered questions about Cohen this morning.


TRUMP: I always liked Michael Cohen. I haven`t spoken to Mike in a long

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is he still your lawyer.

TRUMP: No, he`s not my lawyer.

But I always liked Michael. And he is a good person. Excuse me, do you
mind if I talk? You are asking me a question. I`m trying to ask it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just want to know if you`re worried he`s going to
cooperate with federal investigators.

TRUMP: No, I`m not worried because I did nothing wrong.


KORNACKI: And we will be right back.


KORNACKI: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

During President Trump`s hour-long media blitz this morning, he made a
number of inaccurate or misleading statements about the inspector general`s
report on the FBI`s handling of the 2016 election.


QUESTION: The I.G. report came out yesterday. The FBI looked bad.



TRUMP: Well, no, it`s – actually, it was Comey. But the top people were
horrible. You look at what happened. They were plotting against my
election. Probably has never happened like that in terms of intelligence,
in terms of anything else.

They were actually plotting against my election.

QUESTION: The headline right now from “The Wall Street Journal,” “DOJ
Clinton report blasts Comey and agents, but finds no bias in conclusion.”

TRUMP: Well, the end result was wrong. There was total bias. It was a
pretty good report.

And then I say that the I.G. blew it at the very with that statement,
because when you read the report, it was almost like Comey. He goes point
after point about how guilty Hillary is, and then he said, but we`re not
going to do anything about it.

The report, the I.G. report, was a horror show. I thought that one
sentence of conclusion was ridiculous.


KORNACKI: Much of what the president said today isn`t true.

According to the roughly 500-page report, there was – quote – “no
evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly
affected the investigation.”

Trump also falsely claimed the report exonerated him. That`s something
that was not addressed by the inspector general.

Let`s watch.


TRUMP: If you read the I.G. report, I`ve been totally exonerated. As far
as I`m concerned

QUESTION: It had nothing to do with collusion. It had nothing to do with

TRUMP: Take a little at it. Take – no, take a look at the investigation.


KORNACKI: For more, I`m joined by Philip Bump, “Washington Post” political
reporter, and Benjamin Wittes, MSNBC legal analyst and Lawfare editor-in-
chief, from Washington.

Now, Phil, let me start with you.

Let`s be clear what this I.G., inspector general, report covered. This was
about the FBI`s handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton and the e-
mail issue in 2016. This was not Trump-Russia, the sort of stuff we talk
about in terms of Russia and collusion.

PHILIP BUMP, “THE WASHINGTON POST”: That`s exactly right.

And it was a little broader than that. It also included, for example,
these text messages that were going back and forth between FBI employees
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. It addressed this other issue of an FBI
employee who apparently had given a heads-up to John Podesta about this
other thing.

There`s a lot that was in there. But it focused on the campaign. It
focused on what had been done during the campaign by the FBI and whether or
not there had been a violation of the FBI`s prohibitions against bias in
their investigations.

And what it found, as you just heard, was that there were things that they
were worried about, red flags that were raised, but they found that these
investigations were not actually tainted by that bias.

KORNACKI: Right. So, when the president says he`s been exonerated by it,
is there any sense what he`s referring to?

BUMP: Right.

KORNACKI: Is there something in there that he can hang that on? Is there
any sense at all what that reference means?

BUMP: Sure.

So, I`m extremely skeptical President Trump spent much time actually
reading the document. And what I would guess is that President Trump seems
– he makes broad claims and then seizes upon little things to validate

And so he has two operating theories, among many, about the Mueller
investigation. One is, Comey was bad. The other is, the FBI was biased.

In that report, you can make arguments to both of those points. You can
make points. This “We will stop Trump” text that came out in the report,
there`s evidence the FBI had bias. Obviously, there was a lot about Comey
in there. Comey is bad; therefore, everything Donald Trump said about
Comey and the FBI is accurate. Therefore, Donald Trump is exonerated.

I feel as though we`re all three years into this by now.


BUMP: We have a decent sense of how Donald Trump`s brain works. I think
that`s where he may be going.

But there certainly is nothing from a categorical sense that exonerates him
about the Russia investigation at all.

KORNACKI: And, Ben Wittes, let me bring you in this, because I – and I
know you – you have a relationship with Jim Comey. I know you have
written about him quite a bit.

I do want to ask you about the Comey piece of this, because if we separate
what the president is saying and what the president is claiming, this
report does really drill down on James Comey, his conduct during the 2016
campaign as it relates to the Clinton e-mail investigation. And it`s
pretty scathing.

It accuses him of insubordination at one point, if you go back to that –
let me ask you about this in particular. This is where they say
insubordination. They say that press conference he held in the summer of
2016, where he said he`s not going to recommend charges against Hillary
Clinton, but then he essentially in the court of public opinion, it seemed,
indicted her anyway, the Clinton people have looked back at that and said
that`s something that cost her dearly in the 2016 campaign, something he
never should have done.

And this report is saying that the act of doing that press conference
without a heads-up to the Justice Department represented insubordination.

Do you think that`s a fair conclusion?

BENJAMIN WITTES, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Look, I think that Jim did the
things he did.

I have defended some of them, had anxieties about others. The – by the
way, I was one of a very small number of people to raise anxieties about
this publicly about the substance of that of press conference at the time
that it happened.

You know, he did the things that he did. He`s accountable for them. The
I.G. characterizes them the way the I.G. characterizes them. Jim has
responded by saying he respects the I.G.`s work, though he disagrees with
the conclusions.

There`s never been a doubt factually about what happened here. These were
tough choices. Jim made the ones that he made, and he has to stand up to
history and its judgments and response. And I think he`s actually pretty
comfortable with that.

KORNACKI: What do you make of it, though, the FBI director giving that
press conference in the heat of the campaign and then again, the one the
Hillary Clinton folks, and to this day Hillary Clinton herself has said
publicly thinks cost her the election, that letter 10 days before the
election? Do you think that was proper?

WITTES: Right.

So, I think the merits of these questions are very different. Had I
problems with the press conference at the time that it happened. And I
still think that that was not the greatest idea in the world.

I also – you know, I also think, by the way, that it was not in the
highest traditions of the Justice Department for the attorney general to
play no role in the question of what was said at the end of that

So, the problem was both that Comey chose to give that statement, but also
the problem was also that the attorney general chose to just kind of sit
there and let him do it.

I think something very similar about the October letter. I think it was
probably not a great thing to do. And I think the problem was both that
Jim took it upon himself to make that announcement, but also that Sally
Yates and Loretta Lynch didn`t pick up the phone and, you know, knowing he
was planning to do it, and say, no, you`re actually our subordinate. Don`t
do that.

I think there were a lot of mistakes here, but I`m not – I think the
distribution of blame is a little bit broader than the I.G. describes it,
in my view anyway.

KORNACKI: All right. Ben Wittes and Philip Bump, thank you both for
joining us.

And we should note that, this weekend, Chris Matthews is going to host a
documentary on former FBI Director James Comey. That`s going to air this
Sunday, 10:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on MSNBC.

And up next: President Trump says he has solved the threat posed by North
Korea. But what do voters think about the summit this week? We are going
to head over to the Big Board and show you some brand-new numbers on that.
Interesting what they have to say.

This is HARDBALL, where the action is.



TRUMP: We now have a very good relationship with North Korea. When I came
into this job, it looked like war – not because of me, but because – if
you remember the sit-down with Barack Obama – I think you will admit this
– he said the biggest problem that the United States has, and by far the
most dangerous problem – and he said to me – that we`ve ever had, because
of nuclear, is North Korea.

Now, that was shortly before I entered office. I have solved that problem.
Now, we`re getting it memorialized and all, but that problem is largely


KORNACKI: The president this morning saying he has solved the problem of
North Korea just a couple days after that summit.

And, of course, the question this week with that summit, with how the
president has described afterwards, what do voters, what do the American
people who watched their president sit down with Kim Jong-un this week,
what do they make of it?

Well, we got some fresh data. Monmouth has taken a poll on this. Some
very interesting findings.

And let`s head over to the Big Board and find out.

First of all, how about just the baseline question. This is after the
summit this week, the baseline question here. President Trump`s ability to
deal with the problem of North Korea overall, are you not confident, are
you leaning toward not confident? A majority are on the not confident side
of that divide when it comes to President Trump in dealing with North
Korea, which is what he`s doing this week with that summit, trying to deal
with it, 46 percent confident or leaning that way.

So, that maybe not a good number there for the president. And also this,
who gained more from this summit this week? Who gained more from the
meeting? Not a lot of people are saying the U.S. ended up with the better
end of that deal, three times as many saying North Korea, a good chunk
there saying both equally, but not a lot of Americans looking at this and
saying, hey, Donald Trump, who calls himself the master negotiator,
negotiated something that is going to favor the U.S. more than North Korea.

So, maybe some negative numbers there. And yet how about this? The bottom
line question, probably the bottom line question on most people`s mind when
they look at this is that. Did the meeting decrease the threat, the
nuclear threat from North Korea?

And here`s one that is interesting. It`s interesting. A slim majority, 51
percent, say that, in the end, it is likely that what happened this week
between President Trump and Kim Jong-un did decrease that threat from North
Korea and the nuclear threat.

And that may explain this finding. Bottom line, ask folks, was it a good
idea? Trump sitting down with Kim Jong-un, was that a good idea? Seventy-
one percent landing on the side of, it was a good idea. Very
interestingly, when the summit was first announced and this was asked,
should Trump have this meeting, is that a good idea, that number was eight
points less. It was down at 63 percent.

So, there`s a fair number of people this week who wanted that summit,
absorbed the reaction and said, you know what? I changed my mind. I do
think it was a good idea in hindsight. So, not a lot of confidence maybe
in the president himself, but the idea of sitting down, the idea of talking
to people, I think, more on the side there that ultimately that had some
kind of or could have some kind of positive impact.

A little bit of a mixed verdict there, Trump`s handling on the one hand,
the bottom line for the world maybe on the other hand.

Up next: We have more from Donald Trump`s freewheeling media tour this
morning. Trump made a joke about Kim Jong-un, but how much truth was
behind his thinking in that joke? Some are saying it`s a little too on the

You`re watching HARDBALL.


KORNACKI: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Since his meeting with Kim Jong-un in Singapore, President Trump has been
full of praise for the North Korean dictator. He`s called him funny, very
smart and talented. And he complimented his great personality.

Today, President Trump expressed a degree of envy about the attention Kim
commands from his people.


TRUMP: He`s the head of a country. And, I mean, he is the strong head.
Don`t let anyone think anything different. He speaks and his people sit up
at attention. I want my people to do the same.


KORNACKI: Shortly after, Trump insisted to reporters that was a joke.


QUESTION: What did you mean just now when you said you wished Americans
would sit up at attention when you spoke?


TRUMP: I`m kidding. You don`t understand sarcasm.


KORNACKI: Kim Jong-un`s human rights abuses are well-documented. His
regime jails and kills dissenters.

Earlier this week, President Trump dismissed concerns about those abuses by
saying a lot of other people have done really bad things.

Trump was also asked today about Otto Warmbier, the American college
student who was imprisoned by North Korea and died shortly after returning
home in a coma.


REPORTER: You have spoken so passionately that led to Otto Warmbier`s
death. In the same breath, you`re defending Kim Jong-un`s human rights
record. How can you do that?

TRUMP: You know why? Because I don`t want to see a nuclear weapon destroy
you and your family.


KORNACKI: Let`s bring in the HARDBALL roundtable.

Mara Gay is a member of “New York Times” editorial board, John Podhoretz is
editor of “Commentary Magazine” and an MSNBC contributor, and Nick
Confessore is a political reporter for “The New York Times” and an MSNBC
political analyst.

Mara, I`ll start with you. The president just offered what I think is his
justification for all the stuff we showed before that. He seems to be
saying all the praise, all the positive things is in the interest of peace,
no nuclear war, no confrontation.

interest of whatever is in his best interests frankly. I think that`s what
he`s doing.

Look, this is the same story, a strange fascination admiration for strong
leaders, meaning authoritarian leaders. He was completely dismissive and
disrespectful of the G-7, of course, closest allies and then turns around
and has nothing but praise for a dictator. You know, he says it`s a joke.
I don`t think any – I think a lot of us are not laughing actually. I
don`t think it`s funny.

KORNACKI: John, from the Republican side on this, and I`m curious, what is
the thinking in the Republican Party? There`s the question of if Obama did
this, if a Democrat did this, I`m sure I know what the Republican response
would be. How are folks on the Republican side thinking about this?

JOHN PODHORETZ, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I think that they are desperately
hopeful that Trump is going to pull some rabbit out of the hat and make
North Korea – pacify the U.S./North Korean relationship and denuclearize
North Korea. I don`t think people are happy with this rhetoric. It is
cringe-inducing at best and is a complete betrayal of 50 years, 60 years of
Republican conservative views of how the United States should talk about
and deal with totalitarian dictators.

So I believe that Trump meant it as a joke. I think that the weird part
about this is, that he – he doesn`t understand that that this is not
something that a president should joke about because people are standing at
attention for Kim Jong-un because he could fire a ballistic missile at you.
He could kill you with a chemical weapon as he did to a family member in an
airport in Malaysia last year.

I mean, this is – he is a terrifying person to the people who work for him
and live around him and live under his thumb. And it`s not a joking
matter. It`s the opposite of a joking matter.

KORNACKI: And I`m looking at those numbers, Nick, in terms of we showed
this segment before this in terms of how Americans processed the summit
this week and the lesson I took from it seemed to be from a bottom line
standpoint, people do like the idea of some kind of engagement, some kind
of dialogue, even with enemies even with people like Kim Jong-un. But I do
wonder how much latitude they`re willing to offer a president when he comes
back and talks this way.

the president is he swings and veers wildly between extremes. One second
he`s threatening fire and fury and amping up tensions and the second he`s
lavishing with praise. You can go down the middle once in awhile and just
keep it clean which he doesn`t do. He wants to be over the top at all

But I saw those numbers to you and my first thought was a depressing
thought, which is like a good chunk of the country is always with the
president or always kind of against him. What we report on doesn`t really
matter sometimes. It`s a depressing thought but it`s probably true.

KORNACKI: Trump also spoke to reporters shortly before his former campaign
chairman Paul Manafort appeared in court this morning. He said he felt bad
for Manafort and other associates who are being investigated or had pleaded
get guilty in the Russia probe. Trump also singled out his former national
security adviser Michael Flynn and made reference to his long-time attorney
and fixer Michael Cohen.


TRUMP: I don`t think it`s right. I don`t think it`s right they burst into
a lawyer`s office on a weekend and early in the morning. I never heard of
that before.

Now, I feel badly for a lot of those people. I feel badly for General
Flynn. He lost his house, his life. And some people say he lied and some
people say he didn`t lie. I mean, really it turned out maybe he didn`t

REPORTER: You say you feel badly. Is there any consideration at any point
of a pardon?

TRUMP: I don`t want to talk about that. No, I don`t want to talk about
that. No, they`ll run. But I do want to see people treated fairly.


KORNACKI: All right. So, they asked him about the pardon. He doesn`t
want to talk about it. Then his lawyer Rudy Giuliani, a few hours later
said maybe this whole thing will be solved with a few pardons. Then he
says I would advise against a pardon.

So, we are talking about pardons.

GAY: Oh you know what? I think this is wishful thinking. I think that
the president and his administration are under an immense amount of
pressure. Look, I think in some sense the walls are closing in.

Look, the president can talk about this as, you know, Manafort being a
victim as much as he wants. But ultimately, what we`re seeing so far is
the wheels of justice, the justice system working exactly as it should.
You`re innocent till proven guilty.

But there is nothing unusual – these prosecutors are following by all
means just standard practice.

PODHORETZ: OK, so Paul Manafort is accused and is has now been jailed for
attempting to witness tamper, right, to get people who worked for him to
testify in some fashion or talk to the Mueller probe about him in a way
that he wishes. OK.

So Trump has two choices. He can say oh, poor Manafort. He`s 69 years
old. This is terrible. He should be treated fairly.

The other way he could have said it is, you know, on August 14th, “The New
York Times” comes out with a story that reveals a story that there is a
ledger in the Ukraine that shows $12.7 million in undisclosed payments to
Paul Manafort and the day after that, Manafort was fired by Trump campaign.

Trump could say, look, I don`t know why you`re bothering me about this. I
know this guy. I fired him the day after I found out that he was on the
Ukrainian payroll and being an unregistered foreign lobbyist and part of
the swamp.

But he doesn`t do that. And that failure to do that is indicative of
something. I don`t know what about you something.

KORNACKI: All right. The roundtable is staying with us.

Up next, Trump is pinning the blame on the donkey once again this time when
it comes to immigration. We`re going to bring you Trump`s latest wild
assertion right after this.

You`re watching HARDBALL.


KORNACKI: President Trump earlier today gave mixed reviews to his EPA
Administrator Scott Pruitt. Let`s watch.


TRUMP: We now have a very good relationship with North Korea. When I came
into this job, it looked like war. Not because of me but if you remember
the sit-down with Barack Obama, I think he will admit this, he said the
biggest problem that the United States has and by far the most dangerous
problem and he said to me that we`ve ever had because of nuclear is North

Now, that was shortly before I entered office. I have solved that problem.
We`re getting it memorialized and all. But that problem is largely solved.


KORNACKI: That is not Scott Pruitt in case you picked up from the context
clues that the president was talking about there. That was Kim Jong-un and
North Korea.

But Scott Pruitt, the EPA administrator is the subject of more than a dozen
federal investigations. Today, the Office of Government Ethics requested
the EPA`s internal watchdog investigate the more recent scandals swirling
around the administrator, including reporting the Pruitt enlisted a
government aide to help secure his wife a Chick-fil-A franchise.

We`ll be right back.


KORNACKI: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

The Trump administration is facing a major backlash over its policy of
separating children from parents who illegally cross border. And now, the
president is blaming Democrats. The administration acknowledged today that
nearly 2,000 children were taken from their parents in the last six weeks
alone. That is a rate of 46 children per day.

Yet, President Trump is distancing himself from his administration`s policy
and falsely claiming that Democrats are to blame for it.


TRUMP: I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change
their law. That`s their law. The children can be taken care of, quickly,
beautifully and immediately.

The Democrats forced that law upon our nation. I hate it. I hate to see
separation of parents and children.


KORNACKI: We are back now with the HARDBALL roundtable – Mara, John and

Nick, if he hates it, it could change.

CONFESSORE: I mean, who is he kidding? Look, this was a policy that they
advertised as a deterrent. It`s working the way they wanted it to,
unfortunately, now, that they have a huge amount of blowback because these
images are horrifying to any parent, to any person. And it`s going to keep
taking away from support from this policy day by day. It is a crisis for
this White House.

PODHORETZ: Look, I would like to say that the Trump administration is
proceeding on ward and is normalizing in various ways even though I don`t
like some of their policies. This gaslighting on there issue, this
deliberate like looking in the camera and saying something that he knows is
a lie – is kind of like jaw dropping because last summer, John Kelly said,
we`re considering doing this and then two months ago, Jeff Sessions made a
speech saying don`t come to this country. We will separate you from your
children if you come to this country.

He`s – they`re doing what they said they would do. It`s their policy.

KORNACKI: Right. It was designed as a deterrent. Now it`s in the
spotlight and now there`s backlash. Do you think it could change now?

GAY: Actually, that`s – let me just say this. The editorial board, you
know, we came out and talked about this again this week. We feel very
strongly about this.

If people are outraged and people should be outraged, they can do a few
things. They can call their member of Congress and ask them to hold the
president accountable. They can protest. They can donate to organizations
that help immigrant groups and, frankly, they can vote.

So, this is a really great issue to not just be outraged about but we can
fix this. This is, you know, real people, real government is responsible
here. And it`s a moral abomination frankly.

KORNACKI: And it`s one of those, just trying to pin down the president`s
exact position on immigration questions. You know, he`ll say one thing in
this meeting and a different policy emerges. It`s been one of the more
challenging areas to pin him down on. That is for sure.

The roundtable is staying with us. Up next, these three are going to tell
me something - - this is the easiest job in the worlds. They`ll tell me
something I don`t know.

You`re watching HARDBALL.


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

Mara, tell me something I don`t know.

GAY: Sure. So, this week in New York City, we are about to approve a
budget that is likely going to be higher than $90 billion. Which as it
turns out is bigger than the budgets of other of small countries like Chile
and I believe Iran.

KORNACKI: All in one city.


PODHORETZ: Harvard University is going to go through a world of hurt
because it is being sued on the grounds that it discriminates against
Asian-Americans. It is discriminating against Asian-Americans. It is
doing something horrifying and something done to Jews in the `40s and `50s
and it`s been done to others under quotas. They pretend there are no
quotas. They`re going to get slammed and slammed hard.

KORNACKI: All right. And, Nick?

CONFESSORE: Steve, people in the White House are quoting a bible verse
today to defend that policy on family separation, Romans 13. That`s
submission to the governing authority. It was also used over the American
Revolution by loyalist who`s said it meant to stay loyal to the British

KORNACKI: Very interesting historical note there.

Nick Confessore, John Podhoretz, Mara Gay, thank you all for being with us
on this Friday night.

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

Chris Matthews is going to be back on Monday night.

And “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