Democrat withdraws concession in North Carolina. TRANSCRIPT: 12/10/18, Hardball w/ Chris Matthews

Hakeem Jeffries, Noelle Nikpour, Philip Bump, Michael Blake, Tim O`Brien, Dallas Woodhouse

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST:  A simple private transaction.  Let`s play



Good evening.  I`m Chris Matthews up in New York. 


Donald Trump smells trouble.  It shows in his anger and he is plenty angry

right now, attacking everyone bringing evidence against him.  The legal

threat to this President is, by the way, growing by the day.  There are

serious new revelations on the Russia front.  Over a dozen Trump associates

have been caught in interactions with Russians.  Prosecutors in the Michael

Cohen case have meanwhile implicated the President in a scheme to break

campaign finance laws. 


Court documents reveal that by helping the President buy the silence of

Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, Cohen acted in coordination with and at

the direction of individual one, a.k.a., Donald Trump.  And now Trump

appears to be leading his own legal defense via twitter. 


In a series of tweets containing, for those who care, a spelling mistake,

the President earlier today tried quoting something he heard on folks. 

Quote “Democrats can`t find a smoking gun tying the Trump campaign to

Russia after James Comey`s testimony.  No smoking gun.  No collusion.” 


He went to defend the illegal payoffs to sounds to women as, I love this,

as legitimate transactions saying, so now the Dems go to a simple private

transaction.  That`s what he calls the payoff s to quiet the women.  Call

it a campaign contribution which it was not.  It was done correctly by a

lawyer and it would not even be a fine.  Lawyers` liability if he did make

a mistake, not me.  Cohen just trying to get his sentence reduced.  Witch-



That`s how Trump talks, especially in tweets.  Well, with multiple

investigations into the President and his associates, the “Washington Post”

writes today, Trump is stepping into a political hail storm.  Quote “rather

than building a war room to manage the intersecting crises as past

administrations have done, the Trump White House is understaffed, stuck in

a bunker mentality and largely resigned to a plan to wing it.” 


According to this report, the White House has calculated that most GOP base

voters will believe whatever the President tells them to believe.  That`s

probably right. 


Joining me right now is Emily Jane Fox, senior reporter with “Vanity Fair.” 

U.S. congressman Hakeem Jeffries of New York.  He sits on the House

Judiciary Committee.  Thank you, congressman.  Phil Rucker is coauthor of

the report in the “Washington Post” I have been reading from.  And Paul

Butler, former federal prosecutor. 


A private – a simple private transaction, congressman.  I want to talk to

you about that because he`s talking about payoffs to two women in the midst

of a campaign that his own lawyer says were basically a campaign expense to

keep these two people quiet by catching and killing their stories, upwards

of about a third of a million dollars.  A lot of money, maybe up to half a



What do you make of that claim that it`s just a private transaction,

business transaction in the middle of a campaign to shut up these people

that said they had affairs with him? 



silly nonsensical statement by the President of the United States of

America.  What is important to note here is that these court filings were

put forth by the southern district of New York, not the special counsel. 


So this is the Trump justice department claiming that the President of the

United States, during the campaign, defrauded the American people.  This is

as serious as it gets.  But that said, we still have to allow the process

to play itself out, let the southern district of New York complete its

investigation.  Let the special counsel Bob Mueller complete his

investigation.  Let them report to the department of justice, the American

people, and then we can decide how best to proceed.  And in the interim, we

are just going to continue to focus on our the people agenda, lowering

health care costs, increasing pay, cleaning up the mess and corruption in

Washington, D.C. 


MATTHEWS:  You know, let`s go to Phil Rucker of the Post.  You cover the

White House.  You are the White House chief.  It seems to be Trump`s

defense is that school yard behavior, the kid on the school yard.  No

matter what the facts are, he figures if he can pee on the opponent, if he

can called Blumenthal, the senator, attack him for his Vietnam record, or

whatever, if he can make it personal with nicknames, he doesn`t need

lawyers.  That seems to be his approach now. 



that`s right, Chris.  He has this undying faith in his own ability to drive

that message.  The problem is when Mueller comes out with a report, there

are going to be facts in that report.  There is going to be a narrative

that is meticulously detailed based on two years of an investigation and

Trump may end up needing more than just his instincts and messaging

abilities to beat back against those facts.  And that`s why so many of his

allies, especially on Capitol Hill are concerned with the lack of

preparation inside the White House for what`s to come. 


MATTHEWS:  Well, Trump could have good reason to fear what comes next in

the Cohen case as you said, Phil. 


“The New York Times” reports that what the prosecutors did not say in Mr.

Cohen`s sentencing memorandum is that they have continued to scrutinize

what other executives in the President`s family business may have known

about those crimes.  The incoming democratic chair of the House

intelligence committee, Congressman Adam Schiff said that Trump could be

the first former President, when he becomes a first former President, to

serve time in jail.  Let`s watch. 





There is a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office,

the justice department may indict him, that he may be the first President

in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time. 




MATTHEWS:  And the incoming Democratic chair of the committee responsible

for drafting articles of impeachment, the Judiciary Committee, that is

congressman Jerrold Nadler of the west side of new York here, said Trump`s

knowledge of those payments could be an impeachable offense.  Let`s watch

Jerry Nadler. 





impeachable offense s? 



would be impeachable offenses whether they are important enough to justify

an impeachment is a different question.  But certainly, they will be

impeachable offenses because even though they were committed before the

president became President, they were committed in the service of

fraudulently obtaining the office. 


But the fact of the matter is what we see from the indictment and these

charging statements is a much broader conspiracy against the American





MATTHEWS:  Paul, let me analyze this history, pressed on this as a

professor right now.  Is it provable, is it now precedent that if you spend

money in a P.R. capacity to cover up a sexual affair, is that a campaign

expense?  Is that established law now?  Because I wonder about that.  Your



PAUL BUTLER, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST:  Yes.  So, I think a judge would find

that if a candidate pays hush money to his mistresses to try to get elected

President, that counts as a campaign donation.  That`s a thing of value

and, therefore, it must be reported. 


There is a limit under the federal campaign law, the maximum contribution

from an individual is $2700.  According to the Mueller sentencing

memorandum, Michael Cohen got $420,000 for covering up the payments to the



MATTHEWS:  (INAUDIBLE), does the President – can any candidate have a

right to spend any amount on their own behalf, though?  I don`t like the

law, but isn`t that the law, Paul? 


BUTLER:  A person can spend his own money, but you can`t give money to

somebody else and make it look like it`s their transaction. 


So, you are right, Chris.  Intent is going to be very important, but we

have both Michael Cohen and President Trump lying about the purposes of

these payments for months and months until their lies are uncovered by

Robert Mueller.  So this, this consistent lying shows what prosecutors call

consciousness of guilt.  They knew they were doing something wrong. 


And importantly in this statement, Mueller – actually, the federal

prosecutors in New York say that Trump directed and coordinated these

payments.  So if we think about this as another kind of organized crime,

Michael Cohen is just the conciliar.  Donald Trump is the dawn (ph). 


MATTHEWS:  Let`s talk about this at the “National Enquirer” story because

they have a magazine that basically caught and killed the story.  But let`s

put it together. 


When Donald Trump ran for President, he got caught up in that Access

Hollywood tape which people like Reince Priebus thought would kill his

campaign.  In fact, he was ready to walk.  And a lot of people say, this is

awful.  He is talking about how he can do anything he wants, the women sex

with him, whatever he wanted with the complete impunity because he is a

celebrity, a big shot. 


So now we find out that he was acting that way.  He thought he could have

these alleged affairs, we will say alleged, but he was paying money to keep

them quiet, paying a lot of money but he had a lot of money, and he still

does, and he is paying off these – using a magazine to buy these stories

and kill them to cover up his sexual behavior, OK.  So it`s to me

ironically - because in Washington, we say what goes around comes around. 


I said this on Friday.  Isn`t it ironic that Trump is now having to pay for

it?  He has to pay for that, what he did in his attitude, because his

attitude expressed in the Access Hollywood tape is exactly his attitude. 


EMILY JANE FOX, STAFF WRITER, VANITY FAIR:  You could call it irony or you

can call it karma.  This is something that as the President said today, he

wanted to be a simple and private transaction, but the way the universe has

worked it has been anything but simple and it has become the most public

and possibly the most damning story of his entire presidency.  It is

something that could potentially land him as an unindicted coconspirator in

this case against Cohen. 


MATTHEWS:  What do you make of the fact that it is the New York up here. 

I`m in New York once in a while, every couple weeks.  Here I am in New

York.  It isn`t the deep state, a bunch of bureaucrats down in D.C.  It is

not a bunch of liberals down there.  It`s a bunch of prosecutors, hard nose

prosecutors in the southern district of New York which is sort of Rudy

Giuliani country.  And now the President is that`s being nabbed, great word

for it, nabbed by those guys. 


FOX:  These are not only people from his home city, people in the southern

district of New York, but this is his justice department as well.  So yes,

they are New Yorkers.  But they belong to his justice department.  These

are not people who are part of the witch-hunt necessarily.  These are

people who are in his own government. 


MATTHEWS:  Let me go to congressman.  By the way, congratulations,

congressman on role.  You have a big role in the Democratic Party.  I know

about it.  I am watching your career.  I spotted you.  You are on your way. 

Congratulations.  You may be speaker some point fairly soon.  Who knows? 


But let me ask you about, do you think you can actually impeach a President

for basically covering up sexual misbehavior?  I mean, we had this with

Clinton.  Everything is different in life, but it was somewhat related. 

And it never seemed right that that would be the basis for throwing a guy

out of the presidency to a lot – certainly progressives and middle of the

roaders and journalists in some cases.  It seemed to be a witch-hunt to use

the phrase used lately.  How do you impeach a President for his sexual

misconduct covered up, even if it is illegal?  Your thoughts?  Is it

appropriate to do that? 


JEFFRIES:  Yes, I think we have to proceed carefully as it relates to

impeachment because it is the ultimate political death penalty put into the

constitution for extraordinary circumstances. 


Now, it may be the case that down the road once the Mueller investigation

has concluded and the facts are presented to the American people, all

options at that moment may be on the table.  But that`s hypothetical at the

moment.  We do know the President has conducted himself like an organized

crime boss, woefully inappropriate.  There were electoral consequences I

believe for some of his inappropriate behavior as a result of the blue wave

that took place on November 6th.  Democrats picking up 40 seats as well as

seats at the state level across the country. 


And we will see what happens over the next two years.  But the right thing

to do is to let Bob Mueller be Bob Mueller.  Let the southern district of

New York, professional prosecutors led by Republican appointees, complete

their work before we as Democrats and the house decide how best to proceed. 


MATTHEWS:  Crime boss. 


Anyway, thank you.  Former director James Comey was asked this weekend by

Nicolle Wallace if the President is effectively unindicted co-conspirator

after being implicated for making the payoffs through Michael Cohen for the

two women.  Let`s watch. 




NICOLE WALLACE, TV ANCHOR:  Is the President of the United States right now

an unindicted coconspirator? 


JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR:  I don`t know.  Not in the formal sense

that he`s been named in an indictment where you can actually say that this

defendant and named others or others by pseudonym, conspired together, and

that`s how you formally name someone as an unindicted coconspirator.  But

if he is not there, you certainly close given the language in the

indictment – in the filing that the crimes are committed at his direction. 


WALLACE:  If Trump wasn`t the President and someone went to court in the

southern district of New York sponsored information that they directed a

crime, what would happen to that person? 


COMEY:  Well, that person would be in serious jeopardy of being charged. 




MATTHEWS:  You know, Phil, you have cover politics like I cover it.  And

the irony is the way in which this whole case has begun to sort of simulate

what happened with Clinton.  Clinton was investigated for something called

whitewater, which was a dry hole.  Nothing came of it.  Then it switched

over to Paula Jones somehow and Paula Jones flipped over to Monica

Lewinsky, and he got in trouble for lying about Monica Lewinsky, about

covering up a sexual relationship. 


Here we have a President investigated for a Russian connection and

obstruction of justice part of that, flipping over ending up with a

discussion this past weekend about covering up lying about an affair,

couple affairs.  What do we make of that under our political system, that

this is the way – this is how we rock and roll these days? 


RUCKER:  Yes.  Well, Chris, it`s not the first time that the cover up would

be worse than the alleged crime, but the President is in a heap of trouble

here and he tweeted on Friday, he tried to claim, look, these court

filings, there were three of them in the span of a couple of hours Friday

night, that they totally clear him as the President and that is just not

true.  I mean, the President is now implicated in a federal felony related

to the southern district of New York case in New York. 


MATTHEWS:  Translate when he says it clears me.  What does that mean to

anybody else on the planet when he says something – when he has all this

damaging evidence about him paying off these women through a circuitry

through the “National Enquirer” ownership?  It`s all caught on paper, and

he says that clears me, what kind of translation would you give that?  What

is Trump saying to anybody that`s listening, it clears me?  Is he talking

to his 40 percent who believes anything he says? 


RUCKER:  Exactly.  He is trying to create an alternate reality.  He has

been doing this for some time with regard to the investigation.  And it`s

his strategy to continue to do that.  And he feels like he can use his

megaphone, his twitter handle to communicate directly to his supporters to

tell them what to believe and they are banking on – he and his advisors

are banking on those tens of millions of Americans out there to believe

him.  So when he says he is totally clear, they will think he`s totally



MATTHEWS:  I guess it`s like the Germans believe that the name who we never

can quote or never mention said that Poland invaded Germany.  That`s why

World War II started.  Poland invaded Germany, remember?  He was able to

get away with that baby. 


Anyway, thank you, Emily Jane Fox.  Great reporting as always. 


U.S. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries.  We are watching your greatness, sir.  I

think you are on your way up.  You are a leader and that is great.  The

Democrats need leader. 


JEFFRIES:  Thank you, Chris. 


MATTHEWS:  Phil Rucker - I mean it.  And Paul Butler as always, sir. 


Coming up, “the Washington Post” is reporting that Russians interacted with

at least 14 more than a dozen Trump associates had contacts with the

Russians in the campaign and during the transition.  What is this Russian

thing?  What is this deal with the Russians?  We have had people like

Barack Obama and Bill Clinton and they never had any Russian friends.  How

come these guys have so many Russian – what is this going on here,

Russian, Russian, Russian?  Every single one seems to have a Russian date. 

Why are they all matching up?  What`s this linking up about? 


Plus, we are going to have the latest on the story we have been following

very closely, the investigation that vote (INAUDIBLE) down in North

Carolina.  That sort of was.  Dallas Woodhouse, executive director of the

Republican Party is going to join us.  That will be knocking around. 


And with the upcoming departure of John Kelly from the White House, Trump

finds himself in search of a new chief of staff.  (INAUDIBLE).  Nobody

wants to be chief of staff at the White House.  That used to be a big deal. 


Finally finish tonight with two years I spent in a world apart. 


This is HARDBALL where the action is. 






UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who

advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the



TRUMP:  No, nobody that I know of.  Nobody. 


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  So you are not aware of any contacts during the

course of the election if


TRUMP:  Look, how many times do I have to answer the question? 


Can you say yes or no on it? 


TRUMP:  Russia is a ruse.  I have nothing to do with Russia.  To the best

of my knowledge, no person that I deal with this. 




MATTHEWS:  To the best of my knowledge over and over again, to the best of

my knowledge. 


Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


That was President Trump in February of 2017 denying any contact between

his campaign and Russia. 


And thanks to a flurry of recent court filings, we now know that Trump`s

former lawyer Michael Cohen regularly updated Trump on his work on a real

estate project in Moscow while Trump was a candidate for president.


And in special counsel Robert Mueller`s sentencing memo on Friday, we

learned more about the extensive nature of Russian outreach during the



According to the memo, “Cohen spoke with a Russian national who claimed to

be a trusted person in the Russian Federation who could offer the campaign”

– I love this phrase – “political synergy.”  How about collusion?  Better

word for that.


In fact, “The Washington Post” found that public records and interviews

show Russians interacted with the least 14 – they there are – look at

those pictures.  Just keep those pictures up there, please. 


These are Trump associates during the 2016 campaign, and including three

Trump family members, two former associates, and nine campaign officials,

all with Ruskie connections, if you will.


According to “The Post, some offered to help his campaign and his real

estate business. Somewhere offered dirt.  A lot of them offered dirt on his

Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, repeatedly.  Russia nationals

suggested Trump should hold a peacemaking sit-down with Vladimir Putin and

offered to broker such a meeting. 


I`m joined right now by Tim O`Brien, executive editor of Bloomberg Opinion,

and Ken Dilanian, NBC News intelligence and national security reporter. 


I just want to get back to you, Ken, because you have this sort of wide,

sweeping notion of the whole thing.  And I think you have got a pretty good

counterpunch to what Trump has in his brain that he`s denying.  But you`re

not denying it.  It`s your job to tell us about it. 


So, if you – what does Trump think when he`s watching a broadcast like

this, and he`s hearing us talk about 14 people around him all had Russian

contacts?  Is he saying that`s natural, no big deal?  How does he explain

this Russian thing that no other presidential candidate has ever been

involved with? 



Chris, he might have been able to explain it, because he did have a policy

of trying to reach out to Russia and have a rapprochement with Russia. 


But he denied it.  So, he lied about it.  I mean – and I use that word lie

because it`s clear now those clips that you played, those were lies.  He

knew that Michael Cohen was reaching out to the Russian government, we now

know from these Friday court filings.


And it`s not something you forget.  They were trying to build a tower in

Moscow.  So, I don`t know what he thinks.  But, to me, the only mystery

left now is whether this was mostly the Russians trying to infiltrate and

recruit Trump people, or was it the Trump team reaching out to the

Russians?  Or was it some combination of both? 


Because, as you know, Chris, a U.S. government official who was approached

by a Russian government official for a lunch meeting or something has to

report that, because they are an adversary country.  They`re trying to

recruit and co-opt Americans.  They`re not our friends.


And so there`s never been anything like this in a political campaign.  And

there`s not a reasonable explanation for it.


MATTHEWS:  Well, people used to say – maybe I was one – that Hillary

Clinton was wrong to avoid being transparent.


But this guy seems like – I will go to Tim on this.


You know him?  Why does he hide?  He won`t even tell us what – he`s not

going to tell us what – is it he`s worrying about the dossier?  Was it

something he did in a hotel?  What is the dirty little secret that makes

Donald Trump keep covering up?  



money.  I don`t think the answer to that is complex. 


And I think it`s…


MATTHEWS:  Why is he embarrassed by the fact that he was a tycoon who

wanted to be a bigger tycoon?  Why was that something to hide?


O`BRIEN:  That`s not what he`s embarrassed about. 


I think he`s embarrassed – Well, he`s not – he is wary of the

implications of providing information that fills out the narrative that

there was active horse-trading going on between the Kremlin and the Trump

campaign for a far longer period of time than I think we still know.


I think it`s important to remember that a lot of the people around the

Trump campaign and Trump himself did not think he was going to win.  He

entered the 2016 campaign essentially as a marketing opportunity. 


And that`s why the people around him, I think, were also grifting.  And the

sentencing memo on Michael Cohen that came out of…


MATTHEWS:  Yes, let`s talk about that. 


O`BRIEN:  Well, we now know that he met in 2015.  That rolls the clock back

a little bit later.  They were – in the earliest stages of Trump`s bid for

the presidency, one of his close advisers was approached by a Russian who

asked him if he wanted to try to do a transaction.


MATTHEWS:  By a guy who wanted to have – let me get back to Ken.


They wanted synergy.  They wanted – in other words, we both want to beat

Hillary.  The Russians, Vladimir, hates Hillary Clinton.  We want to beat

Hillary Clinton.  Let`s work a deal. 


That seems to be what synergy sounds like to me. 


DILANIAN:  Absolutely. 


And the filing says that that particular meeting with that particular

person didn`t come to fruition, but it also says that Trump discussed with

Michael Cohen outreach to the Russian government to talk about the Trump

Tower project and other points of mutual interest. 


I mean – and this was all hidden, Chris, from the American voter.  And you

know this.  If – even if Republican primary voters had known the extent of

Donald Trump`s Russia ties, it`s not clearly that he would have been as

successful.  It just raises so many questions that Trump essentially hid

from the public.


MATTHEWS:  Well, the question of blackmail comes up.


And the whole thing about – Comey was – I`m sorry – we`re talking about

Michael Flynn, his national security adviser, meeting with Kislyak, and all

those meetings to talk about sanctions.  And he was – and the Russians

knew all those meetings.


O`BRIEN:  And Michael Flynn trying to cut deals with the Turks, right?


MATTHEWS:  Right.  Yes.


Well, they`re all over the blackmail.




O`BRIEN:  And everything that`s gone on with the Saudis.


And then Jared Kushner scrambling to refinance the family`s real –

troubled skyscraper on Fifth Avenue.




Starting Friday, we learned a lot of stuff, guys.  We learned about Michael

Flynn.  We learned about Cohen.  And each time, we learned a little about

him.  We know about how the president of the United States is more

susceptible to blackmail, Ken, because, if they – if all this stuff that

he`s hiding comes out, he`s afraid.


And he ought to be afraid that any time Vladimir Putin wants to put it all

out, he can.  And so everything that Trump`s afraid of can be put out by

Putin at any time Putin feels like it.  So that suggests to me, a typical

voter in some ways, this guy has to worry about Putin, which means he`s not

really an independent operator, as our president.


He`s worried about Putin. 


DILANIAN:  That`s right. 


And, as an example, Chris, the Russians have known for a long time that, in

fact, when Michael Cohen reached out to Vladimir Putin`s press secretary,

Dmitry Peskov, to ask for help in the Trump Tower Moscow project, Peskov

got back to him. 


And, in fact, the Trump and Cohen story was that that never happened and

that the project was cut off well before the primaries.  The Russians have

known that that was a lie.  They have known this for some time.  They had

that over Donald Trump.  That`s just one small example. 


And another one of these interactions, Chris, brings us into today`s story,

which is Maria Butina, this Russian agent, agreeing potentially to plead

guilty and cut a deal with the government.


A man named Aleksandr Torshin, who was working with her, is a Russian

central banker.  He reached out to Kushner during the campaign to try to

propose a meeting between Trump and Putin.  Kushner rebuffed him.  And then

he ends up at a dinner, an NRA dinner, sitting next to Donald Trump Jr.


And congressional investigators that I talk to still don`t know how that

happened, why that happened.  And they find that very suspicious, Chris. 


MATTHEWS:  I just want to put two points together.  We got to end this



But Trump`s worries about this being disclosed, everything we`re talking

about disclosed, and that smirk on the face of Vladimir Putin every time

you see him in the company of Trump fits together. 


Putin knows what Trump`s worried about.  And that`s the key to this whole

thing.  Putin knows what Trump`s worried about.


Tim O`Brien, thank you, and Ken Dilanian.


Up next: the never-ending midterms.  One midterm race is still undecided,

as election officials investigate vote theft down in North Carolina.


This is HARDBALL, where the action is. 







right now in case we do have a special election.  This is in the hands of

the North Carolina State Board of Elections that`s launched an



A week or so ago, they made a really unprecedented move to – they decided,

in a 9-0 zero bipartisan decision, to refuse to certify the results of this

election based on the fraud and the irregularities and the illegal activity

that are there.


So, we`re gearing up to be in this fight.  Ultimately, this is in the in

the decision of the Board of Elections. 




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL.


That was Democratic candidate for North Carolina`s 9th Congressional

District, Dan McCready, gearing up for a new election down there. 


At this moment, it`s unclear who will represent the people of the 9th

District come January 3 in the U.S. Congress.


Well, just a few weeks ago, it looked like it would be Republican Mark

Harris, who defeated McCready by a slim margin.  His victory is now tainted

by explosive allegations of absentee ballot tampering.


On Friday, Harris said he was unaware of any wrongdoing, unaware. 


Let`s watch.





investigation finds proof illegal activity on either side to such a level

that it could have changed the outcome of the election, then I would

wholeheartedly support a new election to ensure all voters have confidence

in the results.




MATTHEWS:  At the heart of the allegations is a man by the name of McCrae

Dowless, who is now a person of interest in the investigation being

conducted by the Board of Elections.


BuzzFeed reported that one man signed a blank absentee ballot and handed it

over to Dowless.  Public records show that his ballot ended up signed,

sealed and delivered to the county Board of Elections. 


In other words, somebody voted for him. 


Anyway, Dowless denies any wrongdoing there.


For more, I`m joined by Dallas Woodhouse, another person, completely

different person, executive director of the North Carolina Republican



Mr. Chairman, Mr. Director, let me ask you about this.  Do you think a

tainted election should count? 



Chris, we think that this is deplorable, and it shows a systematic…


MATTHEWS:  Should it count, a tainted election count?  Should a tainted

election count?


WOODHOUSE:  Chris, the problem with that is, I don`t know what that means,

and it`s not an objective standard. 


But we clearly have a problem here.  And we may very well be headed for a

new election.  We need to treat Mr. McCready right.  We need to treat the

voters right. 


We also have the problem that 286,000 people cast legal ballots.  They`re

not in question here. 


MATTHEWS:  Right. 


WOODHOUSE:  And so, unfortunately, as good a job as the press has done

about this – and I wrote a column thanking them for their sunlight and

their disinfectant – we do have to let the nonpartisan investigators tell

what we know before we move to that special election, although it seems

like we may very well be heading that direction. 


MATTHEWS:  What do you make of a guy, a candidate who pays a political

operative a bounty to deliver the most absentee ballots? 


Because Harris did that, by the reporting.  He paid this guy, Dowless, to

win among the… 


WOODHOUSE:  Yes, that`s – I think his name is pronounced a little



MATTHEWS:  Yes, to win among the absentee – well, OK, pronounced… 




WOODHOUSE:  Yes, because he sure as hell ain`t me.  I can tell you that.


MATTHEWS:  But I don`t want to confuse him with you, sir.


But I do think – I`m asking you, is it right or wrong to pay a guy, not to

help me win an election, but I will only give you the bounty if I win on

the most absentee ballots?


Because I think that`s at the heart of this corruption, the belief that you

can deliver victory among the absentee ballots if you – in that county

especially, in Bladen County, if you control the way that they were



They went around and collected them. 




MATTHEWS:  So, this guy who got paid to do it knew what he was doing.  And

the guy paying him, I presume, knew what he was doing.  He wanted to win

among the absentee ballots in that county, so he paid him, what, 40,000

bucks if he won, so – among the absentee ballots.  And he did.


So, doesn`t that seem corrupt by itself?


WOODHOUSE:  I think that`s a fair question.  I really do. 


And I think we`re going to have to get to the bottom of that.  There are

legitimate absentee ballot drives.  But this is looking more and more like

not one of those.


And I know Mr. Harris personally.  It is hard for me to conceive that he

personally would be part of what looks like a corrupt operation.  I would

think it would be other people associated with him. 


But those are questions that are fair to be asked.  And you`re right, sir -

- you`re right, sir, to ask them.


MATTHEWS:  Let`s talk about cheating in an election.


I mean, you and I probably agree completely, because we were – been

involved – I have in my life either been involved in politics or covering

it.  I love democracy.  And I love the fact that you fight it out to get

people to vote for you.  It`s the way it works.  I love it. 


The idea of cheating just – it`s like taking drugs in baseball.  It`s – I

can`t accept it.  I will not accept it. 


WOODHOUSE:  I agree with that. 


MATTHEWS:  And I don`t think a guy deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, for

example, if they cheat, so they – or they gamble on any team.


And so I take – I take those positions.  Don`t you?  Isn`t it important

that we say to people, if you cheat, you don`t win? 


WOODHOUSE:  And, sir, I agree.


MATTHEWS:  If you cheat, you don`t win?  Isn`t that a good standard?


WOODHOUSE:  Absolutely.  And I agree with everything you said. 


And I just want to say, when you were fighting out for Senator Frank Moss

or Ed Muskie, you did it because you believed in their political positions

and their – and that their policy positions would – would result in them

– in betterment for the society.


That`s what good Republican activists do.  That`s what good Democrat

activists do.


MATTHEWS:  I agree.


WOODHOUSE:  These are paid political mercenaries.


And, look, we have a – we have a long way to go.  We have the question of

certification.  We have the question of the long-term systematic failure

that, through three governor`s administrations, two Democrats, one

Republican, dozens of boards of elections, criminal prosecutors who have

not been able to get a hold of this – we have to find out why.


And we have to change this, so it never happens again.  And we have to hold

the people that have done this criminally responsible.


MATTHEWS:  Thank you. 


WOODHOUSE:  And they need to go to prison for long terms. 


The only way, Chris – and I`m glad you`re focusing on this – the only

hope North Carolina has is that the disinfectant provided by the media does

not go away when we answer the question of what happens in the night.


MATTHEWS:  I`m with you.  I`m with you.


WOODHOUSE:  We need it for many years to come, because we have a cultural

corruption problem down in that area of the state.


MATTHEWS:  We have had this problem in the city I grew up in, too, some of

it, over the years.


And I agree with you, sir.


Dallas Woodhouse, thank you.  You agree with me, I think, in the large

part.  Thank you. 


WOODHOUSE:  Absolutely. 


MATTHEWS:  Up next…


WOODHOUSE:  It is – this is the worst thing I have ever seen.


MATTHEWS:  Up next: new hiring. 


President Trump`s on the hunt for a new chief of staff, but qualified,

willing candidates are apparently hard to come by right now. 


Isn`t that interesting?  This is one of the great jobs in America of chief

of staff to the president.  And he`s hard to fill in – hard time filling



You`re watching HARDBALL.







at the end of the year.  We`ll be announcing who will be taking John`s

place.  It might be on an interim basis.  I`ll be announcing that over the

next day or two, but John will be leaving at the end of the year. 




MATTHEWS:  John will be leaving – I love that, he`s not retiring, he`s



Welcome back to HARDBALL.


The search is on for the next chief of staff.  The president announced over

this weekend that John Kelly will be leaving by the end of the year. 


Nick Ayers, the vice president`s chief of staff, was reportedly to be next

in line all weekend, but sources tell NBC News now that the president

couldn`t close the deal with Ayers.  This 36-year-old guy wouldn`t take the



Well, those now under consideration include U.S. Congressman Mark Meadows,

White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, Treasury Secretary Steve

Mnuchin, and even Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker – another job for

him.  Whoever is chosen will have to face Democrats next year with their

own new subpoena power, as well as the likely release of special counsel

Robert Mueller`s big report.  We assume that`s coming by early next year.


Of course, there`s a tweet for everything.  In 2012, Trump criticized then

President Obama for going through three chiefs of staff in less than three

years.  For President Trump, it will be less than two years. 


Let`s bring in HARDBALL`s roundtable tonight.  Noelle Nikpour, Republican

strategist, Philip Bump, political reporter for “The Washington Post”, and

Michael Blake, vice chair of the Democratic National Committee and an

assemblyman here in the state of New York. 


Assemblyman, you first.  My question is, what`s Trump`s problem? 



to say that, Chris? 


MATTHEWS:  Why can`t he pick a chief?  These are great jobs. 


BLAKE:  Well, it`s because of utter chaos in the White House.  When you

think about how they`re going to have three chiefs of staff in less than

two years, you know, it`s an absolute mess.  It shows that not only do

people not want to be in the White House, they`re afraid of what will

happen if they`re actually there. 


I had the honor of working at the White House under President Obama for 2

1/2 years.  There is nothing describing that kind of honor you can`t have. 

When you see you`re walking into investigations, you`re walking into

consistent lies, absolutely no direction, why would anyone want the seat? 


The other concern is, Chris, Trump was saying on Saturday that they had

someone in mind in a day or two.  They can`t even get everything in line

what they`re trying to get done all the time.  There is no direction, and

that`s why no one wants to be there are there. 


MATTHEWS:  What do you think of this White House? 




MATTHEWS:  Would you like to be chief of staff to the president? 


NIKPOUR:  Absolutely, absolutely. 


MATTHEWS:  Let`s get that name in there.  Let`s get your name in there. 


NIKPOUR:  You know, I think the bigger question to me is, it`s a natural

move up for Nick Ayers.  Why wouldn`t he be chief of staff for the



MATTHEWS:  They say, he`d give three months, that`s all he`d give him. 


NIKPOUR:  You have to ask yourself, why isn`t he all over this?




MATTHEWS:  He has enemies in the White House.  He has enemies.  He has the

two big Romanovs, Jared and what`s her name, Ivanka behind him.  That means

he`s got enemies because a lot of people don`t like those two running the

White House. 



than that, though, right?  I mean, first of all, this is a tough job in any

conditions, much less going into the headwinds with Democratically

controlled House getting ready to drop subpoenas all over the place, 2020

election.  You also have only one chief of staff ever in the Trump White

House and that`s Donald Trump.  


No one is ever going to be able to corral Donald Trump.  It is an utterly

thankless job, because Donald Trump is always going to be Donald Trump. 

He`s always going to be – 




MATTHEWS:  He doesn`t like having a hall monitor. 


BUMP:  Yes, exactly.


MATTHEWS:  Meanwhile, “The New York Times” reporting right now that the

president`s son-in-law, the aforementioned Jared Kushner has continued to

hold private talks with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin S – MBS, even

after the murder of “The Washington Post” reporter Jamal Khashoggi in

October.  Time flies.  It`s been two months.  The guy has been dead.


According to a Saudi brief on their conversations, Mr. Kushner has offered

crown prince advice about how to weather – what, is he his PR advisor? 

“The Times” described how the Saudis have been cultivating the relationship

with Kushner.  Given Mr. Kushner`s political inexperience, the private

exchanges could make him susceptible, don`t you think? 


This is great, the royal crown princes are getting together so well.  The

Saudi crown prince sort of cozied up to the son-in-law because he thinks

we`re another banana republic, another country you can buy friendship, you

can cuddle up to somebody and treat them like royal family members. 

Unfortunately, they may be right. 


Your thoughts?  I want do let her take a shot at this.  This is your party. 


NIKPOUR:  This is a very – yes, it`s my party.  This is a different

administration.  Everybody knows this is a very different administration. 

This is not a typical GOP-run administration.  This is a Donald Trump-run -



MATTHEWS:  Is he running this country like a republic or something else? 


NIKPOUR:  No, I think he`s running this country like Donald Trump wants to

run it.  You have to remember, that`s why a lot of people elected him. 


MATTHEWS:  To cozy up to Mohammed Bin – what`s his name?  I don`t know any

– in Erie, Pennsylvania, where he was last night, I don`t think anybody

voted for Trump to become friends with the Saudis. 


BLAKE:  No, they didn`t vote for him to do that, they didn`t vote for a

cover up, they didn`t vote for Jared Kushner saying very clearly that

profit is more important than the people.  No one voted for this.  And for

us to make it seemed like it`s okay, it`s absolutely not okay in any



When you are watching – this is another reason why I think no one wants

the job.  You have an administration, you have someone in Trump where

covering up the death of someone is more important than doing what`s right. 

Regardless of party affiliation, it should be actually doing the right

thing.  And there is nothing about the Trump administration that shows you

doing that. 


MATTHEWS:  MBS, the world thinks he did it. 


BUMP:  Yes.  I mean, all of the evidence – I mean, Gina Haspel, CIA

director, goes to Capitol Hill.  We have evidence –


MATTHEWS:  They`ve got the guy screaming to be able breathe today.  We`re

getting the tape recorders.  We`re getting the torture stuff. 


BUMP:  It`s horrible. 


And in the other administration, this is the flip side of the conversations

we`re just having on the chief of staff.  You can`t fire Jared Kushner. 

That`s the entire reason that there exist a nepotism statutes in the United

States, they had to get a special exemption for, because you want to have

someone accountable to the American people. 


MATTHEWS:  Why is Jared – this is a blunt question.  Why is he looking out

for the crown prince?  Does he like him personally?  What is going on here? 


BUMP:  I mean, the reporting suggests that they were – the Saudi Arabian

government was very successful at putting forth a strategy of bringing

Jared close to the fold, right?  And if you look at the Trump Organization,

the way the Trump organization works is by the interpersonal loyalty.


MATTHEWS:  You know what I think?  I think they`re all nuts.  And to think

that the idea the keepers of Mecca, the Saudi family, is going to help

Israel keep the Holy Land is insane.  It`s never going to happen.


Anyway, the roundtable is sticking with us. 


And up next, Beto O`Rourke in the 2020 elections – is he the wildcard in

the Democratic field in the 2020? 


You`re watching HARDBALL.




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL.


The race for 2020 is beginning to take shape.  I really believe this is the

week.  And today, “The New York Times” is calling Texas Congressman Beto

O`Rourke the wild card in this coming race.  “The Times” writes his record-

setting success with small donors would test the grassroots strength of

progressives like Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie

Sanders of Vermont.   So, he could raise like those two can, and has

appealed to some former Obama advisors and potentially this electoral

college of young people, women and often infrequent voters could complicate

a possible run for former Vice President Joe Biden.  That`s a really smart

analysis, I think.  He`s a threat to Biden. 


NBC News is reporting tonight that O`Rourke has been reaching out to

prominent Democrats in the African-American community, including former

President Barack Obama.  Andrew Gillum of Florida, Al Sharpton. 


Noelle, Philip and Michael all back with me. 


So, everybody, your take on the fact that “The Times” is boosting Beto, and

they took a real shot at Elizabeth Warren the other day on the front page. 

So, what`s up with the Democrats? 


NIKPOUR:  Well, I can tell you in the case of Beto O`Rourke, in my opinion,

he would be fantastic, not running for president, but being the brand of

the DNC, being the new face of the Democrat national party, and being one

of the number one surrogates to help all everybody running for office. 


MATTHEWS:  Surrogate, I love to hear that.  By the way, that was a slight

way of saying you don`t want him to run. 




BLAKE:  It`s also kind of ironic since I`m one of the vice chairs of the

DNC.  Maybe we should focus on that fact before we get going. 


Now, if we want to talk about what`s happening, clearly, we`re going to

have a remarkable bench before what happens in 2020.  We have other races

in 2019.  We got public advocate race here in the city.  We got other races

going on.  So, that`s another thing we can talk to. 


But I would rather be in our position than the Republican position. 


MATTHEWS:  So, Beto O`Rourke, should he run? 


BLAKE:  He`s phenomenal candidate – anyone should think about running. 

But the reality, Chris, when we think about this, when President Obama,

when we decided to make the move, we were in Iowa on March 2007.  We made a

decision obviously in February. 


If you`re serious about running for president, it cannot just be Trump is

bad.  You have to have a clear narrative of why you`re good.  And you have

to put a coalition together, which I think gives him an opportunity.  But I

think there`s going to be about 15 or 20 people have a chance. 


MATTHEWS:  Yes.  Phil? 


BUMP:  That`s right.  I mean, with those numbers, I think one of the

dynamics you have to look out for is what happened with Trump.  Trump won

because he consolidated a solid 20, 30 percent of Republican base out of

the gates by taking a hard right immigration stance.  That carried him

through the early primaries. 


One of the things going on with Beto O`Rourke is, Texas got bumped up in

the calendar, Texas and California, much earlier than they used to be. 

That`s a huge advantage for him.  If he`s able to stick with it into that

primary, yes, California is there and Kamala Harris could also be on the

ticket.  She could pick up a lot of votes.


MATTHEWS:  My question as a political pundit, to listen to the crowds they

rally, not to listen to them talking, but look out and see if anybody is

following them.  Biden has a great name.  I don`t know if anybody is wildly

cheering him yet.  And this guy threatens him, too. 


BLAKE:  I think the reality is until that first person makes a move, we`re

all in a wait and see approach.  But –


MATTHEWS:  Give me three people you`re sure of running. 


BLAKE:  Sure of?  Not going to do that.  DNC vice chair, don`t do that to



MATTHEWS:  Elizabeth Warren is running.


NIKPOUR:  Howard Schultz –


BLAKE:  You`re talking talking points now.  Come on. 




MATTHEWS:  They`re not running. 


NIKPOUR:  He`s actually talking to consultants. 


BUMP:  The last thing Democrats are going to nominate is a rich billionaire




MATTHEWS:  You got to unite.  You are right.  You have to unite the

moderate Democrats with progressive Democrats or you`re going to lose. 


BLAKE:  Everything is about how to fight for the people.  And that`s what a

narrative did work going into the midterm and I think we`re going to

continue that into 2020. 


MATTHEWS:  Well, Democrats can win the states they need to win.


Noelle Nikpour, Philip Bump, and Michael Blake, sir, Assemblyman, thanks

for joining us. 


When we return, let me finish tonight with the two years I spent in a world



You`re watching HARDBALL.




MATTHEWS:  Let me finish tonight with this.  It was Africa, wasn`t it? 

Well, that was my northern Irish grandmother explaining my early success in



An immigrant herself, she knew what it meant to go from one country to

another leaving everything and everyone behind.  She knew how abrupt and

life changing it can be, how it can kick you in the butt. 


Fifty years ago, I went to a matinee showing of “Hair” featuring future

star Diane Keaton.  Then I got on a night plane for New York, leaving my

world behind, my parents, my four brothers, my grandparents, my PhD

program, my looming career as an economics professor, my country. 


And from late 1968 through 1970, I rode a motorbike in Swaziland, Africa,

teaching business to rural traders out there in the son and open air of

Africa.  I was tucked down there in that little kingdom between South

Africa and Mozambique.  My students, clients really, were men who had

opened trading shops to serve their local communities. 


They were incredibly nice to me, always offering a cold drink, Coke on hot

days, even when there was no way to make it cold.  Those wondrous years I

gave up things that didn`t matter – electricity, television, hot water,

and enjoyed what does matter, beautiful outdoor weather actually, warm

people, doable work and adventure, not least the black mamba that kills

within minutes that tried jumping into my car window. 


It wasn`t all work.  In my second year, I took a vacation, hitch hiked up

east Africa, all away, all alone, all away to Kilimanjaro.  And after

spending two years working with the Swazi small business guys who I`ve come

to know personally and distinctly, I forgot all about the cultural

differences that separated them from me. 


And that I believe is what the Peace Corps was about.  Yes, grandma, I

think it was Africa in more ways than we, any of us, can count. 


That`s HARDBALL for now, or softball tonight.  Thanks for being with us. 


“ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES” starts right now. 







Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC.  All materials herein are

protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,

distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the

prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter

or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the