Attorney General Barr testifies. TRANSCRIPT: 4/9/19. Hardball w/ Chris Matthews.

Nita Lowey, Neil Kinkopf, Elliot Williams, Joaquin Castro, Shannon Pettypiece, Jonathan Swan, Ron Reagan, Douglas Brinkley

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST:  We`ll have more coverage as Bill Barr faces the



Don`t go anywhere right now.  “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews is up next.


CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST:  Could moment be tougher?  Let`s play HARDBALL.


Good evening.  I`m Chris Matthews in Washington.  We`re looking tonight at

a real possibility that the Mueller report will turn out to be far tougher

than Attorney General William Barr and President Donald Trump have been

saying.  This could explain why the President has been bashing both the

Mueller report and the democrats who want to see the document in full next



Attorney General Barr was on Capitol Hill speaking publicly for the first

time since he obtained the Special Counsel`s report almost three weeks ago. 

Appearing before the House of Appropriations Subcommittee, Barr said he`s

on track to deliver a redacted version of that report within a week.




WILLIAM BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL:  From my standpoint, by – within a

week.  I`ll be in a position to release the report to the public and then I

will engage with the Chairman of both Judiciary Committees about that

report about any further requests that they have.




MATTHEWS:  Barr says he has no intention however releasing Mueller`s full

report, which could prompt the House Judiciary Committee to issue of that

subpoena they authorized last week.


The most significant thing that happened today was that Barr refused to say

whether anyone at the White House has been briefed on the contents of the





REP. NITA LOWEY (D-NY):  Did the White House see the report before you

released your summarizing letter?  Has the White House seen it since then? 

Have they been briefed on the contents beyond what was in your summarizing

letter to the Judiciary committee?


BARR:  I`ve said what I`m going to say about the report today.  I`m not

going to say anything more about it until the report is out and everyone

has a chance to look at it.




MATTHEWS:  Well, as the New York Times notes that Barr`s non-answer there,

quote, his demurral raised the possibility that the White House knows more

than the public or the Congress about what Mr. Mueller has reported.  This

comes as the associated press reports on a new urgency within Trump`s inner

circle.  Some Trump allies are concerned that the President was too quick

to declare complete triumph and they`re pushing the White House to launch

preemptive attack.  Well, according to the A.P., their goal was to

discredit what`s coming.  We`ve already seen the President step up his

attacks on the Special Counsel and on the democrats seeking the full

report.  But the President said on Saturday, I have not read the Mueller

report yet, even though I have every right to do so.


Joining me right now is U.S. Congresswoman Nita Lowey of New York, she`s

the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee.  Congresswoman, it`s great to

see you on the show.  And I love when you guys do what I try to do every

night here, I ask the right questions.  And what did you make of his jaw-

dropping non-answer when you asked him a pointed question, has the

President seen, does the White House have seen it, which is a better

question, and he didn`t answer.


LOWEY:  You are correct, Chris.  First of all, it`s a pleasure for me to

see you again and I`m delighted to be on your show.  It was very clear for

me that this report was reviewed by many people, including those in the

White House.  And the Attorney General towards the middle of our discussion

kind of clammed up and really didn`t want to answer any questions.  But I

made it very clear, as did my colleagues, I`m a member of

Congress, I have the responsibility to ask and get the complete report.  I

look forward to seeing a version that is not redacted.


And certainly if he`s not going to give it to the Appropriations Committee,

we know Chairman Jerry Nadler will subpoena the report and we can all

review it.  Look, I have seen many reports that can`t be viewed by the

whole public.  You go down where to the SCIF where you see a version that

will include every bit of information.  We need that report.  We don`t need

that report that`s redacted.  We need the whole report and I know the

Judiciary Committee will get it if he`s not going give it to us in



MATTHEWS:  Well, what is the right answer to the question you put to him? 

Do you believe that the President has been briefed on this Mueller report



LOWEY:  Look, if the Attorney General said he consulted with the White

House, do you and I really believe that they kept it secret from the

President of the United States?  I don`t believe that.


MATTHEWS:  Well, I can`t tell how much this Attorney General is like the

Roy Cohn that the President wanted, how much like he`s like Bobby Kennedy

somewhere in the middle or how much he`s like Janet Reno who used to pull

out a notepad every time the President called her because she wanted to be

so official about everything.  I don`t know how close he is to the

President.  We`ll see that.


The Washington Post was reporting that during a meeting with House

Republicans, President Trump suddenly launched into a tirade about

Congressman Jerry Nadler who has been seeking the full Mueller report.  To

the embarrassment of the lawmakers, Trump reportedly called Nadler Fat

Jerry among other things, as he described Nadler`s weight loss surgery in

the 2000s and suggested the democrat was still overweight.


Is the President getting antsy, nervous or what?  I mean, this personal

nonsense of an 8-year-old or a bad 8-year-old, is this because he thinks

this has gotten a lot messier look at him than the way Barr described it

three weeks, this report?


LOWEY:  Well, I think you`ve been around long enough.  Your analysis is

right on target.  But the bottom line is we need that report.  And if Jerry

Nadler, the outstanding Chair of the Judiciary Committee, has to subpoena

it, he will do so.  And I will see that report because that is my



MATTHEWS:  Congresswoman, it`s great to see you in your chair.  I`d love to

see you again.  You have some power.  It takes so long to get any power in

Congress and you have it now as Chairman of the Committee.  Thank you so

much for joining us tonight, Nita Lowey of New York.


LOWEY:  Thank you so much.  And next time, we`ll talk about Tip O`Neill.  A

pleasure to be with you.


MATTHEWS:  Thank you so much, Congresswoman.


I`m joined right now by Elliot Williams, former Deputy Assistant General of

the Justice Department, and Neil Kinkopf is a former Special Assistant to

the Attorney General and a Professor at Georgia State University.


I want to bring in Neil, the new fellow here, the newbie, if you will. 

What do you make of this role the White House is playing here?  First of

all, I`m not sure they should have any role here.  The President is the

subject of this report.  Why in heck would he get a copy of it or any look

at it before the people that are looking to investigate him on the Hill? 

This is the House of Representatives with the impeachment power before

them.  And the President gets to document maybe before they do?



he certainly shouldn`t get it before they do.  Now, Attorney General Barr

refused to say whether or not the President will see it, whether or not it

will be shared with the White House, or even more chillingly, whether the

White House will play a role in deciding what information is redacted from

that report.


MATTHEWS:  Let me go to Elliot on this, because I think this is really

messy.  I mean, Nita Lowey, she is a smart politician as well as a public

servant.  And she – they all smell there`s something up here, that Barr is

working with Trump.



the way he answered the questions doesn`t inspire a great deal of

confidence.  Look, there are three acceptable answers when you`re asked

that the President has looked at something.  Yes, no, or I can`t tell you

because it`s protected under our deliberative process or something like



Now, we would have bickered about the last one. but, you know, either he

saw it or he didn`t.  And so this whole – this weird answer of, well, I

don`t want to tell you, I am making choice not to tell you because I`ve

already talked about this enough, it`s hiding something from the American

people given the public interest –


MATTHEWS:  Well, in our long conversation with the producers here, we all

think that there`s a connection between the huffing and puffing of

(INAUDIBLE) with the president lately.  He was supposed to be exonerated. 

He`s clean as a whistle.  What`s the problem?  Now, he`s getting angry

again.  He`s getting angry about the report, getting angry at people like

Jerry Nadler who are going to release it or trying to get it released.  So

has he seen the bad side of the Mueller report that was hidden from him

three weeks ago?


WILLIAMS:  We know that there is bad information in the report.  They would

not have put in the, quote, unquote, summary document that this does not

exonerate the President if there wasn`t an information that wasn`t at

least, in some way, harmful to the President.


Now, it wasn`t stuff that you can charge the President with criminally,

that`s fine, but it`s still damaging to the President of the United States

and it`s of interest to the American people, and we just need to see what`s

in it.  So they know something is coming even if it`s – again, we know

it`s not felony charges but it`s bad misconduct by the President.


MATTHEWS:  How about being manipulated by Russian intelligence?  That`s

pretty bad.  And that`s what we`re hearing (INAUDIBLE).  Barr has also said

he`s currently working with Special Counsel Mueller to complete his

redactions.  Yet, when asked about the four-page letter that he wrote on

the Special Counsel`s conclusions part, he said he couldn`t answer why

Mueller said the report does not exonerate the President on obstruction of

justice.  Here`s that exchange.




REP. CHARLIE CRIST (D-FL):  Can you elaborate on what is meant by does not

exonerate the President?


BARR:  I think that`s the language from the report.


CRIST:  Right, I understand that.


BARR:  That`s a statement made by the Special Counsel.


CRIST:  Right.


BARR:  I reported as one of his bottom line conclusions.  So I`m not in a

position to discuss that further until the report is all out.  And then

what is meant by exonerate is really a question that I can`t answer, what

he meant by that.




MATTHEWS:  Neil, this is such an interesting, almost peculiar kind of

American constitutional law here where you don`t exonerate because you

can`t indict, but then the President can`t be indicted.  So what do you

say?  It seems like we have a Catch 22, I`ve said before here.  If you

can`t indict the guy and you are not supposed to talk about bad things he

did, if you don`t indict him.  This is going to be the thinnest – well, we

know it`s a 400-page document, so it`s got to go after the President. 

That`s what it`s about, 400 pages.


KINKOPF:  Right.  Well, Attorney General Barr subscribes to this odd theory

of presidential power, the unitary executive theory, under which it`s

impossible for President Trump to commit obstruction of justice even if he

could be indicted.  And so Barr is really kind of out on the extremes in

terms of how he views presidential power.


I think the other important thing that came out of the hearing today is

that Barr is planning to redact information that might damage the

reputation of what he called peripheral characters.  But he said peripheral

characters are people who can`t be indicted, which we know includes the

President.  So in Barr`s rendition of things, President Trump is just a

peripheral character when, to the rest of the nation, President Trump is

the central player in this whole drama.  And so I`m really afraid that so

much of the information that`s damaging to the President will simply never

see the public light of day.


MATTHEWS:  I can`t wait to see a 400-page document reduced to 200 or 300

pages of black paper, just big redaction, redaction, redaction.  Anyway,

thank so much.  It`s great to have you on, Neil Kinkopf, and as always,

Elliot Williams.


I`m joined by Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro of Texas who sits on

the House Intelligence Committee.  And, I guess, the question goes to you

on intelligence because if you can`t nail the President because you can`t

indict him or because you don`t think he has committed a criminal act in

terms of collusion, the question of counterintelligence just jumps out at

me here.  I mean, what are we going to learn in this document about we are

already learning from top journalists that it includes a charge that the

President was manipulated by Soviet intelligence – I mean, Russian



REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO (D-TX):  Yes.  And that`s been one of the things that

actually has not gotten enough discussion is the counterintelligence issue

here and foreign interference and foreign influence.  And we just saw in

the last week or so the story about a Chinese spy going to Mar-a-Lago and

basically trying to make her way in and do who knows what.  But with the

Russians, it`s the same thing, trying to have influence over the President

and his circle, obviously, what they did to interfere with our elections.


And so it seems like during this Trump era, countries are making an even

bigger effort to have influence over our politics and to manipulate our



MATTHEWS:  Like inviting the son, the Fredo-like son of the President to a

meeting to give him dirt on his father`s opponent in a way that a child

would accept that.  Anyone else would say, wait a minute, I`m not going in

a meeting with the Russians to find dirt on my opponent.  This looks likes

like a honey trap or something, right?


CASTRO:  Well, that`s the thing, Chris, yes, absolutely, is when are

governments think that you are open or susceptible to their invitations to

make trade-offs like that, then they`re going to come back and try it again

with a wider and wider circle of people.  And it will not just be Russia,

it will be China and it will be other countries as well.  And I think

that`s what we`re seeing.


MATTHEWS:  Well, Attorney General Barr also said he is reviewing the

conduct of the investigators particularly when it comes to the

counterintelligence probe that the FBI opened in the summer of 2016.




BARR:  I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my

arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that

was conducted during the summer of 2016.




MATTHEWS:  Congressman, what do you make of the Republican effort to try to

not white wash the President but to blacken the reputation of those who

began it?  It seems like this is a real effort to come back and get even,

just going to get fires (ph) and all that this stuff?  Yes.


CASTRO:  Right.  I think you take that statement and then you see what

Devin Nunes is doing, aggressively going after folks who talked about

collusion.  I mean, look, we can`t get to a point where you come after

people who do their jobs in the intelligence community and you try to

you`re so aggressive that you chill people from investigating anything

else.  And it seems to me right now like that is the agenda, at least of

Devin Nunes and some other people.


MATTHEWS:  Where are you on the dossier and including all its gory details

after all these months?  The dossier had – what worth would you attach to

it right now, all this stuff in the dossier?


CASTRO:  I mean, it seemed to me based on everything that I heard

throughout the investigation that there were some parts of it, I think,

that were absolutely relevant.  There were obviously some parts that were

not.  And I`m hoping that with the Mueller report, we`ll get a better sense

for that.  I think the whole country should be able to make its own

judgment about the dossier and everything else.


MATTHEWS:  We`ll see.  Thank you, U.S. Congressman Joaquin Castro of Texas,

a member of the House Intelligence committee.


Coming up, who`s in charge here after Kirstjen Nielsen`s ouster, and with

at least five other senior officials expected to leave Homeland Security,

who is running our country`s home front security?  Is White House aide

Stephen Miller the guy to do Trump`s dirty work, the Mr. Tough Guy?  There

he is.


Plus, ahead of today`s election in Israel, President Trump went out of his

way to politically boost his friend, Benjamin Netanyahu, making some

stunning policy shifts that could have far reaching ramifications for our

country.  We`ve got the latest on that very close race tonight over at

Israel and whether Trump`s efforts paid off for his bud.  We`ve got a lot

to do tonight.  Stick with us.




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL.


President Trump`s purge of several top officials at the Department of

Homeland Security has brought chaos to the leadership of the country`s

Immigration and National Security Agency.  The ouster has led one official

that tell The Washington Post, they are decapitating the entire department. 

But today, the President pushed back on that characterization that he is

trying to clean house at the agency.  Here he goes.




DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT:  Well, I never said I`m cleaning house.  I

don`t know who came up with that expression.  We have a lot of great people

over there.  We have bad laws.  What we need, Homeland Security, that`s

exactly what we want.  There`s no better term and there`s no better name. 

We want Homeland Security, and that`s what we`re going to get.




MATTHEWS:  Well, just in four days, Trump forced the resignation of his

Homeland Security Secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, and his Secret Service

Director.  He also withdrew the nomination of his acting Immigration and

Customs Enforcement Director, that`s ICE.  And he`s moving his Customs and

Border Protection Commissioner to replace Nielsen.


But the President is also reportedly considering removing the acting Deputy

Secretary who, by law, would fill in for Nielsen and I`m looking to sack

the Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services.  So everything is up

in the air.


The Washington Post reports, I, with Senator Chuck Grassley, warned against

additional firings, saying he is very, very concerned.  Grassley added, the

President has to have some stability particularly with the number one issue

that he has made for his campaign.  He is pulling the rug out from the very

people that are trying to help him accomplish his goal is.  Wow.


Other Republicans echoed that concern.




SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI):  I`m concerned of a growing void of leadership

within the Department of Homeland Security. 


And this is a department that is charged with really trying to grapple with

some of the most significant challenges facing this nation.


QUESTION:  Are you concerned at all by the departures at the Department of

Homeland Security and the void that that`s leaving?


SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UT):  No question.


The fact that there there`s a whole raft of vacancies in the Department of

Homeland Security is a real concern, not just at the border, but there are

many things that the department is responsible for.  That gives us some





MATTHEWS:  But the bloodletting at DHS is just a piece of the

administration`s new policy from the hard-liner who`s really in charge at

the immigration front. 


And it`s a frightening picture.  And that`s coming up. 







though, is that our opponents, the media, and the whole world will soon

see, as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president

to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.




MATTHEWS:  Whoa.  There`s a tough guy, little strange going there.  I have

never seen anybody talk that way about American life before.


Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


That was White House senior adviser Stephen Miller in 2017 mounting an

authoritarian different of President Trump`s immigration policy.  Miller

was arguing against federal judges` authority to review executive action,

such as the administration`s travel ban that he helped – that`s Miller –

helped create.


The hard-line policy adviser is now reportedly one of the driving forces

behind President Trump`s leadership purge at the Department of Homeland



And just moments ago, outgoing Secretary – Homeland Security Secretary

Kirstjen Nielsen tweeted that acting Deputy Claire Grady offered the

president her resignation effective tomorrow.  So, here again, the

president gets to pick his person. 


“The Wall Street Journal” reports an administration official said President

Trump recently told Miller – quote – “You`re in charge.”  Steve Miller is

in charge. 


The Axios reports that Miller is a part of the president`s plans to make

new hard-line border policies, adding that: “Sources close to outgoing

Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen tell us that Trump and Steve Miller

have called for changes that are legally dubious and would therefore be

operationally ineffective.”


For more, I`m joined by Jonathan Swan, national political reporter for

Axios, and author Ron Reagan. 


You know, I`m – I – hesitant sometime – I hesitate to attack everything

about Trump, because I`m not sure the Democrats have offered a clear

alternative that the public should understand on border policy. 


But family separation is a political, moral and every other kind of human

disaster.  Why does Steve Miller like it and want to bring it back,



JONATHAN SWAN, AXIOS:  Stephen Miller views the separation of families as a



And you have to remember, the zero tolerance policy that Jeff Sessions

announced, that there was no secret about why they announced it.  They said

it.  They said it out loud, explicitly, that it was deterrent, that it

would have a deterrent effect.


MATTHEWS:  So, a mommy and a daddy down in Central America in a dangerous

situation says, do we make a chance, do we gather our money together, what

little we have, and make a run for the U.S. border and asylum, knowing

that, once we get there, our kids will be taken away from us? 


SWAN:  Yes. 


MATTHEWS:  That`s what… 




MATTHEWS:  That`s the choice they wanted.


SWAN:  That is the deterrent.


MATTHEWS:  Ron, that sounds like “Sophie`s Choice” stuff to me. 


RON REAGAN, AUTHOR:  Well, it does. 


It`s hard for people like us, I think – and I will include Jonathan in

this, because I`m sure he`s a decent fellow.  It`s hard for us to look at a

situation like taking babies away from their parents, throwing them into

cages, and maybe never reuniting them, because you lose track of them, it`s

hard for us to look at that and say, well, I guess it`s tough, but it`s



We find this appalling, absolutely appalling. 




REAGAN:  And it`s a little confusing to see a president apparently, and

maybe again, embracing this policy.


Why would they do that?  The optics are awful.  Politically, it has to be a

disaster.  But I think Trump sees it differently.  And I think his base

sees it differently.  I think he knows that, as far as they`re concerned,

as long as it`s little brown babies that are being thrown in cages, they

don`t really care.  It`s fine with them.  They think it`s tough.


MATTHEWS:  Do you think it`s that way with him, really that bad? 


REAGAN:  Yes.  Yes.  No, I think so.  I think he`s entirely cynical about



MATTHEWS:  Well, I think people don`t – people don`t trust governments to

take care of their kids. 


And the idea people don`t even check their luggage at the airport anymore,

because they want to hold on to it.  The idea of saying your kid is going

to be returned to you in X many weeks, when, in fact, some of them weren`t

returned, as Ron`s right – some of them didn`t get back to the parents. 


SWAN:  Right. 


I don`t think it`s clear at all that they are returning to the zero

tolerance policy.  They have certainly discussed it.  Stephen Miller…


MATTHEWS:  What is zero tolerance? 


SWAN:  Zero tolerance is, they prosecute everyone, which is – which

results in family separations.


What they are doing and what they intend to do is what amounts to the most

aggressive, hard-line immigration policy changes that we have seen since

Trump was elected.  And, mostly, it makes it much more difficult.  They

want to make it much more difficult for people to seek asylum in America. 


That is the call.  It`s not about the wall.  It`s about asylum. 


MATTHEWS:  Well, today, the president denied he`s trying to separate

families again, but defended the policy`s effectiveness and falsely blamed

his predecessor, Obama. 


Let`s watch. 





separation.  Take a look.  The press knows it.  You know it.  We all know



I didn`t have – I`m the one that stopped it.  President Obama had child

separation.  Now, I will tell you something.  Once you don`t have it,

that`s why you see many more people coming.  They`re coming like it`s a

picnic, because let`s go to Disneyland. 


President Obama separated children.  They had child separation.  I was the

one that changed it. 




MATTHEWS:  Ron, he`s – he`s speaking with a forked tongue again, an old

cowboy movie expression.  But the fact is, he says, it`s a bad thing to do

this to separate them.  Obama did it.  But I`m doing it because it works. 


I mean, what is it?  Is he condemning the policy of family separation, or

celebrating it because he`s going to bring it back? 


REAGAN:  Well, that`s a very good question. 


I mean, you have pointed out that what he said made no sense.  I mean, he`s

essentially blaming Obama for having a child separation policy, which is

technically true, but not really.  And then he`s saying that – but this is

the only thing that works.


Well, so, was Obama good or was he bad?  And did he make a mistake by

stopping the child separations, then?  Is that what he`s suggesting? 




REAGAN:  I don`t – I don`t think so.  But it was a little confusing.


MATTHEWS:  Well, the country is divided, I think.  I think that the

president`s going to say come next election – I don`t care who the nominee

is of the Democratic Party. 


He`s going to say, an open borders policy is against – so either like what

I`m doing, which is thuggish, or get nothing done, force the American voter

to go, do I want something done, which is thuggish, which is family

separation, which is immoral to me, or the Democrats, I can`t quite figure

out what their alternative is?


That`s what Trump`s quite happy with, apparently, that choice. 


SWAN:  Yes.  Yes. 


And Trump is willing to go further than any political candidate that we

have seen.  Like, he wants to – when someone comes to this country from

Central America, some of these impoverished places, they have what`s called

a credible fear interview, and they describe their fears. 


Trump wants it – to make it much harder for them to get through that

interview, basically.  So he is willing to go places.  He wants to speed up

deportations.  He`s willing to go places that we have not seen modern

politicians go on this…




MATTHEWS:  What did Kirstjen Nielsen do wrong?  Why was she sacked?


SWAN:  In Trump`s mind, she did not use executive power aggressively enough

to get rid of people, to stop asylum seekers seeking asylum in this

country.  His view was that she was weak, that she didn`t do what she

needed to do. 


The counterview is, every time Trump has tried to do one of these

unilateral policies, almost without exception, that`s very aggressive, the

courts have enjoined him.  And so everything is caught up in the courts. 


And I think where we`re heading now is basically 18 months of litigation,

because it`s all through…




MATTHEWS:  Well, he may like that.  He may want to have Steve Miller

fighting the bad guys, the courts, as he sees it.


Anyway, today, Iowa Republican Steve – Chuck Grassley was asked about

Stephen Miller`s influence over administration policy. 




SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R-IA):  I have no way of measuring it, except I

don`t see a lot of accomplishments that an adviser in the White House has

accomplished for the president on immigration. 




MATTHEWS:  It`s interesting, Ron, to watch the sort of reasonable

Republicans, like Mitt Romney, who can be a mixed bag – let`s face it.


But on this, I watched him on “Meet the Press” this Sunday.  He sounds like

a reasonable conservative about what you do.  He is for E-Verify, stopping

illegal hiring, the usual sort of menu of ways to stop illegal immigration. 

And he didn`t seem to be crazy. 


And I think this guy, Grassley, has never been accused of crazy.  He could

be an SOB sometimes.  He`s a tough customer.  I don`t mean SOB.  I mean

really tough.  The guy is tough.  And yet he doesn`t like the way Trump`s

doing stuff. 


REAGAN:  Right.


Well, then he`s not going to get a job in the Trump administration.  He`s

not crazy.  I guess that`s – you have got to be that. 




REAGAN:  Listen, if Stephen Miller wants to be in charge of immigration, if

Trump wants Stephen Miller to be in charge of immigration, let`s make him

in charge of immigration. 


Let`s make him the director of homeland security.  Let`s give him a real

title.  Let`s bring him before Congress and see if he can get confirmed. 


Stephen Miller has been – he used to go to a high school near where I grew

up, Santa Monica High School in Los Angeles, SAMO, we used to call it.




REAGAN:  He distinguished himself there by being an obnoxious racist. 


He has been this apparently his entire life.  And now he`s going to be in

charge of our immigration policy. 


MATTHEWS:  You know the story, don`t you, Ron?  He would say, throw trash

on the ground so the working people have to clean it up. 


REAGAN:  Yes. 


MATTHEWS:  It`s not your job to be neat.  Make them work for their money. 


REAGAN:  Exactly. 


MATTHEWS:  What a mentality that guy has.


REAGAN:  Yes.  Well, yes. 




REAGAN:  And he`s in the White House now advising the president. 


MATTHEWS:  Yes, by the way, I didn`t like the use – I always think about

myself when I say things on live television. 


I think Chuck Grassley is one of the toughest, toughest, toughest guys try

to get confirmation from in the Senate.  SOB was too strong for even Chuck. 




MATTHEWS:  Anyway, thank you, Jonathan Swan.  Ron Reagan, thank you.


Coming up:  Voters in Israel headed to the polls today to choose their new

– well, next prime minister – maybe a new one.  We`re going to take a

look at the unprecedented ways in which our president worked behind the

scenes and in front of the scenes to help push the election of his chosen



You`re watching HARDBALL. 




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


Today, Israel held one of its most consequential elections in decades. 

And, as of right now, it`s not quite clear who`s the winner.  Current Prime

Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is scandal-plagued and facing indictment

on fraud and corruption charges, faced centrist candidate General Benny



Both candidates remain locked in a neck-and-neck race right now.  Of

course, they`re six hours ahead of us right now.  They`re basically

midnight over there, late past midnight.  We may have to wait for tomorrow. 


But, historically – this is the point tonight – American presidents from

both of our parties have abstained from getting involved in Israeli

politics, opting instead to play the roles of – two roles, friend of

Israel, but also regional honest broker. 


Not this time.  President Trump broke with his predecessors, taking a

number of steps to help ensure that his friend Bibi Netanyahu was

victorious today.  Since the 2016 election, the president has moved the

American Embassy to Jerusalem, withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal,

formally recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. 


And just days before the election, he designated Iran`s Revolutionary Guard

a foreign terrorist organization.  Trump even invited the Israeli prime

minister to the White House two weeks before the election.  There they are

posing for a photo-op in the Oval Office. 


President Trump has forged no deeper political bond than with the one he

has with Benjamin Netanyahu.  And, right now, it`s unclear if Trump`s push

to get him reelected has paid off.


For more, I`m joined by Eugene Robinson, columnist for “The Washington

Post,” Shannon Pettypiece, White House reporter at Bloomberg.


Shannon, this election, I have been following the Middle East, like every

grownup American who lives in this country.  We all follow Middle East

negotiations and politics.


And always our president, from Eisenhower from all the way up to W.,

although some leaned towards Israel more, some leaned against a little bit,

their government, they have always played this other role as honest broker

in the region, so they can bring peace and play a bigger global role than

just being buddies with Israel. 


This president has ignored his global role, ignored the role, forfeited

that of peacemaker or honest broker, and just played political sidekick of





And different presidents have had different levels of honest broker that

they have played.  Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu when he came to

visit once before the election, saying it was too close to the election. 

Of course, those two had quite a chilly relationship. 


And President Trump did not come out and endorse Netanyahu, which would

have been a real sort of diplomatic no-no.  But, as you pointed out,

there`s been no hesitation about his enthusiasm and the timing of some of

these moves, the Golan Heights, the Revolutionary Guard, so clearly linked

to the election. 


And it kind of speaks to, one, sort of the relationship that the president

has with Netanyahu, the relationship that Jared Kushner has with Netanyahu. 

Their two families go back a long time.  They have been friends for years

and years.  And how much of the president`s Middle East peace plan is

riding on Netanyahu getting elected, because he is really someone they have

formed an alliance with.


If Netanyahu is not there, this peace plan they have been working on just

sort of falls apart, to any extent that there is a peace plan at this



MATTHEWS:  Let me go right to the jugular. 


How much of this is Trump`s connection with American evangelicals?


EUGENE ROB INSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  Oh, I think that plays a role. 

Sure, I think that plays a role. 


It helps, you know, shore up his continuing support from the evangelicals

and gives them a reason to forgive all the un-evangelical things he does,

un-Christian thing he does. 


But also, let`s not forget that Bibi Netanyahu knows how to play Trump like

a violin.  I mean, he gives him the flattering, the adulation, and – that

he thinks he ought to get everywhere.  Bibi gives it to him and gives it to

him quite skillfully. 


MATTHEWS:  He`s like Churchill talking to Roosevelt. 




MATTHEWS:  He talks like our best friend in all of this.


ROBINSON:  Exactly.  He knows how to play him.  He plays him really well. 

You know, this will turn out to be one of the most controversial legacies

of the Trump administration.  He`s squeezing toothpaste out of the tube,

but I don`t know if it can be put back. 


MATTHEWS:  Well, let`s talk politics here in America.  For all of our

viewers, and viewers right now.  Shannon, if Bibi goes down, is this an

outpost, a political outpost of Trump following the year before his





PETTYPIECE:  It`s hard to tell how much the Israeli populace can reflect

the U.S.  But, yes, Netanyahu does reflects this similar style of Trump. 

They are both this sort of take no prisoners political fighters.  They get

backed by the sense of nationalism.  They sort of askew and shrug sort f

political norms and political correctness.  So, in a lot of ways, I think

that kind of speaks to the bond and the relationship that these two have

developed and a lot of ways that they have the same style. 


So, right, as we sort of saw this wave of Trumpian candidates around the

world come up.  I mean, maybe, he knows, we could look years from now and

say this was the beginning of the end of that wave of Trumpian nationalist



MATTHEWS:  Well, this past weekend, President Trump told the Republican

Jewish coalition, which consists of American voters, that he supported

their prime minister, Netanyahu.  Let`s watch.  He called them – 





Netanyahu, Benjamin Netanyahu.  How is the race going, by the way?  How is

it?  Who is going to win the race?  Tell me, I don`t know. 


Well, it`s going to be close.  I think it`s going to be close.  Two good

people.  Two good people. 


But I stood with your prime minister at the White House to recognize

Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. 






MATTHEWS:  So people jumped on that term, your.  They`re Americans.  He`s

saying, I don`t – that`s – I`m not sure. 


ROBINSON:  They are Americans.  Democrat or progressive said that, you

know, if Ilhan Omar said that, it would have been, you know –


MATTHEWS:  Shocking, I get it. 


ROBINSON:  – it would have been screaming headlines. 


MATTHEWS:  The United States has a policy.  It`s bipartisan for years now,

since Oslo, that we want to recognize the rights of the Palestinian people. 

They`re people, too. 




MATTHEWS:  Just like the Jewish people.  In fact, you`ve got a lot of Arabs

living in Israel.  Almost all Arabs live in the West Bank and they want to

have a country. 


And that`s been our policy.  You`re going to get a country.  We will work

this thing out.  Bibi is not doing that. 


ROBINSON:  That`s not the policy now.  No.  Bibi has foreclosed the

possibility of a two-state solution because he`s offering, you know – 


MATTHEWS:  Annexation.


ROBINSON:  Yes, he`s offering Swiss cheese, basically. 


MATTHEWS:  He`s recognized all the existing settlements, all the outpost

settlements are all going to be part of greater Israel. 


ROBINSON:  So, who can accept that? 


What happens when you default to a one-state solution?  That`s the

question.  And that will be answered by future generations.  It may not be

answered until Bibi Netanyahu`s – 




MATTHEWS:  Well, the arithmetic suggests that a one-state will be Arab



ROBINSON:  Well, the arithmetic is relentless.  So, he said in a one-state

solution and we will find out what that looked like. 


MATTHEWS:  You know, I was in Israel in the early `70s and I spent a month

over in the old city, and I have to say, that issue of can Israel be a

democracy and can it be a Jewish state is always conflicted by the huge

number of Arabs if you annex all those? 


Shannon, that conundrum sits in the face of every Israeli voter.  It still

does, and the people who support them here.  How do you have a democracy if

you include so many majority people at some point if you bring all in the

West Bank?  How do you do it? 


PETTYPIECE:  Right.  Well, that`s what makes this problem so difficult to

solve and why we are struggling with this over decades.  You know, I think

one of the issues that the president said he tried to do with moving of the

embassy the Jerusalem and the Golan Heights to some extent is take some of

these contentious issues off the table and saying it`s settle, it`s done,

now, let`s try to negotiate.  And that tactic doesn`t appear to be working

so far. 


Our reporting from my colleagues in the Middle East kind of show that this

has been a big set back, especially the Golan Heights move, that you cannot

get the Arab leaders to the table at this point.  It`s really put them in a

bad corner.  And so, as far as this whole Mideast peace plan goes, I think

it`s difficult there. 


MATTHEWS:  Well said.  Thank you so much, Shannon Pettypiece.  And thank

you, Gene Robinson. 


Still ahead, this summer marks the 50th anniversary of America`s first moon

shot.  How time flies, and serves as reminder what this great country can

do when we work together.  Look how proud we were in that day in the world. 

The whole world said the United States can do it.  What a country.  What a



We`ll be back with that.  Can we impact that pride?  Back in a moment.






JOHN F. KENNEDY, FORMER PRESIDENT:  We choose to go to the moon in this

decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they

are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of

our energies and skills.  Because that challenge is one that we are willing

to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win and

the others, too. 




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL.


This summer will mark the 50th anniversary since astronauts Neil Armstrong

and Buzz Aldrin fulfilled Kennedy`s pledge to go to the moon.  In his new

book “American Moonshot: John F. Kennedy and the Great Space Race”,

historian Douglas Brinkley describes the profound effects that moment had

on our country.  He writes: Whenever we worry about American decline,

Kennedy`s moonshot challenge has stood as the green light reminding us that

together, as a society we can accomplish virtually any feat. 


Joining me right now is the author of the book, Doug Brinkley. 


Douglas, thank you, and that is inspiring.  I felt it when I said it.  It

made every American proud.  It made all the squares out there, the

hardworking guys with the slide rules and the guys that are not so cool or

hip, all those people that make things work and study in school and did

their homework. 




MATTHEWS:  We can put a man on the moon. 


BRINKLEY:  Yes, and Kennedy as a senator was very into stem in the idea of

beating Russia with science education.  “Time” magazine picked scientist as

the Person of the Year in 1960.  And when Kennedy came in, we had the

microchip in the late 1950s.  Radar had been perfected.  Of course, we were

doing satellite technology. 


And Kennedy put the new frontier and decided technology and space is going

to be a part of the heart and soul of the new frontier.  And computer

science classes started on campuses.  NASA spread the money around to MIT,

Rice, Caltech, on and on. 


MATTHEWS:  And these World War II guys, the greatest generation as Tom

Brokaw has christened them, these guys, Kennedy included, and Cronkite, who

covered World War II, the guy you`ve written about in the great book, they

were all into the cheering section.  Everybody was together on this thing. 

There was nobody against it really. 


BRINKLEY:  Not really.  Barry Goldwater wanted to go to the Air Force.  He

didn`t like civilian space. 


By the late `60s, people like Walter Mondale and Fulbright thought it might

be used for domestic programs.  But remember, it really was a hangover

effect to Paul Levin (ph) of World War II when we could all do big things

that hurry up the economy approach.  Everybody thinks of NASA in the `60s

as the beginning of Silicon Valley – 




BRINKLEY:  – and all of that.  But it`s also the last big act of World War



MATTHEWS:  That`s what I think. 


BRINKLEY:  Yes.  And FDR did, you know, Grand Coulee Damn and, you know,

Eisenhower had the Interstate Highway Project, the big one.


MATTHEWS:  Right. 


BRINKLEY:  Kennedy went for the moon.


MATTHEWS:  They like the idea of leapfrogging.  When I was growing up in

the `50s, Walt Disney which was a great show for education, had Wernher von

Braun, the old German nuclear scientist, a rocket scientist.  He would come

on and say, we`re going to be the first ones, we Americans to get

satellites out there.  They pick up the paper one day, it was a paper, and

there is sputnik in `57.  It took from `57 to the end of the `60s to

leapfrog the damn Russians. 


BRINKLEY:  And that`s the word Kennedy loved, leapfrog.  And in `57, when

Sputnik went up, Von Braun was furious, because he knew he could have done

it, but he didn`t get funded by Eisenhower. 


Ike held a grudge against von Braun for World War II being a Nazi and von

Braun out of Huntsville just was not getting the funding.  By the time of

post-Sputnik, people started funding more on von Braun, and, you know,

those vanguard rockets that you see collapsed at Cape Canaveral, those were

Navy rockets, the von Braun`s army rockets were flawless and he built the

moon rocket, the Saturn V. 


MATTHEWS:  Well, today, a lot of Americans think of us as the rocket that

won`t make it.  What happened? 


BRINKLEY:  You know, we lost – 


MATTHEWS:  Under Trump, the sense of lack of pride. 


BRINKLEY:  It`s a low ebb in American history.  Kennedy you know wrote the

book on Nixon.  Kennedy barely beat Nixon, but he had a 60, 70 percent

approval rating because he worked from day one to unite the country on a

big goal.  Trump plays the politics of division, and hence, you are not

going to get a moon shot.  I mean, going to the moon cost $25 billion, $185

billion a today we appropriated. 


MATTHEWS:  Yes, but it sent a message to the world that we are the winning

country.  We`re not the Russians.  You know, we were the third world – I

was in Africa and I was watching the whole thing.  Those countries said

wait a minute, the Americans know how to do this.  The Russians can`t do



BRINKLEY:  The whole world, 550 million people watched Neil Armstrong. 

John Glenn in 1962 became not just a folk hero, but he went all over the

world.  His capsule, Friendship 7, would go travel the countries, people

would wait four or five hours.  Everybody loved the United States` space

program because –


MATTHEWS:  What can we do today like this?  How do you bring it back? 


BRINKLEY:  There are some people think we work with NASA and go back to the

moon and like Buzz Aldrin wants a Mars shot. There are other people who

think it`s time to do an earth shot, that you have to deal with climate

change and how to, you know, structure a fossil-free economy.  But other

things we need is a moon shot for cancer like Joe Biden.  The word moonshot

is out there and we are hungering to do something together. 


MATTHEWS:  It`s good to succeed. 




MATTHEWS:  Thank you so much.  What a beautiful book, I tell you, this goes

on your shelf.  I mean, this is inspiring and it`s proud because Americans

did this. 


Thank you, Douglas Brinkley. 


BRINKLEY:  Thank you.


MATTHEWS:  Up next, President Trump promised to pick the best people for

government.  But the best for whom, the American people or Trump? 


Back after this. 




MATTHEWS:  You know how the Senate gets to confirm the top government

officials in Washington?  It`s a way of sharing power between the president

and Congress on who gets to run the government. 


Under Donald Trump, it doesn`t actually work that way.  He`s put people in

top positions that only he, Donald Trump, approved to put there.  So, we

have an acting secretary of defense, an acting secretary of homeland

security, an acting secretary of the interior, an acting director of the

Office of Management and Budget, an acting head of FAA, an acting head of

FEMA, an acting director of the Secret Service, and also an acting White

House chief of staff. 


Is this what Donald Trump promised?  Hardly.  Candidate Trump told voters

he`d pick the very best people out there for the top jobs. 





people, we don`t want people at the B level, C level, D level.  We have to

get our absolute best. 


The cabinet, we`re going to have all the best people.  We`re going to find

out who they are, and it`s not going to be a politically best choice



We`re going to use our smartest and our best.  We are not using political

hacks anymore.  That`s the people that do these deals.  They are political





MATTHEWS:  Instead, we`ve got a government of deputies, people either

reached the top only because the person on top was dropped or quit, or

those who didn`t make the cut the first time around.  But if we are not

getting the top official Trump promised in the campaign, we`re getting what

he now wants, people who might not be able to pass muster with the Senate,

but can be thrown into the positions without the delay or possible refusal

of the Senate confirmation process.  And most importantly, will do what

they are ordered to do by Trump. 


The result is a government of Trump`s people who lacked the credibility of

a confirmation from the Senate.  We have a government of, by, and for,

Donald J. Trump. 


That`s HARDBALL for now. 


“ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES” starts right now. 







Copyright 2019 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