Release of redacted report expected next week. TRANSCRIPT: 4/12/19. Hardball w/ Chris Matthews.

Janet Napolitano, Charlie Sykes, David Miliband, Leon Panetta, David Cay Johnston

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST:  Some food for thought as we head into the weekend. 

Thanks for watching.  “HARDBALL” is up next.


CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST:  Cruel and unusual punishment.  Let`s play



Good evening.  I`m Chris Matthews in Washington.  Remember how President

Trump said a week ago he was going to get tougher on immigrants.  Well,

since then he`s decapitated the leadership of his Department of Homeland

Security for not implementing his hard line policies.  And now, he`s found

another way to air his frustrations, this time, embracing a plan to use

migrants, detain migrants as pawns to retaliate against his political



The Washington Post first reported the proposal noting administration

officials have proposed transporting detained immigrant to sanctuary cities

at least twice in the past six months.  The report, we`re going to add, the

White House told U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the plan was

intended to alleviate a shortage of detention space but also served to send

a message to democrats.


The President confirmed the report in a pair of Tweets saying, he was

giving strong consideration to this plan.  And at the White House this

afternoon, he expanded upon that.




DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT:  California certainly is always saying, oh,

we want more people, and they want more people in their sanctuary cities,

well, we`ll give them more people.  We can give them a lot.  We can give

them an unlimited supply.  And let`s see if they`re so happy.  They say, we

have open arms.  They`re always saying they have open arms.  Let`s see if

they have open arms.


The alternative is to change the laws and we can do it very, very quickly,

very easily.  Okay.




MATTHEWS:  Do you like the use of the word, supply, like supply of people. 

Well, yesterday, DHS spokesperson told NBC News the proposal, Trump`s

proposal, was a suggestion that was floated and rejected.  And a former DHS

official familiar with the administration`s thinking said the plan was

ultimately scrapped and it was determined to be so illegal.


Earlier today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose district in San Francisco

was among those the White House wanted to target attacked the idea.




REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA):  It`s just another notion that is unworthy of the

presidency of the United States and disrespectful of the challenges that we

face as a country, as a people to address who we are, a nation of





MATTHEWS:  Well, meanwhile, NBC News reports Trump advisers discussing

increasing military involvement at the border, including creating ten city

detention camps for migrants.


I`m joined right now by Janet Napolitano, former Secretary of Homeland

Security under President Obama, an author of How Safe Are We, Homeland

Security Since 9/11.


Madam Secretary, thank you so much, madam President as well, your head of

the California College System and everything.  So let me ask you about

this.  What do you make of Trump and what he`s up to disbursing, talking

about disbursing detained migrants to cities where he wants to punish the

mayors and the democrats?



notion of using migrants as political pawns is inconsistent with our values

and inconsistent with the law and logistically not feasible.  It`s not

something that`s within the ICE budget.  What are we going to do?  Take ICE

agents off the line to transport immigrants to sanctuary cities?  This

seems to me a misguided and ill thought out proposal.


MATTHEWS:  What do you think about him saying, I`m going to tell McAleenan,

the new guy, I`ll tell him to do something illegal.  And then if he does

something illegal because I told him to, I`ll pardon him?


NAPOLITANO:  You know, I think – first of all, I know Kevin McAleenan. 

And I know that he will want to obey the law.  And for the President to

even suggest that he will pardon an official in advance for any violation

of the law, again, ill thought out, inconsistent with our values, just

really awful.


MATTHEWS:  I`d like to go back to the norm in my head and what a centrist

democrat, centrist republican, somewhere in the middle public servant

president would do with the border right now with this surge going on. 

Right now, we`re facing a lot of asylum seekers, most of them legitimate,

perhaps, you could say, but over a million.  On an annual basis right now,

they`re all coming in for whatever reason they found out that under this

certain situation we are facing right now, if you come here with a child,

you`re probably going to get through and you won`t have to face any kind of

hearing until like 2021, what do you do?  What do we do?


NAPOLITANO:  I think there`s a number of things that can be done.  First of

all, we should actually flood the border with what I think of as the rule

of law.  We should be moving immigration judges and indeed other

administrative law judges from other departments to the border so that we

can effectively and efficiently process these asylum claims consistent with

the rule of law, consistent with whether the applicants can show or

demonstrate a credible fear of persecution in their country of origin.


And then we need to get away from this concept that everybody has to be

detained.  We can release people into the country.  They can be required to

wear an ankle bracelet.  They can be required to report back periodically

until such time as they get a return court date.


MATTHEWS:  What do you think of the – I haven`t had you on.  I want to

have an expert on, especially somebody who`s not on the hard right, which

you`re certainly not.  What do you do with the whole question of border

control or sovereignty?  What would a reasonable, humane president do?


NAPOLITANO:  Well, first of all, I think you need to think of the border as

a zone.  It`s a zone through which thousands upon thousands of trucks and

cars pass every day.  Mexico is our number two or three leading trading

partner.  And so you have to think about it from a strategic point of view. 

You need to strengthen the ports of entry.  You need to add more technology

to those ports so the traffic can be inspected and processed through ever

more quickly.  You need to add manpower and technology between the ports of

entry by technology there, I mean, sensors, tunnel detection equipment and

you need air cover, things like drones across the entire expanse of the



I mean, it`s that combination of things that we deployed under President

Obama, we drove illegal immigration to 40-year lows at that point in time.


MATTHEWS:  It`s great to have you on here, a great public servant.  Janet

Napolitano, thank you for coming on HARDBALL.


While during a trip to Texas earlier this week, President Trump lamented

that the military can tougher implementing the policies he`d like to see at

the border.




TRUMP:  I`ve going to have to call up more military.  But our military,

don`t forget, can`t act like a military would act because if they got a

little rough, everybody would go crazy.  So our military can`t act like

they would normally act or like, let`s say, another military from another

country would act.




MATTHEWS:  Well, meanwhile, NBC News reports that during conversations

about using the military to build tent cities for migrants, officials

discussed whether the U.S. Military could legally run the camps once the

migrants are housed there.  According to three officials familiar with

talks, noting it was very unlikely since U.S. law prohibits the military

from directly interacting with migrants.


I`m joined now by Yamiche Alcindor, White House Correspondent for MP PBS

NewsHour, David Miliband, President and CEO of the International Rescue

Committee and former British Foreign Secretary, and Charlie Sykes, Editor-

in Chief of The Bulwark.


Let me go in this order, Yamiche first.  I think Napolitano was great

because we had somebody who`s been head of Homeland Security, knows all the

challenges of border control, knows that the wall is not the answer but

there are a lot of other answers, also knows that we have a problem, a real

challenge now facing up to a million people or more actually on a monthly

basis, over a million people now trying to get into this country, probably

in most cases, legitimately, but a lot of people to be handled.



President using immigrant bodies to make a political statement and to

punish democrats.  We saw that first when he separated migrant families and

saying, if you want to come to this country, we`re going to physically

remove your child from you.  Now, he`s saying, you know what, democrats,

I`m going to actually empty people into your cities.  And in some ways,

people are saying and critics of this are saying, hope for the worst, hope

that something happens in San Francisco and figure out what`s happening.


MATTHEWS:  Well, you look at what happened to Bill Clinton, he was governor

of Arkansas for two years, the Mariel boat load was dumped on them, all

those people with all kinds of problems, criminals included from Cuba, next

thing, he was out of office.


ALCINDOR:  And I have talked to people in the Department of Homeland

Security, both current and former officials who say, the President`s number

one problem is that he wants to do something that`s actually illegal.  He

wants DHS to have policies that are literally not part of international law

and not part of U.S. law.


So he`s going to have to work with Congress to fix those laws or to change

those laws in his mind or he`s not going to be able to do this.  White

House officials have told me that they don`t want people coming to this

country who live in, quote, unquote, bad neighborhoods.  That`s how the

White House looks at gang violence, poverty, all the issues facing Central

America.  And as a result, the President is basically trying to do as much

as he possibly can to change the asylum laws but he can`t do that from the

White House.


MATTHEWS:  You know, Charlie Sykes, this seems like, again, an eight-year-

old, the kind of thing that happened at the back of the car when the two

kids are fighting.  He`s on my side, she`s on my side.  I`m going to get

her.  I`m going to push over.  I`m going to push some of these detained

migrants into San Francisco.  I`ll show Nancy.  It`s like a battle between

kids with him being the kid.



know, Donald Trump unchained.  And you`re seeing his pettiness, his

vindictiveness, his contempt for the rule of law.  What really strikes me

is that this is like a Twitter troll mimicking a policy.  It seems as much

designed to trigger the libs as it is to actually solve the problem.  This

is the kind of idea that Stephen Miller would come up with, you know,

sitting around drinking beer at the frat house, and go, this would be

great.  Imagine if we dumped all of these immigrants in Nancy Pelosi`s



But the fact that it`s taken a serious policy right now, and people do need

to take it seriously, this is a president who, in the last week, fired the

head of the Department of Homeland Security because, number one, she was

not cruel enough, and number two, she refused to break the law.  So it is

not amazing that within this week, we find the President pushing policies

that are more cruel and that require the violation of the law.  And so he`s

really getting in touch with his inner banana republicanism.


MATTHEWS:  Yes.  I`m just thinking, I don`t honestly know the full

geography of the country, but I can imagine trying to flood the zone and

tenderloin (ph) with the homeless people in San Francisco, let`s get a

couple hundred thousand more homeless out there and see how Nancy likes

that.  That`s the kind of threat he`s posing now.  Thanks for coming on. 

Your thoughts.



it`s important first of all to emphasize that we`re seeing the symptoms of

crisis in the sense that the real origin of this crisis are in the northern

triangle of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.  The International Rescue

Committee is unusual and that we`re an international humanitarian aid

agency, so we`re in El Salvador.  I can testify for myself some of the

conditions that people are fleeing from.


But we`re also working in the southern border.  We have teams today in

Phoenix, as well as in California.  And what we`re seeing is a system who`s

very essence is being undermined by policies that frankly are having a

perverse effect.  I mean, remember the Twitter trolling that we`re seeing

this week follows up a couple of years in which things like the abolition

of temporary protected status, which protects 250,000 El Salvadorians who

are already in the United States and sending remittances back to families

in El Salvador.  That kind of – the end of that policy is going to have a

perverse effect.


MATTHEWS:  You mean the Dreamers?  We call them Dreamers.


MILIBAND:  Well, no.  The Dreamers are a separate category.  I`m talking

about the 250,000 temporary protected status or a different group from

Honduras, as well as from El Salvador, 350,000 in total.  And those of the


MATTHEWS:  But, briefly – I`m sorry, it`s great to have you on because

you`ve just been there.  Tell me what conditions would lead a family to

head up to our southern border.  How bad is it in those countries?


MILIBAND:  The simplest way of putting it is if you fear your life.  We`re

an international agency, so we`re offering support and protection for

people who are in fear of gangs.  We work around the world, in Syria, in

Somalia, but we also work in El Salvador because the threat to life and

limb is real.  And it`s the responsibility of advanced industrialized

countries like this one, rich countries, to run asylum processing systems

that take each case seriously and then ensure that those who are entitled

to stay are able to do so.


I think it`s worth pointing out too that while it`s right that 100,000

people arrived in this country last month, Germany, Another advanced

industrialized country, they had a million-and-a-half people who arrived in

2015, `16 from Syria, they`ve got an asylum processing system that takes

eight to ten weeks to process a case.  In this country, it`s taking three

years.  That`s about how you run your system as well as the wisdom of it.


MATTHEWS:  How is that working politically in Germany, that amount of

people coming from Syria?


MILIBAND:  Well, it`s interesting.  Mrs. Merkel obviously took a very bold

decision.  She`s sitting, I can tell you today, at 65 percent popularity

rating, and not just because she will be retiring in a couple of years. 

Yes, it`s true that there`s been real engagement, even political strife and

argument about it, you can – it`s right to be concerned that far right

parties try to exploit the situation, but Germany is one of the most stable

countries in Western Europe.


MATTHEWS:  Well, she`s the best.  She`s the best leader around.


MILIBAND:  Yes.  And I think it`s too easy to say, well, she lost

popularity because of that decision.  Sure it was a tough decision but she

was making up for the failure of the rest of the Europe to take seriously

the Syrian crisis.


MATTHEWS:  Thank you, David.  As I mentioned earlier, President Trump has

repeatedly threatened to shut down the southwestern border with Mexico in

order to stem the flow of migrants.  The New York Times reports that during

a visit to the border just last week, the President urged Kevin McAleenan,

who is about to be named as acting Secretary of Homeland Security to close

the southwestern border despite having just said that he was delaying a

decision on this stuff for a year.


The report goes on to add, it was not clear what Mr. Trump meant by his

request or his additional comment to McAleenan, rather, that he would

pardon him if he encountered any illegal problems as a result of taking the

action.  NBC News has not independently confirmed this report.


Charlie, this is an amazing thing.  I mean, as Janet Napolitano said, to

promise somebody, I`m going to tell you something now.  I want you to do

something illegally, my new DHS acting Secretary, you do something

illegally.  But don`t worry.  I`m covering your rear (ph) behind on this. 

I`ll pardon you afterwards.


SYKES:  Yes, that is extraordinary.  I mean, first of all, closing the

border is reckless and it would be economically disastrous.  But, yes, this

whole point of telling if, in fact, the President told government officials

you can break the law and I will pardon you indicates that we are in a new

phase.  I mean, look, remember, this is a president that`s already pardoned

Sheriff Joe Arpaio for violating immigration laws.  What happens to the

rule of law if, in fact, the President openly says, I will pardon you if

you ignore the law.


Now, closing the border may be the bridge too far for republicans in the

Senate but this is really one of those moments where I think people in the

Senate, Mitch McConnell have to make it very, very clear that, no, if you

start abusing the pardon authority to violate constitutional rights or

federal law, that`s too far, we`re not with you on this.


MATTHEWS:  Yamiche, play god.  Is this for helping Trump politically in the

next election or hurting him, this whole shebang we`re talking about?


ALCINDOR:  I think the idea is if you`re looking at his core base which is

really I think what the President and sources tell me he is really focused

on, and this is helping him.  It`s basically something that`s very simple

that people understand, this idea that I`m going to punish the democrats by

actually letting you see the migrants walk around San Francisco.


But I think the important thing is to talk about the pardon issue.  I think

about back to James Comey and where the President said I want your loyalty. 

This president is asking the new Head of DHS to give him his loyalty to do

whatever it takes to follow through with the President`s plans, and we`re

not sure whether or not, and I think a lot of people or the jury is still

out whether the President gives that same loyalty back.  So even if he`s

dangling this pardon, there`s no actual – there`s no real sense that he

might actually go through and actually pardon him.


MATTHEWS:  If that`s not impeachable, I don`t know what is.  A President of

the United States using his authority to tell government senior officials,

cabinet level people, break the law, I`ll cover you.  That to me goes right

across the line of abuse of power.


Thank you, Yamiche Alcindor, thank you, David Miliband and Charlie Sykes.


Coming up, Trump`s charge of spying and treason of the democrats, the

(INAUDIBLE) guys are traitors because they don`t like him.  How dangerous

is that kind of talk?  I`m going to go one-on-one with former CIA Director,

and former Secretary of Defense, and former Chairman of the House Budget

Committee, and everything else, Leon Panetta.


Plus, political intrigue toward the Vatican, why is Trump`s guy, Stephen

Bannon, going to war with Pope Francis, and he`s over there in the Vatican

doing it?


And also Trump`s tax secrets, what would be so embarrassing that this

president still refuses to release his taxes and he`s actually threatening

the liberty of Steve Mnuchin, his Secretary of Treasury now.  How is that

looming showdown with Congress going to play out?  Much more ahead.  Stick

with us.




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


It`s been three weeks now since Robert Mueller submitted his report to

Attorney General William Barr.  And, still, we have almost no idea what the

roughly 400-page Mueller report actually is or says.  In its place, we`re

left with the attorney general`s interpretation, as well as his opinion

that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign.  That`s another thought. 


Here he goes.




WILLIAM BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE:  I think spying on a political

campaign is a big deal. 


SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D), NEW HAMPSHIRE:  So you`re not – you`re not

suggesting, though, that spying occurred? 


BARR:  I don`t – well, I guess you could – I think there was – spying

did occur.  Yes, I think spying did occur. 




MATTHEWS:  Well, the president picked up on what Barr said and accused

Democrats of treason, a crime, of course, punishable by death. 


Let`s watch. 




TRUMP:  You know, when the Democrats go behind the scenes, and they go into

a room backstage, and they sit and they talk, they laugh, because they know

it`s all a big scam, a big hoax. 


And it`s called politics.  But this is dirty politics.  And this is

actually treason.  This is a very bad thing that people have done.  And I

just hope that law enforcement takes it up, because, if they don`t take it

up, they`re doing a great disservice to our country.




MATTHEWS:  Well, earlier today, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave

a preview of what might be in the Mueller report.


According to Bloomberg News, during a speech to a private group today,

Rosenstein said that special counsel Robert Mueller`s report describes

Russian cyber-crimes during the 2016 election, and that the report would

clear up questions about the Russian campaign to interfere in the election

President Trump won.


For more, I`m joined by Leon Panetta, former CIA director, former secretary

of defense under President Obama. 


Mr. Secretary, you left politics when it was normal.  And here you are back

in a world that is not normal. 


I don`t know.  The president – in the last segment, you were watching, he

was talking about dispersing detained migrants to parts of the country he

doesn`t want – he doesn`t want them to enjoy themselves in, he wants them

to have trouble in and cause trouble in.  It`s an 8-year-old. 


And now we have Barr, who I thought was a real – something of a Washington

heavyweight, now behaving more like a toady, saying things like spying,

because the president chose that word, saying that the FBI was spying, when

it was really doing its job of counterintelligence, which it`s there to do.


Your thoughts. 



gone down the rabbit hole with Donald Trump into Wonderland.


I have – I have no idea what the hell is going on here with the president,

who acts like a punch-drunk fighter, kind of striking out in all



And I guess what bothers me is, I thought that the new attorney general had

some credibility, based on his past experience, and recognizes that, when

you`re attorney general, you`re chief enforcer of the law.  You`re not

somebody who`s supposed to act on every whim from the president of the

United States. 


So I`m a little disappointed in what he said, because the reality is that

there was an investigation into Russian interference in our election.  That

was a legitimate investigation and one that the FBI should have conducted. 


MATTHEWS:  But there is Barr making the case that it was tainted from the

beginning because it was ill-founded, that it was somehow – it was somehow

the work of bad people in the deep state that did this whole thing. 


PANETTA:  Well, I guess there`s plenty of paranoia to go around in

Washington with this president.


But it worries me when the attorney general reflects that same paranoia. 

The reality is that we had 18 agencies, we have had committees in the

Congress all confirm that the Russians interfered in our election process. 

That`s a reality.  That`s a fact. 


And the fact that they were able to determine that early on, and were

trying to find out just exactly what was going on with regards to Russian

interference, I think, is a legitimate area of investigation. 


And the attorney general hasn`t cited any evidence that I`m aware of to

indicate that that was not legitimate. 


MATTHEWS:  Let`s talk about next week.  It looks like it`s going to be

Tuesday, Mr. Secretary, Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest, we`re going to

get some form of the Mueller report. 


The way that – the way that Barr has done it, maybe with the help of

Rosenstein, is to set this spin in action, almost like a preview of a movie

that you watch on television every hour or two, you see the same preview. 

It`s like he`s set up an expectation that it`s going to exonerate the

president, it`s not going to have anything really on – at all to deal with

collusion, and it`ll be a mixed bag, probably bottom line, an exoneration

on obstruction. 


By the time we actually get the document, do you think we will be able to

get a clear view of it because of all this P.R. that we have gotten from

the attorney general? 


PANETTA:  Well, I think it would be well for the American people and all of

us to not jump to any conclusions until we have seen the Mueller



And I mean seen the heart and soul of that investigation.  If they engage

in a practice of redacting half of that report, so that we don`t get the

substance of it, I think it really is going to be a miscarriage of their

responsibility, in terms of providing the American people with the truth



And, ultimately, let`s face it, Chris.  This report is going to come out

one way or another.  It may not happen now.  It may not happen in three or

four months, but this report is going to come out sometime.  And the

American people are going to see exactly what the Mueller investigation



And, frankly, that`s what we are entitled to. 


MATTHEWS:  Let me ask you about something.  You have worked with regular

presidents.  They`re not perfect people.  You have worked with regular



And when they`re confronted by one of their Cabinet secretaries with one of

the restraints on their authority, because it is a form of limited

government – we have limited government, limited power of presidents. 

What do they normally do when you say, well, the law, Mr. President, you

can`t do that?  What do they normally do? 


PANETTA:  You need to – if we had somebody who was not just an acting

chief of staff, but somebody who was a real chief of staff, would stare the

president in the face and say, Mr. President, you cannot violate the law. 


Your responsibility as president of the United States is to uphold the rule

of law in this country.  You swear to uphold and defend and protect the

Constitution of the United States.  You cannot go around, as president,

telling people that they can go ahead and violate the law, and that somehow

you will pardon them after they violate the law.


That goes against every responsibility and duty that a president of United

States ought to exercise.


MATTHEWS:  So great you said that, Mr. Secretary, because when I was a

staffer on the Hill and you were a member of Congress, that was what we

said to each other about our bosses, that they need that counsel, they need

somebody to say, don`t do that, this is not the right thing to do. 


PANETTA:  That`s right. 


MATTHEWS:  And you know guys that you knew who got in trouble that weren`t

getting – getting that kind of counsel. 


Anyway, back in July of 2017, President Trump announced a blanket – a

blanket ban on transgender military service, arguing our military must be

focused on decisive and overwhelming victory. 


Well, today, nearly two years after the administration tried to come up

with a policy that could withstand legal challenges, that ban is taking

effect.  According to the new regulation, any individual who identifies as

transgender will have to serve in their sex assigned at birth.


This policy reverses a 2016 decision by the Obama administration that

allowed openly transgender military personnel to serve openly.


You have had the experience of dealing with rank and file, with the field

rank people.  How is this – what do you think of this decision to ban

people like this, people in this situation? 


PANETTA:  I think it`s not only the wrong decision, but it really is going

to, in the end, hurt, I think, morale in the military. 


But we are the strongest military on the face of the earth.  And the reason

we`re strong is because we allow people to serve in the military, whether

they`re women, whether they`re transgender, whether they`re gay.


And the reality is – and I have seen it as secretary of defense – that

these people served in an outstanding fashion in uniform.  They were

willing to put their lives on the line for the United States of America. 


That`s what service to this country is all about.  And when you say, oh,

no, we can`t have that particular group serve in the military, you are

hurting our military.  And, more importantly, you`re hurting the message we

send to the rest of the world about just exactly what does the United

States represent. 


MATTHEWS:  Mr. Secretary, you sound like a great American president.  Thank

you so much for speaking those words to us tonight.  Thank you.  I mean it. 

It`s not a – you are.


PANETTA:  Thanks, Chris. 


MATTHEWS:  You would be a great president.  I mean it.


Thank you so much, sir. 


Up next:  Ultra-conservatives, including Steve Bannon, are out there

ramping up criticism of Pope Francis and his – for his progressive views. 


NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel has an unusual

assignment tonight.  He joins me to talk about his exclusive interview with

a Mr. Steve Bannon.  There they are in St. Peter`s Square.


We`re back in a moment. 




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who`s currently in Europe working on, he

says, building an incubator for budding right wing ideologues in Italy, he

criticized Pope Francis in an exclusive interview with NBC`s Richard Engel. 


Let`s listen. 





back and putting all the faults in the world on this populist nationalist




Maybe these right-wing movements are a problem.




BANNON:  It`s absolutely nonsense. 


ENGEL:  There are people who are going to see this and think, oh, no, Steve

Bannon, the guy who helped put Trump in the White House, now has his sights

set on the Vatican. 




ENGEL:  Will this guy just stop?  Because it`s true, because that`s what

you`re doing.  You`re trying to bring change to this institution.


BANNON:  This institution needs change.  This institution is in decline.  I

think people will say that. 


ENGEL:  So this is just the beginning?


BANNON:  Oh, the very beginning, very beginning.  This is going to take





MATTHEWS:  Well, Steve Bannon also criticized the pope for his handling of

the ongoing sexual abuse scandal by priests in the Catholic Church. 




BANNON:  My problem with the pope today is about this crisis on pedophilia,

that they are not treating this as a crisis. 




MATTHEWS:  Well, this comes after former Pope Benedict published a letter

earlier this week saying the scandal was caused by a breakdown in

traditional values.


I`m joined right now from London by NBC News chief foreign correspondent

Richard Engel, whose full interview with Steve Bannon is going to air on

Sunday here on this network, on MSNBC. 


Richard, it`s great.


An unusual assignment for you, sir.  I`m used to you in dangerous





MATTHEWS:  This is just troubling. 


The idea that Steve Bannon is going after my church and blaming it for

being anti-populist, and therefore causing somehow the clerical scandal, I

don`t see the connection.


ENGEL:  Well, let me set the context here. 


This is not just us giving Steve Bannon an opportunity to mouth off about

the church.  We did more than just sit down and interview with him.  We –

this is an investigation.


We looked into a movement that Steve Bannon is that – that he`s a part of

that is going after Pope Francis.  And it is very much the same movement

that is driving the right-wing populist movements across the United States

and the same movement, the same tactics, the same strategy that helped

bring President Trump to the White House. 


So there is this loose coalition of people who have grievances with Pope

Francis, who think that Pope Francis is really deep down a liberal, and

they don`t like him.  And Steve Bannon is doing what he always does.  He is

energizing this movement, and he is front and center of this movement. 


MATTHEWS:  Well, I was at a church meeting a couple weeks ago, and I can`t

talk about it.  It was off the record.  But I got to tell you, there`s a

lot of anger in my church, the Roman Catholic Church, about the sexual

abuse of young people, not just people who are prepubescent, young boys.


It`s not just people who are below the age of puberty.  It`s abuse of their

role as priests with young boys, or young women in some cases.  And it`s

been covered up.  And that`s the problem.  And who – how does Bannon

connect that cover-up with liberalism?


ENGEL:  So, Bannon is focusing on this issue.  Most of the time that I

spent with him, he wanted talk about the abuse scandal. 


And he says that the church isn`t handling it, that the church has been

covering it up.  And that is very legitimate criticism. 


MATTHEWS:  Right. 


ENGEL:  You hear that all the time.  You have been hearing that for many,

many years. 


And what people, however, who are critical of Bannon and what he`s doing

is, they say, yes, this is a real crisis.  Yes, it is something that

Francis is dealing with, or maybe Francis needs to deal with better, but

that Bannon and others around him are weaponizing it.  They are using a

legitimate issue and using it to hammer Francis because they have other

issues with him, which is that he doesn`t like the populist movement, that

he`s been reaching out to gay – the gay community, that he has been

reaching out to migrants, and that they – that that is their real problem

with him. 


MATTHEWS:  Well, that is a problem with him, because that`s why I like the





MATTHEWS:  Anyway, thank you.  Those are the reasons we like him.


Anyway, but thank you, Richard Engel.


ENGEL:  We didn`t even mention the monastery.  He`s also building a



So this isn`t just a man who`s ideologically opposed.  He is putting

together a huge facility on a hilltop outside of Rome.  I went to visit it. 

We had filmed over it with a drone.  It is an 800-room monastery that

Bannon is using some of his own personal money to refurbish.  And this is

going to be the center of his – of his movement. 


So a lot is going on here. 


MATTHEWS:  Well, all the people I know, including people who are not

Catholics, not even Christians, who are Jewish people, everybody I hang out

with loves Francis, because he`s a lover of people. 


Anyway, thank you so much. 


Everybody`s got to catch this, Richard`s interview Sunday night with Steve

Bannon right here on MSNBC.  It`s 9:00 Eastern.  You got to watch this one. 


Up next:  The U.S. Treasury Department missing that deadline to turn over

Donald Trump`s taxes sets the stage for a huge constitutional battle that

could go all the way to the Supreme Court. 


Look out, Steve Mnuchin.  The secretary of treasury is – may have to take

– well, he may have to take the hit for the president.  What`s he hiding,

the president?  And can Democrats prove they have legitimate reasons? 

Well, they already have one.  They got the law.  Let`s get the tax returns. 


You`re watching HARDBALL. 




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


Monday is the deadline for all Americans to file their tax returns to the

IRS.  And that includes President Trump, whose tax returns have been in

high demand.


Last week, House Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal issued a formal request

for the IRS to hand over six years of the president`s personal and business

tax returns. 


But the president continues to be adamant in his refusal to release them.





that`s up to whoever it is.  I – from what I understand, the law is 100

percent on my side.


I`m under audit.  When you`re under audit, you don`t do it.  But I`m under



While I`m under audit, I won`t do it.  If I`m not under audit, I would do

it.  I had no problem with it.  But while I`m under audit, I would not get

my taxes.  There`s no law whatsoever. 




MATTHEWS:  But the decision is not up to the president.  It falls on the

Treasury Department. 


The U.S. tax code makes clear that: “Upon written request, the secretary of

the treasury shall furnish such committee with any return or return

information specified in such request.”


The problem now is that Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin missed the

committee`s Wednesday deadline to hand them – hand over them, saying he

needs more time because of the nature of the request. 


He wrote: “The committee`s request raises serious issues concerning the

constitutional scope of congressional investigative authority, the

legitimacy of the asserted legislative purpose and the constitutional

rights of American citizens.  Well, the legal implications of this request

could affect protections for all Americans against politically motivated

disclosures of personal tax information, regardless of which party is in



Blah, blah, blah.


But the House may ultimately see those returns.  It turns out another part

of the tax code could result in severe consequences for Mr. Mnuchin if he

doesn`t comply with the law. 


I will tell you about that in a minute.




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


Amid that looming fight over President Trump`s tax returns, Treasury

Secretary Steve Mnuchin could find himself caught in a more perilous



According to Daily Beast columnist David Cay Johnston, if Mnuchin or IRS

Charles Rettig fail to hand over the president`s tax returns, they could

find themselves in violation of a section of the U.S. tax code that could

be punishable by up to five years in prison.


Section 7214 states: “Any officer or employee of the United States acting

in connection with any review – revenue law of the United States who with

intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to

perform any of the duties of his office or employment shall be dismissed

from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof,

shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five

years, or both.”


Joining me right now is that columnist, David Cay Johnston, author of “The

Making of Donald Trump,” and Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor.


Well, you found this law.  Does the government know about this law you

found, David, that you can go to jail…




MATTHEWS:  … to prison up to five if you don`t obey this rule that says

answer the demand of the House Ways and Means Committee, turn over the tax



JOHNSTON:  They know about it, Chris.  I have actually taught this to my

law students at Syracuse University. 


But, frankly, I had forgotten about it until one of my regular tax sources

suggested I go back and take a look at it.  And it`s a very comprehensive

law.  I mean, you can get in trouble for not acting, as well as acting. 


And so you got to you got to worry about your future career when you leave

the government, what would happen to you if you go break the law for Donald



MATTHEWS:  Well, that`s my question when I watch people like Bill Barr,

William Barr, the A.G., and I look at Mnuchin, the secretary of the

treasury.  These are top Cabinet officials. 


I think they`re on closed-circuit television.  The only person they think

watching is Trump. 




MATTHEWS:  And they talk for him.  But, at some point, they got to deal

with the Constitution, don`t they?  And when would that come? 


BUTLER:  Well, you would hope.


I think it`s clear now that the Trump playbook for dealing with this new

Democratic Congress is to run out the clock.  The clock is the 2020

election.  And what the Trump team does now is delay, delay, delay. 

They`re totally wrong on the law.


Trump has to hand over his tax returns.  But, if he refuses, it goes to

court, to the federal courts, which could mean months and months, if not

years, of delay. 


MATTHEWS:  When Mnuchin says, I`m obeying the law, he`s not saying, I`m

complying with the request. 




BUTLER:  He`s not obeying the law.


MATTHEWS:  Well, stay on just Paul for a minute.


BUTLER:  So, the law is very clear. 


The law is that, if the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee or the

chair of the Senate Finance Committee request tax records of any citizen,

they must be turned over. 


There has never been a situation in which those records have not been

turned over.  So Trump is getting special treatment.  Again, it must be

good to be the king.  This is not the rule of law. 


MATTHEWS:  David, tell us what you can about – based upon your having seen

one of Trump`s tax returns for, I think, was 2005, what is he most

sensitive to about people like us knowing or fellow billionaires or



Well, who doesn`t he – what does he want to keep secret? 


JOHNSTON:  Well, Chris, there isn`t now and there never has been any

evidence, verifiable evidence, Donald is a billionaire.  He`s not a



That`s one thing he`s worried about.  He`s – secondly, he`s worried that

an audit will show tax cheating.  Let`s not forget, Donald was tried twice

for tax fraud, civil tax fraud, and was found in both cases to have engaged

in fraud.  He was excoriated by the judges in both cases.


His own tax lawyer testified against him.  His tax lawyer said, that`s my

signature on the tax return, but I did not prepare that tax return.  That`s

a very strong badge of fraud. 


And you notice that his sister Maryanne Trump Barry, as soon as she came

under investigation by judicial authorities, because she`s a federal judge,

as a tax cheat, resigned. 


Now, if you embezzle money from MSNBC, Chris, and resign, that won`t save

you from law enforcement.  But guess what?  Federal judges have rigged the

system for themselves.  Just resign, and you can walk away and your dirty

laundry will never be exposed.


MATTHEWS:  Let`s follow this to the end, Paul.  Where does this go? 

Because it seems to me, if they`re going to run out the clock, can they

have enough delays from now until end of December `20?


BUTLER:  It`s possible.


Congress can ask a judge to expedite the case, if it goes that far.  But

it`s unlikely that a judge would consider this an emergency.  And so if

this is a political tactic by Trump to just delay release of his tax

returns until after the election, he might prevail. 


There`s precedent here.  President Nixon also refused to let Congress see

his tax returns.  They eventually got them.  And what did they find?  They

found that the IRS had been giving him a break.




MATTHEWS:  Yes, on the presidential papers, right.


BUTLER:  Yes, but the tax lawyer for Nixon ended up going to prison. 


So there`s a treasure trove of information in Trump`s tax returns that

prosecutors in Congress would love to get a look at.


MATTHEWS:  The spin coming out of Mnuchin is that somehow it`s up to the

Democrats.  They have to be simon-pure.


If they have any political purpose in this to expose the president`s

reality, they`re the bad guys.  The law is clear.  It doesn`t say the

Congress has to be fair.  It just says the Treasury Department shall

release the tax returns to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. 


Why does the press – I`m sorry.  Why does the press keep talking about

political purposes here?  They are irrelevant.


JOHNSTON:  Well, Chris, part of the problem with journalism in America is

that most reporters simply accurately quote whatever they`re told, and then

go and get the official criticisms of that. 


And they don`t read the laws.  They don`t reach out to people to say,

what`s really going on here and step back?  And Donald is the master of how

to take the conventions of journalism and use them for his benefit. 


MATTHEWS:  Well said.  Well said.  He pollutes it that way. 


Thank you, David Cay Johnston, for your expertise, Paul, as always, Paul

Butler, expertise in the law and the Constitution.


Up next:  Joe Biden`s long road from long-shot Senate candidate back in –

believe it or not, I was there watching it – 1972 to Democratic front-

runner for president right now. 




MATTHEWS:  In the summer of 1972, I went in with some others on a beach

house in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.


On the way to the shore on hot Friday nights, I would look up at a large

billboard for a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate.  It showed the young

candidate who struck me as the classic sacrificial lamb, the eager beaver

you run when you know the incumbent can`t be beaten.


There was no way that guy up on that billboard was going to be a U.S.

senator.  And then, that fall, while I out in Utah working for a friend who

was running for Congress, I got word from our pollster that something was

abrew in the state of Delaware.  This young guy Joe Biden might just pull

it off. 


The tip turned out to be on the mark.  Biden blew the doors off that

election night, defeating a two-term Republican senator who before that

served as Delaware`s governor for two terms, and before that was a three-

term member of Congress for the state.  He had done it in a Republican

year, when Richard Nixon was sweeping Delaware with 60 percent of the vote.


Biden did it before he had even reached the age required by the

Constitution to serve as a U.S. senator.  How could he not think he was

going to be president someday?


All of which is necessary information right now about Joe Biden, a man who,

no sooner had he beaten the all-out odds to begin a stellar national

career, suffered a horrific tragedy, the loss of his young wife and

daughter in an automobile accident.  That almost destroyed his soul. 


Well, none of this is past history to the man running to make one final run

for the American presidency.  It`s who Joe Biden is. 


And 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