Trump and Biden trade jabs. TRANSCRIPT: 4/20/19, Hardball w/ Chris Matthews.

Jackie Speier, Charlie Sykes, Elizabeth Holtzman, Jamal Simmons, Ryan Williams

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST:  Really?  It`s not Jerry Seinfeld but it is Tom

Steyer, and he`s on The Beat tomorrow to layout why he is spending so

furiously, trying to what he says, is calcify the democratic backbone in

Congress.  Tune in tomorrow.


That does it for me.  “HARDBALL” starts now.


CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST:  Trump`s Moscow problem.  Let`s play HARDBALL


Good evening.  I`m Chris Matthews back in Washington.  A trio of breaking

stories tonight all concerning the President.  One, Michael Cohen, we`re

learning tonight, told Congress behind closed doors this year that he was

told to make false claims to Congress in his 2017 testimony.  According to

transcripts out tonight, Cohen says he was urged to save Trump`s

negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow had ended before Trump`s

presidential campaign began.  And Trump`s team dangled the possibility of a

pardon if Cohen continued to cooperate with them.


Two, a federal judge ruled late today that Trump`s financial records must

be turned over to Congress.  Well, that`s a big one.  Finally, President

Trump told his former White House lawyer, Don McGahn, to defy a

congressional subpoena and not show up to tomorrow`s scheduled hearing.


We begin with Michael Cohen and the explosive revelations from his closed

door testimony to the House Intelligence Committee early this year.  The

committee voted tonight to release transcripts of that testimony which have

now been made public.


As The Washington Post reports, Cohen told the committee he had been

instructed by Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow to falsely claim the negotiations

build a Trump Tower in Moscow ended in January 2016.  Cohen later pled

guilty to making those false statements about the timeline of the

negotiations, which extended well into Trump`s 2016 campaign.


According to the report, Cohen said Sekulow told him it would be important

to use January 31, 2016, as the date when discussions about the Moscow

project ended.  Sekulow told Cohen that the date was significant because it

came before the February 1st Iowa caucuses, the opening contest of the

White House race.


Well, the transcript also shows that when Cohen was asked whether Mr. Trump

reviewed your testimony and approved it, Cohen said, that was my

understanding, that he`d also seen the statement.  In other words, the

President might have known that Cohen was about to lie to Congress.


Trump attorney Jay Sekulow denies the allegations that he shaped Cohen`s

false statements and released a statement through his lawyers, quote, that

this or any committee would rely on the word of Michael Cohen for any

purpose defies logic, well established law and common sense.


For more, I`m joined by Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent for

The New York Times, Mimi Rocah, former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the

Southern District of New York, and Ken Dilanian, NBC Intelligence and

National Security Reporter.


Ken, the news tonight, let`s talk about the fact that we now know on the

record what was said behind the scenes.



It`s important to pointed out though, Chris, that these documents do not

say that Sekulow knew he was telling Cohen to lie.  What they`re saying in

many cases is that people gave him false information, information that he

knew to be false and he repeated that before Congress.


And in some cases, like in the case of Ivanka Trump and her lawyer, they

should have known.  Because, for example, they told Cohen to say that

Ivanka Trump had no involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow deal when he knew

he had briefed, Michael Cohen had briefed her many times.  But it`s pretty

slick.  They were all very careful.  That`s why nobody was charged

suborning perjury.


MATTHEWS:  But the President all through the campaign was asked about it. 

He would say, I have no business going on in Russia right now.


DILANIAN:  Well, that`s the fundamental thing.  This was a fraud.


MATTHEWS:  And that`s what the guy put out.  In other words, his lawyer, to

our knowledge, he was his lawyer, Michael Cohen, said the President had

ended all that business, negotiations with Moscow and Putin`s friends

before he got into the campaign.


DILANIAN:  And when Cohen said that to Congress, Trump knew that was not

true.  And he knew this was a fraud on the voter.  He was running saying, I

had no business with Russia.  Well, he had a deal that needed Putin`s



MATTHEWS:  Let`s bring in now someone who voted to release this

information, Congresswomen Jackie Speier of California.  She sits on the

Intelligence and Oversight Committee.


Congresswoman, your thoughts about what you learned today even before any

of us learned it?


REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D-CA):  So what is most telling and what was released

today are the exhibits that you probably haven`t had time to wade through. 

But it shows very clearly that Abbe Lowell, in particular, and Jay Sekulow,

secondarily, knew what they were doing and wanted to make it very clear

that they were going to distance Kushner and Ivanka and Junior from any

engagement in the Trump Tower Moscow deal.


And it was, I think, in questioning of Mr. Cohen, how many times did you

talk to Mr. Sekulow?  He said, 15 times.  So there was no question that

Sekulow was, in fact, aware of and framing the testimony.


MATTHEWS:  What about Sekulow, the President`s lawyer, teasing, apparently

through implication, the possibility that Cohen could stay on the – if he

stayed on the Trump team, he didn`t give up anything big, he would get



SPEIER:  So there is a lot of code in the way they talk.  And they would

say things like, the President really loves you.  Stay on message.  Stay on

message.  He really loves what you`re doing.  So this was all code for keep

lying and you will be pardoned.  That`s how you would interpret all of



MATTHEWS:  Let me go to Peter Baker on this.  The news – given your news

of and your news of phalanx here rather, how does this fit into the ongoing

story?  The President says the case is closed.  That`s the language of

Mitch McConnell.  The President says this is all over.  He`s not going to

let anybody testify.  It`s over with.  What does this do?



it`s a great question, because you do presume Robert Mueller knew this,

when, in his report, he did not, in fact, pursue any kind of criminal

charges against any of President Trump`s lawyers for trying to influence or

shape Michael Cohen`s testimony.


We have to remember, Michael Cohen now has pleaded guilty and is currently

serving time in part for lying to Congress.  So he is, as Sekulow`s lawyers

point out, a problematic witness by himself.  The question is whether there

will be anything else that would further illuminate this account or whether

or not, in fact, Jay Sekulow, and he gave this information and Michael

Cohen knew about I, as Ken has just said, whether he knew is true or not,

whether he was being fed misinformation.


I remember last year, I think it was, when we reported about that Trump

Tower meeting in 2016 involving the Russians, and we reported the President

had shaped the misleading statement that was put out to the press about it,

Jay Sekulow went on television and said, that`s not true.  Well, of course,

it was true, as Mueller`s report shows.  So the question is whether or not

he was fed misinformation or whether he is passing along things from other

people that aren`t true.


MATTHEWS:  Congresswoman, what`s going on here?  We`re learning through a

glass darkly here.  Three things going on, Trump has got three things on

his mind.  He wants to make millions of dollars for himself and his family

in a Moscow building, which is going to be some huge project, maybe his

bombshell of hHis career, at the same time, he`s running for president. 

And at the same time, he`s trying to build some new relationship with

Putin, the guy who is cutting the deal with him basically for the Moscow



SPEIER:  That`s correct.  And in terms of whether or not you want to trust

Michael Cohen, look at the exhibits.  Look at the emails that were

exchanged by Abbe Lowell and Jay Sekulow, and it becomes very clear what

they were doing.  They have been manipulating the information to try to

create a narrative, support that the President was not engaged in the

Moscow Trump Tower project throughout the campaign cycle.


And, you know, he didn`t expect to win.  That was the other part of this. 

He was already framing his next venture.  And so all of this makes sense in

the scheme of things.


MATTHEWS:  Let me go to Mimi Rocah.  It seems to me that the reason I keep

talking about over the past months about RICO charges, everything here is

done by indirection and through people, through cutouts.  I mean, the

President says, allows some information to reach Sekulow.  I don`t know if

he ever actually sat down and talked, honestly.  Sekulow puts the word out

to Cohen on what to say.  Therefore, the President is protected from lying. 

But he gets his lawyer.


Everybody thought Michael Cohen was the President`s lawyer.  When he was

speaking, we thought he was speaking for the President.  Now, it turns out

he was hearing from Sekulow, all these hedged language and promises of

pardon and everything, and somehow, the President is always insulated like

a mob boss.


MIMI ROCAH, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY:  That`s right, Chris.  And, you

know, look, the question about why this hasn`t been charged yet, I mean, it

is true, Mueller refers to this in his report.  But he also very clearly

says that, basically, he`s not going down the road of interviewing

attorneys.  He did the same thing with Michael Flynn.  He did not try to

pierce that veil of attorney-client privilege.


Many prosecutors would take a different tact and certainly Congress could,

because it certainly does seem here like there is a good case to be made

for the crime fraud exception, which is a very strong, well-established

exception.  And if you do that, you know, we might get more to the bottom

of really what the different communications were.


And you`re right.  Someone shouldn`t be able to insulate them just

themselves, just by using cutouts, especially by using attorneys.  That`s

an old mob tactic.  They try to use attorneys, thinking they will insulate. 

And so we have to really scrutinize that and make sure we don`t let people

get away with things just because they`re using their lawyers.


MATTHEWS:  And we know, Ken, that Trump makes people lie.  He took Sean

Spicer, had a pretty good reputation, made him to a liar about stupid

stuff, like crowd sizes, lying right on the face people.  And what their

eyes told them wasn`t true.  He`s clearly able to tell Sekulow, tell Cohen

to keep quiet, we`ll give him something and make it look sweet.


DILANIAN:  And Mimi put her finger on something very important.  Attorney-

client privilege loomed large here.  But guess what?  This is something I

didn`t know.  Congress does not recognize attorney-client privilege in

their investigations.  They may well haul these lawyers before the

committee and make them testify under oath about what happened here and get

the documents.


Now, will that mean they go to jail?  No.  But if, in fact, they encourage

people to lie, they knowingly cause people to lie, that will be exposed to

the public, and that`s the idea here.


MATTHEWS:  Yes, so all the presidents may go prison (ph).  Anyway, the

President`s blanket strategy to defy subpoena has got a big major legal

blow today as a it`s a federal judge ruled to uphold a House Oversight

Committee subpoena for President Trump`s financial records from accounting

firm, Mazars USA.  The President`s lawyers sought to block that subpoena,

arguing it had no legislative function.


In a 41-page ruling, however, D.C. Circuit Court Judge Amit Mehta argued

the opposite, writing, Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping

authority to investigate illegal conduct of a president before and after

taking office.  This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of

history.  Wow, what a judge.  President Trump responded late today.




DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT:  We disagree with that ruling.  It`s crazy. 

Because when you look at it, this never happened to any other president. 

They`re trying to get a redo.  As far as the financials are concerned, we

think it`s the wrong – it`s totally the wrong decision by obviously an

Obama-appointed judge.  He was a recent Obama-appointed judge.




MATTHEWS:  Well, there`s the President discrediting the judiciary again. 

Congresswoman, how – what`s going to be in these financials?  Will it

include tax returns?


SPEIER:  I would think that it would include tax returns.  But the

financial statements that you might recall that Michael Cohen was showing

in which he would inflate them when he wanted to appear that he had a lot

of equities so that he could the Buffalo Bills and then deflate them for

insurance purposes, all of that turns out to be fraud.  And, again, in his

testimony that you`ll soon be reading, he talks about insurance fraud that

the President was engaged in as well.


So all of this is subject to our review.  And, again, no one in this

country is above the law.  And I think we need to start talking about what

is becoming a lawless presidency.


MATTHEWS:  Peter Baker, that`s a strong charge from the Congresswoman.  A

lot of people will believe that`s the appropriate thing to say right now. 

The President and his republican phalanx around him, which protects him at

every moment says case closed.  Where is this story going if the President

has got his party behind him at every turn?


BAKER:  Well, that`s the real question here, right?  It`s are there any

revelations that could come forward?  Is there more information that would

be revealed that would change the minds of republicans, republican voters

and republican lawmakers, because if not, then Nancy Pelosi`s conclusion

about impeachment probably ends up standing?  She says there`s no point in

going forward, he`s not worth it, unless you have such overwhelming

evidence and evidence to support potentially at least among republicans

because you need republican support in the senate to convict.


So far, we haven`t seen anything like that.  Justin Amash, obviously, the

congressman from Michigan, became the first republican to call for

impeachment.  That`s a change, obviously, but he is just one member of the

House.  And we haven`t seen anybody in the Senate say that.


So the real question is, can these revelations, anything that would come

out on these subpoenas change people`s minds?  People are pretty locked in

in this country right now.  So it would have to probably be something

pretty extraordinary.


MATTHEWS:  I agree with you because I`m looking at those numbers this

weekend.  Trump gets the same number against every democrat except for

Biden, I guess, at 41, holding strong no matter what comes out.


Congresswoman, I have to ask you that question.  Do you think you`re

getting there with this president?  Are you getting towards a prosecution?


SPEIER:  You know, we`ve got to stop talking about this whole issue of

impeachment like it`s a political question.  It is a constitutional

question now.  And it`s incumbent on all of us to recognize that anyone who

violates the law is subject to the law.  And I think the Michael Cohen

transcript will help us in that regard.  I think the fact that once we get

access to the financial documents, that will help us.  The emoluments issue

is an outstanding issue that has yet to be addressed.


So let`s be clear, this is not a decision that is made based on the polls. 

The American people expect us to read the Mueller report, expect us to do

the fine reading of all of the documents and the accounting, but not for

the American people to do that.  So I`m tired of looking at polls.  I want

to do what`s right by the American people by making sure everyone has to

comply with the laws.


MATTHEWS:  When should the people, especially democratic progressive wing,

give up on the House moving on impeachment?  When should they give up on

it, because it`s not happening now and you haven`t even resolved to begin

hearings on it?


SPEIER:  I think what`s going to probably happen, from my perspective, is

that the articles of impeachment will begin the process, that the inquiry

will begin.  We will lay that out.  That`s the only way I think we`re going

to actually get the documents that we`re seeking.  And then we will give to

the American people the opportunity to try the President and determine

whether he should be convicted or not at the election come next November.


MATTHEWS:  Thank you so much, U.S. Congresswoman Jackie Speier of

California, Peter Baker, Mimi Rocah and Ken Dilanian.


Coming up, another major story tonight, the White House directing former

Counsel Don McGahn to ignore a Congressional subpoena, why President Trump

says he won`t allow it to happen and what Congress can do, if anything, to

get this White House to comply with any kind of oversight.


And the road to the White House goes through Pennsylvania.  We were in

Wilkes-Barre last week.  And right now, President Trump is a little further

west getting ready to disembark from his Air Force One in Montoursville. 

His campaign is seeing troubling signs that the state that was so critical

to his victory in 2016 could be slipping away, at least to some democrats. 

Much more ahead, stay with us.




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL.


President Trump escalated his stonewalling of Congress today, directing

former White House Counsel Don McGahn to defy a congressional subpoena and

skip a House Judiciary hearing scheduled for tomorrow.  The Justice

Department backed up the unprecedented move in a memo arguing, Congress may

not constitutionally compel the President`s senior advisers to testify

about their official duties.


In a letter to Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, White House Counsel Pat

Cipollone declared, Mr. McGahn is absolutely immune from compelled

congressional testimony.  In a separate letter, McGahn`s own lawyer

confirmed he would not show up for tomorrow`s hearing.  President Trump

weighed in on the decision late today.




TRUMP:  As I understand it, they`re doing that for the Office of the

Presidency for future presidents. I think it`s a very important precedent. 

And the attorneys say that they`re not doing that for me.  They`re doing

that for the office of the president. 




MATTHEWS:  You notice how he`s laughing?


Anyway, the decision to block House Democrats from hearing a star witness

in their investigation into whether the president obstructed justice comes

as the first Republican congressman calls President Trump`s conduct



Today, Michigan Congressman Justin Amash is holding firm in the face of a

blowback from the president itself.  Amash broke ranks in a series of

tweets this Saturday, arguing: “Contrary to Barr`s portrayal, Mueller`s

report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a

pattern of behavior that met and meets the threshold for impeachment.”


President Trump fired back at Amash, tweeting he was – quote – “never a

fan of Justin Amash, a total lightweight,” adding, “Justin`s a loser who

sadly plays right into our opponents` hands.”


For more, I`m joined by former Congressman of New York Elizabeth Holtzman,

author of “The Case For Impeaching Trump,” and Charlie Sykes, editor in

chief of The Bulwark. 


This is the primary, to me, figure in the case.  If Don McGahn was told by

the president, Elizabeth, he was told to fire Mueller, that`s an

obstruction of justice, clearly.  He would be a great star witness.  Trump

has just put his finger right in the eye of Congress and says, you`re not

going to hear from your star witness.  Live with it. 


It is nervy, to put it lightly.


Your thoughts? 



a champion of reality TV.


And the one thing he`s mostly afraid of is the reality TV that comes back

and bites him.  And that`s what would happen.  If the American people saw

Don McGahn testifying that the president ordered him to engage in

obstruction of justice, basically to try to cover up the investigation,

stop the investigation, fire Mueller, all of that stuff, the American

people will be shocked and horrified. 


And so what we`re seeing here is cover-up in capital letters.  It`s the

kind of thing that is shocking and horrifying, because, in the end,

Congress and the American people have to see the truth. 


I mean, we go back to Watergate, we didn`t have this kind of nonsense going

on.  John Dean, White House counsel, testified before the Senate Watergate

committee and gave critical testimony that the president had paid hush

money.  He told the president about his conversations, paid hush money,

dangled pardons.


Haldeman and Erlichman, his top aides, came and testified.  You can`t have

a situation we`re going to monarchical system, where – where the president

can stop people from testifying, particularly when we`re talking about

potential criminal activity, potential violations of the Constitution, and

abuse of power. 


All those things are implicated in Donald Trump`s behavior.  And it`s

outrageous for him to try to cover this up from the American people. 


MATTHEWS:  Charlie, I would find it – I watched Elizabeth Holtzman, among

the others in the House Judiciary Committee, way back when.  But I got to

tell you something. 


I`m struck by the other possibilities.  This would be like Nixon, when he`s

ordered to turn over the June 23 tape that has him incriminated in

obstructing justice, saying, burn the tape now.


Here`s Trump, when everybody knows the role that Don McGahn played, if you

believe all his testimony, that he was, in fact, obstructing justice at the

president`s direction, to fire Mueller.


And then, when all that`s out in the public light – it`s in the Mueller

report right up front – after we all know about it, like we knew about the

Nixon tape, then he says, I`m not going to let you hear from this guy.  I`m

going to order him gagged. 






And I do think we have reached now the point of no return on whether or not

the House has to open the impeachment proceedings.  I have actually been

very sympathetic to the go-slow folks and what Nancy Pelosi has been

talking about, but I don`t think they have any choice at this point. 


If you`re going to get the documents you want, if you`re going to be able

to compel this testimony, the House Democrats are going to have to begin

those impeachment proceedings. 


And I have to say, they also have to acknowledge that they are losing the

messaging war.  I am somewhat flabbergasted at their failure to follow up

on the Mueller report.  And, as a result, you have seen the president

acting like he is emboldened, going on the offense, unleashing the attorney

general to threaten to investigate the investigators and go after the

president`s political opponents. 


But, at this particular point, this is – this is the cover-up.  They are a

complete stonewalling strategy.  And it is a fundamental act of contempt

for Congress. 


And I will go back to what Congresswoman Speier said in the last segment. 

At some point, Democrats have to stop looking at the polls and thinking

about this in political terms, and need to understand the constitutional

obligation and the stakes here if they do not open these proceedings,

because the president has basically taken a position that he`s  above the



MATTHEWS:  When is that point, Charlie? 


I`m going to ask the congresswoman that.  When is the point of no return,

when you can`t say, the public`s – all they want to do is get the House to

say Democrat.  That`s all they care about. 


SYKES:  Right. 


MATTHEWS:  If there`s any danger to the suburban new House members, we

can`t do it.


Not everybody thinks like a politician, thank God.  They think like voters

and citizens. 


HOLTZMAN:  Right. 


MATTHEWS:  When is that – I will go back to the Congresswoman Holtzman.


When do the voters of the Democratic Party stand up and say, excuse me,

stop being so tactical, Madam Speaker, we want a prosecution of this

president?  You expected Mueller to do it for you.  He was the

investigator.  It`s the job of the House of Representatives to prosecute

the case under the Constitution, not Mueller, the House. 


HOLTZMAN:  Well, if you go back to Watergate in the House Judiciary

Committee, we didn`t take a poll before we started our impeachment inquiry. 


The president fired the special prosecutor, and the American people said,

enough is enough.  We`re not a banana republic.  And, Congress, you have to

do something about it, because a president can`t decide who is going to

investigate him and who is going to prosecute him.  That`s it. 


And so we started.  We didn`t take polls.  We didn`t know how many members

of the committee were going to support impeachment.  We didn`t know how

many members of that House were going to support impeachment.  We

definitely didn`t even know what the numbers were going to be in the

Senate.  We did it because the American people wanted it and because it was

the right thing to do. 


And you don`t know how it`s going to turn out.  What we knew is that, if

you do it in the right way, you do it in a fair way, you do it in an

honorable way, you get solid evidence, you try to bring Republicans along,

you explain it to the American people, they will support the effort, if

it`s bipartisan and if it`s fair and if it`s based on solid evidence. 


MATTHEWS:  Well, we`re working on that.  We`re working on that.


One of the president`s frequent Republican antagonists, Senator Mitt Romney

of Utah, called Justin Amash`s comments courageous this weekend, but

disagreed with his position the president`s conduct.


He`s playing it very cute Mitt Romney.  watch him. 




SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UT):  Justin Amash has reached a different conclusion

than I have.  I respect him.  I think it`s a courageous statement. 


But I believe that to make a case for obstruction of justice, you just

don`t have the elements that are evidenced in this document.  And I also

believe that an impeachment call is not only something that relates to the

law, but also considers practicality and politics.


And the American people just aren`t there.  And I think those that are

considering impeachment have to look also at the jury, which would be the

Senate.  The Senate is certainly not there either. 




MATTHEWS:  Charlie, when Mitt Romney talks like that, I think I`m watching

the Hall of the Presidents down in – down in Disney World.  He looks like

the leader of the country, even though he didn`t make it. 


And yet, when it comes to the final statement, he says, I don`t really

agree with Amash.  I respect him.  I don`t agree with him about



When is the party going to change?




SYKES:  Yes.  Justin Amash is courageous.  I`m not.  I`m not going to do

anything about this. 


So, his capacity to disappoint, we`re reminded of all of that.


Look, one of the things that Democrats do need to keep in mind, though, is,

remember – we have used Watergate as a model.  But remember what

Republicans did with the Benghazi hearings, and the way that changed the

public`s perception of Hillary Clinton, the kind of evidence that they were

able to pull out.


The whole e-mails came out of that.  And so when you think about what they

could do, look, the polls are not there.  Romney`s right.  The votes are

not there.  The poll numbers are not there. 


But if you start to have this televised reality TV show, you may not move

20 or 30 percent, but you could move 2, 3, 4, 5 percentage points. 


But I also think the failure to do it is to accept this conduct and to

normalize this conduct.  So I don`t think the politics are quite as toxic

as I think some Democrats fear they might be. 


MATTHEWS:  I think they`re afraid of what happened to Bill Clinton, and how

the Republicans blew it.


By the way, somebody has to tell me someday what the Republicans

established that Hillary Clinton did wrong as secretary of state regarding

Benghazi.  I have never heard a declarative statement of what she did



Anyway, thank you, former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman.  You are

amazing.  You are amazing.  Thank you so much for coming on. 




MATTHEWS:  And, Charlie Sykes, thank you, as always, sir. 


Up next: explosive new reporting on concerns raised by anti-money

laundering watchdogs at Deutsche Bank about accounts controlled by Mr.

Donald Trump and Mr. Jared Kushner.  Interesting stuff going on at Deutsche

Bank vis-a-vis the Russians. 


Could that be why the president`s suing to stop his bank records from being

turned over to the Congress?  More cover-up, more stonewalling, more



More HARDBALL coming up after this.




MATTHEWS:  We got some more muck for you.


Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


Deutsche Bank has emerged as a key focal point of multiple investigations

into President Trump`s finances, as well as his business ties to Russia. 


Now, in an explosive new report, “The New York Times” has revealed that

anti-money laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank recommended in 2016 and

2017 that multiple transactions involving legal entities controlled by

Donald Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be reported to federal

financial crimes watchdogs.


According to the report, at least some of those transactions involve money

flying back and forth with overseas entities or individuals.  But

executives at Deutsche Bank, which has lent billions of dollars to the

Trump and Kushner companies, rejected their employees` advice.  The reports

were never filed with the government. 


Deutsche Bank already has a reputation for laundering Russian money, and

it`s one of the few financial institutions that has been willing to lend to

Trump since the late 1990s.


Well, this news comes after Deutsche Bank was served last month with a

broad subpoena from the House Intelligence and Financial Services

committees.  They`re demanding, among other things, all records relating to

Trump`s ties with any foreign individual entity, or government. 


In reaction, the president actually sued his biggest lender – that is

Deutsche Bank – in an attempt to stop it from complying with a subpoena. 


I`m joined right now by David Corn, Washington bureau chief.


You wrote “Russian Roulette.”  You know this story.


What is the connection between a bank that`s loosey-goosey, giving billions

of bucks to Trump, when nobody else will lend him money, and all this dirty

laundering of money all of a sudden with the Russians?  What`s – who does

it connect? 




Well, let`s start with the big fact here, that Donald Trump has borrowed

billions and owes now at least $300 million to a foreign-owned bank. 


And that money comes from what`s called the private side of the bank, which

could be a fund that they set up.  We don`t know where those funds come in. 

We don`t know if those loans are guaranteed or backstopped. 


I have talked to bankers who have said, it`s – these are very unusual

loans.  There are probably some guarantees there.  But we don`t know if

there are and, if so, who`s guaranteeing.


So, we don`t know a fundamental fact.


MATTHEWS:  What do you mean by guarantee?


CORN:  Like, if you take money out from some – from a bank, sometimes, you

have to put up collateral.  Sometimes, you have to put up a guarantee if

the money doesn`t get paid back. 


MATTHEWS:  You don`t think he gave any guarantees, do you? 


CORN:  Well, I have bankers who say that there would have to be some

guarantees for them to…




MATTHEWS:  Why did Deutsche give him money, when nobody else would give him

any money, and they`re giving him billions?


CORN:  Well, that`s a really good question.


They take the obvious line.


MATTHEWS:  What is the quid pro quo here?


CORN:  Well, they take the obvious line that, no one else did, so we

thought he had a good – we had had a good opportunity there.  And he`s

paid back. 


And his relationship with Deutsche Bank has gone up and down over the

years.  But, at the same time, we don`t know all the details in who made –

whether there are guarantees.  He has 552 LLCs on his financial disclosure

form.  We don`t know any of the details of that. 


And so you look at this – and we argue about his tax returns.  I mean, the

tax returns are 5 percent of his financial picture.  And now it turns out,

with a story by David Enrich at “The New York Times,” that inside Deutsche

Bank, at the ground level, people who keep an eye out for shifty deals

filed reports saying, hey, we see some transactions here that look like

they need more of a look from the U.S. regulators.  It`s our job to report.


But they go up inside the bank, and senior people there say, nah, we don`t

think so.


MATTHEWS:  OK, give me motive here.  Why would the bank`s top people not

want to act on what they see as shady business?


CORN:  Well, because he`s one of their best clients and because they`re

protecting someone.


Now, they have the discretion.  And these transactions are not evidence of

wrongdoing.  But the whole system to prevent money laundering is based on

banks first reporting what they think smells a little funny.  This is what

got Eliot Spitzer.  Remember, he was making these contributions in cash?


That triggered an investigation that led to him using prostitutes. 




CORN:  So I`m not saying that this is what Trump was doing.  And some of

the – and this all could be on the up-and-up. 


But what`s important is, you got Trump, you got all this money from

Deutsche Bank going to Trump, and Deutsche Bank – and Jared Kushner – and

then the bank says, you know what, we`re not going to share this

information with the U.S…




MATTHEWS:  So let me try something by you.  The money that he borrowed from

Deutsche Bank, was it a pass-through from the Russians? 


CORN:  We don`t know.  We don`t know if this money is coming from somebody

else, or, as I said earlier, guaranteed by somebody else. 


This is what maybe some of the financial information that members of

Congress are trying – trying to get.


MATTHEWS:  They will never get it.




CORN:  Well, they may not get it, but this is what it would indicate, if

there are any attachments to these loans. 


And you think the American public – if the president is on the hook…


MATTHEWS:  Let me ask you.


CORN:  … for $300 million to a foreign institution, should get all the

information they can on that.


MATTHEWS:  You`re a progressive.  I want to ask you this.


When will Pelosi give up on this stance she`s taken against impeachment?


CORN:  I don`t know.


But what I want to see is, even if Don McGahn won`t testify, there are so

many other people they should call up.  They should call up Felix Sater,

who did the Russia deal with Trump.  They should call in Michael Flynn. 

They should call in Corey Lewandowski, people who were in the report on the

obstruction side.  They have so many people they…




MATTHEWS:  Why aren`t they doing that now? 


CORN:  I don`t know why they`re not holding hearings every single day to

get to the middle and the bottom of this story. 


MATTHEWS:  I think they got to move on impeachment, whether they do it in

form of impeachment or just really hard-nosed investigations.  It has to

move forward, or it`s going to die. 


CORN:  Yes.


MATTHEWS:  It`s going to die. 


Anyway, David Corn, you`re the best. Thanks. 


CORN:  Thanks.


MATTHEWS:  Up next: the battle for the Rust Belt.  Now new polling shows

Democratic front-runner Joe Biden increasing his lead over Trump in those

key states.  No surprise then that President Trump is in Pennsylvania.


By the way, strike that.  It`s not the Rust Belt.  It`s the good part of

the country hoping to reverse its Rust Belt slide.


Back in a minute. 


Who put that in the script?  I mean…




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL.


President Trump is in northeastern Pennsylvania tonight, trying to maintain

a hold on one of those three states that helped propel him to victory.  It

is his 48th rally in Pennsylvania since he first announced his candidacy in



I can`t hear. 


Well, sources tell “Reuters” that President Trump will fully launch his re-

election next month in Florida and will follow it up with stops in other

battleground states.  With increased focus on those states comes amidst

reports that the Trump campaign is seeing some troubling signs about the

president`s popularity and critical Midwestern states. 


According to “Politico”, President Trump`s campaign is trying to shore up

his standing in those states where there is growing anxiety.  Two sources

tell “Politico” that the Trump campaign recently completed a 17-state

polling project that concluded that the president trails Joe Biden in

Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. 


Looking to take advantage of significant ties, Joe Biden officially

launched his campaign in the heart of Philadelphia on Saturday, pitching an

old school patriotic centrist message. 




JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  The American people want the

government to work.  I don`t think that`s too much for them to ask.  You

know, I know some people in D.C. say it can`t be done.  Well, let me tell

them something – and make sure they understand this – the country is sick

of the division. 




They`re sick of the fighting.  They`re sick of the childish behavior. 

There isn`t a single person among you or anywhere in this country that

could get away with that in their jobs.  All they want is for their

president, their senators, their representatives, to do their jobs.  Just

do your job. 




MATTHEWS:  The recent nationwide Fox News poll shows Biden with an 11-point

lead over Trump in a hypothetical match-up. 


And President Trump has noticed.  Stay tuned after the break to see how

he`s dealing with the bad political news. 


You`re watching HARDBALL.




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL.


Former Vice President Joe Biden`s steady dominance of recent Democratic

polls have not gone unnoticed by Trump.  This weekend, Trump tweeted

multiple times about his potential challenger, seemingly auditioning

various lines of attack. 


According to “The New York Times”, senior Trump campaign aides have

recently told other Republican officials that they would rather not face

Mr. Biden.  His initial strength in the Democratic primary has surprised



Well, in Philadelphia, Biden made the case against four more years of

President Trump.  Let`s watch. 




BIDEN:  If American people want a president to add to our division, lead

with a clenched fist, a closed hand, a hard heart, to demonize your

opponents, to spew hatred.  They don`t need me.  They`ve got President

Donald Trump. 




MATTHEWS:  For more now, I`m joined right now by Jamal Simmons, Democratic

strategist, and Ryan Williams, Republican strategist. 


Well, everybody saw what happened on Saturday.  Very patriotic day right in

front of city hall there. 




MATTHEWS:  And a big crowd.  Very positive.  I`ll talk my own thoughts at

the end of the day but this is your time now. 


I think Jill Biden was the star, Dr. Biden. 


SIMMONS:  Yes, she always is.  People love Jill Biden.  I thought here – I

thought that Joe Biden did a really great job of laying out sort of the

optimistic vision.  There were lines that were throwback from the old like

Clinton days.  He said something like, there is nothing that can break

America other than Americans which is like the Clinton line, which is like

the Clinton line, like everything good America, there is nothing wrong

about America that cannot be fixed with other Americans. 


MATTHEWS:  With what`s right about America. 


SIMMONS:  Right about America, yes.


So there is a lot of that stuff in there.  I thought it was great.  I did

think it was light on policy chops.  It was light on things that address

specific communities that are part of the Democratic coalition.  People of

color, African-Americans, young people, millennials, there was not a lot in

there.  It was big and broad and uniting.  It felt like general election

messaging, not like primary messaging.


And I`m telling, I don`t think he could make it all the way through the

primary without hitting some of those other notes. 


MATTHEWS:  President Trump is rallying supporters in Northeastern

Pennsylvania as we speak.  He acknowledged the significance of this stake

politically.  Let`s watch him. 





win this state.  Got to win this state.  We did great last time. 


Remember the polls?  The fake polls that they put out?  Suppression.  They

call them suppression polls. 


Pennsylvania will go to Hillary Clinton.  Unfortunately for them, it didn`t

work that way. 




MATTHEWS:  Were you putting out those polls?


What did you think of Biden this weekend? 


RYAN WILLIAMS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST:  I thought it was a solid speech. 

Look, there were no gaffes.  It was not the most electric speech, but it

was solid.  It was kind of a throwback to the old day of politics. 


MATTHEWS:  What about his angle which is there`s no more important thing on

the policy list than getting rid of this president, and I can do that

because I`m going to run on American values against a guy who doesn`t know

American values. 


WILLIAMS:  He talked about consensus.  He made the critique about the

president, not about the Republican Party in general.  We talk about

working with Republicans which I think is a general election message as

Jamal says.


Whether that will get him to the primary, I don`t know.  I think he`s going

to have a real problem appeasing some of the liberal constituencies of the

base of the Democratic Party. 




MATTHEWS:  Look, I live them.  That`s the world I come from.  Let me – I

don`t know what`s going to – let`s talk about the general. 


Trump is running the general election right now.  He`s worried about

Pennsylvania.  Should he be? 


WILLIAMS:  Of course he should.  He won it by a small margin last time.  

Anybody who`s concerned about it should be –


MATTHEWS:  Without Hillary as a factor, without Jim Comey coming at Hillary

as a factor.  There`s a lot of factors that helped Trump in the last week

or two.


WILLIAMS:  Yes, it`s a tough state for any Republican to win.  We didn`t

win it before Trump until the 1980s.  So it`s something he has to focus on

and put work in and that`s what he`s doing.  He`s building a campaign

apparatus there.  He`s visiting the state.  He`s focusing on that and the

other states which we won by a small margin which any politician would do

at this point. 


MATTHEWS:  Do you think any Democratic candidates if they win the

nomination will be as attentive to the industrial Rust Belt states?  I

don`t like the term but everybody knows what it means.  They always –




SIMMONS:  I`m from Michigan, so I`m with you on the Midwest thing.  I think

that their – I think everybody will pay attention to it because it`s

important.  The question is who you`re paying attention to in those states. 


MATTHEWS:  Who can win in Pennsylvania of the Democrats right now? 


SIMMONS:  Oh, I think probably all – no, I think Elizabeth Warren – 


MATTHEWS:  Give me the best bet.


SIMMONS:  I think Elizabeth Warren could win that state.  I think Kamala

Harris probably win in that state.  I think there are a few people who

could win. 


Bernie might even be able to win that state but I`m not always convinced

that Bernie –


MATTHEWS:  You smile when you say that, anyway – because I don`t know

either.  I don`t know what`s going to happen.  It depends on the economy. 

If the economy goes south, any Democrat would win. 


SIMMONS:  Before though, just really quickly, I think there`s a very clear

– people think of these Midwestern Rust Belt people, some guy at a diner

drinking a cup of coffee.  A friend of mine said to me, that`s a wrong

image.  Think about the person who`s serving him the coffee. 




SIMMONS:  That`s the person those Rust Belt states are going to go after,

someone who`s a pink collar women who are not college-educated.  Those are

the ones that we got to go after.  It`s not necessarily the west –


MATTHEWS:  Yes, I think you`re so right. 


President Trump attacked his preferred news network, Fox, for even hosting

Democratic voices.  Yesterday, President Trump tweeted: Hard to believe

that Fox News is wasting air time on Mayor Pete, as Chris Wallace loves to

call him.  Fox is moving more and more to the losing wrong side in covering

the Dems.  They got dumped from the Democrats boring debates and they just

want in.  They forgot the people who got them there. 


Chris Wallace said: I actually think whether you like his opinions or not,

that Mayor Pete has a lot of substance.  Fascinating biography. 


Gee, he never speaks well of me.  I like Mike Wallace better.  Alfred E.

Newman will never be president.  He`s talking about Buttigieg. 


Anyway, a few hours later, Mayor Pete had a chance to respond.  Here he





CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR:  How would you handle the insults and the

attacks and the tweets and all of that? 



care.  We need to make sure that we`re changing the channel from this show

that he`s created, because what matters, and I get it – look, it`s

mesmerizing, it`s hard for anybody to look away, me too.  It is the nature

of grotesque things that you can`t look away. 




MATTHEWS:  Look, Ryan, all politics is television now.  There he is Pete

with his white shirt.  Everybody has to make a certain statement.  I`m with

you.  I took my coat off. 


Joe Biden took his coat off. 


There`s so much show business here.  Trump is better at it. 


WILLIAMS:  He`s got the stage craft down and I think the attacks on Fox are

an example –


MATTHES:  Is Alfred E. Newman working with the younger voters who don`t

know Alfred E. Newman –


WILLIAMS:  I know who Alfred E. Newman is.  I don`t know if everyone does. 

But he might still – 




MATTHEWS:  Let me worry – 


WILLIAMS:  Look, his attacks on Fox News, he`s trying to work the refs

here.  He thinks Fox News should be in his corner.  He doesn`t like any

dissent on the channel.  I think Mayor Pete was very, very smart to go on

to that town hall.  You got to give him a lot of credit –


MATTHEWS:  That`s smart.  People were talking about him. 


WILLIAMS:  It was a great forum for him, and he did a great job. 


MATTHEWS:  How do you think Fox likes being hit like a member of the

Republican caucus? 


SIMMONS:  Oh, I`m sure they don`t like it in public.  But I mean, the

problem is they keep taking care of Republicans.  They`re so nice to Donald



MATTHEWS:  They are.  He gets up in the morning and wallows in “Fox &



Anyway, thank you, Jamal Simmons.  Thank you, Ryan Williams. 


Up next, why the next election is about patriotism.  I believe not just

policy.  You`re listening to mom.


You`re watching HARDBALL.




MATTHEWS:  This Saturday, I witnessed a powerful turn in the Democratic

campaign to unseat Donald Trump.  Dr. Jill Biden set the tone. 


In a taped address to the crowd on the Benjamin Franklin parkway in

Philadelphia, she spoke patriotically about our country and she continued

on stage to speak of the country`s ideals and how her husband would save

them from the man now in the White House. 




JILL BIDEN, WIFE OF JOE BIDEN:  It`s a moment when we need leaders with

vision and character.  It`s a moment for someone who can bring us together. 

It`s a moment for Joe Biden. 




MATTHEWS:  I don`t mind confessing my sentimentalism about this country. 

The country needs a good fight because a great country deserves a strong

fight for who gets to lead it.  What I liked about the message in Philly on

Saturday from both Bidens is that those who love this country need to

restore it`s historic values of unity and leadership. 




JOE BIDEN:  We choose hope over fear, truth over lies, and, yes, unity over





MATTHEWS:  We need a president who makes us proud as Americans.  That`s why

this 2020 election is all about patriotism, not just about policy, but

about what candidates feel about the country.  They need to show that their

love of country is better than their hatred of Trump because that love of

country and its values is the chief reason, while not the only one, to want

a new president. 


I congratulate the Bidens for making that abundantly and emotionally clear

this weekend in my hometown, which is also, as we all know, the place of

our country`s founding. 


That`s HARDBALL for now.  Thanks for being with us. 


“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