President Trump’s uncoerced confessions. TRANSCRIPT: 7/26/19, Hardball w/ Chris Matthews.

Susan Page; Rob Reiner; Jefferson Van Drew, Neera Tanden, Shermichael Singleton, Mick Richards

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST:  Decision time.  Let`s play HARDBALL.


Good evening.  I`m Chris Matthews in Washington.


Is there still time to impeach Donald Trump?  If so, how much time?  Is

September, as one top democrat told me last night, the time to either put

up or shut up?  Well, House Democrats claim they`re already putting maximum

pressure on President Trump and his administration.




REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY):  The committee is exercising its authority to

investigate all these scandals and to decide what to do about them, which

could include articles of impeachment.  And we filed that with the court.




MATTHEWS:  Acting persecuted, President Trump, who Robert Mueller clearly

did not exonerate, attacked the democrats and called on his party to

investigate former President Obama.




DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT:  It`s a disgrace.  We want to find out what

happened with the last democrat president.  Let`s look into Obama the way

they`ve looked at me.  From day one, they`ve looked into everything that

we`ve done.  They could look into the book deal that President Obama made. 

Let`s subpoena all of his records.  Let`s subpoena all of the records

having to do with Hillary Clinton and all of the nonsense that went on with

Clinton and her foundation and everything else.  We could do that all day



Frankly, the republicans were gentlemen and women when we had the majority

in the House.




MATTHEWS:  Well, sometimes he baffles me again and again.  I can`t believe

it.  The book deal?  Talk about red herrings.


Anyway, during the Obama administration, the republican-controlled House

launched numerous investigations at President Obama and his administration. 

Unlike President Trump, Obama did not try to obstruct those investigations,

nor was he investigated for soliciting help from a hostile foreign

government like Trump duly should have been in a sign of how polarizing the

Mueller investigation has become.


However, a new survey by Morning Consult and Politico shows that 41 percent

of Americans do not believe Mueller exonerated president Trump while 35

percent believe he did, even though he said he didn`t the other day under



Public opinion on impeachment remains steady with 46 percent of voters

opposing impeachment, 37 percent supporting it.  That`s 46 percent against

right now, 37 against – 46 against 37 for.


Meanwhile, the number of democrats supporting impeachment is growing.  Here

is an up to date list of the 97 democrats in the House who support

launching an impeachment inquiry.  Now, that`s quite a list.  The number of

democrats supporting impeachment has grown from 58 back in December of 2017

when the house voted on impeachment the first time.


Well, since Mueller`s public testimony on Wednesday, seven additional

members of the House have voiced their support for impeachment.  And as of

today, those who back impeachment in the House are 121 votes short of a

required majority, then closed alone former republican former Justin Amash,

who supports putting the President on trial as well.


Speaker Pelosi has been trying to balance the diverging factions of her

party, defended her approach.




REPORTER:  Some of your democratic colleagues believe you`re simply trying

to run out the clock on impeachment.  Are you trying run out the clock?


REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA):  No, I`m not trying to run out the clock.  Let`s

get sophisticated about this, okay?  So I`m willing to take whatever heat

there is there to say when the decision will be made in a timely fashion,

this isn`t endless, and when we have the best, strongest possible case.




MATTHEWS:  For more, I`m joined by Susan Page, USA Today Washington Bureau

Chief, and Rob Reiner, actor, director and activist.  Thank you both for

joining us.


Susan, I had Jackie Speier on last night, one of the top people loyal to

Speaker Pelosi, and she says September 1 is a good day to look at, because

you got to look ahead.  It takes six months to do this, if you follow the

Nixon timeframe.  You can`t be doing it right in the middle of a

presidential debate season, for example, because the voters will then say,

wait a minute, this is our call at this point.  It seems to me there`s a

reasonable idea, it seems to me, it`s coming close to do it or don`t do it

and stop talking about it.



probably about that moment.  And, you know, that will come after members of

Congress would have spent six weeks mostly back in their districts,

listening to voters and hearing whether voters in their district think

impeachment ought to be the priority, or should they be focusing on –


MATTHEWS:  What do they expect?


PAGE:  Well, I think it depends what kind of district you`re from.  If

you`re from a solidly democratic strict, like AOC, you`re probably going to

hear a lot of energy for impeachment.  But if you`re from the swing

districts that determine who holds a majority in the House, I suspect that

members will continue to hear what they`ve heard in the past, which is

voters care more about issues that affect their own lives, like healthcare

and education and the economy.


MATTHEWS:  Rob, it seems to be Pelosi has operated like most people do

based on experience.  And she saw her party take over the House in 2018,

last year, with a message that really didn`t focus on impeachment.  It

focused on healthcare and sort of bread and butter issues.  I get the

sense, and she has a pure power (ph) in the best sense of the word, she

knows what works at the home in the back home in those districts.  And most

of them – and she wants to hold the 218 that controls the House, certainly

on the west side of L.A. or the west side of New York, there are liberal

bastions where you`re going to face a primary opponent, like Jerry Nadler

is facing already one, a very attractive opponent, I hear.  They`re all

facing them, Richie Neal up in Western Massachusetts.  He`s got a primary

opponent, a couple of them.


They`re worried at home about different things.  Your thoughts about it.


ROB REINER, ACTOR, DIRECTOR AND ACTIVIST:  I`m going to disagree a little

bit with your analysis in that.  The 2018 election was – yes, there were

some kitchen table issues, healthcare and education, jobs and so on.  But

it was also about holding this president accountable.  We heard a lot about

taking the majority and having the subpoena power to hold this president



Now, that we have it, I think that`s what`s going to happen.  You`re going

to see a two-track approach.  Today, essentially, if you look carefully,

and I`ve had some conversations since this came out with Laurence Tribe and

others, since the filing was made by Chairman Nadler to the courts to

access the grand jury material and access the ability to get Don McGahn to

come and testify, if you look at that filing, the word, impeachment, is

used many, many, many, many times.


And you can argue about impeachment inquiry or impeachment process or

impeachment proceedings, but the fact of the matter is once a judicial

body, once the Judiciary Committee becomes a judicial body and talks about

impeachment as a mechanism by which they`re going to access documents and

compel witnesses, then that speeds up the process.


And I think for those of us who have been clamoring to get this thing on

the road, that, in a sense, started today.  And if you look very carefully,

that is what started today.


MATTHEWS:  But, Rob, I don`t believe that.  I believe we`re looking at a

process of just one more thing.  Oh, we`re going get Mueller, his report. 

We got Mueller`s report.  Then we got Mueller in person.  Oh, he is going

to dramatize and televise the whole thing, and that didn`t work.  And now

it`s, oh, we`re going to get McGahn, that`s going to turn everybody around.


These numbers don`t look – I`m going to Susan on this.  These numbers

don`t look good.


PAGE:  They don`t look good and they`ve been pretty consistent.  And even

though most Americans have said they don`t believe President Trump was

exonerated and that Mueller`s credibility has gone up, including among

republicans, that has not increased the overall number of Americans who

support impeachment.


Now, most democrats support impeachment.  But if you look at the overall

number, you don`t get to majority, and, in fact, you get predominance of

Americans saying they do not support the idea of impeachment.


And what Chairman Nadler did today in the court filings is he tries to have

it both ways.  He tries to say, you`re doing an impeachment investigation

without actually forcing the House to take an impeachment vote.  And I

don`t know how persuasive that`s going to be.


MATTHEWS:  Rob, you know the situation.  You know as well as I – you`ve

followed these events for years, as I have.  It seems to me the advantage,

the real hammer comes when you begin an impeachment proceeding, when you

actually get the House to vote for an impeachment proceeding.  That opens

up a lot of doors with the courts, apparently.  Apparently, that puts a lot

more pressure on people to play ball, except subpoenas, turn over the

documents, do stuff like they did with Nixon.  It says we`re having a trial

now, buddy, and we`re the prosecutors.  We`re no longer fishing around. 

We`re serious now.


You think – well, let me ask you this.  Bottom line, how late can they put

this off before they start a formal impeachment proceeding?  How long can

they put it off between now and then, between next election?


REINER:  I think it has to happen at the beginning of September, as you`ve

mentioned.  But make no mistake.  What they`ve filed today does expedite

things.  And that`s what needs to happen.  You need to get all that grand

jury material.  You ask anybody who adjudicated Watergate, they needed the

grand jury material in order to start the understanding of how to form

articles of impeachment.


So that is happening now, and I take exception.  We look at polls now. 

And, you know, everybody makes this argument.  Polls don`t mean anything,

they change, whatever.  When people come on television, that changes

people`s opinion.  We`re never going to get that 40 percent.  That 40

percent will always be there.  And that represents, you know, the

Republican Party, essentially.


But think about this.  And, Chris, you remember this as well as anybody. 

First of all, you had Mueller come on and everybody talked about his

performance, and it was bad show business and all that.  But the reality is

a record was created and there was no question about it, the President

committed crimes.


MATTHEWS:  I agree.


REINER:  They worked with the Russians to try to win the election.  That`s

out there.


But remember, Chris, when Fawn Hall took the stand during Iran-Contra, do

you remember that?




MATTHEWS:  It was Ollie North`s secretary.  She was very beautiful.  She

was sexy.  The ratings were off the charts when she took the stand.  When

Hope Hicks comes or even Don McGahn, when they come and the cameras are on

them, it`s going to start slowly changing it.  And those poll numbers will

slowly shift.  We`re never going get that hardcore cemented 35 to 40

percent, but it doesn`t have to be that.


Congress has a responsibility to hold this president accountable.  And if

they don`t do it – you can say no one is above the law all you want.  But

if you don`t hold this guy accountable, then, essentially, he is above the



MATTHEWS:  Let`s take that stride at right now.  We`ve got a democratic

member of Congress joining us right now.  By the way, we all know the

democrats retook the House of Representatives by flipping a number of

formerly republican suburban seats back last year.


Congressman Jefferson Van Drew, who flipped one of districts seats in South

Jersey does not support impeachment, told The New York Times, if we just

let this overshadow all these other issues for a longer period of time, too

long a period of time, we are really endangering the election for the



Congressman Van Drew joins us now.


Congressman, thank you.  Congratulations on winning where I grew up in

Ocean City, New Jersey.  I know about the area.  I think I know as

politics.  Why are you opposed to action like Rob Reiner is calling for

right now to get this train rolling and have a vote eventually on



REP. JEFFERSON VAN DREW (D-NJ):  Unless we find something new or unusual,

something different that we didn`t see before, it seems that this just

keeps continuing.  So, first, it was going to be the Mueller report was

really going to give us the information, and it did.  I read it from the

first page to the last page, and it gave some information.  And certainly

there are some distasteful sections and parts of that that really are

concerning, but not high crimes and misdemeanors, at least in my opinion

and obviously in other people`s opinions as well.


And then it was going to be once he testified, it will come to life and it

would bring the whole issue to life, and then we would move forward with

impeachment.  And, of course, again, it didn`t.  So now we`re trying a

different tact.


And I understand that and I want to make sure that everything is as it

should be as well, but why didn`t we do that earlier?  It keeps dragging on

and on and on.


And here is my issue.  Here is what I believe, and I`m talking politics now

and maybe a little bit government as well.  We have lots of big issues.  I

had somebody email me today and said, you know, a record number of

individuals passed over this last week from drug overdoses.


And she said, you know, it`s more important that we start really dealing

with that issue rather than keep letting this just overwhelm everything, or

infrastructure or, you know, how about healthcare?  How about, you know,

the cost of prescription drugs?  How about the way our veterans are treated

in veterans` homes?  How about are we really going to be able to shore up

Medicare and are we going to be able to take care of social security?  And

I can go on and on and on.


Those are the issues that at the end of the day, blue collar, average

democrats that we used to have and still do, but they really care about. 

And so there are folks – and let me wrap up with this.


MATTHEWS:  Okay, you`re wrapped already.  I mean, Congressman, we`ve got to

get Rob a chance here.


Rob Reiner, you heard the case against moving on an impeachment.  What do

you say?


REINER:  I couldn`t disagree more with the Congressman, because all of the

issues that he talked about, of course, are critical.  None of them will

ever, ever pass when we don`t have the White House and ultimately the

Senate.  We passed a million bills already, and they lay dormant at Mitch

McConnell`s feet.  That`s not going to do anything,


And if it didn`t –


VAN DREW:  That`s because we are so involved.  We are so involved with this

only, or at least the perception of this only.


REINER:  No, no, no.


VAN DREW:  Look, I`m there every day.  So let me finish for a second.


MATTHEWS:  Congressman, do you think the seats like yours are in danger if

the democrats move toward impeachment?


VAN DREW:  Absolutely.  I don`t even know that mine is.  You know, I was

fortunate.  I won by a good number more votes than many of the other ones

did.  But folks have to realize it was middle democrats, middle of the road

democrats that created the majority, and that their voice counts too, and

that we have to – and, by the way, if something really new comes up,

something big that we didn`t have before that really shows an impeachable

offense, absolutely, any president, we should do it.


MATTHEWS:  I just want to hit you with two possibilities, and then Rob and

then Susan back in here (ph).  Well, I just want to make one point.  This

is fundamental.  I think it`s the main point.  If this president gets away

with this, whether he gets re-elected or not, he gets away with it.  He

gets away with it saying, I can play ball with the Russians or any foreign

adversary, any enemy of the United States, I can play ball with.  He said

that again the other day.  He said, I`m going to do what happen next time. 

They`ve got some dirt for me, I`ll use it again.


He also said a president can do anything he wants.  There can`t be an

obstruction of justice case made against the President under Article 2 of

the Constitution.  Because under Article 2, according to Trump, he can do

anything he wants with the executive.  He can tell the judiciary to do

anything he wants.  He can tell a Special Counsel to do anything he wants. 

What happens if he gets away with that, Congressman, gets away with it?


VAN DREW:  Well, first of all, nobody agrees with that.  And he says many

things that many folks find very disheartening.  But that isn`t the point. 

What happens if we literally get to election time and, you know, we get out

there, and we`re going to be out in the street a lot, and that`s something

I do, and you know, that because you know my area, and that`s quite frankly

how I got elected numerous times.


And the bottom line is if what we`re going to say to people, well, we

presided over a failed impeachment.  That`s all our major accomplishment in

two years, that`s why you flipped districts, that`s why you changed the

majority.  I don`t think that does the job.


Now, if there is something real there, brand-new that comes up now, I use

those words, brand new, because I don`t know why now the Russian issue all

of the sudden became a bigger issue than it was a week ago, a month ago,

six months ago, a year ago.  You know, it seems like we`re constantly

trying to move on to do something else, and the bottom line is I want us to

do good stuff, and we can.


The reason that – one of the reasons that we`re not getting certain things

done with the other side is because we`re always attacking them.


MATTHEWS:  Okay.  Let me go back to that.  First of all, Congressman, we

talked about the Russian issue every single night here for about two years. 

So we have – this isn`t a newbie for us.


Rob, your last thought here.


REINER:  First of all, you don`t know what the polling is going to be.  You

don`t know.  I would make the case that it will be great politics for the

democrats to stand up and hold this guy accountable.  Second of all, you

need more to see?  There were five hard examples of obstruction of justice

laid out in the Mueller report.  What else do you need?


The guy is working with the Russians.  He says he is going to continue

working with the Russians.  The Russians are already playing.  We`ve seen

the Senate Intelligence Committee tell us that they`re playing right now

and they`re working hard to defeat us.  Are we now saying that we`re just

going to give ourselves over to the Russians?  We beat them in the cold

war, and they`re beating us now in the cyber war.


And if we don`t stand up to them, it could be the end of our democracy. 

And I`m sorry if you lose your seat, but we`ve got to stand up for



VAN DREW:  Now, we absolutely need to stand up to the Russians.  We

absolutely need to stand up to the Russians.




PAGE:  Here is a debate that`s going on within the Democratic Party.  How

do you hold the President accountable?  Do you hold him accountable by

impeaching him or by defeating him in next year`s election?  Is that the

better way?


VAN DREW:  Both.


MATTHEWS:  Okay.  Congressman Jefferson Van Drew, thank you.  You`re on the

front lines, sir.  I appreciate you coming on.  I know your district is

going to be a tough one either way.  I know about that district.  It is not

a left wing district by any means.  Thank you.


Susan Page, Rob Reiner, you`re a great citizen.  Thank you.  You know your

stuff.  I think you know what everybody in this show – our producers know. 

You know it all, and it`s great to have you on.  I know your opinions and

you are a passionate American.  Thank you, sir.


REINER:  Thank you.


MATTHEWS:  The Russians targeted election systems in all 50 states, it

turned out, as Rob said, and the FBI Director says it`s still going on.  50

states, they`re probing and probing for weaknesses.  They`re casing our

joint.  How exactly are the Russians infiltrating our elections?  Where is

the outrage on the republican side?  They don`t seem to care.  Former CIA

Director John Brennan will be here with me.


Plus, new polls show that Joe Biden is not just the clear democratic

frontrunner, he`s in the best position to beat President Trump, up by ten

points in the Fox poll.  Well, will that still be the case after next

week`s debate?  We`ll see when his democratic rivals try to knock him down

like Kamala Harris did last time.


And 50 years – you`re going to love this, my age, people, 50 years after

Woodstock tonight, whatever happened to peace and love?  Watch this.


We`re going to talk about how it happened and how it can happen again. 

I`ll talk to Mick Richards, the Director of the new documentary, Creating

Woodstock, about how that amazing event – do you believe that crowd?  They

weren`t paying customers either.


Much more ahead.  Stay with us.






Russian interference in the 2016 election taught us there are three

principal fronts in the Kremlin`s information war against the U.S., first,

Russia`s operation to hack and release private e-mails and other data, like

it did with the DNC e-mails. 


Second is the proliferation of Russian propaganda, this information mainly

through social media.  And third is Russia`s intrusion into state and local

voting systems. 


Well, in recent months, Democrats have offered a slate of bills intended to

shore up this country`s defenses, but Senate Republicans have repeatedly

stood in the way. 


In fact, yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked two

election security bills, including one requiring the use of paper ballots

by states and counties as backup to whatever system they use. 


McConnell`s stonewalling in the wake of Robert Mueller `s warning prompted

a contentious exchange with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer yesterday. 




SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY):  Attacks on our elections are as great a threat

to our national security as any other.


And yet, for reasons inexplicable, the Republican leader refuses to bring

legislation to the floor. 


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY):  What my friend the Democratic leader is

asking unanimous consent to pass is partisan legislation from the

Democratic House of Representatives relating to American elections. 


It`s just a highly partisan bill from the same folks who spent two years

hyping up a conspiracy theory about President Trump and Russia. 




MATTHEWS:  McConnell blocked the bill just hours before the Senate

Intelligence Committee, a bipartisan committee, recommended that, at

minimum, any machine purchased going forward should have a voter-verified

paper trail, which makes sense. 


In fact, McConnell has said he will block any proposed election addressing

election security before the 2020 election. 


Why does he not want to do anything before the election?  That`s when you

do things. 


Well, “The New York Times” reports that he told colleagues in June he has

no plans to consider stand-alone legislation on the matter this term. 


I`m joined by John Brennan, former director of the CIA under President



Well, look, you know the situation.  It`s partisan.  Apparently, they don`t

want to offend President Trump by saying there was problem in 2016. 



it`s even more than that. 


I think Mitch McConnell has one primary objective, which is to get Donald

Trump reelected in 2020.  And we all know that the Russians helped Donald

Trump get elected in 2016.  So why would he want to prevent possible

additional assistance to Donald Trump in the upcoming election? 


MATTHEWS:  So he is Moscow Mitch, as Joe Scarborough called him this

morning?  He is collaborating with the Russians? 


BRENNAN:  Well, it`s beyond my understanding as to why the majority leader

of the Senate would stop something from helping us protect our voting

rights and our infrastructure from not just Russian interference, but other



We are now two-plus years from the last election.  We should in fact be

well down this road, but we`re not.  And it`s because of individuals like

Mitch McConnell, who have put obstacle after obstacle in front of doing

something that is really going to be meaningful. 


MATTHEWS:  And 53 Republican members of the Senate don`t want to do



Anyway, Mitch McConnell also had a hand in obscuring Russia`s role in

election during the homestretch of the 2016 campaign.  Let`s try and

remember this. 


“The Washington Post” reports that, when the Obama White House first

disclosed Russia`s interference to Congress back in the fall of `16,

McConnell was among a group of Republicans who didn`t want to inform the



McConnell went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the

underlying intelligence truly supported the White House`s claims. 


He was denying all this. 


BRENNAN:  I think I was the first Obama official to brief Mitch McConnell

in the summer of 2016 about Russian interference.  And he basically looked

at me and said, you, the Obama administration, just simply do not want

Donald Trump to get elected. 


And I said, I take great offense at his insinuation or his direct claim

that the CIA and others were trying to manipulate the intelligence process

for some type of political end. 


So Mitch McConnell from day one was always adamantly opposed to having this

government be able to honestly look at what the Russians were doing and

prevent that type of interference. 


MATTHEWS:  I don`t know how they do it.  I don`t know how – the Republican

Party used to be very good on national defense, very nationalistic in that

way, looking out for the reds and everybody else coming at us. 


And now they just – they`re soft. 


BRENNAN:  Well, absolutely. 


And a lot of the Republicans pushed back against me, claiming that the

Russians would never advocate to have a Republican president elected,

because the Republican Party, the party of Reagan, is the one in fact that

brought down the Soviet Union. 




BRENNAN:  And I said, well, that`s just it, is, Donald Trump is so unlike

the Republican Party`s clear history of standing strong against the Soviet

Union and Russia.


But, clearly, it was.  As Robert Mueller has said, they were trying to

interfere in the election on behalf of the electoral prospects of Donald



MATTHEWS:  Moscow Mitch, that`s the name he got this morning from Joe



Anyway, yesterday, FBI Director Christopher Wray raised the prospect of

foreign actors manipulating voter data, but said his bureau was working

relentlessly to try to prevent it. 




CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI DIRECTOR:  We have yet, happily, to see attacks

manipulating or deleting election and voter-related data or attacks that

actually take election management systems offline. 


But we know that our adversaries are relentless.  So are we. 




MATTHEWS:  Relentless. 


This comes after Wray said earlier this week he has yet to read the full

Mueller report.  Here he goes. 




QUESTION:  Have you read the Mueller report? 


WRAY:  I have reviewed it.  I wouldn`t say I have read every single word. 




MATTHEWS:  Let`s go now to the things that you must think about as an



What do you think the worst case would be in 2020 that would possibly screw

up our notion of who actually won the election? 


BRENNAN:  Well, I think, as we were concerned in 2016, if the Russians or

someone else did something to try to disrupt the electoral systems, going

in and maybe taking down some of the registration rolls, preventing

individuals from getting to the voting booths, or manipulating some of the

tabulations that might be sent from one precinct to headquarters.


It really raises questions about the integrity of the election. 




BRENNAN:  And my concern is, would Donald Trump at that stage claim that

the election was fraudulent because of interference from individuals in

some basement somewhere, that they manipulated it?


That`s why I think gaslighting, which is what Donald Trump has really

excelled in, really has a potential, as we go – get closer to the 2020

election, to be used once again to try to deceive the American public from

what the reality is.


And the reality is, our systems need to be strengthened.  We need to have a

– some type of legislation that`s going to allow the states, along with

the federal government, to try to make it as difficult as possible to

interfere and to disrupt the electoral process. 


MATTHEWS:  We saw what happened. 


If you put together our recent history, what happened in 2000, where the

one state screwed up its count, because they had all kinds of different

voting systems, so they could never get an honest, consistent basis for

equal justice down there, and then you had what the Russians tried to do in



What would be the case, what do you think would happen if Trump found

himself with neither party, neither candidate got 270 electorate votes

because a state or two didn`t have an honest count, didn`t have a clear

count?  Would he stick in office?  Would he not move?


BRENNAN:  I – Michael Cohen said in his testimony in front of Congress

that he really fears what Donald Trump might do if he loses the 2020



I fear that as well, and particularly since we have sycophants like Mitch

McConnell and others in the Congress who are willing to allow Donald Trump

to trample the rule of law for his own personal gain.  It…


MATTHEWS:  You mean refuse to leave on January 20, `21? 


BRENNAN:  A president of the United States has tremendous executive

authority that he might try to leverage during that period of time either

before an election to postpone it or in fact to do something if he loses. 


MATTHEWS:  I like the word gaslighting, because when you take away the

people`s confidence in their ability to watch what`s going on, and you lose

– people lack – they lack the confidence that what they just saw happen

was a clean, clear election with a clear result, and they go, I don`t know

what happened, then we`re in trouble. 


Thank you, John Brennan, former director of the CIA. 


Up next, et tu, Brute?  Actually, it`s et tu, Brutus.  Get the Latin right.


A new FOX poll has one Democratic candidate leading Trump by double digits,

and Trump is not happy with his favorite network.  That would be FOX. 


Hear what he had to say straight ahead on HARDBALL. 


We`re back in a minute. 




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


With just a few days to go until the next Democratic presidential debate,

former Vice President Joe Biden showing more signs of strength. 


A new FOX poll out today shows Biden leading the Democratic field with 33

percent, more than doubling his nearest competitor – that`s Bernie Sanders

– at 15. 


His lead is roughly the same as before last month`s debate.  Biden is

promising, in his words, by the way, to be less polite this time to his

rivals after his confrontation with Senator Kamala Harris over his work

with segregationist senators in the `70s and on his work as – or his

record, actually, as – on court-ordered school busing.  He didn`t look

strong there. 


In a radio interview yesterday, Biden said he was surprised by Senator

Harris` attack. 




JOSEPH BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  I thought we were friends.  I

mean, I hope we still will be.  You know, she asked me to go out – and

called me and asked me to go to her conversation and be the guy from

outside of California to nominate her at her conversation for the Senate

seat.  I did. 




MATTHEWS:  But the former vice president continues to face heat from

Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who called Biden an architect of mass

incarceration for his role in crafting the 1994 crime bill. 


And Biden has criticized police behavior during Booker`s tenure as mayor of

Newark, New Jersey. 


Here he goes. 





to power.  And watching the crime bills of the `80s and `90s and all the

things that he put into place, this is something that should be talked



And the response to having a substantive conversation about people`s

records shouldn`t be to go on the attack.  And I found his attacks on me





MATTHEWS:  Well, meanwhile, in an interview with FOX last night, President

Trump took a swipe at Biden.  Let`s watch. 





fading.  I think he is fading fast.  The only good thing about Mueller is,

it made Joe Biden look like a dynamo. 




MATTHEWS:  But that new FOX poll also showed that it is President Trump

himself who should be worried. 


Needless to say, he is not very happy about the numbers that show him well

behind Joe Biden, so-called sleepy Joe. 


Stick with us. 




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


Former Vice President Joe Biden is vowing to fight back against his

Democratic rivals at the next debate.  That`s coming up this week in



And, today, President Trump started a fight of his own over another poll

showing him losing to Biden.  A new poll from FOX shows the former vice

president beating President Trump by 10 points nationally. 


And the bad news clearly got under the president`s skin today, since he

slammed his favorite network on Twitter. 


Trump tweeted: “FOX News is at it again.  So different from what they used

to be during the 2016 primaries and before, proud warriors.  Now new FOX

polls, which have always been terrible to me.  They had me losing big to

crooked Hillary.  Have me down to sleepy Joe.”


Well, he added: “There can be no way, with the greatest economy in U.S.

history, that I can be losing to the sleepy one.  Keep America great.” 


For more, I`m joined by Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American

Progress, and Shermichael Singleton, Republican strategist. 


I want to start with the Democrat here. 


What is going on in the race?  Is something going on or nothing?  Biden is

ahead.  Is he staying ahead?  What is going on?  What is – is there any

action there at all, except Elizabeth is coming up?  I noticed that.




I mean, well, Senator Warren was coming up even before the last debate. 

And I think the last debate did help Kamala Harris. 


But I think what`s happened over the last couple of weeks for the vice

president is that just what you talked about, the fact that he is up

against Trump, the fact that he is the only candidate who is double digits

up against Trump.


The fact that Trump still has really pathetic names for him like sleepy

Joe, and doesn`t know how to deal with him, and still gets upset about it

shows that – I think actually provides a lot of comfort for Democrats that

Vice President Biden is a strong candidate against him. 


And I think the truth is, he has to prove or disprove that in the next

debate.  He can prove it, that he can take a punch and punch back.  And I

think this week he is demonstrating that a little bit.  Or he can disprove

it and have a suboptimal debate performance. 


And I think it`s really in his hands – in his hands. 


MATTHEWS:  Well, I would say a couple cups of coffee beforehand would be a

starter.  Just get in there and be animated. 




MATTHEWS:  Your thoughts, Shermichael?



shown over the past several weeks now that the Joe Biden that we expect to

see next week is the Joe Biden that a lot of people have lamented about

from several years ago. 


Even internal data from the Trump campaign indicated that the president is

going to struggle in certain key places.  The president`s maximum is about

40 percent, at best, within the margin of error, which can be 3 percent

less than 40 percent. 




rMD+IT_rMD-IT_SINGLETON:  So, That means his room for error is

significantly decreased. 


Joe Biden, I would argue, has the best opportunity, not only with Obama-

Trump voters, but also with African-Americans, who did not turn out in

significant numbers in 2016 in key places like Michigan or like





Do you think Mueller`s performance this week is going to help Biden or hurt



SINGLETON:  I don`t think it really matters. 


MATTHEWS:  Doesn`t raise the age issue?


SINGLETON:  No, I don`t think so.


Donald Trump is, what, 74 years old?  Seriously. 




TANDEN:  He is pretty old. 


SINGLETON:  And look at how he acts.  Right? 


I think Joe Biden has the ability to say, I am the older statesman.  I

served with President Obama for eight years. 




SINGLETON:  President Obama respected and trusted me.  That matters. 


MATTHEWS:  OK, let`s talk – let`s talk serious stuff, because you know how

to do this. 


I think it`s a mistake for Biden to go into Cory Booker.  I don`t think he

should shoot down, first of all, no matter what Cory says.  He starts

talking about the situation with the police in Newark, certainly, Cory

knows more about that than Biden will ever know in a briefing session. 


And the danger of that is you do get gaslighted, because you go into a

situation where you don`t know all the facts.  And all Cory has to say is,

what you don`t know, Mr. President, is that I hired X-many new policemen

from that group.  And Biden says, oh, I didn`t know that, you know?


It`s tough to go in the other guy`s territory. 


TANDEN:  I hear you, but I think what the lesson of the first debate was

that if you let an attack go unanswered, you look weak.  And I think it`s

not – he doesn`t need to attack anybody. 


He is the front-runner right at this moment.  But if he`s attacked, he

needs to defend, because I think the question for him is, his whole

argument is, he is a strong candidate against Trump. 




TANDEN:  He is the strongest one.  He has to demonstrate. 


He can`t just say he is the strongest candidate.  He can`t just rely on the

polls.  He has to show it.  And I think he…


MATTHEWS:  Let`s talk ethnic for a second here, which I just don`t love to

do, but we have to. 


He doesn`t seem to face a strong African-American opponent, a strong front-

runner.  He doesn`t – his toughest opponent is Bernie and Elizabeth and

maybe Kamala. 




MATTHEWS:  But I – at this point, he seems to be grabbing the older

African-American vote, the women African-American vote in states that

really matter, like South Carolina. 


SINGLETON:  Because I think a lot of African-Americans are being very

pragmatic about 2020.  They just want to defeat Donald Trump. 


And I think this notion from folks like Cory Booker that continue to push

back on Donald Trump – or, Joe Biden, rather… 


MATTHEWS:  He is 2 percent now.  He is 2 percent. 


SINGLETON:  And people are saying, well, Joe Biden needs to be careful. 

That`s B.S., Chris. 


If you`re going to attack Joe Biden, he has every single right to hit back

on issues that matter.  I think Cory Booker may be upset that, as an

African-American, he is not polling too well with other black people. 

Well, look, get over it, man.  Joe Biden is. 


MATTHEWS:  What`s his problem? 


SINGLETON:  I just don`t think he is resonating very well.  I just have to

be honest with you.


MATTHEWS:  What is his problem, too elite, too Ivy League?




TANDEN:  Just to be clear, we shouldn`t discount the other candidates.  We

have a lot of strong other candidates.


SINGLETON:  Of course, but…


MATTHEWS:  I know.  I know.  OK.


TANDEN:  Kamala did really well in the last… 




MATTHEWS:  Big surprise.  Big news. 




SINGLETON:  But he is not. 


MATTHEWS:  Neera Tanden is telling us how great the Democrats are.




MATTHEWS:  Thank you, Neera Tanden.  Thank you, Shermichael Singleton. 


SINGLETON:  Thanks, Chris. 


MATTHEWS:  You`re showing the acuity here I`m looking for.


Up next, it was 50 years ago this summer that half-a-million young

Americans descended on a farm in Upstate New York.  Look at this, Woodstock

Nation.  A lot my friends still feel that way:  I`m still in Woodstock



They haven`t changed. 


A new film offers a riveting, comprehensive look at how the Woodstock

Festival actually came into being.  Director Mick Richards joins us next

with lots of pictures like this, sex, drugs and rock `n` roll. 


We will be right back.




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


In the summer of 1969, Woodstock defined a generation, with hundreds of

thousands gathering in Upstate New York, hearing from the likes of Jimi

Hendrix, Janis Joplin, The Grateful Dead. 


For organizers, the planning was as wild as the era, with last-minute venue

changes, worries about lack of headliners and a lack of infrastructure to

handle the masses of people that showed up. 


And as we approach the 50th anniversary of Woodstock, organizers of an

anniversary festival scheduled to take place next month appear to be

following the same old path.  After losing multiple venues in Upstate New

York, a new location in Maryland was just announced in a last-ditch effort

to keep the whole thing alive again. 


With only three weeks until the anniversary, questions remain, just like 50

years ago, will organizers pull it off?  Who will perform?  And how many

people will show up to watch? 


I`m joined right now by Mick Richards, the director of a new documentary,

“Creating Woodstock,” about what it took to put on the iconic 1969



Thank you, Mick, for coming on.  I really wanted you on the show tonight,

because I grew up with a lot of people that said Woodstock nation is still

here.  They still feel a part of it years later. 


What is going on with this effort to revive it, relive it?  And how is that

compared to the way it was putting it together in the first place? 



in the first place, compared to what`s going on today, the similarities are



The battle for Wallkill.  The organizers had actually set up in Wallkill,

New York.  And Wallkill – the town Wallkill board passed a law evicting

them from Wallkill.  So they literally had 28 days to find a new site and

build it. 


And now Michael Lang is going through the same thing, being evicted from 21

site to another to another. 


And it`s just – it`s very interesting that the similarities are so



MATTHEWS:  What happened?  Originally, they were charging $6.50 a day, $18

for three days.  And then it – somehow, it became like a free festival? 

How did that all happen?  Just too many people coming?  How did it become a

free sort of public event?


RICHARDS:  Well, again, going back to Wallkill, they only had 28 days – or

roughly 28 days to put the festival together on Yasgur`s farm.  And they

were more interested in getting the infrastructure together, the stage

built, the water systems, the electric and so on, that the fences and the

gates were the last things to get built, if built at all. 


So when the crowd showed up, they actually had about 30,000 people in the

crowd two days before the festival was going to be – was going to start on

Wednesday morning.  So they knew, they knew going into Friday morning that

they couldn`t collect tickets, and it was a free festival. 


Mike Lang said the crowd made it a free festival.  And, pretty much, they



MATTHEWS:  There is something about it with the death, of course, of Jimi

Hendrix and Janis Joplin.  It was so much about the excesses of the `60s

and how people just went crazy. 


Was there any kind of policing up there in those days?  Or could you do

whatever you felt like? 


RICHARDS:  Well, the interesting thing was, they went out and hired Wes

Pomeroy to handle security. 


And Wes Pomeroy came from, I believe, from the Justice Department of the

Nixon administration.  And to have such a background as that to be dealing

with a festival full of hippies seems a little odd. 


But Wes was a lovely man.  And we interviewed him at his home in Florida. 

And he said from the beginning it was not going to be confrontational. 

They brought police up from New York City.  But they told them that they

couldn`t – they couldn`t arrest anybody for doing drugs or being naked or



They were more there to support people.  And so John Roberts and Joel

Rosenman, two of the four Woodstock ventures, partners and producers, set

the framework that, from the beginning, it was not going to be



They groomed the site for people to feel at peace.  They wanted everyone to

come and have a good time.  And John says that the three days of peace and

music was not a shorthand way of saying, get out of Vietnam.  It was a way

of saying, come to the country and have a good time, and just forget about

what`s bothering you. 


So they were very, very interested in making sure that people came, had a

good time, felt at peace, and didn`t have to worry about anything. 


But I think they worried about a lot of things. 




MATTHEWS:  Freedom and peace.


Thank you so much. 


I hope – I`m going to look at that – you know, I was in South Africa on

the way home from the Peace Corps when I watched the documentary.  But it

was so censored by the South African government, I couldn`t figure out what

it was censored for. 




MATTHEWS:  But there was lots to censor.  Thank you – censor. 


Thank you so much, Mick Richards, director of “Creating Woodstock.”  It`s

coming up. 


Up next: President Trump`s Russia confession.


You`re watching HARDBALL. 




MATTHEWS:  If you listen closely, you can hear Donald Trump plead guilty to

the two central charges now standing against him. 


The president says he fully intends to engage foreign government help in

his reelection campaign.  Indeed, he sees nothing wrong with it. 




GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS:  Your campaign this time, if foreigners,

if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on an opponent,

should they accept it, or should they call the FBI? 


TRUMP:  I think maybe you do both.  I think you might want to listen.  I

don`t – there is nothing wrong with listening. 


If somebody called from a country, Norway, “We have information on your

opponent,” oh.  I think I would want to hear that. 


STEPHANOPOULOS:  You want that kind of interference in our elections? 


TRUMP:  It`s not an interference.  They have information.  I think I would

take it. 




MATTHEWS:  Collusion, he shamelessly confesses, is not a question past,

present or future with this president.  It is the answer. 


If we want a president ready and willing to play ball with an overseas

adversary, we have got one. 


Trump is equally clear on the matter of obstruction.  He said this week

that he can do whatever he wants as president and give any order he wants

to officials in the executive branch, and that includes the Justice

Department.  That includes the special prosecutor. 




TRUMP:  Then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I

want as president, but I don`t even talk about that, because they did a

report.  And there was no obstruction. 




MATTHEWS:  What we have now is a president who believes the main charges in

the impeachment inquiry, accepting, welcoming, encouraging, and covering up

help from the Russian government, is not only quite all right with him, but

he is ready and willing to grab more next time. 


What we have is a chief executive who believes that obstruction of justice

is constitutionally impossible, because a president can order anyone in the

government to do anything he wants it to do. 


We have, therefore, living in the White House a man who argues, based on

his understanding of the U.S. Constitution, his total exoneration. 


The only question is who in this country will lead the case against him. 

And, right now, no such leader exists.  And until he or she arises, Donald

J. Trump will be right there on the 2020 presidential ballot a year from

this November, daring voters to say he`s wrong. 


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