Impeachment vote TRANSCRIPT: 10/21/2019, Hardball with Chris Matthews

Eric Swalwell, Betsy Woodruff Swan, Glenn Kirschner, Michael Crowley, David Shulkin, Chrissy Houlahan, Susan Page


Date: October 21, 2019



AYMAN MOHYELDIN, MSNBC HOST:  All right.  But today, a judge ruled that

jurors will not get to see the movie clip.  They`ll have to settle for



That does it for me.  Ari is back tomorrow.  And catch weekdays at 5:00

A.M. Eastern on “Morning Joe First Look.”  HARDBALL is up next.




Good evening.  I`m Chris Matthews back in Washington.


The first I want to say is that it`s good to be back.  All the notes and

messages I have received over the past two weeks overwhelmed me, from my

colleagues here at MSNBC, from the HARDBALL producers and you, the viewers,

the political figures from left to the reasonable right.  I want to say to

each message of caring matters, and long ago, I came to believe that

heartfelt prayer matters, more to say about that when I`m through at the

end of the show.


But first, the news, there`s been a turning during the last two weeks

that`s now inevitable that the U.S. House of Representatives, led by a

great, even historic speaker, is going to call the role on an article of

impeachment and it will pass.  It`s inevitable too that Senate Republicans

will be called to a reckoning in the trial of whether an impeached

president should remain in office another year.  Whether it remains beyond

that, of course, beyond next year is a decision that lies before the

American people.  But even the president now seems to acknowledge the

inescapable truth that impeachment is inevitable.




REPORTER:  Do you believe that it`s a foregone conclusion that the House

will impeach?


DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT:  Well, I think they want to.  Any Democrat

wants to because they`re not going to beat me in the election, so, of

course, they want to impeach.  Why wouldn`t they want to impeach me?  It`s

so illegitimate.  It cannot be the way the founders, our great founders

meant this to be.


But, no, impeachment – they want to impeach and they want to do it as

quickly as possible.




MATTHEWS:  Each new deposition has bolstered the central charge of the

inquiry, that the president traded away the national interest in favor of

his own, using the power of his office to extort a foreign ally.


Well, current and former foreign policy officials last week testified that

the president put his personal lawyer in control of his Ukraine agenda,

enabling Rudy Giuliani to use U.S. ambassadors to advance Trump`s personal

political objectives.  And now, Bill Taylor, the U.S. ambassador to

Ukraine, is set to testify tomorrow.


Taylor sounded the alarm last month about the president`s freeze of

military support to Ukraine, texting his colleagues, I think it`s crazy to

withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.  It`s part

of what Speaker Pelosi is call in a fact she released today a shakedown,

making the case that Trump abused his power with Ukraine.


According to NBC News now, the charge is likely to be the centerpiece of a

narrowly focused article of impeachment against the president.  That`s

because, quote, Speaker Pelosi has been adamant that the case against Trump

must be targeted and easy to communicate in order to build public support.


With that, I`m joined right now by Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of

California, who`s on the House Intelligence Committee, Geoff Bennett, our

Correspondent for NBC News, covering this story, Betsy Woodruff Swan is a

Politics Reporter with The Daily Beast, and Glenn Kirschner, of course,

former federal prosecutor.


Let`s start with Geoff, my friend, you`re covering right on this case.  Is

it inevitable, am I right, we`re going to impeach?  The U.S. House of

Representatives is going to impeach the president?


GEOFF BENNETT, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT:  Yes.  And, Chris, it`s great to see

you.  Welcome back.


I think, look, all signs point to the inevitability of impeachment.  And to

your point, when we say that, we mean impeachment as a process, not

impeachment as an end result.  And so the reason I say that is because what

we know about Nancy Pelosi is two things, really.  One, she does not make

idle threats, and two, she does not waste political capital.


And for weeks, you`ve seen the House Speaker say what President Trump

already admitted to is in itself a crime.  Is in itself, Pelosi says, an

impeachable offense, President Trump, so goes the theory of the Democratic

case, using his public office for personal gain.  That is the story that

Democrats have really stitched together with this tapestry of evidence and

testimony over the last two weeks, from diplomats and career officials, as

they clearly have drawn out how President Trump leaned on Rudy Giuliani to

run an influence campaign outside of the normal diplomatic channels to get

the Ukrainian leaders to manufacture damaging information about the Bidens.


On this other thing about political capital, you now have all but seven

House Democrats now expressing some supportive for some sort of impeachment

action.  You don`t take your party through that sort of trial unless you`re

ready to make that leap at the end of it, Chris.


MATTHEWS:  and so, when you say the process, will it end up with a vote of

more than 218 members of the House of Representatives voting aye on at

least one article of impeachment?


BENNETT:  It looks that way.  You know, as I stand here and talk to you

right now, as it moves to the Senate, will you find 20 Republican senators

to join with the 45 Democrats and the two independents who caucus with

them?  Probably not.  So when we talk about impeachment as an end result,

will this be the thing that removes Donald Trump from office?  Likely not.


But Democrats have said that it`s important in this election year to get

those vulnerable Republican senators on the record.  Even if it`s not, you

know, successful as a means of getting Donald Trump out of the White House,

to get those Republicans on the record after Democrats have built the

public case against the president.


MATTHEWS:  I want to go to Eric Swalwell, a member of the Intelligence

Committee, and a great part of this show.


Congressman, it seems to me that Pelosi does have empathy for people from

districts that aren`t as liberal as her San Francisco, that she does

understand what it`s like to be a suburban Democrat coming out of the last

election, and you have to get re-elected again.  And my sense is that she

thinks that this focus on Article I, one article on abuse of power,

involving trading away of our national security interests for personal

political gain is the strongest armament that she can give to a suburban

Democrat going into the next election, an impeachment vote like that.


REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA):  Chris, good evening.  She certainly recognizes

that none of us ran for Congress to be a part of an impeachment inquiry. 

We ran on healthcare.  We ran on gun violence and to end it.  We ran on

extending jobs to people who want to work.


But the urgency of this upcoming election and the extortion scheme that was

going on forces us to answer the question, what do we do with our children

watching what we will do with this democracy?  Will we allow this scheme to

continue and for foreigners to play in our elections, will we say, no,

we`re not going to allow it?


Now, we have crime, we have confession, we have cover-up.  We`re going to

give this president a fairer investigation than he probably deserves, which

means we`re going to bring the witnesses in.  If the president wants to

cooperate, he should.  If he has exonerating evidence, they should present

it.  If they`re going to tell witnesses to not come in, as they continue to

do, we will just view that as consciousness of guilt and put that under

consideration for obstruction of Congress.


But it`s in his interest to cooperate considering he`s confessed to the

crime.  If there are arrows that point to innocence, he should show us what

those arrows are.


MATTHEWS:  Well, that is kind.  Amid all of this, Democrats have been

largely united as they advance their case and it appears the president has

taken notice about the Democrats being united.




TRUMP:  I think they`re lousy politicians.  But two things they have,

they`re vicious and they stick together.  They don`t have Mitt Romney in

their midst.  They don`t have people like that.  They stick together.  You

never see them break off.


The Republicans have to get tougher and fight.  We have some that are great

fighters.  They have to get tougher and fight, because the Democrats are

trying to hurt the Republican Party for the election.




MATTHEWS:  This is like the Sharks and the Jets.  I mean, he`s saying, that

other side is united.  We`ve got to be like them, you know?



There`s certainly a lot of envy when it comes to the way that the party`s

reacting.  And truly, it has bothered Trump ever since he first came on to

the national scene as the extent to which many national Republican power

brokers just found him to be abhorrent.  It`s been a problem for his

administration.  It`s been a problem for filling out some of the key

national security jobs.  It`s part of the reason why there are so many

vacancies in his cabinet.  And now he`s seeing where the rubber meets the

road of the fact that many national Republicans just don`t like him.


MATTHEWS:  I wonder if his culture is so bad that he didn`t even get what

he did that was impeachable.  I mean, somebody said years ago in a story

that Franklin Roosevelt`s idea of being president was to be Franklin

Roosevelt, which made sense, a man of great self-confidence that got him

through the depression and the war.  Trump`s idea of being president is

being Donald Trump and it`s horrific and a horrific idea.





First of all, welcome back, Chris.  We`re happy to have you back.


MATTHEWS:  Thanks, Glenn.


MATTHEWS:  And when you think about, okay, maybe Donald Trump was a

political novice when he was running the first time, so maybe that`s why he

said, Russia, if you`re listening, he didn`t know any better, and then we

spent two years.  That in part gave birth to the Mueller investigation.  He

knows better now.  And what does he do?  Hey, Ukraine, if you`re listening,

I want dirt on Biden.  Then he stands on the White House lawn and says,

China, I want you in too.


Now, do you think China maybe started its own spear-fishing expedition

after he said that?  I mean, it really is beyond the pale to suggest that

he doesn`t know any better and he`s just being Donald Trump.  He`s dragging

the country through this all over again.


MATTHEWS:  Well, in a story just breaking right now, The Washington Post is

reporting that Trump`s effort to pressure Ukraine came, quote, as he was

being urged to adopt a hostile view of the country by its regional

adversaries, including – here it comes – Russian President Vladimir

Putin, as well as Hungarian Prime minister Viktor Orban.  That`s according

to current and former U.S. officials, one of whom testified in the

impeachment inquiry last week.


While neither Putin nor Orban encouraged Trump to seek dirt on Joe Biden,

quote, their disparaging depictions of Ukraine reinforced Trump`s

perceptions of the country, as White House officials struggled to persuade

Trump to support the fledgling government in Kiev instead of exploiting it

for political purposes.


Betsy, this is what the speaker of the House is talking about.  All roads

lead to Putin.


SWAN:  The country of Ukraine, more than any other country in the region, I

would say, by far, is incredibly dependent on economic support from the

United States.  Most of Western Europe sees Ukraine as something of an

outcast.  They find it a little bit embarrassing.  They don`t –


MATTHEWS:  Especially Javelin missiles to stop Russian tanks.


SWAN:  Exactly.  They don`t seriously – they haven`t made serious, major

commitments to that country.  Ukraine really relies on support from the

United States.  And Putin knows this.  It`s very obvious to him.


So it`s completely consistent with his government`s long-term strategy of

trying to take Ukraine back into Russia that they would go after this

country on all fronts.  Ukrainians used the term hybrid warfare to describe

the way the Russian government is targeting their economy, trying to see

discords socially, obviously attacking them militarily.  And Putin trying

to damage President Trump`s view of Ukraine would just be part of this

broader Russian onslaught against their country.


MATTHEWS:  And this is the great contradiction or challenge that the

Democrats in the next month.  I think they will impeach next month in the

House.  But they must be attracted to the idea to encase the whole charge

with not just the (INAUDIBLE) interest, but this guy is working for the

Russians.  And because there`s so much evidence that everything he`s done

wrong was at the behest, implicitly, of Vladimir Putin.


KIRSCHNER:  Yes.  And I think they should investigate expansively, which

they appear to be doing, and then prove their case narrowly.


A real quick example, when you`re investigating a case, you want to hold

somebody accountable for all of their crimes.  So if I got somebody who`s

buying an illegal gun, carjacking and then using that car in a bank

robbery, I`ve got three charges.  But you know what?  If what it takes to

prove the carjacking, I have to call a really cruddy, unreliable, unseemly

witness, I may jettison that charge.  So if I needed like a Corey

Lewandowski to prove the carjacking or to prove an obstruction, ala the

Mueller report, I may jettison that altogether.


And I may focus just on what he did with Ukraine, holding that

congressional money hostage in order to get a political advantage.  So I

think what we`re hearing now, the tactical choices that the House is making

to kind of try its case narrowly, I think, is exactly right.


MATTHEWS:  By the way, Geoff, I want to go back to Geoff on this.


For weeks, we watched really the sultry, unpleasant hearings before the

House Judiciary Committee.  And it ended up with a gross-out show of Corey

Lewandowski, where he won the day, unfortunately.  I think we`ve got a real

case here for impeachment, we better not lose it.


Chris Wallace, by the way, of Fox News said yesterday, he`s on on Sunday,

that according to a Republican source of his, there`s least a chance that

enough Senate Republicans would vote to remove Trump.  Here is Chris.




CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS HOST:  I talked to a very well-connected Republican

in Washington this week, somebody whose name you would know well, who says

that if the House votes to impeach and it gets to a trial in the Senate,

there is now a 20 percent chance, he believes, obviously, it`s just an

estimate, now a 20 percent chance enough Republicans will vote with the

Democrats to remove the president.




MATTHEWS:  Well, let me go back to Congressman Swalwell.


First of all, I think there`s a – I`m not big on these percentage chances,

because they`re like Nate Silver of The New York Times.  I don`t believe

any of that.  Bet on something happening or not happening.  Chris is still

betting it`s not going to happen.  What is your sense of the Senate?  Is

there an opening there in the Senate that they`ll actually listen to the

House impeachment charges?


SWALWELL:  I`m not writing them off, Chris.  And we want to put together

the fairest case so that when it gets to the Senate, you don`t see these

attacks on the process that you`re seeing from the Republicans who are in

denial about the underlying act.  So we want to put a fair case forward so

that the senators cannot just write it off as partisanship.


I will say this to Glenn Kirschner`s point that he made, and it was a good

one.  This individual, our president, has priors.  Even though he may not

be brought up on what happened with Russia, the jury will know, the Senate,

about the priors.  And that this is not just some aberrational act by the

president.  This is what he did in the 2016 election and that will be very,

very relevant, I think, as they consider the urgency to act and protect the

2020 election.


MATTHEWS:  You want to respond to that?


KIRSCHNER:  No, I`m with Congressman Swalwell.  But I do think if we – if

the Senate trial uses these serious career public servants, the Marie

Yovanovitches, the Fiona Hills, the George Kents, the Bill Taylors, these

folks are unimpeachable witnesses, no pun intended.  They are serious and

the American people will see exactly what the president was up to.


MATTHEWS:  Geoff, you`re a younger guy than me, but I`ve got to tell you,

I`ve watched politicians a long time.  And I have to tell you, I`m in awe

of Nancy Pelosi.  I have never seen – I questioned her resistance to

impeachment for months, like so many people did, and yet I`ve watched

somebody who waited for her opportunity, saw it, jumped on it, has been

resolute and she has leadership ability.  When she leads, people follow

her.  And that`s – so is that your sense that this leadership of hers has

been critical in this matter?


BENNETT:  She has a keen ability to keep her finger on the pulse of not

just her caucus, Chris, but generally where politics is headed.  I mean,

just remember, the other day when President Trump tweeted out that photo

and tried to suggest that she was unhinged.  Within a matter of hours, she

took that same photo, flipped it around, and turned it in to a symbol of

her lecturing the president, standing up to the president.


On this issue, this issue of grave national security, I mean, impeachment,

she says, is a political process, yes.  But she says, this is a principled

process.  Because she, in her view, what the president did, was he

undermined national security and he called into question the integrity of

our election system.  And so that is why, you know, she is moving forward

with this process so deliberately, Chris.


MATTHEWS:  You know, there`s a wonderful writing by Scott Turow, the guy

who writes about courtroom dramas.  And he has this wonderful line in the

beginning of a presumed innocent, where he says, the prosecutor`s job is to

point their finger across the courtroom to the guilty person, point it at

the defendant and say, he or she did it.  You must confront the bad guy. 

And when Pelosi did that, I was amazed.  It was so well done, unhinged,

hardly, Mr. President, hardly.


Thank you, U.S. Congressman Eric Swalwell.  Thank you, Geoff Bennett. 

Thank you, Betsy Woodruff Swan.  I love you two kids got together.  Thank

you.  It`s wonderful.  Both great reporters.  Glenn Kirschner, sir,



Coming up, Mick Mulvaney is not just the chief of staff, he`s the

president`s chief flack.  It`s not a nice word, but it`s true.  But how

long can he survive trying to defend the indefensible?  Nice job.




REPORTER:  Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the

Democratic server happened as well?


MICK MULVANEY, ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF:  We do that all that time.


Yes, I flinched a little bit because that`s what people are saying that I

said, but I didn`t say that.




MATTHEWS:  We do it all the time, quid pro quo.  A former member of Trump`s

cabinet joins me here next.


Plus, under pressure from a member of his own party, the president reverses

his decision to play daddy host at a G7 at his own resort.  Emoluments

clause, maybe?  Will any Republicans publicly stand up to this president

now other than president – well, almost president Mitt Romney, AKA, Pierre

Delecto?  That`s his nickname.  That`s his Twitter account.


And former Pete – actually, Mayor Pete, about to be former Mayor Pete,

makes his move in Iowa.  Don`t call him a dark horse candidate anymore, a

serious contender, he`s making his move.  Wait until you see the numbers.


There will be much more coming up next.  Stick with us.




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


Over the weekend, Mick Mulvaney, the president`s acting chief of staff, was

the public face of this administration.  Mulvaney was tasked with trying to

undo the damage he himself caused during a 40-minute briefing on Thursday

last week.  He didn`t get very far. 


Appearing on FOX News this Sunday, Mulvaney tried to spin his public

confession that the Trump administration withheld military aid to Ukraine

in exchange for a politically motivated investigation. 


Let`s take a look. 





few seconds ago that I said there was a quid pro quo.  Never used that

language, because there – there is not a quid pro quo. 


CHRIS WALLACE, HOST, “FOX NEWS SUNDAY”:  You were asked by Jonathan Karl,

is – you have described a quid pro quo.  And you said, that happens all

the time. 


MULVANEY:  Well, and reporters will use their language all the time.  So,

my language never said quid pro quo. 






QUESTION:  So, the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part

of the reason that he…


MULVANEY:  It was on..


QUESTION:  … ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?


MULVANEY:  The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the

thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation.  And that

is absolutely appropriate. 


QUESTION:  Withholding the funding?


MULVANEY:  Yes, which – which ultimately then flowed. 


QUESTION:  To be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. 


It is, funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic

server happened as well. 


MULVANEY:  We do – we do that all the time with foreign policy. 


I have news for everybody.  Get over it.  There`s going to be political

influence in foreign policy.




MATTHEWS:  Mulvaney, according to “The Wall Street Journal,” didn`t

anticipate the blowback.


But his job seems to be secure for now.  Sources tell NBC that Mulvaney

received a standing O. from senior White House staff during their morning

meeting today. 


For more, I`m joined by Michael Crowley, “New York Times” White House

correspondent, and David Shulkin, President Trump`s former veterans affairs

secretary and author of a great new book, “It Shouldn`t Be This Hard to

Serve Your Country,” about his tumultuous 13 months in the Trump



This guy – why did – Mick Mulvaney is a congressman elected by real

people in South Carolina.  He could have had a job forever down there,

right?  Why would he stick his neck into this?  He takes OMB, which is a

wonderfully important job in our government, no matter who`s president, a

serious job.


Then he becomes the president`s so-called acting chief of staff, but

really, his flack, the guy he puts on television on Sunday, to B.S. for

him.  I`m being nice with the word B.S. 




MATTHEWS:  Why would he do this for a living? 


MICHAEL CROWLEY, “THE NEW YORK TIMES”:  Well, it`s a strange situation all



First of all, you put your finger on part of what`s unusual here, which is

that you don`t have a press secretary who is coming out and giving regular

briefings.  So why is the chief of staff coming out and doing a briefing

like this?  That`s pretty unusual to begin with. 


The public messaging of this administration is a little unusual, probably

because the president is talking all the time, I suppose. 


And then I think the weirdness of Mulvaney`s existence was captured in a

statement that came out of the White House, I think yesterday.  A press

person said, “The president has confidence in his acting chief of staff.”


Where`s the contradiction in that statement?  Why is he the acting chief of

staff if the president has confidence in him?  And the reality is, the

president has confidence up to a point.  Mulvaney kind of runs up and down

with the president.  He doesn`t love him enough to give him the full title. 

He could wipe away that acting in a single stroke. 


But part of the reality is, Chris, it`s not a job that a lot of people

want.  I mean, that is a tough job. 


MATTHEWS:  But the next stop is “Dancing With the Stars,” Mr. Secretary. 

That`s the next stop, or “SNL” portraying you as riding around on a

scooter, a lectern, like a crazy person, with a woman playing you. 




MATTHEWS:  Just to confuse everything. 


But it`s not an admirable place. 


When you took a job as secretary – you were promoted – did you think you

could serve this country without serving Donald Trump, when you went into

that position as the head of Veterans Affairs? 




I entered government under the Obama administration.  And when President

Trump asked me to be secretary, I thought the Department of Veterans

Affairs was different.  I thought that this was a – a department that was

completely run outside of the political agenda, that this was bipartisan. 




SHULKIN:  And the longer that I got to stay in Washington in this

administration, the more that I saw that wasn`t the case. 


MATTHEWS:  Is there any place to hide in this administration?  Can you

serve running the Peace Corps, running the NIH, running NASA?  Can you

serve admirably without falling under the thumb of this president?


SHULKIN:  Well, I think let`s hope that that is the case.


There are many, many dedicated people who serve in the federal government,

dedicated career employees.  But it`s increasingly hard. 


MATTHEWS:  You walk into that job as flack for the president.  You have to

combine – you have to be on a tight wire.  You`re up there at 500 feet in

the air. 




MATTHEWS:  You have got to say what he likes and also say the truth. 


How the hell can Mulvaney do that?  How can anybody do that?  What – the

guy who is now on “Dancing With The Stars”?  He didn`t…


CROWLEY:  Spicer.


MATTHEWS:  Yes, Spicer.  Sean.  He didn`t do it.  He looks like a fool. 




Well, and you really can`t get too far away from what the president wants

to hear and survive in this White House. 


MATTHEWS:  So you have to lie? 


CROWLEY:  Well, you just really have to be channeling Donald Trump and you

have to be comfortable with that. 


But this goes back to the oddity of, why is the chief of staff coming out

and doing this briefing in the first place?  That`s unusual in itself. 


The whole way this White House is approaching messaging right now is

something we have never seen before.  I mean, on the upside, we`re almost

seeing this transparent presidency.  Donald Trump never stops talking. 


And we`re seeing him thinking in real time.  We`re seeing deliberations in

real time, the way we have never had before.  But then you kind of throw

out the chief of staff for this one-off, throw him to a White House press

corps that hasn`t had a briefing in months.  And he got chewed up as a



MATTHEWS:  And why do they keep putting him out on Sundays? 


CROWLEY:  Well, he did – Chris Wallace actually is a great interviewer.  I

was about to say, it was FOX, so…


MATTHEWS:  I know he is.


CROWLEY:  So, right.  I was correcting myself. 


MATTHEWS:  Well, it`s FOX.  It`s not FOX News.  It`s…




CROWLEY:  That`s what I was trying – but so, yes, it actually was a pretty

tough environment. 


I don`t know why he chose that show.  It did not go well for him.




Mulvaney made another mistake.  Well, here he goes, another mistake, when

he attempted to defend Trump`s decision to hold the G7 at Doral down in

Florida by explaining that the president of the United States is still in

the hospitality business. 




MULVANEY:  The president isn`t one for holding back his feelings and his

emotions about something.


He was honestly surprised at the level of pushback.  At the end of the day,

he still considers himself to be a – in the hospitality business.  And he

saw an opportunity to take the biggest leaders from around the world.  And

he wanted to put on the absolute best show, the best visit that he possibly



WALLACE:  You say he considers himself in the hospitality business.




WALLACE:  He`s the president of the United States. 


MULVANEY:  Yes.  But he`s – that`s his background. 


And he wanted to put on a show.  He wanted to take care of folks.  That`s

the business – he`s in the hotel business, or at least he was. 




MATTHEWS:  So there, Mr. Secretary, is a chief of staff – acting chief of

staff who may not ever get the job, because he was trying to project or

channel what the president would say.


But the president doesn`t want to be portrayed the way he is.  He doesn`t

want to be seen the way he is, which is, he`s still running hotels and

still trying to make a buck off them. 


But he doesn`t want to be – here`s a guy who actually put in words what

Trump thinks.  And now he got in huge trouble for it. 


So how long is this guy going to last? 


SHULKIN:  Well, I think it`s one of the hardest jobs you can have in the

White House.  


And I`m not sure that anybody is going to be fit for that job for too long

a period of time.  But…


MATTHEWS:  Well, remember General Kelly?  He tried to bring order.  He put

up guardrails.  He thought he was running “Romper Room,” and he`d be the

moderator.  The president said, get out of here. 


SHULKIN:  Right.


I was very hopeful that, when General Kelly came in, that he would bring

some discipline.  And I think, in many ways, he tried.  But he too found it

extremely difficult to be able to corral the agendas in the White House. 


MATTHEWS:  Well, the fish rots from the head, as the great Michael Dukakis

once said, this administration.


What do you think?  How long does Mulvaney last?


CROWLEY:  Look, who wants that job? 


I mean, the president tried to get some other people to take it back in

December.  Mulvaney is coming up on his one-year anniversary.  That`s why

he`s still acting.  They couldn`t – he couldn`t get the people that he



Chris Christie was one who was in the mix, for instance.


MATTHEWS:  Did he offer him the job?


CROWLEY:  Did he offer – I can`t remember now, Chris, whether or not

Christie – I think, before he was offered the job, he took himself out of

the running.


MATTHEWS:  Christie has never looked better.  OK.


Well, three for three.  We have had three years of this presidency and

three different chiefs of staff.  And I`m wondering, if he does make a

second term – I don`t think he will.  If Trump gets a second term, he has

wasted second, third, fourth, fifth choices. 


What`s left?  What`s the second term going to look like?  Jesus.


Thank you. 


SHULKIN:  Yes.  You know, 17 members have come through the revolving door

of the Cabinet, and that`s making it very difficult to serve.


MATTHEWS:  Seventeen Cabinet members 86`ed.  Thank you so much.  In other

words, they`re gone. 


Secretary David Shulkin, thank you.  Good luck with this book.  “It

Shouldn`t Be This Hard to Serve Your Country.”  Well said. 


Thank you, Michael Crowley of “The New York Times.” 


Up next: President Trump reversing course on plans to hold the next G7 at

one of his resorts, Doral down in Florida.  Is this a sign that, when

Republican lawmakers finally do push back against abuses, he actually



I don`t know.


You`re watching HARDBALL. 







But the Democrats went crazy, even though I would have done it free, saved

the country a lot of money.  But I was willing to do this for free, and it

would have been the greatest G7 ever. 




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


That was President Trump complaining about the criticism of his now-

scrapped decision to hold next year`s G7 meeting of world leaders at his

own resort, Trump National Doral near Miami. 


Well, the president made a rare vertical after widespread criticism of this

choice.  In defending the original decision, he tried to argue he was the





TRUMP:  I don`t think you people with this phony Emoluments Clause – and,

by the way, I would say that it`s cost me anywhere from $2 billion to $5

billion to be president – and that`s OK – between what I lose and what I

could have made.


I would have made a fortune if I just ran my business.  I was doing it

really well. 




MATTHEWS:  Well, the president blamed the very real, by the way, United

States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8, to be exact, and

Democrats as well. 


In reality, the reversal was because Republicans, Republicans refused to

defend him on this. 


NBC News reports that, after calling into a Saturday meeting of moderate

House Republicans, according to two sources – quote – “Trump was told

that the majority of the room felt it would be best for him to reverse

himself” – to reverse himself.


“The New York Times” reports: “With many members already unhappy with the

consequences of the president`s move to withdraw troops from Syria, and

Democrats pressing the impeachment inquiry, Republicans on Capitol Hill

were not eager to have to defend the appropriateness of the president`s

decision to take the G7 to Doral.”


In fact, one member of the House Republican leadership, Tom Cole of

Oklahoma, told “The New York Times” – quote – “We just didn`t need this.”


But what does prominent Republican Pierre Delecto think about President

Trump`s latest indefensible act?  Never heard of him?  Well, here`s a clue. 

He`s a wild and crazy guy. 


And that`s coming up next.  You won`t believe who this guy is, Pierre



You`re watching HARDBALL. 




MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


Well, President Trump`s decision to reverse course on holding next year`s

G7 summit at his own golf resort came as he faced heat from all sides. 


“The Washington Post” reports that Trump has told – Republicans, he was

told, are struggling to defend him on so many fronts.  In fact, one

Republican who has been less willing to defend the president is Utah

Senator Mitt Romney, who we`re learning has offered up some of his own

opinions in disguise. 


In a lengthy profile in “The Atlantic,” Romney described that he used a

secret Twitter account.  “Slate” magazine did some digging and found the

undercover Twitter for Senator Romney, otherwise known as Pierre Delecto –

absorb that phrase.


Anyway, Romney confirmed last night that he is, in fact, Pierre, telling

“The Atlantic” – the account, created in 2011, is now private. 


But just as recently as two weeks ago, Pierre Delecto was commenting on the

president`s abrupt decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, asking,

“But what could the Senate do to stop it?”


For more, I`m joined by Democratic Congressman – Congresswoman Chrissy

Houlahan of Pennsylvania and Michael Steele, former RNC chairman.


Congresswoman, it`s great to have you.


And I know I`m asking you to project a lot here, but why would a U.S.

senator, representing an entire state, feel they have more power as a

secret Twitter account-holder under a French pseudonym, or nom de plume? 


Why would somebody








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