Questions about election security. TRANSCRIPT: 12/27/19, Hardball w/ Chris Matthews.

Irvin McCullough, Jennifer Horn, Cynthia Alksne, Evan McMullin, Desiree Barnes, Noah Rothman

AYMAN MOHYELDIN, MSNBC HOST:  All right, that does it for me.  I`m going to

see you here tonight at 10:00 p.m. Eastern filling in for Lawrence

O`Donnell on THE LASTWORD.  HARDBALL is next.


STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST:  Trump outs the whistleblower?  Let`s play



Good evening.  I`m Steve Kornacki in for Chris Matthews.


President Trump capped his holiday week with a barrage of Twitter attacks

on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  He has tweeted or re-tweeted several dozen

times since Thursday, taking swipes at Speaker Pelosi and her district and

blasting House Democrats over impeachment.  But last night, Trump also re-

tweeted a post by his re-election campaigns, quote, war room linking an

article that named the alleged whistleblower whose complaint ultimately led

to impeachment.


It has been nine days now since he House of Representatives voted to pass

articles of impeachment.  Speaker Pelosi continues to hold onto those

articles until Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell negotiates the terms

of a Senate trial.  But pressure is already mounting on Republican senators

who are undecided on impeachment and procedural questions, in particular

Maine Senator Susan Collins, who`s being targeted by Republican groups

critical of President Trump, including the Lincoln Project, that`s a Super

PAC funded by Republican critics of the president.


President Trump did his part to try to curry favor with Collins with an

endorsement of her 2020 re-election earlier this week.  In a statement,

Senator Collins told a Portland newspaper, quote, I take seriously the oath

I will swear to render impartial justice in the impeachment trial.  Threats

from both the left and right will have zero influence on my decisions.


For more, I`m joined by Shannon Pettypiece, NBC News Senior Digital White

House Reporter, Irvin McCoullough, a National Security Analyst for the

Government Accountability Project, and Jennifer Horn, co-Founder of the

Lincoln Project and former Chair of the New Hampshire Republican Party. 

Thanks to all of you for being with us.


Shannon, let me start with you.  We mentioned the president`s Twitter

activity, quite a bit of it in the past couple of days, very aggressive

here particularly when it comes to his posture towards Nancy Pelosi.  In

terms of the White House`s strategy towards impeachment and that stalemate

between the House and the Senate right now, what is the president trying to

achieve here?



certainly trying to make a villain out of Pelosi and to make her the

villain in this narrative.  The president is usually strongest when he has

a strong adversary on the other side.  So when you look at 2016 having

Hillary Clinton a very unfavorable candidate, according to all the polls,

on the opposite ticket really helped drive out a lot of voters for him. 

Not so much a vote for him but a vote against Clinton.


When you look at the Democrats right now, they don`t really have anyone

with that sort of that un-favorability rating, as you saw with Clinton.  So

he is trying to paint the Democratic Party as a whole and find the sort of

villains, quote, unquote, that he can pick out, whether it`s Nancy Pelosi

or AOC or the squad, and take them and use them as a sort of caricature or

a portrait that he wants to paint as the Democratic Party as a whole going

into 2020.


So he wants – when voters go to the ballot, if they`re not going to cast a

vote for him because they don`t like him or they don`t like his behavior as

president, they`re going to show up because they want to cast a vote

against Nancy Pelosi or the squad or whatever progressive elements of the

Democratic Party he finds.  So I think that is really why he`s single out



I don`t know if that has become effective yet because it seems it`s only

making her stronger.


KORNACKI:  Irvin, we mentioned this re-tweet the president did last night

as sort of part of this barrage, something that included allegedly the

whistleblower`s name.  I know you do quite a bit of work there involving

whistleblowers.  What is your reaction to that re-tweet from the president?



PROJECT:  Bluntly, I think that that re-tweet is wholly irresponsible. 

This is reportedly a CIA employee who has blown the whistle on the

president of the United States who is currently suffering death threats. 

And when people hear the word threats, their eye is rolled back into their

heads, but, really, this person`s life can be in danger.  This person has

received death threats.  They are under federal protection right now.


And once again, Donald Trump does not know for certain the identity of the

whistleblower.  The whistleblower`s legal counsel have come out and said

that this person that the Trump tweet mentioned may or may not be the

actual whistleblower, but anyone is the whistleblower, especially when

they`re fearing for their live said is wholly irresponsible and reckless.


KORNACKI:  Jennifer Horn, we mentioned this standoff between the House and

Senate, perhaps within the Senate as well.  You represent the group of, the

term is always out there, never-Trump Republicans.  I don`t know if you

think that`s a fair label, but trying to exert pressure on Republicans to

make moves against the president.


When it comes to this debate, there seems to be two different debates in

the Senate here, one is over the question of acquittal – a conviction or

acquittal of the president, but the other is more immediate and it`s about

the rules.  Tell me your group, the Lincoln Project, who are you looking at

in particular among Republicans and what are you trying to tell them right




opportunity to be here tonight, Steve.  The Lincoln Project is about

defeating Donald Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box.  So we`re looking at

every single Republican in Congress and their behavior over the last three

years in protecting and defending this president.


At the moment, of course, all eyes are on impeachment and the Republicans

in the Senate.  So folks like Senator Collins, Martha McSally, Cory Gardner

and a lot of other ones, frankly, you know, Mitch McConnell, their behavior

in this moment is going to be remembered by history certainly, but more

immediately it`s going to be remembered by us on election day.


I`m very happy to hear what Senator Collins has to say about trying to

maintain her neutrality in taking her oath seriously.  But we see from

Senator McConnell that, really, the behind the scenes effort in the Senate

right now is to create a circumstance that will just simply, quickly

exonerate the president, somehow find him not guilty.


There is so much evidence publicly available of the president`s guilt for

abuse of power that it`s an argument – it`s a debate that we shouldn`t

even be having right now.  We need to have an open Senate trial.  We need

to bring forward all of those witnesses that we know have direct knowledge

that the president, remember, was calling to have witnesses in the House. 

And we`re looking for folks like Senator Collins to stand up and be a voice

for what`s right and for the people of this country.


KORNACKI:  So if they don`t do that, if Susan Collins, if Cory Gardner, if

Martha McSally, if Thom Tillis, if these Republican senators who are facing

re-election in 2020 don`t do what you`re talking about, are you prepared to

oppose them for re-election?  Would you rather have a –


HORN:  Absolutely, yes.


KORNACKI:  I guess that`s an interesting question then from an ostensibly

Republican group is your position a Susan Collins who does not vote for the

kind of trial you have in mind, you`d rather than have a Democratic senator

than her?


HORN:  What I`d rather are senators who honor the Constitution.  This isn`t

about having a trial that I would rather have.  This is about having a

trial that meets the constitutional standard.  And, frankly, Steve, it`s

about having the kind of trial that these same Republicans would be

demanding if we were talking about a democratic president.  I am old enough

to remember very well what unfolded when President Clinton was in the same

situation that Donald Trump is in right now.


And, frankly, I find it grossly hypocritical that the same people who back

then said it doesn`t matter that the lie was about an affair, what matters

is that the lie took place by the president of the United States under

oath.  You cannot possibly look at what happened then and think that

somehow what`s happening now is not much, much worse.


When we look at the abuse of power by this president trying to bring

foreign influence into our presidential elections so, you know, we are just

simply asking what we think is constitutionally sound, that these

Republican senators stand up and defend the Constitution of the United

States, and, frankly, that they are a voice for the American people, not

just a voice for the president`s most ardent supporters.


KORNACKI:  All right, we should point out Susan Collins was in the Senate

back in the Clinton trial you`re describing.  She actually did vote to

acquit Bill Clinton.  So she was not among those making the case you`re

saying there.


Another senator who could potentially break with Republicans on

impeachment, that`s Alaska`s Lisa Murkowski.  She says she is disturbed by

Mitch McConnell and his plans to hold the impeachment trial in his words

here, in total coordination with the White House.  On Thursday, Louisiana

Senator John Kennedy, an impeachment critic, responded to Murkowski`s





SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA):  The senator is entitled to her opinion, and

Senator McConnell is entitled to his.  Nine out of ten senators secretly

don`t want to hear this case and the tenth is lying.  Now, there are many

of them not going to say that publicly, but that`s how they feel.  Speaker

Pelosi knows that.




KORNACKI:  Kennedy also weighed in on the impasse between McConnell and

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer over Schumer`s request for testimony from

four witnesses, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton and

acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.




KENNEDY:  He better be careful what he asks for.  Because if he gets his

witnesses, I`m sure that the president is going to want his witnesses, and

the president`s witnesses won`t be subject to a claim of executive

privilege, but Chuck`s might.  And I`m not saying he will but you could end

up with a situation where the president gets his witnesses and Chuck

doesn`t get his.




KORNACKI:  Well, Shannon, I`m curious.  It seems at least for right now,

the president and the White House are placing their faith and their

confidence strategically in Mitch McConnell and Mitch McConnell`s ability

to hold the line against the kind of pressure that one of our guests here,

Jennifer Horn, is describing.  What is their confidence level that

McConnell will be able to do that for them in the end?


PETTYPIECE:  Well, they`re certainly placing confidence in McConnell, but

they are well aware that these moderate senators or Republican Moderate

senators, at least, that you`re talking about, Lisa Murkowski, Susan

Collins, I`ll throw Mitt Romney in there, we haven`t mentioned him yet,

that they wield an enormous amount of power too and potentially more than

Mitch McConnell.  Because the Senate majority leader does not get to set

the rules here, the Senate does.  And so, inevitably, the procedure, the

rules how this is all going to play out will all come up to a vote in the

Senate where there has to be 51 votes.


Now, Republicans can lose two of those sort of moderate-leaning senators

but they can`t lose all three of them, McConnell, Murkowski and Romney. 

And Romney and Murkowski, of course, aren`t up for re-election.  Now,

Collins has a tough re-election bid, so the two of them have a little bit

more breathing room.  So the White House is also aware of that, also aware

that things can only be pushed so far without those more to the center

members stepping in and trying to push things back.


But it`s an interesting dynamic we`re seeing this time because Trump`s

approval ratings are so much lower than Clinton`s were at this time, yet he

still wields so much more power and control over his party than Clinton

does, which so I think that that`s sort of what we`re seeing now is the

control the president has over his power is really offsetting his

consistently low approval ratings and helping give the White House a level

of comfort here that even if one or two break off that because the

Republican support is still so strong behind the president, you`re not

going to see a mutiny among Republican senators.


KORNACKI:  Irvin, talking about here potential witnesses might be called in

a Senate trial, if you`ve got a full-fledged trial if it does indeed end up

that way.  From that standpoint, there were certainly Republicans, we

heard, in the House, as this was progressing as this debate was talking

about maybe having the whistleblower called for a Senate trial.  What do

you make of that?


MCCULLOUGH:  Well, the whistleblower should not be called because our

elected officials created this system through which Intelligence Community

employees could pull the fire alarm.  They could alert their elected

officials to dangers inside the Intelligence Community.  And inside this

system, they are entitled to anonymity.  It is implicit throughout the

statute that they are entitled to confidentiality whenever they make that



There is no realistic way the Senate could call before them this

whistleblower without this whistleblower`s confidentiality being breached. 

The only way I could foresee this happening could be through written

questions that members could write to the whistleblower, the whistleblower

could then answer under penalty of perjury.  I know that the

whistleblower`s attorneys have even recommended that that is an option that

they and their client are open to.


I will say, however, that I`m a bit perplexed as to why the president even

wants this whistleblower to testify.  If this whistle-blower can write, can

speak as well as he can write, then his testimony will be credible, calm

and calamitous for the president.


KORNACKI:  Jennifer, I just want to ask you one more about the politics of

the Senate and what you`re trying to achieve here.  I wonder does what

happened in the House on both the vote to launch the inquiry in the House,

there were no Republicans who were against that, and then the final vote on

impeachment, both articles, no Republican votes against that.  No

Republicans, excuse me, for the articles of impeachment either.  Does that

tell you where this is likely to end up in the Senate at all?


HORN:  Well, it certainly gives us grave concern about where this is likely

to end up in the Senate, yes.  You know, this whole thing, it isn`t just

about this moment for impeachment.  The Lincoln Project is about a review

of the last three years, the abuse of power by this president, and on the

flipside, the willingness of so many elected Republicans to either assist

the president or just look the other way.


This is a moment in history that is going to be remembered well, and it`s

not – and legacies are not going to be built by protecting a corrupt

president.  Folks like Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins and

the whole list, Martha McSally, you know, Cory Gardner, they have an

opportunity in this moment to be remembered for the infinity, the history

of our country as the people who stood up, spoke up and did what`s right. 

That`s what we`re hoping for.


KORNACKI:  All right, Jennifer Horn, Irvin McCullough, Shannon Pettypiece,

thank you all for being with us.


And coming up, Prosecutor John Durham`s probe into the origins of the

Russia investigation is setting up a potentially toxic confrontation

between the Justice Department and the Intelligence Community.  CIA

Director Gina Haspel is right in the eye of it brewing storm.


Plus, who`s winning the Democratic race for president?  Well, usually, you

just check out the polls.  But what if there aren`t any?  There`s a real

problem for prognosticators right now.  I`m going to take you through that

and irregularities in new voting machines in Eastern Pennsylvania.  They

have officials there worried about election security and voter confidence

in those machines as we enter 2020.  We have an exclusive report on that

coming up.


Stay with us.




KORNACKI:  Welcome back to HARDBALL.


President Trump`s attorney general and CIA director appear to be on a

collision course as the Justice Department continues its investigation into

the origins of the Russia probe.  Politico today is reporting that the U.S.

attorney overseeing that investigation, John Durham, quote, is focusing

much of his attention on the CIA placing the agency`s director, Gina

Haspel, at the center of a politically toxic tug-of-war between the Justice

Department and the Intelligence Community.


In her 19 months on the job, Haspel has kept a relatively low profile and

has so far managed to avoid the president`s ire.  But according to

Politico, quote, Intelligence Community veterans say the Durham probe could

force Haspel to choose between protecting her agency from Trump`s wrath and

bowing to Barr`s wishes.


The New York Times reports Durham has asked the CIA to turn over

communications from its former director, John Brennan, and he`s

scrutinizing the Intelligence Community`s 2017 assessment that Russia

interfered specifically to help the Trump campaign. 


As Politico notes, Attorney General Barr has been skeptical of the agency`s

conclusions about Putin`s motivations.  Investigations by both special

counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee, of course,

reached the same – reached the conclusion that Russia intervened to

benefit the Trump campaign. 


I`m joined now by Cynthia Alksne, a former federal prosecutor, and Evan

McMullin, a former CIA operative. 


Thanks to both of you for being with us.


Evan, let me start with you, because this looks like, as we set it up

there, there are the makings here, at least potentially, for a collision

here between the CIA and the Department of Justice. 


How do you peg the odds of that actually happening?  And, if it does, what

would happen? 



pretty decent.  And if it doesn`t happen, it`ll be because Director Haspel

was somehow able to deftly manage this situation. 


I think she will probably try to rely on her – what has been a positive

relationship with the president.  She will probably try to strengthen that,

try to stay close to him during this for a little bit of internal political



I would imagine that she will also try to cooperate with the investigation

as far as she can, give them something, while protecting things that really



And I don`t think she will need to protect anything, any wrongdoing or

anything like that.  I think it`s more a matter of protecting the agency`s

ability to do its work, and directors like herself and directors in the

future, their ability to lead the organization. 


I mean, it`s incredible to me that Durham is asking for former CIA Director

John Brennan`s internal communications and call logs. 


I mean, it`s just unimaginable that we have a DOJ empowered by the

president in a way that I don`t think has ever been done before and in a

way that seems completely inappropriate and political, to go after the

agency, and not only the agency, but the former director of the agency, for

simply doing his job, in pursuit of and in amplification of and

justification of a conspiracy theory that the president continues to push,

which is that Russia wasn`t actually responsible for 2016. 


And that`s what this is all about, if you ask me. 


KORNACKI:  Well, so, Cynthia, Evan gets it to there, the idea that Haspel

might end up trying to draw some kind of line here, might end up feeling

forced to draw some kind of line.


Maybe it`s over Brennan`s communications.  Maybe it`s over some other



But when it comes to DOJ vs. CIA, and the CIA director trying to draw some

kind of a line, what kind of latitude does she have to do that? 



latitude, until it comes down to a grand jury subpoena.


That`s why this investigation, once it was raised to the level of a

criminal investigation, and that – and Durham had grand jury subpoena

power and the other powers that come with the grand jury, it became very



I mean, just recognize the situation.  This is an investigation, if it`s

really looking at John Brennan, which is, A, politically motivated by the

president – he`s attacked Brennan, repeatedly called him a liar and every

name under the book in his Twitter feed. 


Barr is willing – we have also established that Barr is willing to lie and

corrupt the truth and twist the truth for the president.  And he`s actually

gotten Durham to do some things that are not good. 


I mean, after the Horowitz report came out, he did something, in my

opinion, which is unconscionable, which is comment on an investigation. 


So you`re sitting in this messy situation, where you have a politically

motivated investigation, where the president United States is weighing in. 

And she has to make some decisions about whether or not she`s going to

protect the organization, recognizing, too, that she`s run into Durham



And what we don`t know is, what really are his opinions of her?  And that

will make a big difference.  He investigated her when it had to do with the

destruction of the tapes in the torture investigations over a decade ago.


And that may turn out to play a factor in it.  But she has some

flexibility.  But when that grand jury subpoena hits the table, she has to

turn it over. 


KORNACKI:  Evan, you got to this a second ago, but there is that question



Brennan, John Brennan, specifically, why the interest there?  Is it to do

with – as you`re saying, do you think it is to do with the question of

Russia`s motivation in interfering in the 2016 election?  Does it have to

do with – you keep seeing these reports about this guy Mifsud and then who

exactly he was.  Is it trying to chase that down?


Where do you think that comes from? 


MCMULLIN:  Look, I think this is all about the president`s reelection



He, of course, would like to win again in 2020.  He understands that the

substantiated reports and proven case of Russian interference on his behalf

in the 2016 campaign is a vulnerable for – a vulnerability for him leading

into 2020. 


And so he wants to mitigate that as much as possible.  And what he`s trying

to do here is say simply, look ,there were investigations into me and

Russia, and, yes, they turned up some results, and they`re not favorable to

me, but, look, maybe there was – maybe those investigations weren`t quite

right, and they were biased, and politically motivated, and there are

investigations into those investigations.


And so, look, the American people and my supporters, speaking of – for

Trump, you can`t really know the truth here.  The truth is hard to



And I don`t think Trump has to convince his supporters that there was

actual wrongdoing necessarily in these investigations.  He just has to have

them believing that possibly there may have been and that maybe Russia

didn`t intervene on his behalf.  And that allows him to keep together a

relatively strong plurality, not majority, but plurality, that could

potentially enable him to win again in 2020. 


KORNACKI:  All right, Evan McMullin and Cynthia Alksne, thank you both for

joining us. 


Up next, I`m going to head over to the Big Board.  We`re going to look at

the lack of polling in early states.  We talk all the time who`s winning

Iowa, who`s winning New Hampshire, who`s winning South Carolina?  A little

tougher to tell right now than we`re used to. 


You`re watching HARDBALL. 




KORNACKI:  All right, welcome back to HARDBALL. 


The countdown is on.  Look at that, 38 days to go now, 38 days and

counting, until the lead-off Iowa caucuses.  And once you have Iowa, they

start coming fast and furious. 


Let`s take a look at the leader board.  The average of all the polls in

Iowa right now, Buttigieg narrowly leads, then Sanders, then Biden, then

Warren, very close race. 


How about New Hampshire?  That comes a little more than a week later?  Talk

about a tight race, Sanders, Buttigieg, Biden, Warren all within about six

points of each other. 


You go out to Nevada, Biden`s got the lead.  He`s not exactly running away

with it, though.  And, of course, then South Carolina, that`s where Biden

has the big lead.  He`s calling that his firewall. 


You are familiar with these numbers.  We have been talking about these

numbers.  They set expectations. 


Here`s the only problem.  How many polls are we actually talking about

here?  Iowa, month of December, there have only been two polls, two polls

taken in the state of Iowa.  And, by the way, see this here, qualifying



Remember, the DNC has the – it`s a pretty long list.  The DNC has a pretty

long list of officially designated polls that they use for inclusion in the

debates.  They tend to be the more gold standard polls, the bigger name



There been zero of those in Iowa this month.  So, two polls, neither of

them is a DNC debate-qualifying poll.  That`s all we`re going on in Iowa

when we tell you who`s winning, who`s losing out there right now.


New Hampshire, there`s been one.  There`s been one poll in the entire state

of New Hampshire this month.  That poll was not a DNC-sanctioned debate-

qualifying poll. 


How about Nevada?  Zero.  No polls at all of any kind in Nevada in

December.  One in South Carolina, and, again, that poll in South Carolina

not a DNC-sanctioned poll.


And so the four key leadoff states, four crucial states, these are the

states that are going to winnow the field, they`re probably going to create

a front-runner, maybe a clear, maybe an overwhelming front-runner.  To

figure out what`s going on there, in terms of polling, this is all you got.


You got four for the entire month that`s finishing up right now.  None of

them are the sort of brand-name, DNC-qualifying polls.  At this point last

time around, end of December 2015, in these four states, we were looking at

14 different polls.  Right now, we`re only looking at four. 


Why are there far fewer this time around?  Money.  Money`s a big reason. 

Polls are getting more expensive, especially at the state level, because

it`s harder and harder to reach voters.  It`s harder and harder to get

people to pick up the phone.


The last time you got a cell phone call, started buzzing, maybe your

landline, you didn`t recognize the number, when`s the last time you just

picked up the phone?  It`s one of the problems pollsters have right now. 


So, far fewer polls.  Good news is this.  We`re in a slow period right now,

the week between Christmas and new year.  Not going to expect to see many

right now.  I think, maybe in that first week or two of the new year, there

might be a batch of new polls coming up.  Boy, do we need them to find out

what is happening in these states. 


But, again, 14 polls at this point four years ago really gave us a good

sense of what was going on in these states, right now, only four.  So it`s

very limited.  You look out there, there`s evidence that Buttigieg has

surged in Iowa.  There`s evidence that Biden`s running from a – behind

maybe, slightly behind out there. 


But let`s see.  Let`s see when we get a big brand-name poll there,

probably, hopefully early in January.  And I think then we will get a much

clearer look.  Right now, a little different than we`re used to.


Up next, electability, it`s that word, a key concern for many primary

voters, many caucus-goers.  What exactly does it mean when it comes to the

Electoral College? 


We just talked about the polls we don`t have.  Next, we`re going to take a

look some of the polling we do have nationally, what it tells us about

potential matchups. 


You`re watching HARDBALL. 







Pocahontas.  I did it a year too early.  She`s gasping for air. 


Who wants to watch Buttigieg?  Buttigieg.  They call him Mayor Pete because

nobody can pronounce his last time. 


Hey, do you ever notice where Biden keeps saying he is in the wrong state? 

Like, if he`s Ohio, it`s great to be in Iowa tonight.  What is wrong with

this guy? 




KORNACKI:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 


That was President Trump this month going on the attack against some of his

potential 2020 rivals. 


The president will be entering next year`s election is the first impeached

president running for a second term.  And as this year comes to an end,

there are still 15 Democratic contenders vying to take on the president. 





who is a pathological liar, who is corrupt, who is a racist, a sexist. 


JOSEPH BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  He is a complete failure, a

complete failure as commander in chief, and is the most reckless and

incompetent commander in chief we have ever had. 



presidency.  And, frankly, at a deeper level, I don`t think he respects

himself.  I think he has created a sort of cartoon character. 



us in a much worse position than we were in before he became president. 




KORNACKI:  And, for more, I`m joined by Desiree Barnes, former aide to the

Obama White House, and Noah Rothman, associate editor for “Commentary”



So, taking sort of a big picture look, taking stock at the end of the year,

who achieved what politically this year, what we can look to in 2020.


Desiree, I will start with you. 


Fifteen – I`m glad we put the number there.  I was trying to count out





KORNACKI:  There are 15 Democratic candidates technically still in the

race, believe it or not.


BARNES:  Yes. 


KORNACKI:  That`s a big reduction from where it was. 


Of those 15, which one had the best 2019? 


BARNES:  I don`t think I can just pick one. 


I would say that there are two that stand out.  I would say Mayor

Buttigieg.  He was the mayor of South Bend.  We didn`t know much about him. 

And now he is performing in fund-raising numbers as well as Vice President

Biden, in fact, better, as well as beating out Senator Warren sometimes in

some quarters, as well as Sanders. 


And then I would say Senator Warren.  I think, because of the demographic

that she occupies, I think a lot of people counted her out, and would think

she would be an unlikely candidate.  And she really has kind of populist



KORNACKI:  All right, Noah, I will give you the same question.


Of those 15 Democratic candidates, who do you think did the most, achieved

the most in 2019? 


NOAH ROTHMAN, “COMMENTARY”:  I certainly agree with Pete Buttigieg.  he is

a natural political talent. 


And we knew that when he ran for DNC chair.  But he really had an

opportunity to shine in major mainstream media venues.  And the nation got

a look at him.  He`s going to be somebody who`s going to be with us in our

politics, I think, for quite some time. 


I also probably think Joe Biden had a better year than was forecast to

have.  And for that reason, and that reason alone, he gets…


KORNACKI:  He is still standing.  He`s still the front-runner right now.




ROTHMAN:  And he was – he was – his – the predictions of his demise have

not ebbed…




ROTHMAN:  … even though he continues to maintain this position at the top

of the polls.  So he`s had a better year than he`s gotten credit for.  And,

therefore, he`s had a good year. 


KORNACKI:  I`m curious.


How do you look at Biden right now?  Because there is – there`s the case

that, hey, started the front-runner, took the heat, ends the year the

front-runner.  Nobody`s toppled him yet. 


You still talk to some Democrats who talk like he is on the verge of a



BARNES:  Right.


KORNACKI:  How do you look at it? 


BARNES:  You know, when it comes to the vice president – or former vice

president, he really is his own person.  He can take these punches better

than anyone.  He can pull out a Hail Mary pass, if needed. 


But the great part about the Democratic primary process is, we have a field

that is flooded with overqualified candidates. 


And I don`t know.  I don`t really count anyone out.  I mean, we still have

Marianne Williamson in the race.  We still have Andrew Yang.


KORNACKI:  Is she was one of the – OK.




BARNES:  So, for me to play Ouija board and fortuneteller on this, I just



KORNACKI:  Well, so let`s – let`s take a look.  We have got 38 days until

Iowa.  There will be a Democratic nominee that emerges. 


Let`s talk about the shape politically that Donald Trump is in entering



Noah, we put the numbers up earlier this week.  His approval rating, it`s

about 44.5 percent on average in the RealClear average.  That`s actually up

two points from when the Democrats opened the impeachment trial.  It`s

still 44.5 percent.  It`s a couple points below Obama at this point when he

got reelected.  The disapproval is still over 50. 


His approval rating overall is certainly not matching attitudes towards the

economy.  Do you look at that 44.5 as, wow, Trump is positioned to pull off

what he did in `16 again, or, oh, he`s positioned to take a big – a big

hit in 2020?


ROTHMAN:  I mean, both of those answers are right. 


I mean, if you smooth out the data, he`s got a remarkably consistent

approval-disapproval rating that is completely untethered to events.  It`s

not as though people are judging and evaluating this presidency based on

his performance in office. 


He`s representative of a variety of other things, many intangibles,

tangibles, what have you, but it`s not the day-to-day news cycle that`s

moving the needle.


This year, what really moved the needle – and it was only temporary – was

the government shutdown.  When people stopped receiving services that they

relied on, when people saw people getting – being out of work, that`s when

the – and Donald Trump`s strategy to compel the Democratic Congress to

give him wall funding, which was never going to happen, was obviously

poorly – reflected poorly on him. 


And that changed his political standing, but only very briefly.  Otherwise,

I don`t think that political events are going to change how people view

this president.  It`s about how you feel about him. 


KORNACKI:  Yes.   


Desiree, I`m curious just how you look at it.  As a Democrat looking at

Trump, do you see those numbers, and you say, ooh, we`re going to take him

out in 2020, this is a very beatable guy?  Or are you haunted by 2016 and

you say, I have – it`s the same setup?


BARNES:  Oh, well, I don`t want to be the Grim Reaper here, but I would say

that I don`t look at any polling numbers when it comes to any candidate and

making a conclusion on that race. 


I do think it is a fair fight.  I don`t think that, as much as people think

that he can be nailed to the wall with this process, I think you would be



I think who`s having a horrible year is Senator McConnell.  Honestly, the

Republican Party, Senator Lindsey Graham, I would be more worried about

those seats than I would be worried about whether President Trump will

occupy office, because I think those are going to be heavily contested

spaces, because they`re the ones who know better. 


They know how…




KORNACKI:  Well, I got to say, if McConnell and Graham are in deep trouble

in the fall of 2020, that`s got to be a good sign for Democrats nationally

that something is going their way if it ends up there. 


We have already seen the first major engagement between – between the

president and one of his potential rivals, Joe Biden, and that is over



“The Washington Post” writes – quote – “From the point of view of the

Biden camp, the former vice president has shown his ability to stand toe to

toe with Trump, eventually finding his footing and showing he could

withstand sustained Republican attacks.  But Trump`s defenders say Biden

has been badly damaged by the questions they have raised about his

involvement in Ukraine, arguing he has been redefined as a compromised

politician, rather than the partner of a popular former president.”


Noah, you were just talking about Biden`s strength in the Democratic race

in the polls.  It`s been consistent.  So has his lead over Donald Trump in

head-to-head matchups.  Biden continues to lead Trump by more than the

other Democratic candidates too.


ROTHMAN:  Nationally.  When you get down to the battleground states, it

becomes a much tighter ball game.  And certainly in places like Wisconsin,

it`s not entirely clear that Joe Biden is – is – can deliver the Obama

coalition, as basically his electability argument contends.


He`s handled the Hunter Biden issue poorly.  I don`t think anybody would

say he`s handled it well.  He was very tentative coming out about it,

reflective, I think, of people around him who believed that a Hunter Biden

news cycle is bad for this candidacy. 


Hunter Biden comes out and said, I`m sorry for whatever I did.  And then he

says he did nothing wrong.  It`s a very confused message.  It`s not a

convincing message. 


However, there`s nothing to substantiate the claim.  And it is basically

insinuation from the Trump that – from the Trump campaign that anything

beyond sordid nepotism occurred here. 


Now, if that comes out in 2020, it`s a whole new ball game.  But what the

Trump administration is saying now is that this candidate is tainted by

these insinuations.  That`s basically giving away the game, right?  That

was the intent all along.  And the fact that it hasn`t registered suggests

that Joe Biden is not going to be susceptible to the crooked narrative that

he wanted to impose on him, like he managed to successfully leverage

against Hillary Clinton.


KORNACKI:  And we know, certainly, Democratic voters have been watching how

that plays out closely, because that is one thing we see in the national

polls, that question of electability. 


However anybody wants to define it, Democratic voters say they are asking

themselves, which one of these can beat Trump?


Desiree Barnes, Noah Rothman, thank you both for joining us. 


Up next, my colleague Trymaine Lee talks to voters and party officials in

the key swing state of Pennsylvania.  They`re worried that some of the

state`s new electronic voting machines may not be quite ready for prime

time.  And there might be good reason for that worry. 


You`re watching HARDBALL. 




KORNACKI:  Welcome back to HARDBALL.


Election security and interference in our elections have been big stories

this year.  And with a presidential election coming up in 2020, problems at

the voting booth could heighten people`s concerns about the integrity of

their vote. 


This will be even more crucial in swing states, like Pennsylvania, a state

that went for Barack Obama twice and then for Donald Trump in 2016.  This

November, the state rolled out new rules about voting machines.


And several polling stations in Eastern Pennsylvania in

Northampton County had problems with machines they were using for the first



MSNBC correspondent Trymaine Lee went to Northampton to find out what





TRYMAINE LEE, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):  New voting machines and

parts of Pennsylvania were supposed to make elections more secure, except a

lot went wrong this November in Northampton County in Eastern Pennsylvania. 


In some cases, voters cast their ballots on touch screens that registered

the wrong candidates.  In others, it was for the wrong party or no vote at




disenfranchised here in one county in Pennsylvania.  And I just – I feel

that that`s extremely unbelievable. 


LEE:  County officials scrambled to hold a recount with the backup paper

ballots made by the machines.  By the next morning, they announced the

official winners, but the damage was done.


In the immediate aftermath, two unlikely allies came together, Matt Munsey,

Northampton`s Democratic Party chair, and Lee Snover, the Republican chair.


(on camera):  And this isn`t a partisan issue, though, right?  This is a

matter of just fairness in elections, right?


SNOVER:  Right.  Mm-hmm. 



It`s a – I had never talked to Lee before a couple of weeks ago. 


But after the election, we were unified, in that we have to have complete

trust in the voting system.


LEE:  What was the fallout like?  I mean, the machines aren`t working. 

There`s concern across the county.  What was the ripple effect?  What



MUNSEY:  After polls closed, I got a text not too long after with a picture

of the printout from one of the machines.  And it had a zero for the county

judge race at the top for a candidate.  And I was like, there`s something

wrong there. 


SNOVER:  I went down to the courthouse with a couple other witnesses with

me that night, and they have never used these machines either.  So it was

kind of chaos with the county workers.


So they`re bringing in these bags and bags of ballots.  And they`re all

over the place.  They had never done this before, and they weren`t ready. 

And I don`t think they had a plan in place for this to happen. 



printed, touch cast.  To quit voting and request a new ballot, touch quit. 

Your ballot will not be cast.  So that`s important, right?


LEE (voice-over):  Lamont McClure oversees elections as Northampton`s

county executive.  He led the push to buy 320 machines at a price tag of

$2.8 million.  And he`s leading the defense of the machines going forward.


At a public hearing in mid-December, the manufacturer said its employees

programmed the machines incorrectly at the warehouse.  They attribute it to

human error they can easily fix.  And they see that, ultimately, the

machines did what they were supposed to do. 


MCCLURE:  On Election Day, we had a fair, legal and accurate election.  And

the reason we did is, because the paper ballot backup worked. 


LEE (on camera):  Why are you standing by these machines, when so many

other folks don`t have the confidence that you have?


MCCLURE:  Although we didn`t want it to happen, because we had the problems

that we had an Election Day, I know, in November 2020, I`m confident that

we will know who won Northampton County, and there will be no question. 


LEE (voice-over):  Questions remain, though. 


Inaccurate results could have a big impact on a swing state like

Pennsylvania in the 2020 presidential election.  Northampton, as well

Philadelphia, the state`s most populous county, are using these new



That`s about 20 percent of Pennsylvania`s voters. 



absentee ballot the next time, or especially for the next one coming up in

April, the primary.



doubts about the way Northampton County and Pennsylvania is managing

counting their votes. 


TONY BRUNO, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY VOTER:  I think they should take them back

and go to a full paper ballot, where you hand-write, hand – you know, fill

in the dots with your hand – by hand. 


LEE:  Election security advocates are also concerned, saying the machines

have security flaws and don`t follow election codes. 


They have joined registered voters in a lawsuit against the state to

decertify the machines.  Pennsylvania only rolled out the machines this

year, as part of the settlement with former presidential candidate Jill

Stein, who sued after her 2016 campaign. 


(on camera):  Some people say, the system actually worked.  So there`s a

paper ballot.  So, even if the voting machine malfunctions, there you go. 

You have a ballot to count. 


Is this the system working, or is this a deep, deep failure? 


SNOVER:  I don`t really have confidence in that paper backup from the

electronic computer voting, because there was difficulty reading it.  There

were some people who said – we have sworn affidavits that theirs was

blank, and it cast it.


So I`m not confident in the paper backup.


MUNSEY:  This clearly is not the way things are supposed to work.  And it`s

undermined trust in the system.  And that`s – that`s a serious problem. 


It`s called a voter-verified – or voter-verifiable paper ballot.  It

doesn`t work if people don`t read it or have difficulty doing so, which a

lot of people did have trouble doing that. 




KORNACKI:  Up next:  Can the presidency be bought?  A couple of

billionaires are trying.


You`re watching HARDBALL. 




KORNACKI:  They say money can`t buy you love, but can it buy you the



Two candidates are trying to find out right now, and the numbers are

staggering.  The calendar still hasn`t flipped to 2020, and already

Politico reports that Michael Bloomberg has spent more than $120 million,

and Tom Steyer another $80 million.  Together, that`s more than $200

million spent by just two candidates. 


And what has it gotten them?  Well, it`s gotten Tom Steyer on to the debate

stage.  He was there last week, which is more than some other candidates,

including Cory Booker and Julian Castro can say.


But being on that debate stage hasn`t exactly made Steyer a contender for

the nomination.  He`s running at barely 1 percent nationally.


But, hey, Steyer is the stingy one when it comes to the two free-spending

billionaires in this race.  That $80 million he has spent covers months of



Bloomberg, by contrast, has blown through his $120 million in just a few

weeks.  And, so far, it`s gotten him to 5 percent nationally.  That`s far

off the lead.  But it`s also better than a bunch of candidates who`ve been

running longer than Bloomberg has, and, of course, who have a lot less

money to spend. 


So, Bloomberg has bought himself a quick 5 percent in the polls.  The

question then becomes, will it be just as easy to buy another 5 percent,

and then another 5 after that, and on and on, until he`s actually

contending for the lead?


Or is there a ceiling for a candidate like Bloomberg, who has all the money

in the world, but who also isn`t running in Iowa, New Hampshire and all the

other early states?  Bloomberg is trying to bypass those states.


And history says, that`s a losing strategy, that, when his name is missing

from all those leaderboards in February, everyone is going to just forget

about him.  Then again, no one has ever tried this kind of strategy with

this kind of money before. 


So, in a way, the Bloomberg campaign may be the world`s most expensive

political science experiment.  We will all see how it turns out.


That`s HARDBALL for now.  Thank you for being with us.


And “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