The Rachel Maddow Show, Transcript 3/21/2017

Greg Gordon, Dahlia Lithwick

Show: The Rachel Maddow Show
Date: March 21, 2017
Guest: Greg Gordon, Dahlia Lithwick

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Just starting off the show by dropping my

Let`s not take that as a moment about how things are going to go, although
you never know. Physical comedy can make for very interesting news

Let`s start that again, ready? Ahem, hello, happy Tuesday. Thanks for
being with us this hour.

All right. For a while on Twitter, for a couple years at least on Twitter,
if you sent a tweet that included the word “socialist” or that included the
word “socialism” or “communist” or “communism,” if you put that word in any
tweet, you would get an immediate reply from what looked like the Twitter
account of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy.

This was the – you see the response there? Not the initial tweet, right?
The first tweet is somebody writing “communism defined.” See the response
there? You see the little avatar? That`s Joe McCarthy`s face.

Joe McCarthy`s face on the Twitter account, if you tweeted anything that
said socialism or communism or socialist or communist, that Joe McCarthy
beyond the grave Twitter account would tweet back at you and it had tweet
at you something like this “creeping socialism.” Or it would say
“communist infiltrated.”

He was also good at terrible puns. He would say, for example, “on your
Marx.” This one is pretty good. “Quit Stalin.” That Twitter account was,
of course, not actually Senator Joe McCarthy tweeting from beyond the
grave, instead of the Robot J. McCarthy, it was a bot, a Twitter bot.

There wasn`t, in fact, a person who was reading every Twitter message sent
around the world looking for the word “communism” or “communist” and then
writing back with a “Quit Stalin” pun. There wasn`t a person doing that.
It was an automated thing. It was a robot, an automated account that was
programmed to notice any Twitter mentions of socialism or communism and
then it would automatically spit out one of these funny pre-programmed Joe
McCarthy nonsense tweets in response.

Creeping socialism! It was funny. It was harmless. It was all in good

And sadly now, Robot J. McCarthy is defunct, it`s not around anymore. But
seeing that bot in action, seeing the fake Joe McCarthy instant response,
anything that includes one of those words, that was the first time I really
understood how people could automate social media stuff. How you could
program what appeared to be a human online that wasn`t really a human to do
stuff that ordinary humans didn`t have the capacity to do, right? No
individual human could notice and respond to every single mention of the
word “socialism” on all of Twitter.

But a computer program could. Tirelessly. Forever. Ubiquitously, 24
hours a day, 365 days a year, right? Hundreds of thousands, tens of
thousands of times, millions of times, why not?

And Robot J. McCarthy, that was a funny way to do it. You can see how that
bot technology could be used in a less fun way. A less funny, less
harmless way.

Like, say, during an election season. You can see how people relatively
easily could program bots to not just make jokes but to latch on to and
respond to and get themselves involved in, for example, any Twitter
conversation that mentioned Hillary Clinton, recognize a pro-Hillary
Clinton message or a pro-Hillary Clinton hashtag or even just the name
“Hillary” or the name “Clinton” and then deluge that mention with fake news
stories, with crude remarks, with porn, with lots and lots of pro-Donald
Trump commentary, just flood the zone with enough of that stuff and pretty
soon, nobody can really have a conversation online about Hillary Clinton at

If you do that enough, if you get enough bots working that beat, you end up
drowning out what would otherwise be normal communication, normal
commentary, normal discussion or even normal political organizing. You end
up drowning it out in misinformation and noise and insults and just the
sheer amount of traffic. And when that noise bomb that comes back at you
online is not just loud, it`s outrageous, it`s profane, it`s stuffed with
unexpected bits of foreign, it`s relentless, the number of posts that
appear back at you and how long they keep going for.

Well, in that circumstance you think twice about trying to raise that
subject online ever again, right? It makes discussion of the things you
care about online. If you are a Hillary Clinton supporter it makes
discussion of Hillary Clinton online feel futile. It feels ugly and weird
in terms of the response that you get so ultimately overtime, you tune out.
You shut down.

And if you use Twitter even casually, and if you have an interest in
politics, if you use Twitter during the election year, you undoubtedly had
a little bit of that experience, or at least observed it, it was
ubiquitous. Right after the election in November, researchers at Oxford
University published a study of nearly 20 million tweets about the election
that were sent over the last week of the presidential contest and those
researchers determined after all the traffic on twitter about the U.S.
election, bots produce nearly 20 percent of it.

During the debate, over a quarter of all election-related Twitter traffic
came from these malicious bots and the bot traffic was almost entirely pro-
Donald Trump. And some of that dynamic was visible at the time. But now,
we are starting to be able to put it together in terms of how Russia used
that particular weapon to basically eat American political discourse during
our election or at least eat or render useless a big portion of it.

And now that the FBI has confirmed that the Trump campaign is the subject
of a counterintelligence investigation concerning them possibly cooperating
with Russia during Russia`s attack on our election, now we can put it
together in terms of the timeline here, right? As we get closer to
answering the question of whether or not Russia had help, whether they had
confederates inside the Trump campaign when they launched this attack, the
timeline is getting really clear now and really interesting in terms of
finally getting this thing understood.

And you don`t have to go back very far. Just go back one year. As we
reported last night, in February of last year, a senior aide to Russian
President Vladimir Putin gave a presentation at a Moscow Information
Security Forum and in this open source forum, he promised the Russian
military and intelligence services had developed what they considered to be
the equivalent, the strategic equivalent of a nuclear bomb, but for
information warfare. This is a speech that was first reported by David
Ignatius at the “Washington Post.”

He got the speech translated from Russian. It`s Vladimir Putin`s cyber war
senior adviser telling his audience in Moscow last February, quote, “You
think we are living in 2016, no, we are living in 1948. Do you know why?
Because in 1949, the Soviet Union had its first atomic bomb test, and if
until that moment, the Americans were not taking us seriously in 1949,
everything changed and they started talking to us on an equal footing. I`m
warning you,” he said, “We are on the verge of having something in the
information arena that will allow us to talk to the Americans as equals.”

So, the Kremlin bragging last year about how they had a new nuclear-level
information warfare capability that they were about to deploy against the
United States. Something that would bring America down, make America
recognize Russia`s strength, make us see them as our equal. That was
February of last year.

Then in March, we know from the intelligence community`s report on Russia`s
attack, in March, Russian military intelligence indeed started their
attack. Quote, “The GRU, which is Russian military intelligence, the GRU
probably began cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election by March, 2016.
We assess –” and this is the U.S. intelligence report on what Russia did.
“We assessed that the GRU operations resulted in the compromise of the
personal e-mail accounts of Democratic Party officials and political
figures.” By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the

So, again, simple timeline here, right? February, the Kremlin says watch
this, watch what we`re about to do here, this is going to be epic what
we`re going to do to the United States. That`s in February, following
month in March, their military intelligence directorate starts stealing all
this propriety political information from the Democratic Party and
ultimately by June and July, we know the Russians had shown their hand.
That that was not just an intelligence operation, they were not just
stealing information from the Democratic Party so they could get American
secrets, so they could get secret American information and use it within
their own government for their own purposes.

Now, by June and July, they showed what they wanted to do with that
information was that they wanted to release it publicly in the United
States. They wanted to weaponize it. Release it back into our country in
a way designed to inflict maximum harm on Hillary Clinton and the
Democratic Party. That`s what they did with D.C. Leaks and Guccifer 2.0
and the secret stuff they stole from the DNC and Clinton campaign chairman
John Podesta.

But now we can also tell you that they were also playing another card at
the same time, one that a lot of people watching the show experienced in
real time and you may not have known what it was when it happened to you.

Jason Cherkis and Ryan Grim, two reporters of “Huffington Post,” they have
done some great work on this recently. And we`ve been able to add this to
the timeline, in part because of stuff we`ve been able to figure out, but
also because of what they reported. So, again, the timeline here,
February, Kremlin threatening/promising they`re going nuclear in their
information war, March, their GRU attacks the Democratic Party and steals
their data. We see all the fruits of that by the summer.

But that spring, April and May, the other thing they started doing was a
huge industrial-sized bot attack. This was not a joke. They used
automated social media bots and what appeared to be paid operatives in
Russia and other countries specifically to target Bernie supporters. They
took the real split in the Democratic Party between Hillary Clinton and
Bernie Sanders and they blew it up into what they hoped would be an
unbreachable chasm.

One of the administrators at a Bernie Sanders Facebook page in San Diego
described it like this to Grim and Cherkis at “The Huffington Post”, quote,
“people with no apparent ties to California were friending his San Fiego
Facebook page and sharing links from unfamiliar sites full of anti-Hillary
Clinton propaganda. The stories they posted were not the normal
complaints. These stories allege that Hillary Clinton had murdered her
political opponents and used body doubles.

When John Maddes (ph), the administrator on that Bernie site in San Diego,
when John Maddes started tracking down the domain registration the trail
led to places like Macedonia and Albania. And it wasn`t just San Diego.
By mid-May, an administrator for a Facebook site for Bernie Sanders
supporters in California, Bay Area for Bernie, was setting off her own
alert about many if not all of the Bernie groups being inundated, quote,
“with bogus users.”

At Sane Progressive, they were posting the same warning. At Bernie Sanders
is My Hero, the administrators there were posting their own version of the
warning, basically saying something is happening here that is not native to
our community. They were warning that these bogus postings were, quote,
“developed to be appealing to Berners, to Bernie Sanders supporters, but
they were not from an American or Bernie supporting point of view.”

The real Bernie supporters in this country, the people who were, for
example, running the Facebook pages in support of him by and large, they
were trying to stop this when they realized what it was. We see the
evidence of that now looking back at it, but even they seem to have
realized that their sounding the alarm was futile. People just couldn`t
hear it.

A few days before the election, John Maddes posted on his San Diego Bernie
page, quote, “To all that get news from this page, be advised that groups
from Macedonia have infiltrated this page and other Bernie pages, planting
fake hate stories about Hillary.”

Now, this has been previously reported, previously discussed around the
campaign as if that foreign influx of sort of noise and vitriol was all
commercial traffic. People in foreign countries who didn`t care about the
U.S. election but they`re writing this fake stories basically to troll for
clicks, to get gullible U.S. policy junkies, to click on those stories,
just because they wanted the ad revenue they could get from clicking on
their stories. The ad revenue they could get from traffic they could drive
to their site, no matter what nonsense thing they posted.

And certainly, there`s a commercial element. That is definitely some of
it. But we now understand much more about how Russian intelligence
piggybacks on commercial hacking and commercial trolling efforts. It`s
part of their M.O., it`s what Russian intelligence does, particularly
Russian military intelligence.

We also know the Bernie administrators who went through this in real time,
at least some of them, don`t believe that what they were going through,
that what was washing over their Bernie supporter sites, they don`t
necessarily believe that it was people trying to make money off Bernie

John Maddes telling us today, quote, “I strongly believe this was not just
a commercial venture. Thirteen million Bernie supporters were out there to
potentially support and vote for Hillary. Bernie voters were very engaged,
contributed millions and brought in countless new supporters. If you could
suppress those voters, you could provide yourself an advantage at low

And now, McClatchy reports that the bot traffic that we see now, we saw in
real time without understanding what it was, and we see now clearly what it
was in retrospect, McClatchy is now reporting that the bot attacks, the bot
traffic is part of the FBI`s counterintelligence investigation into the
Russian attack on the election and the question of whether or not there was
Trump campaign cooperation in mounting that attack.

Quoting for McClatchy, “Operatives for Russia appear to have strategically
timed bots to blitz social media with links to pro-Trump stories at times
when the billionaire businessman was on the defensive.” Quote, “The bots`
end products were largely millions of twitter and Facebook posts with links
to stories on conservative Internet sites such as Breitbart news and Info
Wars, as well as Kremlin-backed media outlets like RT and Sputnik News.”

Federal investigators examining the bot attacks, according to McClatchy,
they`re exploring whether the far-right news operations took any actions to
assist Russia`s operatives. In other words, were they in on it?

Quote, “Investigators examining the bot attacks are exploring whether the
far right news operations took any actions to assist Russia`s operatives.
The investigation of the bot engineered traffic appears to be in its early
stages but it`s being driven by the FBI`s counterintelligence division.”

So, if McClatchy sources are correct, we now know that what appeared to be
a mysterious tidal wave that turned social media into brainless anti-
Clinton mush during the campaign, that was not only part of the Russian
attack, it`s part of the Russian attack that is being investigated by the
FBI`s counterintelligence division, including the possibility that there
was kind of a cooperation or coordination in that part of the attack from
pro-Trump forces inside the United States.

We will have more on that ahead tonight, including with one of the
reporters that broke that story.

But I – before we bring that reporter in, I want to leave this on one last
point that I think is worth keeping in mind and when I describe this point
you are going to think that I`m getting into obscure and into obscure and
academic stuff, but you know what? At this point, I`m starting to feel
like the obscure and academic stuff is sometimes where the real meat of
this story is hiding in plain sight. Very little of this story has been
broken by secret information. A lot of the story has been broken, a lot of
the story has come into focus by just looking hard enough at what is out
there in open sources.

OK, so one last point – as the FBI and congressional investigations and
journalists continue to authenticate and flesh out just how much Russia
did, just exactly what Russia did to us last year and as we continue to get
more information about contacts between Trump campaign people and the
Russians during the time that the attack was under way, despite the fact
that the Trump campaign denied it all these months. As those pieces are
falling into place, it`s worth looking at the way the Russians talk about
this themselves, because they are proud of their capability in this regard.

They really did have a Putin senior adviser last February threaten in
public that the United States was about to be humbled and brought down to
an equal footing with Russia by a new offensive capability and information
warfare that the Russian military was about to unleash against us. They
really did do that. They got out in public and pounded their chest about

Also, their equivalent of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff wrote a
public manifesto on Russian military might that is now becoming cult
reading in national security circles and among journalists who are trying
to figure out this story. He published it in 2013. He said Russia would
henceforth use non-military tactics, chiefly information warfare tactics at
a 4-1 ratio to its military tactics in its wars. When they went to war
from here on out, they would wage four times as much information war as
actual kinetic hot shooting war.

And in the Russian military`s preeminent journal which is called “Military
Thought” in 2014, in a seminal article entitled “Information Operations on
the Battlefield”, in that article in 2014, Russian military bragged that if
information warfare is going to work, it, quote, “must be conducted
constantly, in peacetime, in the period of threats, and in wartime.” If
you`re going to use information warfare to confuse, demoralize, divide,
distract, and ultimately defeat a rival country, according to the Russians`
military doctrine on this subject, you don`t just do it in wartime, you
have to do it all the time or it doesn`t work.

When “Huffington Post” did their dive into how Bernie supporters got
targeted in this Russian attack, they focused in part on a Bernie Sanders
Facebook page called “Bernie Sanders Lovers” which says it is based in
Burlington, Vermont. It is not based in Burlington, Vermont. It`s based
in Albania. and nobody who`s not from Albania appears to have anything to
do with that Bernie Sanders site.

But the important thing here is that that Bernie Sanders lovers page run
out of Albania, it`s still there. Still running. Still operating. Still
churning this stuff out. Now.

This is not part of American politics. This is not, you know, partisan
warfare between Republicans and Democrats. This is international warfare
against our country and it did not end on election day. We are still in

There`s a reason why the investigation here, the counterintelligence
investigation here, is something about which there is some urgency. We got
more on the new aspect of it that we just learned about today, coming up


MADDOW: I`m about to show you an arresting picture that might make you
draw in breath if you haven`t seen it. You may have seen it online in the
past couple days but if you haven`t, here goes. Scary looking green man.

This is actually a Russia story. This man is Alexei Navalny. He`s the
highest profile opposition politician in Russia. He`s planning on running
against Vladimir Putin for president of Russia next year. This is not a
stunt by him. This is not an attention getting, you know, effort.

This weekend, he was campaigning in Siberia, somebody came up to him on the
street and threw some sort of chemical all over him that literally dyed him
that color, dyed him bright green. Alexei Navalny is making the most of
it. He is not hiding, he`s continuing to do public events, make videos,
continue with his campaigning, his supporters are saying they will dye
themselves green, too, in solidarity with him.

But that attack on him, that is a reminder about how Putin`s Russia does
business. It`s a reminder how scary it must be to be an opposition figure
in Russia right now. And an even scarier reminder of that arrived late
this afternoon when we got news that the lawyer for a legendary anti-Putin
whistle-blower, the family lawyer for Sergei Magnitsky mysteriously took a
header off the fourth floor of his apartment building today in Moscow.

Now, there are conflicting reports as to what happened here. He did
survive. He`s said to have serious head injuries and is being treated in a
hospital. We`ll let you know more as we learn more about it tonight. But
I should tell you we`re expecting to speak with somebody close to him who
can maybe shed more light on what appears to be another scary attack on an
opposition figure in Russia. We`re expecting that interview tomorrow night
on this show. I will keep you updated as to the progress of that.

Here in the United States, the connection between the Russian attack on our
election last year and our own politics is also coming into sharper focus
since the FBI announced yesterday that the there is an ongoing
counterintelligence investigation into the president`s campaign and to
possible coordination with the Russians as they attacked our country last
year. Today, Donald Trump`s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was
mentioned by a member of the House Intelligence Committee as a potential
witness who should perhaps expect too appear before that committee in its

The next thing we heard about Paul Manafort today after that was that Paul
Manafort has now hired a crisis management public relations firm. That
probably makes sense.

The other piece of puzzle that fell into place today was this news from
McClatchy, news that the counterintelligence investigation that`s been
looking into the Trump campaign since July of last year, according to
McClatchy sources, that investigation also now includes investigation
specifically into the Russian use of bots and trolls, to spread pro-
Trump/anti-Clinton news online both of the real variety and of the made up

Greg Gordon is a national correspondent for McClatchy News. He co-bylined
that report today with Peter Stone of McClatchy.

Mr. Gordon, I`m happy to have you here with us on the show tonight. Thanks
for being here.


MADDOW: What got you going on this story? Were you following the
investigation and heard about this piece of it, or were you following the
bots and trolls part of it and heard it might be the subject of

GORDON: No, we`ve been working on the Trump and Russia thing for months
like most media outlets in Washington. And one of our sources actually
tipped my colleague Peter Stone who has done some great reporting for
McClatchy as a freelancer and we dived into it. We were – we were
absolutely – our minds were blown by the possibilities presented here.
And maybe they won`t pan out but it was definitely worth delving into.

MADDOW: When you say your minds were blown by the possibilities here, do
you mean that in terms of what the investigation might result in in terms
of potential prosecutions or do you just mean in terms of the impact that
these trolls and bots, that they had in terms of investigation warfare?

GORDON: I think it`s partly about the impact of the trolls and bots and
it`s also about the possibility that some of these far right news sites
might have actually in some way collaborated with Russia as it was
endeavoring to unload this enormous cyber attack on the United States.

MADDOW: Now, that possibility, you`re careful in the way you`ve written up
that possibility. Obviously, when you look at the overall FBI
investigation as characterized by Director Comey, the huge bombshell there
is the possibility he raise, which had he says they are investigating that
the Trump campaign coordinated, cooperated somehow with this Russian attack
on the election.

With this piece of it, it is also similarly the real bombshell here as you
describe it, the idea that U.S.-based pro-Trump news outlets might have
collaborated with the Russians in this part of the attack it doesn`t seem
clear that they would have too collaborate in order for that part of the
attack to work. They don`t have to be witting participants.

GORDON: That`s right.

MADDOW: The right wing news sites don`t have to be.

GORDON: That`s right. The interesting thing about bots is that bots are
just a computer command and you can design a bot to do whatever you want
them do. So, in this case, operatives from Russia, they weren`t
necessarily all Russians, they might have been in Macedonia or Albania or
wherever, were programming commands that would essentially fetch news
stories that were favorable to Donald Trump or derogatory about Hillary
Clinton, and scatter them all over the place.

And so, what you had was a kind of shot, a blind side shot to benefit one
of the candidates from a foreign power.

MADDOW: Greg Gordon, national correspondent for McClatchy News, who along
with Peter Stone broke this story that the FBI investigation includes this
electronic aspect of the Russian attack and the possibility of some media
organizations collaborating in it – Mr. Gordon, I – this is the first
time you`ve been on the show. We`d love to have you back. I know you and
your colleagues of McClatchy have done the most forward-leaning
investigations here.

Thanks for helping us understand this report tonight.

GORDON: My pleasure.

MADDOW: All right. Coming up, one of the most intriguing things about
today`s Supreme Court confirmation hearing had nothing whatsoever to do
with the nominee himself but it`s very important and very controversial.
And that`s straight ahead.


MADDOW: This human traffic jam is made up of Republicans on Capitol Hill
leaving their meeting today with the president. One at a time, guys, one
at a time. One at a time.

Because they had to funnel past reporters, and they were all crammed in
there next to each other, we did get this description from what happened


REP. CHRIS COLLINS (R), NEW YORK: The president talked about 2018 and the
message was, if we don`t get this done, we`re going to lose the House and
Senate next year. He was that blunt.

REPORTER: Did he threaten anyone or –

COLLINS: No, no, that`s not the president`s style. He`s reminding our
conference of the campaign promise, the importance of it for next year`s
midterm elections and is basically saying what we`ve all said – we deliver
on this, then we do tax reform, then we pick up 10 Senate seats next year.


MADDOW: This president threaten someone? You kidding? This guy?

No, no, no, he never threatens anybody. He was just telling us we do this
one thing, we do this repeal Obamacare care thing and then we conquer the
world. We get 10 Senate seats, and we get tax reform, we get everything
else we want, we just have to do this one thing.

Congressman Chris Collins sounds so sure of this and it`s true his
Republican colleagues finally did manage to get through the door way this
morning. They did squeeze out. But there`s real reason to question
tonight, whether they can get passed what they are calling step one on
their plan for universal domination. That story is ahead tonight.

Plus, I`ve got to tell you. We`ve got an exclusive look tonight, a first
look at something the Democrats are unleashing tomorrow that they think
will help them stop the Republicans` efforts to kill Obamacare. You
haven`t seen this anywhere else. It is due to break tomorrow but we have
it here tonight.

I think it`s pretty good, actually. You`ll have your first look at it in
just a second. Stay with us.


MADDOW: Thursday is when the Republicans are going to hold their vote on
repealing Obamacare. Ahead of that vote, the president went to Capitol
Hill today to twist arms, to line up Republicans to vote for the repeal

Congressman Mark Meadows is chairman of the Freedom Caucus. He says that
he was a firm no when he walked into the meeting with the president today
and he said he was still a firm no when he walked out of that meeting,
despite the president reportedly threatening him in front of all the other
Republicans in the room. It`s hard to say how many members of the Freedom
Caucus are on Mark Meadows` side on this, but even if half the members vote
against the bill, that`s it. That`s all it would take, the bill would be
toast, game over.

NBC has been keeping a whip count of members of the Republican caucus who
say they might vote no. So far, 27 Republicans in the house say they are
against the bill or strongly leaning against it – 27. That`s over and
above the 22 no votes that would be enough to kill the bill.

And the pressure isn`t just from the far right guys. It`s coming from the
center, too. Moderates have been getting an earful from their constituents
at home, warning them not to take Obamacare away.

To that point, Democrats have cooked up basically a gut-punch of an ad that
they plan to release tomorrow ahead of this week`s vote. We`ve got it
exclusively tonight. This is the first add the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee put out in the 2018 election cycle, and we`ve got the
first exclusive look at it right here tonight.

I think this is pretty good. Watch.



ANNOUNCER: DSCC is responsible for the content of this advertising.


MADDOW: Democratic Party will drop that ad, Democratic Senate Campaign
Committee will drop that tomorrow, putting the pressure on.

In addition to that, former Vice President Joe Biden will be back in
Washington tomorrow, trying to shore up Democratic resistance to the repeal
bill. He`ll be headlining a rally tomorrow morning on the front steps of
the Capitol.

Repealing Obamacare has been Republican priority number one for years. We
are right now just a little bit over one day away from what`s supposed to
be the big vote. It looks shaky, if you look at the NBC whip count. It
looks shaky if you look at the political climate around this issue in the
country. Already, there are rumblings on Capitol Hill that the House
Republicans might push that Thursday vote because they know they don`t have
the votes.

I have a feeling this is not at all how Republicans thought this would go.



SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: Look, I`m not here to bad-mouth other
Republicans. We have a good amount of people running. At a minimum, I can
say this, none of them is a socialist.


None of our candidates is under FBI investigation.

under investigation by the FBI. Just pause and think about that, that`s
uncommon for a presidential candidate.

go to work on day one for the American people. That will be impossible
with Hillary Clinton, the prime suspect, in a far-reaching criminal

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: So think about the magnitude of all of this
for a second. Hillary Clinton could be sworn into office while still being
under investigation from the FBI this would then put this country into a
major constitutional crisis.

TRUMP: What a mess. What a mess. And all she had to do is follow the
rules and assume people are watching or listening. Who cares, right?

RUBIO: Can this country afford to have a president under investigation by
the FBI? Think of the trauma that would do to this country.

TRUMP: We`ve never had a case like this. And even Congress, you know, is
sort of – they`ve never had this before because there`s no event like this
that ever took place.


MADDOW: We have never had a case like this, Congress, they have never had
this before, there`s no event like this that ever took place.

Correct, Mr. President. We have never had a sitting president`s campaign
under investigation by the FBI for colluding with Russia to influence the
election. That has never happened before.

It`s uncanny, though, right? That stuff from the campaign? Over and over,
throughout the presidential campaign, Republicans insisting if a president
was under investigation by the FBI that would – what was the phrase? “Put
this country into a major constitutional crisis.” Over and over and over
again they said that.

But, you know, Sean Spicer, quote, “probably tough to get excited about
someone under FBI investigation.” Sean Spicer now White House press

Or this one, quote, “most honest people I know are not under FBI
investigation.” Kellyanne Conway, now counselor to the president.

Now we know that the president`s campaign is under investigation by the FBI
and it`s a counterintelligence investigation about them possibly colluding
in a foreign country`s attack on the United States. Started in July, the
investigation continues and now we don`t have to imagine what it would be
like to have a president under FBI investigation, now we don`t have to
wonder about what would be the right response to that, now we have to
actually figure out in real time the right response to that because we need
the right response to that now.

What do we do in this circumstance? Do we pick now to hold hearings to let
that president fill a seat on the Supreme Court? Now? A question raised
by the top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer today.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: You can bet if the shoe were
on the other foot and a Democratic president was under investigation by the
FBI, the Republicans would be howling at the moon about filling a Supreme
Court seat in such circumstances.


MADDOW: Senator Schumer went on to say it`s unseemly to be moving forward
so fast on the confirmation, quote, “while this big gray cloud of an FBI
investigation hangs over the presidency.”

But regardless, today was day two of Neil Gorsuch`s confirmation hearings.
And the Democrats went, and there`s plenty to say about the balls and
strikes of that hearing and how the hearings have been going and all the
questions he successfully avoided. But to a certain extent, those things
seem like the trees when the forest here is this president is under FBI
investigation in a counterintelligence probe. Until that`s sorted out,
should we really be going full steam ahead with putting somebody on the
Supreme Court for life?

Last year, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to that open seat on
the Supreme Court. And the Republicans would not meet with not only
wouldn`t hold a hearing – they wouldn`t meet with him. They wouldn`t
speak of even considering his nomination.

And the Republican objection to Merrick Garland as Supreme Court nominee
was, their objection, the – their whole problem with him was that Barack
Obama was only going to be president for only a little bit more than a
year. So, he`s only got a year left. That`s our objection. So, they`re
not going to consider his pick.

Right now, the Democratic objection to having hearings on Neil Gorsuch is
that the president is under an FBI counterintelligence investigation for
potentially colluding with a foreign power to attack the United States.
Which of those is a more substantive reason to hit pause and maybe not move
forward on giving that particular president the next permanent appointment
to the United States Supreme Court? Which of those objections makes more
material sense?

Joining us now is Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor and legal correspondent
for “Slate” and someone who talks me down when my soap box gets too tall.

Are you not going to?

column a month ago. I co-wrote with (INAUDIBLE) who teaches at Georgia.
We said, you know, it`s weird, the illegitimacy of the president throws the
entire constitutional question of advice and consent into doubt.

And then kind of weird with the president who`s actually being
investigated, same illegitimacy problem. And the haters all said, why are
you trolling the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee? I said,
well, I`m not rolling them. I`m actually just quoting them.

MADDOW: Right.

LITHWICK: But I actually have no problem with what you`re saying. And I
would add this one gloss, Rachel, I think it`s not inconsequential. The
court`s institutional integrity completely rests on public confidence in
the court. It`s not like other positions.

The court, if it is under a cloud, under a shadow of some sort, there`s
nothing the court can do to get that back. So, this is a different
institution from other institutions of government, insofar of all the
questions about the legitimacy, the stolen seat now being filled by a
stolen presidency. The rest of the republic can recover from this.

You know what doesn`t recover? The court. The court really does
institutionally suffer when public judgment about the court`s legitimacy is
in doubt. It different from other institutions and that really ups the
stakes here in a way that it`s beyond just sort of fatuous quoting Ted
Cruz. It really hurts the court.

MADDOW: Once the Republicans did what they did about Merrick Garland and
they held that seat open, as you say, sort of stealing that seat, not
allowing President Obama to make his nomination to that seat. What could
have been an appropriate corrective that? I mean, is that just, is that
breaking glass and it all shards, or is there a way to reestablish sort of
constitutional normalcy around the court after they did that?

LITHWICK: I don`t think so. I mean, I have to tell you, I feel different
about the court. I`m the wickedest Patty Hearst, I mean, I love my
captors. You know, thank you for having no TV in here.

So, for me, something was broken. And I think sort of layered over the
sense that this seat was not theirs to take away, it`s just the complete
hypocrisy of now insisting they can`t function with eight people, we`ve got
to get this done now.

And moreover, this is an institution that really rests on integrity and
dignity and civility. You know, you`re hearing Senate Republicans talking
about the need to return to norms now. Norms? Remember them? That was
what you broke.

MADDOW: And, in fact, they said if – they threatened if Hillary Clinton
was elected, they would hold that seat open until after the 2020 election,
that they would not allow anybody other than a Republican president to fill
that seat.

LITHWICK: I think it really important to be clear that what you`re hearing
now is Republicans saying this was Scalia`s seat, no one was going to get
to fill but a Republican, because there`s no such thing as a real judge
coming from the other side. And Ted Cruz has been really clear about that
in the hearings in the last two days. The masks are off, and in some ways,
that`s good. But again, you know who is hampered when the masks are off,
it`s the court.

MADDOW: In terms of Gorsuch himself, how`s he doing?

LITHWICK: Well, you know, I think it`s – he`s turning to the point of
like, golly, gosh, gosh, we stopped at “Slate” today counting gollies and
goshes because there`s all gollies and goshes.

MADDOW: To the point where it seems fake and put on?

LITHWICK: Well, to the point where nobody says gosh that much ever in a

I think he is very genuinely charming. He`s very warm. You know, he`s
answering nothing. And even Justice Alito, even Justice Kagan answered a
little bit. He`s giving us almost no guidance on anything of substance.

It frustrating when you have a president who explicitly says, I`m going to
tap a guy who`s going to make you super happy about guns and abortion, so
that litmus test, you know, the burden is on Gorsuch at some level to
disprove the promise that was made.

MADDOW: Right. I mean, Trump made news when he said there`s going to be
litmus tests for me. These are the things that I`m going to get agreements
on from anybody I put in position. And so, for the president to be saying
that and the nominee for not saying whether that`s true or denying that`s

LITHWICK: It`s very froth.

MADDOW: Do you think the Democrats should get up and get out of that
hearing and just let his appear to be a Republican project and stop lending
their legitimacy to it?

LITHWICK: I have to say they`re landing some punches on some of the ideas
that they want to get across, that the Republicans are the party of
corruption and dark money, they`re the party of not caring about the little
guy. So, some of these little flicks are getting there.

But I think on this larger question of should we be here, is there
legitimate, should we be in this conversation, why are you telling us that
when you go low, we give you the seat and maybe we`ll do it again in two
years? They`re not there.


LITHWICK: They`re not there, Rachel.

MADDOW: And I would say Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, if they
polled Democratic voters right now, if they polled their supporters right
now, if they polled base voters in the Democratic Party as to what they
should do, it would be a very large vote telling them to get up and get
their butts out of that room.

Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor and legal correspondent for “Slate”, a
person I count on to keep me sane in insane times failing miserably.

LITHWICK: Thank you.

MADDOW: Thank you, Dahlia. It`s great to have you here.

All right. We`ll be right back. Stay with us.


MADDOW: Behold, behold, he speaks. Andrea got him to speak finally!


ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS: Mr. Secretary, North Korea is now threatening
preemptive action. Can you say whether you think that`s a dangerous
escalation, sir?

REX TILLERSON, SECRETARY OF STATE: No comment today, thanks.

MITCHELL: Any comment on the NATO meetings?

TILLERSON: See you tomorrow.

MITCHELL: Thank you.


MADDOW: He did speak. That`s progress. It was to be specific, “No
comment today, thanks. See you tomorrow.” Seven words. Got to start

We have been documenting on this show the steady disappearance of the U.S.
State Department in this administration. It has shrunk. It has gone
silent in the Trump era.

As apart of that, we have documented the steadfast efforts of the intrepid
Andrea Mitchell to try to get a question off a question to the secretary of
state, at his many, many silent photo ops, only to get more stone cold
handshaking silence before she get pushed out of the room.

Today, there was progress. She got seven words from the U.S. secretary of
state. Ask, ask, ask, and you shall finally receive. Seven words. It`s a

That does it for us tonight. We`ll see you again tomorrow.


Good evening, Lawrence.


Copy: Content and programming copyright 2017 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.