U.S. prepping for North Korea summit. TRANSCRIPT: 04/02/2018. The Rachel Maddow Show

Michael McFaul, David Cay Johnston, Gabe Sherman

Date: April 2, 2018
Guest: Michael McFaul, David Cay Johnston, Gabe Sherman

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Chris, happy anniversary.

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST, “ALL IN”: Thank you very much.

REID: Happy fifth anniversary. Great show. Great job.

HAYES: Thank you.


HAYES: We`re here. We`re still here. You can`t get rid of us.

REID: Take care. Have a good night. All right, thank you, Chris.

And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. Rachel has the night
off. She will be back tomorrow.

But we start tonight in Slovenia, a beautiful country, lots of great
skiing, amazing lakes, lots of castles everywhere. For Americans, Slovenia
is probably best known as the homeland of the First Lady Melania Trump.

But Slovenia played a pivotal role in American history once before, when it
hosted the very first summit between George W. Bush who had been president
of the United States for about five months and Vladimir Putin who had been
president of Russia for just over a year. Apparently, everyone was super
excited about the summit, especially the Slovenians. They even created a
special logo for the summit with Bush and Putin`s names on it with like
cool graphics. And they put the logo up all over the Slovenian capital
leading up to the meeting. Woo-hoo.

That first summit between Bush and Putin in Slovenia also produced one of
George W. Bush`s most memorable quotes, not just because of the way he
described his Russian counterpart but because it was just not the way
American presidents usually talked about other world leaders.


GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: I looked the man in the eye I finally to
be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I
was able to get a sense of his soul.


REID: Well, not everybody at the time got the same sense of Putin soul.
Joe Biden was then the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

As “The New York Times” delicately put it, Biden, quote, questioned whether
trust was the right word to use about Mr. Putin, a former operative of the
KGB, the Soviet intelligence service, and former head of Russia`s domestic
intelligence service.

Michael McFaul, who would later become ambassador to Moscow under Bush`s
successor President Barack Obama, told “The Times”, quote, I think there is
plenty of good reason not to trust President Putin. This is the man who
was trained to lie.

But George W. Bush continued to try and build his relationship with the
Russian president. A few months later, President Bush hosted President
Putin at the White House, and then took him on a visit to his ranch in
Crawford, Texas. Now, if you`re wondering how that was covered at the
time, I think the best word is bemused.


TOM BROKAW, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: Finally tonight, a picture to contemplate –
two baby boomers who not so many years ago never expected to be presidents
of their country, meeting in Texas this weekend for pickups barbeque and,
oh, yes, how to make the world safer in a nuclear age.

That`s “Nightly News” for Wednesday, I`m Tom Brokaw.


REID: That`s “Nightly News” for Wednesday.

Just George and Vladimir riding around in a pickup truck, eating barbeque.
But that was nothing compared to 2007 when Putin got to meet the whole


REPORTER: For Vladimir Putin`s arrival the Bush`s worked some dad
diplomacy. The 83-year-old former president served as official breeder
when the Russian leader touched down by inviting Putin to the place where
the first family gets out to play, advisor suggests this rare personal
touch could encourage more trust.

At the seaside compound, the leaders will settle in for what`s informally
dubbed the lobster summit. The Bushes welcome to the family seaside home
quickly turned to full throttle diplomacy a quick trip cutting the waves
with all that security. Advisers say bringing Putin into the family circle
is meant to develop a deeper trust.


REID: Lobster summit.

In all, Vladimir Putin visited President Bush in the United States five
times. His last visit to the White House was in 2005. And Bush`s
evaluation of Putin as very straightforward and trustworthy, well, that has
not aged so well. Even Texas barbeque and a boat ride with mom and dad
could not make Putin into an ally.

But whatever your opinion of the Bush administration and how it handled
Vladimir Putin, at least we knew what they were doing. All these meetings
and summits were highly telegraphed and choreographed affairs with the
press staked out at Crawford and Kennebunkport, and White House officials
keeping reporters apprised of what was being discussed and what the
president was hoping to get out of his meetings.

With our current president, when it comes Russia, is a very strange dynamic
that we have simply never seen before. And I don`t just mean the overall
dynamic between this president and Putin, the deference that Trump seems to
show Putin, which we`ve all observed. I mean, specifically, the way we
find out about things the American president does that`s related to Russia.

The first time it happened was a few days after Donald Trump was sworn in.
Reports started to circulate from the Kremlin that Trump would be having a
phone call with the Russian president. The Kremlin spokesman told
reporters that they were working with Washington to nail down a date for an
upcoming call. The actual call happened on January 28th, but we got wind
of it first from Russia.

Then it happened again and this time it wasn`t a call. In the spring right
after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, Russia`s state news agency
tweeted out this picture of Donald Trump and Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov shaking hands inside the Oval Office. Lavrov even brought
along Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, you know, the guy whose meetings
Trump campaign team members kept forgetting happened.

No one knew about the meeting in advance. American journalists were kept
out. And the meeting was not on the president`s official schedule. And
when it happened, the press pool was taken completely by surprise.

The White House said that Trump decided to take the meeting because, quote,
Putin asked him to, so he said yes. And then we had to learn about it all
from Russia.

Third time was in September with the new Russian ambassador who announced
that the U.S. president, quote, received me in a warm and friendly way.
The atmosphere was very genial, constructive and welcoming. That`s what
Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov told Russia state-owned news agency.

But that meeting was not on Trump`s schedule that day. Instead, the White
House announced it afterwards, once the report from Russian state media
started getting around. And it was the Russian embassy that tweeted out
this photo from the Oval Office.

Fourth time, November. There was a flurry of reporting again all sourced
to the Kremlin on how Donald Trump was going to meet Vladimir Putin at the
Asia-Pacific Summit. The White House initially denied they would meet, but
then they met, just like the Kremlin said they would. That was in mid-

By the end of November, the Russian news agency Interfax reported that
Trump and Putin were set to hold a call. Crickets from the White House
that the call happened. That was the fifth time we learned the news from

The sixth time was on December 14th, when another Russian news agency
tweeted a photo announcing that Vladimir Putin had yet another call with
Donald Trump, thanks for the heads up. The seventh time came literally
three days later on December 17th, the Russian state news agency TASS
reported that Putin and Trump had another heart-to-heart.

The eighth time came at the end of January when “Reuters” citing Russian
state news agency TASS reported that Russia`s foreign spy chief who I
should note is under U.S. sanctions came to the U.S. the week before to
meet with our spy chiefs. We later learned he did not come alone, but we
first got the news from Russia.

In February, it happened again, the ninth time. Russian news agency
Interfax put out a report that Putin had spoken to Trump on the phone.
That Russian report was quickly followed up by a statement from the
Kremlin, along with a tweet and a Facebook post. They blasted it all over
social media for maximal effect.

And then last month, two days after Vladimir Putin secured another term as
president in a sham election, it was the Kremlin that announced that Donald
Trump had called to congratulate Putin on his victory, even after being
told by his advisers not to congratulate.

And then a reporter asked Trump about it. Trump thinking to deliver a
little news of his own.


Putin and congratulated him on the victory, his electoral victory. The
call had to do also with the fact that we will probably get together in the
not-too-distant future. We had a very good call and I suspect that we`ll
probably be meeting in the not-too-distant future. So, I think probably
we`ll be seeing president Putin in the not-too-distant future.


REID: So, Trump called to congratulate Putin on his election win. But
just in case you missed the important part, he repeated for you three
times, did I mention we are getting together soon? So, ten times by our
count where there was a meeting or a call between Washington and Russia but
we here in the United States had to learn about it from Russia.

And now, today, we have again gotten the good word about what the American
president is up to from the Russians, only this time, it`s not a call or a
meeting with Putin. It`s something very important that he said during that
last call. Today, the Kremlin told us that Donald Trump invited Vladimir
Putin to visit the White House.

From “The Washington Post” today, quote, a Kremlin aide disclosed the White
House invitation and comments to Russian journalists Monday. According to
the Russian state news agency, the aide said, quote, when our president
spoke on the phone, it was Trump who proposed holding the first meeting in
Washington, in the White House. And once again, White House was forced to
confirm something about the president of the United States that was first
reported by Russian state media.

Quote: White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Monday that
a number of potential venues, including the White House, were discussed.
Apparently, that`s how Trump and Putin spent their last call last month,
discussing all the possible places they could meet up. I wonder if Trump
mentioned that he also knows a really great hotel just down the street used
to be a Post Office.

The United States just expelled 60 Russian diplomats over the nerve agent
poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter in the U.K., and it was
less than a month ago that the FBI and homeland security and the Homeland
Security Department issued an alert that Russia has been hacking into
American nuclear plants. Did I mention the provocative missile tests?

See, there`s a reason Vladimir Putin has not been to the White House since
2005, someone might want to tell the White House.

Joining me now is Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia during
the Obama administration.

Ambassador McFaul, thank you so much for your time tonight.


REID: So, let`s talk about the – let`s go all the way back to George W.


REID: In sort of diplomatic speak. How big of a mistake was it for George
W. Bush to come right out in his very first time ever meeting Vladimir
Putin and say that he could see into his soul and got a sense of it?

MCFAUL: Well, thanks for doing all that research and reminding me what I
said to “The New York Times” back then. I actually briefed the president
before that meeting two weeks before he went on that trip and after that
comment in “The New York Times”, I was never invited back for eight years
after that. But I do think he made a mistake as I said.

The strategy I understand. The strategy they were about to pull out of the
ABM Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, and the president and his
advisers including my colleague here, Condoleezza Rice, the national
security advisor at the time, they were trying to soften him up before they
did that action because they knew is going to be negative. But you don`t
say things like that. It makes it look foolish and he paid a price for

REID: And just give us a sense of Vladimir Putin, you know, when he is
meeting with these American presidents, what is his goal? You saw him, you
know, hanging out with the Bush family, now he keeps calling and sort of
kibitzing with Donald Trump. What is his goal in your view?

MCFAUL: Well, his goals changed from time to time. I participated in
summits with Vladimir Putin as a prime minister and as a president with
President Obama. But the key point, Joy, is to have a goal, to have an

Vladimir Putin shows up to those meetings to try to achieve a concrete
objective that he thinks is in Russia`s national security interest. What
to me is so bizarre about President Trump and the way that he deals with
Vladimir Putin is it doesn`t seem like he focuses on any concrete goal,
concrete objective, including pushing back on that long list of very
negative things that Vladimir Putin has done for our national interests.
And therefore, to invite him to the White House especially by the way,
without some concrete objective, in the government you call them
deliverables, I think is just inappropriate. It means that he doesn`t
understand how diplomacy works.

REID: Yes. You know it will be one thing, Ambassador McFaul, if both
parties, right, at the White House, as well as the Kremlin decided, you
know what, we`re going to have this call and neither of us are going to
talk about it, or we`re going to have this call and both of us are going to
talk about it.

But what does it say to you that they have these calls, they have these
meetings, and then the White House is silent, we don`t get a readout from -
- the American people do not hear from our White House communications team,
but then, you know, the Russian state news agencies blast it all over their
media and even on social media?

MCFAUL: Well, so if you do it the first time, you know, call it a rookie
mistake, like I talked about the president 18 years ago or whatever it was.
But the ninth or tenth time as you just described that long list, that`s
just irresponsible. The readout and I wrote many of those readouts when I
worked at the White House for the first three years of the Obama
administration, that`s a chance for the Trump administration to shape their
message, so they`re missing an opportunity there to do that.

But it is shocking let`s just be clear that Yuri Ushakov, somebody I did a
lot of business with, that he announces that President Putin is coming to
the White House, that`s just – I don`t know to describe that. I can`t
imagine any other leader around the world would announce that they`re
coming to the White House without a formal statement put out by the White
House about such a major event in the president`s agenda.

REID: Yes, it is curiouser and curiouser the way that Donald Trump deals
with Vladimir Putin in Russia. It`s just weird, I`ll just put it that way.

Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia during the Obama
administration, thank you so much. Really appreciate you being here

MCFAUL: Thanks for having me.

REID: Thank you.

And up next, several important developments in the Mueller investigation.
We`ll be right back.


REID: Turns out Vladimir Putin is not the only autocratic leader to get a
hearty congratulations on winning re-election from the American president.
Today, we learned Trump also congratulated Egyptian President Abdel Fattah
al-Sisi on his reelection win. This after al-Sisi was re-elected with 97
percent of the vote.

Trump has forged a close bond with the Egyptian strongman ever since the
two first met in New York, while Trump was a candidate in 2016. It was
only more recently that we learned how that meeting came about, when “The
New York Times” reported that the initial get-together was set up by none
other than Trump foreign policy advisor and supposed coffee boy George
Papadopoulos. That`s some coffee boy.

Today, Papadopoulos found himself back in the headlines. A report on the
liberal site Think Progress says Papadopoulos was apparently discussing the
Russia investigation last week in the club. Quote, on Thursday at a
Chicago nightclub, Papadopoulos had some drinks and in a conversation with
a new acquaintance allegedly made new and explosive claims about Attorney
General Jefferson Sessions.

Jason Wilson, a computer engineer who lives in Chicago recognized
Papadopoulos and his wife at the Hydrate nightclub where he sat down at
their table and introduced himself. Papadopoulos, according to Wilson,
said that Sessions was well aware of the contact between himself and Joseph
Mifsud, an academic from Malta with high-level connections in Russia, who
first informed Papadopoulos about hacked Democratic emails.

Wilson told Think Progress, quote, Papadopoulos said during their
conversation that Sessions encouraged me to find out anything he could
about the hacked Hillary Clinton emails that Mifsud had mentioned. Whether
that`s true or not, we do not know. Papadopoulos` wife denies any
discussion about Sessions took place, though she did admit they spoke to
Wilson at the club and that the Russian investigation was discussed.

NBC has not independently confirmed the Think Progress report. But the
allegation comes as the attorney general is already under fire for
inconsistencies in his testimony regarding his contacts with Papadopoulos,
specifically, the attorney general`s claims that he, quote, shot down
Papadopoulos at a March 2016 meeting when the advisor broached the idea of
trying to arrange a meeting between the candidate and Vladimir Putin.


REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: There are reports that you shut George
down, unquote, when he proposed that meeting with Putin. Is this correct?
Yes or no?

JEFF SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, I pushed back. I pushed back
against his suggestion that I thought may have been improper.


REID: That is what Sessions told Congress in November, but that now seems
to be in some doubt. Two weeks ago, “Reuters” reported that three people
at that March 2016 meeting have since contradicted the attorney general`s
account in interviews with Robert Mueller and Congress. His sessions
really did encourage Papadopoulos to find hacked emails, but obviously that
would be a major development. Now again, we don`t know but we do know that
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is currently
cooperating. What information he might give up as part of that plea deal
has yet to surface publicly.

We also know that his cooperation continues as his sentencing date has been
pushed back to April 23rd at the earliest and will likely be delayed even

Another cooperating witness, former national security adviser Michael Flynn
who pleaded guilty to the same offense has similarly seen his sentence
delayed, until May 1st at the earliest, and likely much longer.

The one person was pleaded guilty but is not cooperating with the special
counsel is Alexander van der Zwaan, a lawyer who lied to the special
counsel about his contact during the campaign with Paul Manafort and a
Manafort employee in Ukraine, otherwise known as person A, who Mueller`s
team said, quote, has ties to a Russian intelligence service and had such
ties in 2016. Van der Zwaan sentencing is tomorrow. Tick, tick, tick.

Joining us now is Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney for the eastern
district of Michigan.

Barbara, thanks for being here. Great to have you.


REID: So, let`s talk about – let`s start going back to the Papadopoulos
part of this, where Papadopoulos is in the club. He meets a brand new
acquaintance and starts spilling his guts as it were allegedly about Jeff
Sessions and whether Sessions who`s now the attorney general the United
States knew about and encouraged his contacts with this professor Mifsud
about getting Hillary Clinton`s emails. How much jeopardy could a simple
claim like that made casually in a bar – how much jeopardy could that in
theory put Jeff Sessions?

MCQUADE: You know, it`s a fascinating story on so many levels. You know,
first as you mentioned, this is a story not quite confirmed. It comes from
a guy in a bar, but, you know, we know that George Papadopoulos has a habit
of sort of spilling the beans to guys in a bar. So, it does have that
corroborating factor to it.

But with respect to Jeff Sessions, if this statement is true, I think it`s
problematic for Jeff Sessions on two levels. One, as you mentioned, it
contradicts what he has told Congress about his reaction. Remember, first,
he said there was no discussion about Russia with the campaign period, and
then once the Papadopoulos information came out he said, oh now, my memory
has been refreshed, but when it was brought up I pushed back. And said you
know we should have no further contact with Russians.

And if instead, he encouraged Papadopoulos to find out as much as he could
about these hacked emails, that would be a direct contradiction of what he
told Congress and that is a prosecutable offense for lying to Congress.
So, there`s that problem. I also think it opens the door for further
inquiry by Robert Mueller about what is going on. Did they pursue those
further contacts? To what end did they encourage the hacking or encourage
the dissemination of those hacked emails, or provide advice and guidance as
to the timing and location of those things.

So, I think it really raises a lot of questions, and it also causes some
concern about George Papadopoulos as a cooperator and if I`m Robert
Mueller`s team, I`m probably calling his lawyer and telling him to keep his
mouth shut when he`s out at bars.

REID: Yes, very interesting that he – I mean, is the fact that he is
speaking so freely and he`s out in the club, you know, talking to people
does that indicate that he is cooperating so fully that he has no fear of
crossing the prosecutor at this point because he`s given it all up?

MCQUADE: Yes, I don`t know and it – you know, he`s obviously free to say
whatever he wants to say. The prosecutor – the prosecution team can`t
tell him not to speak about these things. But it certainly could diminish
his value as a cooperator if he is out sort of shooting his mouth off in
bars. He could be seen as someone who`s a bit of a loose cannon if he
contradicts himself during some of these meetings with people when he`s
out. That could be used to impeach him later.

So, it`s usually wise to kind of keep your mouth shut except when you`re
talking to Robert Mueller.

So, I don`t know whether he`s feeling liberated because he`s told the truth
or he just sort of likes the attention.

REID: And so, van der Zwaan in sentencing is tomorrow. What do you expect
out of that?

MCQUADE: You know, it`s interesting. He`s not cooperating. He probably
faces a fairly modest prison sentence. His lawyers are asking for

The government is opposing that, but his maximum exposure I think is in the
zero to six-month range. So, I think it`s likely that his sentence will
not be an extreme one. He did not agree to cooperate, but I wonder whether
in the end, Robert Mueller could compel him to testify about things like,
you know, who was person A and some of the other factors about person A`s
involvement in the Trump campaign in 2016, if he knows.

But it could be the end of it and I think if nothing more, it stands for
the proposition that if you lie to the FBI, you will be convicted of a
crime. You`ll have a felony conviction for the rest of your life. It
could prevent him or harm him from practicing law as he goes forward, even
if he doesn`t get any additional prison time.

REID: Yes, yes, the plot gets thicker.

Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, thank you so much. Really appreciate
your time.

MCQUADE: Thanks, Joy.

REID: Thank you.

And still ahead here tonight, one new reporting that could cost Trump yet
another cabinet secretary. That`s next.


REID: Twenty-four hundred dollars, that`s how much it apparently cost to
repair a door after you`ve broken it down. At least that`s how much it
costs the Environmental Protection Agency when the EPA`s administrators
security detail broke down his apartment door because they thought he was
unconscious and needed to be rescued. It turns out Scott Pruitt was just
fine, just a little groggy from his Wednesday afternoon nap.

We learned about that frantic incident over the weekend, right after we
learned that the apartment where Scott Pruitt stayed last year actually
belonged to the wife of a lobbyist. That lobbyists did work related to the
export of liquefied natural gas for a company called Cheniere Energy. It
turns out, Scott Pruitt was also very interested in promoting the export of
liquefied natural gas, even though that has nothing to do with his official
duties as head of the EPA. He traveled to Morocco as part of a $40,000
trip to pitch Morocco on the, quote, potential benefit of liquefied natural
gas imports on Morocco`s economy.

And the only U.S. company that could actually provide that liquefied
natural gas to Morocco was Cheniere Energy, the same company with ties to
Scott Prutt`s landlord. Scott Pruitt also got a sweet deal on that
apartment, 50 bucks a night, whenever he needed it. Ethics officials at
the EPA have been scrambling to explain why they allowed Pruitt to rent
this apartment in the first place.

Ethics experts and members of Congress are calling for a deeper review into
that deal, and now, “The New York Times” is reporting that while Scott
Pruitt was staying in the apartment, he signed off on a pipeline expansion
that benefited another client of the lobbyist whose wife owned his
apartment. So, there`s a lot still to be learned from this story, but when
it comes to the rest of the Trump administration, Scott Pruitt is in good
company. More on that next.


REID: “The Wall Street Journal” is breaking some news tonight about the
head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt. The reporting over the past few days has
been that Pruitt last year rented an apartment owned by the wife of an
energy lobbyist. Scott Pruitt paid way below market rate to stay in that
apartment, just 50 bucks a night, and he only had to pay for the days he
was actually physically there.

“The Wall Street Journal” reports late tonight that the White House is
conducting a review of Pruitt`s activities, quote, the purpose of the
inquiry is to dig a little deeper, one White House official told “The Wall
Street Journal”, indicating that the White House isn`t satisfied with a
statement from the EPA last week that the $50 a night lease agreement
didn`t violate federal ethics rules. Quote: While there was no sign yet
that Mr. Pruitt`s job is in jeopardy, another White House official said
that few people are coming to Mr. Pruitt`s defense.

So, the White House tonight is making it known that they are not pleased
with these reports about Scott Pruitt`s housing situation and making it
clear that he has few supporters in the West Wing. This news is breaking
at a time when a handful of Trump cabinet officials are facing ethics
scandals of their own.

Before he was fired, V.A. Secretary David Shulkin was the subject of a
scathing inspector general report admonishing him for sight-seeing on what
was ostensibly a work trip to Europe and for making sure the V.A. paid for
his wife`s travel as well.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke`s travel expenses are right now under
investigation by the inspector general of the Interior Department. The
office of special counsel, not Robert Mueller but the actual agency, is
investigating a potential Hatch Act violation by Zinke for a speech he gave
to a hockey team owned by one of his former campaign donors.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is under public scrutiny for costing
taxpayers nearly million dollars for taking military planes on trips across
the country. It cost taxpayers $33,000 for Mnuchin and his wife to travel
to Kentucky last year.

Then there`s the $31,000 dining-room set that Candy Carson allegedly told
Housing and Urban Development officials to order for her husband, Secretary
Ben Carson. The inspector general at HUD is now reviewing the involvement
of Ben Carson`s family at the agency.

Ben Carson`s not the only cabinet official whose fan who seems unusually
involved in his work. “The Washington Post” last month reported that CIA
Director Mike Pompeo`s wife had been working at the CIA as a volunteer and
even has her own office space at CIA headquarters.

“New York Magazine” took on the epic task of putting together an omnibus
timeline of quote official corruption from small-time graft and brazen
influence peddling to full-blown raids on the Federal Treasury throughout
the Trump administration. But it really does start from the top.

Journalist and Trumpologist David Cay Johnston writes in “New York
Magazine” today that, quote, more than in any time in history, the
president of the United States is actually actively using the power and
prestige of his office to line his own pockets, landing loans for his
businesses, steering wealthy buyers to his condos and securing cheap
foreign labor for his resorts, preserving federal subsidies for his housing
projects, easing regulations on his golf courses, licensing his name to
overseas projects, even peddling coffee mugs and shot glasses bearing the
presidential seal.

For Trump, whose business revolves around the marketability of his name,
there has proved to be no public policy too big and no private opportunity
too crass to exploit for personal profit.

And joining us now is David Cay Johnston, author of “The Making of Donald
Trump” and founder of DCReport.org.

David, great to have you with us.


REID: So let`s just run through some of the greatest hits or lowlights of
the Trump administration`s you know spreading the wealth around both not
only Donald Trump`s family but it really does seem that that has translated
down to his cabinet.

JOHNSTON: Well, Joy, one of the things striking about the cabinet is what
you went to in your intro – all of the wives and their involvement in the
case of EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, the wife of a lobbyist – you know,
I seem to recall Sebastian Gorka telling us that the alpha males are back
in, and the era of the pajama boy is over. And apparently, one of the
fundamental defining features of the alpha males is if something happens on
their watch, uh-oh, talk to my wife, she did it, she did it.

REID: Yes.

JOHNSTON: They won`t take responsibility for their own actions. They want
to blame their wives.

REID: I do believe that Sebastian Gorka`s wife might be working
administration too. It is an interesting feature.

Let`s go back to Donald Trump. Ivanka Trump who`s been very much involved
in his businesses going all the way back you know she`s featured in “The
Apprentice” even. She now is this unpaid advisor, but she is also still
tangentially involved or at least it ethically looks weird. She`s
traveling to China. She gets all of these patents approved that the
Chinese normally don`t approve.

How much is she still doing business while supposedly doing America`s

JOHNSTON: Well, nothing`s changed about her business. The business is now
in one of these Trumpian Kushner eyes wide open blind trusts and the
trustees are two of the Kushners, who, by the way, tell her they say about
the finances, and she continues to wear clothes that make her a walking
billboard for her businesses. You`ll recall she specifically promoted her
a $10,000 bracelet and $138 dress which sold out immediately.

There are no boundaries to these people. They do not see any difference
between their own personal profit and presidential duties.

And in the case of Ivanka Trump, I think this illustrates the second
problem. She is not an employee of the federal government. She actually
has no authority.

The same thing applies to the other wives like Mrs. Pompeo. Susan Pompeo
apparently has been doing all sorts of things involving her husband in his
national security position, and she`s not an employee. There`s a reason we
want people who are our employees to be making these actions on our behalf
so that we know that they`re also subject to ethics rules, to discipline
and not just to – if they really do something grossly improper – the risk
that they might get prosecuted.

REID: And you have now a lead White House and making it very well known
but they want to look into Scott Pruitt`s apartment and living situation.
But what about the idea that his landlords clients essentially are now
having their products peddled in Morocco by Scott Pruitt?

JOHNSTON: Well, and there`s another element to that $40,000 trip to
Morocco to promote something outside of the portfolio of the EPA
administrator. Let`s keep in mind that the Qataris turned down the
Kushner`s on a loan, the U.S. government through Donald Trump then turned
on the Qatari government where we have our very, very important Middle East
base. And what business of the Qatari is principally in? Exporting LNG.

This could be seen as an action on behalf of this American competitor
against the Qataris and part of the attack on the Qataris by this

REID: And LNG stands for?

JOHNSTON: Liquefied natural gas.

REID: It all comes together.

JOHNSTON: Press gas down – to impress it down to one six hundredths of
its normal size.

REID: Yes.

JOHNSTON: And that`s how a lot of – Japan is heated, much of Europe or
good parts of Europe through liquefied natural gas, and we`re about to get
into that business.

By the way, it`s astonishing the White House says we`re conducting a
review. What do you need to know about $50 a night, only on the nights are
there and a free apartment for your daughter who`s there all the time and
corruption? I mean, is any other president – Barack Obama, George W.
Bush, Bill Clinton, they would have said you`re fired.

REID: Yes, it makes Teapot Dome look like a walk in the park.

David Cay Johnston, author of “The Making of Donald Trump” and founder of
DCreport.org, thank you very much. Really appreciate your time.

JOHNSTON: Thank you.

REID: We`ll be right back.


REID: Last month, we got a really shocking announcement about a planned
face-to-face meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un of North Korea,
the first-ever meeting between American and North Korean heads of state
since the Korean War. Even more bizarre was the actual announcement


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Trump appreciated the briefing and said he
would meet Kim Jong-un by May to achieve permanent denuclearization.


REID: So, that was a top official from South Korea delivering this
bombshell news about a meeting between the American president and the North
Korean dictator, from the steps of the White House. Why were we getting
this news from the South Koreans? Where were the American diplomats? The
short answer is they don`t exist or at least the ambassador doesn`t.

The position of U.S. ambassador to South Korea is vacant and has been for
more than a year. But someone was about to take that job, someone with
really good credentials. He was previously President George W. Bush`s top
North Korea representative and director for Asian affairs at the National
Security Council. Then after months of vetting, his nomination was
suddenly called off.

But tonight he is here speaking to us for the very first time in the

Joining us now for the interview is Victor Cha. Today marks his first day
as an NBC News and MSNBC Korean affairs analyst.

Welcome aboard.


REID: Welcome to the family.

All right. Let`s first of all talk about this specifically how it is that
you came to not be up for this nomination? Did you withdraw on your own or
were you asked to withdraw?

CHA: Well, I was told my nomination was not being put forward, but I
should say before that that you know every administration has the right to
choose their own people and they have a right to change their mind.

REID: Yes.

CHA: And while the actual political appointment of ambassador is vacant in
South Korea, the fellow right there now, the acting ambassador, Marc
Knapper, a professional foreign service officer, is fantastic. He`s

REID: OK. And so, what does it say to you that he was not the person that
made that announcement about the meeting? That it was really – it was the
South Koreans that did it, not the acting ambassador?

CHA: So, that`s unusual.

REID: Yes.

CHA: You know, I`ve worked in the White House before and to have – that
was the South Korean national security advisor – to have him come out and
announce that the U.S. president was willing to meet with the North Korean
leader, I`ve never seen anything like that before.

REID: Yes. Now, you wrote a piece in “The Washington Post” in which you
talked about a policy difference that you had that may or may not have
presaged your being – your nomination being withdrawn, and you talked
about this idea that there are people in the administration who seem to
believe that a bloody nose, quite a quote, sort of limited strike against
North Korea would somehow change the dynamic between the U.S. and North
Korea, and help, you know, bring us closer to disarmament. What was your
critique of it and what how was that received when you made that known?

CHA: So, essentially, I just thought it was not a smart idea to carry out
a limited military strike. It would achieve none of the objectives, which
would be to either stop their nuclear program or stop proliferation of
materials or scientists or weapons or anything of that nature. And the
risks were huge because we have 250,000 Americans who live in South Korea,
a hundred thousand in Japan, all of them would be under threat of attack if
the North Koreans retaliated.

These were just some of the views that I put forward when I was asked as an
expert, not as a political person, to take this job.

REID: And who did you give those views to and how soon thereafter were you
turfed out?

CHA: So I can – I consulted widely within the U.S. government, you know,
all the different agencies, that`s part of the process, as well as at the
State Department and the White House.

So, now, incoming national security advisor, number three, the third one,
is going to be John Bolton. There is very few people more hawkish than
John Bolton who has made it pretty clear that he thinks first strikes are a
great idea, whether it`s Iran or North Korea.

How concerned are you that there`s somebody now sitting at the National
Security Council who has the exact diametric opposite view that you do when
it comes to first strikes?

CHA: So, I`ve worked with John Bolton when I was at the NSC. He was at
the State Department, and I believe that he is going to probably completely
go along with this idea of summit diplomacy that President Trump has put
forward. But I think his bottom line will really be with regard to the
sanctions pressure, because he was part of the initial effort at smart
sanctions on North over ten years ago.

So I think when he sees what has been now put on North Korea through ten
U.N. Security Council resolution, you`ll see that as a very good thing and
he won`t want to take his foot off the pedal in terms of sanctions. But I
think he`ll go – if the president wants to do a summit –

REID: Right.

CHA: – I`m sure he`ll go along with that.

REID: You don`t think it`ll be the other way around, that he`ll influence
Donald Trump who ran is sort of a dove to suddenly say, you know, let`s go
to war with the North Korea?

CHA: Well, certainly, if this summit fails, right? If something goes
wrong, or if they show up at the summit and it`s pretty clear the North
Koreans are not willing to give up anything with regards to their nuclear
weapons – you know, I think then Bolton will have a big part in playing
whatever plan B would be.

REID: That`s really scary.

Lastly, you know, China seems to have really taken form, you know,
prominence in terms of – you know, that region of the world, we have –
you know, we`ve walked away from the TPP. They are now levying pretty
draconian sanctions against us.

How much has the United States under Donald Trump ceded ground to China?

CHA: Well, certainly, I think that walking away from the trade agreements,
in particular, TPP, you know undertaking these tariffs outside the WTO
framework, these things certainly don`t help the United States. The United
States historically has stood on three pillars in Asia, security, values
and free trade. And we`re taking away at least one of those – one of
those pillars right now. It`s like a three-legged stool. You take away
one leg.

REID: Yes.

CHA: Meanwhile, China is casting their economic shadow all over the region
– and it`s going to be difficult for the United States, unless we –
unless we figure out a way to get back into the trade game.

REID: Victor Cha, it`s great to have you here. It will be good to have
you here as a resource in scary time. So, it`s good to have somebody of
your experience on here.

CHA: Thanks very much.

REID: Thank you very much. Welcome. Appreciate your time.

And still ahead, the potentially troubling script being read by local news
anchors around the country.



UNIDENTIFIED ANCHORS: The sharing of biased and false news has become all
too common on social media.


And this is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE ANCHOR: This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE ANCHOR: This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.


REID: That is the Deadspin mashup of local Sinclair broadcasting anchors,
anchors who spent years gaining the trust of their viewers forced to blur
the lines between news and propaganda, order to recite what management
calls a, quote, must-read script, a script that might ring a bell since it
parents language usually peddled by the president.

Sinclair is the single largest owner of TV stations in the country and it`s
on the cusp of getting even bigger if the Justice Department and the FCC
give their approval for Sinclair to buy Tribune Media, which is why it
helps that Sinclair has friends in high places, namely the aforementioned
president who tweeted that Sinclair`s vote, quote, far superior to CNN and
even more fake NBC, which is a total joke, end quote.

Donald Trump has had a conspicuously different take when it comes to CNN
whose parent company Time Warner is also in need of the Justice
Department`s blessing, as it tries to merge with AT&T. But there`s real
concern that unlike the Sinclair deal, the CNN Time Warner/AT&T deal can be
decided less on the merits and more on the fact that as one “Washington
Post” op-ed put it, quote, the Justice Department opposition to the deal is
less about antitrust concerns and more about carrying water for Trump,
who`s famously unhappy about CNN`s coverage.

So, it`s no surprise that Trump`s bullying – that he`s pulling for
Sinclair. Sinclair and Trump go way back. During the campaign, Trump`s
son-in-law Jared Kushner bragged about striking a deal with Sinclair for
better coverage. Meanwhile, some of the local Sinclair anchors or being
forced to recite that must read script are quietly pushing back, with one
investigative reporter at a Sinclair station telling CNN, quote, it sickens
me the way Sinclair is encroaching upon trusted news brands in rural
markets. And there are reports of anger and tense conversations inside
Sinclair newsrooms.

This all comes just as Pew Research reminds us that as much as we love our
cable news and we do, most Americans continue to tune in to local news as
their most trusted source of information. So, how dangerous is the
Sinclair intrusion into that relationship of trust?

Joining me now is Gabe Sherman, special correspondent for “Vanity Fair”.

And it`s great to have you here.


REID: So, let`s talk about this. Sinclair is about to get really big. If
they get approved, they`ll reach 70 percent of U.S. household. What is the
danger in that in your view?

SHERMAN: Well, really, I think, Joy, that the danger is that, you know,
Sinclair is not marketing itself as a biased or partisan news network.

REID: Right.

SHERMAN: This is what I find the most troubling is one`s viewers in their
local markets tune in to say a Sinclair station, it will be branded, ABC or
Fox or another network, they don`t know that Sinclair is pushing this
message. They`re just saying, oh, this is my local ABC affiliate, I like
these guys. I`m going to watch them.

It would be like going to the supermarket and buying Cheerios, except the
actual box of Cheerios is not filled with the stuff that you think it is,
it`s actually, you know, full of something that`s going to change your
political viewpoint potentially. So, that to me I think is the
misrepresentation of what Sinclair is really about, is what is troubling.

REID: And I mean – and this is, you know, they were already forcing their
stations to run these pieces by Sebastian Gorka or by Boris Epshteyn,
obviously former Trump employees who are now peddling these propaganda,
little bites. How materially different is it? I mean, I worked in local
news. The local news anchor is like a member of the community.

I mean, can you just – you know, sort of conceptualize for us how much
different it is to have it come out of the mouth of the anchor?

SHERMAN: Oh without a question. I mean, these are the people that you
tune into for watch out what`s – to find out what`s going on with your
city council, you know, fire, police activity. They`re not sort of attuned
to covering national politics. And to hear these people saying don`t trust
what you see on the other networks, that to me especially when you`re
hearing it, it`s the scale at local market after local market, and it`s not
seeming like it`s being pushed by one – you know, when you watch Fox News,
that is a single news outlet.

REID: Yes.

SHERMAN: Sinclair is spread across, you know, dozens of individual nations
that`s amplifying their message.

REID: Yes. Absolutely, Malcolm Nance, a friend of the network things on a
lot are former intelligence analyst, tweeted, welcome to American Pravda,
and describing it.


REID: Let`s also go to some of the other sort of ways in which the Trump
administration has this authoritarian tinge. Jim Acosta, a CNN reporter,
Brad Parscale, who we know was notoriously involved in a lot of the weird
targeting and online research –

SHERMAN: Facebook, yes.

REID: – Facebook, et cetera, who`s now running the Trump reelect, tweeted
today that Jim Acosta should have his credentials fold because he shouted a
question at Donald Trump during the Easter egg roll.

SHERMAN: Yes. I mean, this is to me just a very troubling pattern that we
are in, that if you are somehow independent from the administration, you
are labeled an enemy of the state. If you are onboard of the
administration, you are probably going to have your multi-billion dollar
deal approved by the federal government.

This to me is what you see and say Putin`s Russia or in Turkey, Erdogan`s
Turkey where it`s basically state capitalism. If you`re on board with the
regime, you get the benefits of the state. If you are not, you are
punished. And that should not happen in the United States, and as, you
know, we were just talking, that`s the norm around the world. We thought
we were immune and turns out we`re not.

REID: It turns out we`re not. Something Americans need to pay attention

Gabe Sherman, thank you very much.

SHERMAN: Thank you.

REID: Special correspondent for “Vanity Fair” – I really appreciate you.
Thank you.

And that does it for us tonight. Rachel will be back tomorrow.


Good evening, Lawrence.



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2018 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2018 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