Four wounded in shooting at Youtube HQ. TRANSCRIPT: 04/03/2018. The Rachel Maddow Show

Guests:
Carol Leonnig, Cecile Richards
Transcript:

Show: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW
Date: April 3, 2018
Guest: Carol Leonnig, Cecile Richards

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.
It`s great to be back. I had a couple of days off for which I`m very
grateful, especially my friend, Joy Reid, who filled in so ably in this
seat last night. Thank you, Joy.

But as I say, it`s great to be back. Lots of news today, including some
breaking news tonight.

Of course, this afternoon, the shooting that took place at YouTube
headquarters in San Bruno, California, that was the focus of a lot of news
attention this afternoon. San Bruno is just south of San Francisco, close
to the San Francisco International Airport. From all the information we`ve
got at this point, it looks like this was the kind of shooting that would
be classified as a workplace shooting, potentially a workplace shooting
related to a domestic matter. Neither of those things are unusual at all
in our country at this point.

However, in this case, it took place at a very, very high profile company.
Also, the shooter was reportedly a woman. Both those things are rare in
terms of American gun violence.

According to police, before shooting herself, the woman was able to shoot
and injure at least three other people, one of whom is in critical
condition tonight. But it appears that the only fatality from this
shooting would be this woman killing herself after she shot and wounded
these three other people. Police have not described any sort of
terroristic affiliation or motive here other than, of course, the
terroristic intent of bringing a gun and live ammunition into a business
and then starting to shoot the place up. So, we`ll tell you more about the
YouTube headquarter shooting tonight if we learn more over the course of
this hour. But so far, that`s pretty much the extent of what we know.

I should also tell you looking ahead to the overnight, we are bracing
ourselves for two expected news earthquakes – one economic, one political.

The economic earthquake we are anticipating has to do with China.
President Trump today unexpectedly announced another $50 billion in tariffs
against Chinese products. China has already said they are adamantly
opposed to what Trump has done and they say they will retaliate. So,
everybody is watching the markets overnight and watching for Chinese
government pronouncements over the next day or so. That`s the economic
quake we`re expecting overnight.

The political quake we`re anticipating has to do with yet another Trump
cabinet official. EPA Administer Scott Pruitt has had ethics troubles from
the beginning. But in the last 24 hours, there has been a tidal wave of
new allegations and new revelations about his behavior while in office and
what appears to be misuse or at least a cavalier attitude toward taxpayer
dollars. We`ll have more on that coming up in just a moment amid honestly
increasing expectations that Scott Pruitt may be the next member of Trump`s
cabinet who has to go.

Today was also, of course, a landmark day in the special counsel
investigation looking into the Russia scandal. Today for the first time, a
criminal case spun by the special counsel`s investigation has come to a
close. We`ve seen a number of people charged by the special counsel`s
office and we`ve seen a number of people pled guilty, but today was the
first sentencing in the Mueller investigation for anybody who`s been
charged in the case today was the first time that person was – that any
such person was sentenced, somewhat interestingly, the person who was
sentenced to a prison term today is the son in law of a very prominent
Russian oligarch, which seems to me like it should get more prominent
that`s being given to this matter.

But we will talk a little bit more about that later on in the show, because
as we were absorbing that information tonight about Alex van der Zwaan
being sentenced to prison, we also got naturally, a very big breaking news
story from “The Washington Post”.

Do you remember James Comey`s pink slip, the short letter that Donald Trump
sent via his bodyguard to FBI Director James Comey, the letter firing him
in May last year? You might remember the way it was phrased because it had
one very memorable line. It was memorable because that line was so out of
place in a pink slip, in a termination letter.

In the middle of firing James Comey, Trump said, quote, I greatly
appreciate you informing me on three separate occasions that I am not under
investigation. Also you`re fired. Love Donald.

When James Comey testified before Congress the following month, he more or
less confirmed that he had indeed told the president that he was not
personally under investigation. But what we heard from Comey and from all
the other government officials from whom Trump tried to pressure, what
Trump wanted more than anything was for senior law enforcement and
intelligence officials to publicly state that the president himself was not
under investigation. He was never able to persuade anybody to make a
blanket statement like that.

And ever since the firing of James Comey and the appointment of Robert
Mueller`s special counsel, that has been an open question, the president
personally under investigation. Is the president of the United States
himself personally the subject of an ongoing criminal and
counterintelligence investigation by federal law enforcement?

Well, as of this evening, we have a big new piece of information about
that. “Washington Post” reporting tonight that in negotiations with the
president`s lawyers last month, so in February, special counsel Robert
Mueller described President Trump as, quote, a subject of his investigation
into Russia`s interference in the 2016 election, a subject. The president
is a subject of Mueller`s investigation. “The Post`s” Carol Leonnig and
Robert Costa report, quote, special counsel Robert Mueller informed
President Trump`s attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate
the president, but does not consider him a criminal target at this point.

In private negotiations in early March about a possible presidential
interview, Mueller described Trump as a subject of the investigation in the
2016 election, prosecutors view someone as a subject when that person has
engaged in conduct that is under investigation but there is not sufficient
evidence to bring charges. The president, “The Post” reports tonight, has
privately expressed relief at the description of his legal status, which
has increased his determination to agree to a special counsel interview.
The president has repeatedly told allies he is not a target of the probe
and believes an interview will help him put the matter behind him.

However, legal experts say Mueller`s description of Trump as a subject of a
grand jury probe doesn`t mean the president is in the clear. Quote: Under
Justice Department guidelines, a subject of an investigation is a person
whose conduct falls within the scope of a grand jury`s investigation. A
target on the other hand is a person for which there is substantial
evidence linking him or her to a crime. So, subject versus target as the
president reportedly quite relieved he`s not a target even as Mueller
confirms through his lawyers that he is a subject.

This reporting ends with this quote from a former deputy special counsel
from an investigation with President Clinton, quote, there are plenty of
instances where a guy walks into a grand jury as a subject. He gets out of
that testimony and he`s told, guess what? You`re a target now.

Joining us now is Carol Leonnig, “Washington Post” national reporter who
broke story tonight, along with Bob Costa.

Carol, thank you very much for being here. I know that we got you on very
short notice. I really appreciate you making time.

CAROL LEONNIG, NATIONAL REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Thank you, Rachel.
It`s good to be here.

MADDOW: So, as of last month, I just want to make sure I get the basics
here, the president`s lawyers were told by Robert Mueller and his
prosecutors that the president is not, at least as of then, a target of the
investigation but he is a subject of the investigation.

Was that – was that news to the president`s lawyers? Did they suppose
that or guess that? Was this an important advance for them and their
understanding of the president`s legal jeopardy?

LEONNIG: Well, there is a lot to unpack in your great question, where, you
know, soon, you can get a job in the Justice Department, Rachel. I would
say first of all, it is not a surprise to most people monitoring this case,
that the president is likely is a subject. His conduct is under review and
under investigation by grand jury.

However, being told that you are not a target and you`re a subject while
your attorneys are talking, you know, brass tacks with the leader of the
special counsel`s team is a significant development. And it essentially
means that if you`re not a target, they do not have the evidence that
moment to prosecute you to bring charges. Now, keep in mind, there are
many, many legal experts who believe with good reason that Mueller doesn`t
have the power to charge a sitting president with a crime even if he had
evidence.

So, this news is news and it`s certainly delighted and relieved the
president of the United States when he learned it.

MADDOW: Is there now any sort of unanimity among the president and his
legal team? There`s been some fluctuation in his legal, John Dowd leaving,
there was apparently another lawyer or two who are going to come on board
and representing the president and that didn`t work out. Do we know if the
president has had a meeting of the minds with his current Russia legal team
as to whether or not he should sit for an interview or is there still
disagreements there?

LEONNIG: So, what we learned in our reporting and that is shared for the
first time in this story tonight is that there was some fairly significant
and sharp disagreement. John Dowd, according to close friends of the
president, was counseling the president that he should absolutely not do
the interview all caps. Do not do the interview with Bob Mueller`s team.

However, we`re told that White House attorney Ty Cobb and also co-counsel
Jay Sekulow for the president`s personal legal team, believe that
politically, the president should do this interview, and now, my
understanding is that they are leaning in that direction. Dowd resigned as
we reported a result of feeling the president was not listening to him.

MADDOW: And, of course, bringing those two elements of your reporting
tonight together, there always is the possibility that even if somebody
goes into testimony, not as a target of his investigation, just as a
subject, somebody who`s being looked into, even though there`s no enough
evidence to bring charges, there`s always the possibility that during that
interview, a statement will be made, an assertion will be made of some
kind, something materially will happen during that testimony that converts
the subject of the investigation into a target.

LEONNIG: Absolutely. In fact, you know, I`ve talked to a lot of USA`s and
former U.S. attorneys when I was doing reporting for this and asked them to
keep this confidential until I posted it and said, so, what do you think?
What`s important here? And they said, he can go – from subject to target
in a red hot minute and that is true of most witnesses.

The only question here is does Bob Mueller, the special counsel authorized
by the Department of Justice, believe he can charge a president with a
crime if he finds evidence of it? And that`s a big open question.

MADDOW: And that brings us to the other big piece of news that you and
your colleague Robert Costa have broken tonight, which is about the special
counsel`s plans whether or not they end up charging the president, you
report tonight, quote, the special counsel also told Trump`s lawyers that
he is preparing a report about the president`s actions while in office and
potential obstruction of justice. Mueller`s investigators have indicated
to the president`s legal team they are considering writing reports on their
findings in stages with the first report focused on the obstruction issue
under the special counsel`s regulations, Mueller is required to report
conclusions confidentially to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Rosenstein would then have the authority to decide whether to release this
information public.

One person familiar with the discussion said of Mueller`s team, quote, they
said they want to write a report on this, to answer the public`s questions.

This is something that we`ve always known was a possibility. Now, it
sounds like you`re able to report that it`s in the works.

LEONNIG: So it`s been a little bit of fraught reporting target because
we`ve been hearing snatches of this conversation for awhile. Various
people who said they had some information that Mueller`s team planned to
write a report. But now, we reached a sort of a crescendo of people with a
real reason to know and real front seat to have information indicating that
Mueller`s team has told them, look, we just want answers to these
questions. We need this to write our report and this is our plan.

Now, keep in mind, Bob Mueller`s spokesperson declined to comment and
always does decline to comment and so, they`re not giving us any great
insight. But we`ve reached a point where now enough people have said, this
is what they have heard from the special counsel`s team`s lips that we feel
comfortable saying so.

MADDOW: Wow. Well, this is a big advance in our understanding tonight in
a number of fronts. Carol Leonnig, “Washington Post” reporter with yet
another big scoop on this subject, thank you for joining us on such short
notice tonight, Carol.

LEONNIG: You bet, Rachel.

MADDOW: Again, recapping what we just learned from this breaking news
story from “The Washington Post”, the president`s lawyers have been
informed by special counsel Robert Mueller that the president is a subject
of Mueller`s investigation into Russia`s interference in 2016 election.
The president is reportedly relieved to learn that he`s only the subject of
the investigation and not yet a target of the investigation. The
difference being whether or not Mueller`s investigators at the time of this
advice to Trump`s legal team believed that they had enough information to
bring criminal charges.

That, of course, is complicated by the legal fight over whether or not
anybody can bring criminal charges against a serving president. To that
end, Carol Leonnig and Robert Costa further report tonight that special
counsel Robert Mueller is preparing a report about the president`s actions
while in office and potential obstruction of justice. Noting just – they
just note late in the piece, quote, some of Trump`s advisors have warned
White House aides they fear Mueller could issue a blistering report about
the president`s actions, meaning don`t be psyched about this you, guys.

That`s important news. That`s just broken tonight from “The Washington
Post”. Again, the president is a subject of Mueller`s investigation.

I want to alert you to one other thing that happened today about a – that
we learned from a court filing. Late last night, after Joy Reid finished
sitting in for me, in the middle of the night, we got a new court filing
from Mueller`s prosecutors that related to the Paul Manafort case and you
probably heard something about this today, big headline out of that filing
today was that in addition to the publicly available document that set up
the special counsel`s office, that hired Robert Mueller and laid out the
scope of Mueller`s investigation, we learned from this new court filing
that there was also, subsequent to that public statement, establishing the
Mueller investigation, there was also another bit of instruction.

August 2nd last year, another basically sheet of instructions from Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to Bob Mueller`s office explaining to him,
confirming in writing, a whole list of specific stuff that Mueller was
cleared to look into as part of his investigation. This is the document.
It`s just been released as part of this filing and that`s it.

You see those big black boxes? What that shows you is that almost all of
this memo from August 2nd is still redacted. Those big black boxes are
places where presumably Rod Rosenstein wrote his instructions about Mueller
being cleared to investigate specific people and to look at specific lines
of criminal inquiry.

Now, the one part that they left unredacted and allowed to be seen in this
court filing were the specific instructions from Rosenstein saying that
Robert Mueller was cleared to look into Paul Manafort`s business interest
in Ukraine. Paul Manafort`s business in Ukraine have, of course, led to
dozens of criminal charges that are currently pending against him and
presumably that`s why those specific instructions from Rosenstein were
cleared as part of the court filing today.

And that`s very interesting. We didn`t know Rosenstein had given that kind
of direct, very specific instruction to Mueller as to what he was allowed
to look at. It`s also interesting because it probably torpedoes Paul
Manafort`s already fairly hopeless argument that he should be sprung and
have charges against him dropped because there was something wrong with
Mueller being the special counsel. Manafort`s argument was basically that
Mueller was running off on a wild goose chase and nobody was controlling
him and he was an unaccountable prosecutor.

Well, in this case, now, we got a direct memo showing whatever you think
about him, he`s a very accountable prosecutor. He`s answering to the
deputy attorney general about exactly what he`s pursuing.

But here is the thing I want you to know, something else from this filing
that looks to me like it`s something really important. It`s from deep in
the filing, page 42. Mueller`s prosecutors give us a couple of new pieces
of information here.

First of all, they tell us that the charges that were brought against Paul
Manafort weren`t just brought by special counsel Robert Mueller`s office
alone. The charges against Manafort were signed off on by main justice.
National security division of the Justice Department signed off on some of
the charges, tax division at the Justice Department signed off on some of
those charges.

Really? That`s interesting. Robert Mueller is not acting alone in
bringing these charges in the Russia investigation. He`s getting signoff
from, in Manafort`s case, those other two divisions at the Justice
Department for bringing these criminal charges.

And then, Mueller`s team also basically makes the case that if somehow,
magically, Robert Mueller was disappeared and the special counsel`s office
was no longer allowed to be involved in these investigations, nevertheless,
these investigations would persist. This seems very important to me.

Page 42 of the filing, quote: the senior assistant special counsel in
charge of this prosecution is a long-time career prosecutor with the
internal authority to conduct this prosecution separate and aside from his
role in the special counsel`s office. Now, it looks from this filing that
the senior assistant special counsel is probably Andrew Weissmann, long-
time Justice Department prosecutor now working with Mueller. But we
actually checked with the special counsel`s office tonight and Carol
Leonnig was right moments ago when she said that the spokesman never
confirms anything, never gives a statement.

The special counsel spokesman did tell us tonight there are a number of
people who are involved in the special counsel`s investigation who have
that title. Senior assistant counsel, including Andrew Weissmann as one of
them. If that`s true, what this means is that the special counsel`s office
is effectively asserting there that if Robert Mueller goes away, if he gets
raptured, if the whole special counsel`s office gets wrapped up and thrown
away, these prosecutions will continue.

The senior assistant special counsel in charge of this prosecution is a
long-time career prosecutor with the internal authority to conduct this
prosecution separate and aside from his role in the special counsel`s
office. We think that is about Weissmann, as it pertains to Manafort, but
we think that could pertain to any of the senior attorneys who are working
in Mueller`s office.

You make the special counsel`s office go away, those senior prosecutors
still have authority. You poof Robert Mueller somehow, this investigation
will continue.

Buried in this filing that came out late last night, there`s a blunt
assertion here from the special counsel`s office that this investigation
cannot be stopped if you stop Robert Mueller.

Now, I don`t know why Mueller`s prosecutors felt the need to publicly
assert that today on page 42 of this filing. It doesn`t seem totally
relevant to the argument specific to Paul Manafort and his trying to get
the charges thrown out, but they have spelled this out now clear as a bell.
I don`t know if that means they are expecting to be tested on this or if
they`re just warning that they shouldn`t be but this is a clear statement
that nobody can fire this investigation out of existence.

Take that in conjunction with “The Washington Post” reporting tonight that
the president has been told he is a subject of the Mueller investigation,
and make of it what you will.

We`ll post page 42 online tonight at maddowblog.com in case you haven`t
seen it. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: So, we just got in this new “Washington Post” reporting tonight
about the president and the special counsel investigation. The president`s
lawyers were reportedly advised last month that at that point, although the
president was not a target of the special counsel`s Russia investigation,
he is a subject of that investigation and the Mueller team wants to
interview him for that reason.

According to “The Washington Post” tonight, Mueller`s team also is
reportedly preparing a report on its findings thus far, specifically
pertaining to the president and the issue of obstruction of justice. We
have never heard before that they are doing that, so that seems like big
news. Again, at this point, “The Washington Post” is out ahead and alone
on that story from reporters Carol Leonnig and Robert Costa. NBC News has
not confirmed reporting, but, of course, everybody is now chasing that
story.

And it`s not like today isn`t otherwise a busy day on the same front.
Today was the first sentencing in the Mueller case. And remarkably, the
first person who is definitely going to prison in this investigation is the
son-in-law of a Russian oligarch, an oligarch who is fantastically wealthy
and influential in Russian business and government. He is known to be
personally close to Vladimir Putin.

And it`s interesting, that biographical fact about Alex van der Zwaan that
got sentenced today to 30 days in prison, that fact about him is being
treated in a lot of coverage as like a corky and interesting human interest
story about this unusual defendant. Look at that guy in the nicely cut
suit and fantastic British hairdo, British lawyer hairdo.

You know, weirdly enough he happens to be the son-in-law of a very
influential Russian oligarch. Isn`t that weird?

Whether or not it is just a coincidence that Alex van der Zwaan happens to
be the son-in-law of a Russian oligarch close to Vladimir Putin, the fact
that he is the first attorney go to prison in this investigation means it
is probably worth considering whether the Russian government might have
feelings about that. Once upon a time, about 15 years ago, the British oil
company BP announced it would form a partnership in Russia to drill for oil
in the Russian Far East. This joint venture was one of the biggest deals
in modern Russia history.

And by my use of the past tense there, you can jump to the end in your mind
because you can tell this story probably does not have a happy ending. It
did not work out. It did not work out because three Russian oligarchs who
were BP`s partners in that deal, decided that this 50/50 partnership they
had going with BP was no longer to their liking.

They decided yes, yes, they signed this partnership but frankly they wanted
either control or they wanted to be bought out at a handsome price. And
those were the only choices. And they set about making life miserable for
BP until that joint venture got broke and they got what they wanted.
People close to BP at the time blamed the problems on one of the three
Russian partners in that deal, a man named German Khan.

In 2011, WikiLeaks released some stolen U.S. State Department cables which
included one particularly lurid rundown of what it was like to do business
with German Khan. A top BP official basically briefed the U.S. embassy it
seems from this WikiLeaks cable? It seems like this BP official briefed
the U.S. embassy on what was going on with this Russian oligarch guy who
was involved in this BP partnership. And it seems like he may have given
the briefing to their embassy partially out of fear.

Quoting from that WikiLeaks cable, quote, TNK-BP, that was the joint
venture, chief operating officer Tim Summers provides insight into BP and
AAR`s negotiations. AAR would be the Russian oligarchs. BP is the other
half of the joint venture. It gives insight into these negotiations,
noting that BP CEO, Bob Dudley, is unlikely to return to Russia.

This is from the WikiLeaks cable. Summers also provides some colorful
background on the AAR partners, in particular, German Khan. Quote: Summers
said he had a complicated and difficult relationship with Khan. Khan was a
very difficult person to work with. They had flown out to Khan`s hunting
lodge which Summers said was like a Four Seasons Hotel in the middle of
nowhere.

At dinner that evening, Khan told a stunned Summers that his favorite movie
was “The Godfather” and he watched it every few months because he
considered it to be a manual for life. Summers then said Khan also came to
dinner armed with a chrome plated pistol. Summers said after the trip, he
gotten a copy of “Godfather” and now watched it on a regular basis himself,
so as to better understand German Khan and anticipate his business tactic.

He added that Khan`s aggressive but relatively simple business style was
typically Russian, where multimillion dollar deals were made in smoke-
filled rooms in a matter of hours, and only later were they turned over to
accountants to see if they made sense.

It was not a style that meshed well with BP. Quote: Khan had never felt
that BP treated him with sufficient respect and that apparently ends up
being a dangerous thing.

BP employees who are part of this joint venture started getting harassed.
More than 100 of them had their visas revoked.

The CEO of the enterprise who was managing things on the BP side, the
aforementioned Bob Dudley, he just didn`t want to come back to Russia for
no reason. He was followed. He was threatened. He was poisoned.

He had his visa revoked. He ended up sneaking out of the country in the
dead of night fearing for his life.

When “The Telegraph” newspaper in Britain obtained these U.S. State
Department cables, they wrote up this guy German Khan like he was a Bond
villain. Quote, one BP executive contended he might be certifiably
deranged.

That`s Alex van der Zwaan`s father in law. German Khan`s daughter married
Mr. Van der Zwaan in what was apparently a very lovely ceremony last year.
Mr. Khan`s granddaughter is now Alex van der Zwaan`s wife and she is
expecting their first child at the end of this summer.

Before Alex van der Zwaan turned up as a surprise defendant in the Mueller
investigation, his father-in-law German Khan had already turned up twice
before in relation to the Russian attack on the U.S. election and all the
intrigue surrounding it.

German Khan`s company Alfa was the subject of still mysterious reports
about unexplained communications between a computer server in Moscow owned
by Alfa and a computer server in Trump Tower owned by the Trump
organization. Those mysterious communications between the two computer
servers during the campaign, those remain unexplained. They may have been
just a fluke. They maybe totally unrelated to everything else that was
going on in between Russia and the Trump campaign.

But that was an early mention of German Khan and his business interest in
the scandal. He then appeared in the Christopher Steele memos, in the
dossier that was published by “BuzzFeed” in January. Mr. Khan`s name
mentioned as an oligarch particularly close to Putin, one on good enough
terms with Putin that, quote, favors continued to be done in both
directions.

Well, now his son-in-law has just been sent to prison in this country as
the first person imprisoned in conjunction with the special counsel
investigation into interference in our election. I think one might expect
that that could have political reverberations in Russia. Alex van der
Zwaan is an unfamiliar figure to American audiences but he has a very
specific gravity among very specific, very influential Russians.

I should tell you, we just got in just tonight the transcript from van der
Zwaan`s sentencing today. I don`t know – you might have heard about the
sentencing today but I`m not sure anybody else has published what happened
in the transcript of the hearing, what the judge actually said. It`s
pretty dramatic.

At one point, the judge says to Alex van der Zwaan, quote: Lying would be
wrong in any criminal investigation but this investigation also involves
important questions of great national and international interest. It
involves our country`s and probably other country`s national security and
the prospect of potential foreign interference and the democratic processes
that are fundamental to our freedoms.

So, there is not much good you can say about the nature and circumstance of
the offense. And, quote, to be fair, the defense doesn`t talk about them
much at all.

The defense has asked for a sentence that consists of a fine so that you,
the defendant, can return to your wife and start visiting your mother
again. Those facts that I`ve been asked to consider really don`t
differentiate this defendant significantly from the people who stand before
me every day. There are people who are forced to accept severe, sometimes
mandatory consequences of non-violent criminal activity, activity that
didn`t involve dishonesty, and they have been prompted by greater financial
process or the lack of opportunities and upbringing that this man enjoyed.

I often find myself sentencing individuals with ailing parents, pregnant
wives and needy children but few if any have the resources this family has
to sustain itself. I`ve been told that this defendant has been punished
enough because his life has been shattered, but this glass was dropped on a
very thick carpet and it`s cushioned the blow.

Quote, I just can`t say pay your fine at the door and go, especially given
the facts and the pre-sentence report concerning this defendant`s assets
and assistance he`s being provided now. I`m not sure it would be felt.

The judge there says the assistance he`s provided now, we think the
assistance that van der Zwaan has been getting since he got fired, he got
arrested and all the rest of it, we think the assistance he`s getting is
from his father in law, this multibillionaire Russian oligarch.

The judge continues, quote: Even if every dollar were you own, we`re not
talking about a traffic ticket here. This was lying during the course of a
criminal investigation. Being able to write a check and walk away would
not fulfill the function of deterring others and it would send the exact
wrong message.

To impose a fine or probation sentence alone would be contrary to the
policies and principles that led to the creation of the sentencing
guidelines in the first place, that people with your advantages were
getting probation and others weren`t. This criminal justice system isn`t
supposed to favor those with means and while it`s true that you did plead
guilty and it would not be fair to treat this defendant more harshly
because it`s a high profile investigation, the judge says, I have come to
the conclusion the offense warrants a period of some incarceration.

First custodial sentence, that was the sentencing today of Alex van der
Zwaan who may be totally incidentally is the son-in-law German Khan, a very
well-known Russian oligarch. But if that`s going to end up being
immaterial to the response to this imprisonment, I will be surprised.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: In 1982, the great state of Texas elected a woman as state
treasurer, the first woman to win statewide office in Texas in 50 years.
And eight years later, that`s same woman ran for Texas governor and she
won. A woman Democrat, Texas governor. It was as much of a riot as you
would expect.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANN RICHARDS (D), FORMER TEXAS GOVERNOR: I came over here because they
said y`all were getting kind of rowdy.

(CHEERS)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t know if you can see that bill but it says “a
woman`s place is in the dome” referring to, of course, the dome at the
state capital of Austin.

RICHARDS: I want to tell you how things look.

(CHEERS)

RICHARDS: It looks like as Barbara Jordan said, the people of Texas are
back.

(CHEERS)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: If you look in the background of this shot, behind the great
mighty Ann Richards, you will see somebody else who is now also a household
name in American politics. Do you know who that is? Do you recognize that
person?

Hold that thought. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: This was the state capital in Oklahoma today, second day of a huge
teacher strike taking place across most of the state. Thousands of
teachers swarmed the state capital this morning, so much that by 10:00
a.m., state troopers started turning people away. They couldn`t fit any
more people inside the state house by 10:00 a.m.

Educators in Oklahoma walked off the job yesterday to protest their very
low pay and cuts to education funding in Oklahoma. Last week, the
legislature did rush through a bill to not do much for schools but to raise
the teacher`s pay a bit. They hoped enough to get the teachers to stop
their plans for this rebellion.

But the teachers were not appeased. They don`t just want their own raises,
they want school support staff to get paid a living wage. They want more
state funding for textbooks and fixing building infrastructure. They want
Oklahoma to start actually funding education and so they are in the
streets.

And it`s not just Oklahoma. State capital of Kentucky looked the same
yesterday. Yesterday, thousands of Kentucky teachers and supporters
showing up, so many they spilled out the doors of the state capital in
Kentucky.

Teachers there are protesting changes to their pensions. They`re also
protesting further, deeper budget cuts for schools. And you can see the
kinds of turnout and the kinds of heartfelt stuff that comes up when you
start talking about funding schools and teachers. My teacher walks for me.
This teacher holding the sign that says my students are worth it. I walked
in 1990, I walk today.

If these images look a little bit familiar, because these new protests come
in Oklahoma and Kentucky this week, they come just a few weeks after the
nine-day long statewide teacher strike in West Virginia. That one lasted
until the teachers got the 5 percent raise they were looking for. It was
the largest teacher strike in the history of that state. Teachers from all
55 counties in West Virginia refused to work until they were able to get
what they came for.

The Trump era is not very old. It`s like 14 or 15 months, right? But one
of the things that this era will be remembered for is something the
president is not the author of. Big time American activism, we`re seeing
play out right now in Kentucky and Oklahoma, with these teacher strikes,
you know?

And they`re not just about teachers, parents and students also organizing
and participating here. West Virginia last month, these were all kinds of
school personnel who joined the cause, along side the teachers, bus
drivers, cooks, maintenance workers. These protests are an emotional need
of work but they are also really good organizing, hard work, well done.
These are incredible organizing feats.

Teachers are a sliver of it. Consider also the massive marches last month
against gun violence. Those marchers organized by kids, by high school
kids. We watched since the very beginning, people coming together and
protesting their member of Congress in the Trump era, calling on their
local member of Congress to hold town halls, meet with their constituents,
calling on their members Congress each and every day to meet with them.

Groups like Indivisible organizing weekly rallies to get the attention of
local members of Congress at home in their district. Local Indivisible
chapters throwing their local congressmen or congresswomen a retirement
party and then celebrating with champagne when they do in fact retire.

As more African-Americans have died at the hands of police officers across
this country, protests have continued to organize effectively against
police violence, slowing down traffic, causing towns to come to complete
standstills, stopping professional sports events, blocking people from
attending normal events, protesters continuing to make people understand
the reality of police violence in communities of color.

In this era, we`re also seeing the break down of what was long considered
normal, right? People, particularly women, feeling less afraid and more
empowered to make clear there will not be tolerance anymore for sexual
harassment and sexual assault in the workplace, no matter how powerful the
perpetrator may be.

We`re having a little golden age of American progressive activism and
accountability. That`s one of the ways this first part of Trump era will
be remembered. It`s happening right now in many different ways.

We saw it take full form on day two of the Trump era, right? Those women`s
marches that took place across the country, 2.5 million people
participating across the country and across the world the day after that
inauguration. The biggest crowds we`ve ever seen in protest in this
country. Grassroots efforts that begin right after the election became one
of the largest single day protests in history.

One of the people, the organizer of the women`s march turned to in order to
help them organize such a monumental undertaking was a very experienced
activist and service group called Planned Parenthood. Powerhouse nonprofit
dedicated to supporting reproductive health care across the country,
Planned Parenthood was the biggest sponsor of the women`s march since the
day after the inauguration.

And the person who helped make Planned Parenthood as powerful as it is
today, whose organizational efforts have helped make this century old
organization an absolute political stronghold in support of reproductive
rights in the United States is Planned Parenthood President Cecile
Richards. She`s just written a book that is a little bit about what she is
most famous for, for 12 years at the helm of Planned Parenthood.

But you should also know that more substantively and at a level of granular
and almost instructive detail, she`s written a book about how to live your
life as a political activist, especially how to live your life as a
political activist who keeps clocking up wins all the time, in surprising
circumstances, even when the odds are stacked against you. This is
something Cecile Richards she knows a lot about.

Young organizers, she helped lead a campaign to unionize janitorial staff
in L.A. She and her family launched a gigantic grassroots effort to help
her mom Ann Richards become the first woman got elected governor of Texas
for 15 years. In the Bush years, when progressives were searching for a
powerful platform to combat the George W. Bush administration, Cecile
Richards got 42 of the country`s largest progressive organizations to work
together on a big voter registration effort.

As the president of Planned Parenthood, she`s fended off a real threat from
Republicans and Democrats alike that very got close to banning all
insurance coverage for abortion in the U.S. as part of the Affordable Care
Act. That ban was going to be in Obamacare, but a big reason it`s not is
because of Cecile Richards. When Republicans tried last year to kill the
Affordable Care Act once and for all, Cecile Richards and the rest of
Planned Parenthood helped make sure that did not happen, keeping Democrats
and some Republican women, too, in line to ensure the ACA would survive.

Cecile Richards is famous because of Planned Parenthood but what you should
know is that she`s kind of a living road map for how to do activism as your
life`s work and win, way more than people think you can.

Joining us now is Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards. She`s the
author of “Make Trouble: Standing Up, Speaking Out and Finding the Courage
to Lead.”

Hi.

CECILE RICHARDS, AUTHOR, “MAKETROUBLE”: Good to see you.

MADDOW: Nice to see you, too.

Am I right to see this as a model for how to live an activist life?

RICHARDS: Well, I think it`s a little bit of a call to action and it`s a
book I wrote because so many people after the last election were saying,
now, what do I do? And I got to – and I think that the answer is do more
than you ever thought you could.

But I hope it`s also, yes, a story about being an activist. You can make
change. You can make people`s lives different. And you can also find a
lot of joy and meet amazing people along the way.

I don`t know. I hope it inspires people to do something they never thought
they would do before.

MADDOW: Well, that – I mean, my feeling, I was an activist for a long
time before I got into radio and TV and started doing a different thing.
And my – I felt like the one takeaway that I learned that isn`t just an
axiom that everybody knows about these things is that it really helps to
win, because winning helps. A, it attracts more people to do what you`re
doing.

RICHARDS: That`s right.

MADDOW: B, it`s fun. And C, it creates an idea. Even if you only win a
small thing, it creates an idea that another path is possible.

And I feel like you really spell that out in terms of like – part of the
way you win is by being good at strategy. Part of the way you also win is
at surviving and enjoying yourself, having more fun than the other side and
persistent.

RICHARD: And I think part of – yes, never giving up. And, look, if
you`re fighting for things that are hard, you`re going lose more than
you`re going to win. But when you do win, you got to claim that victory
and learn from it and move on. And I think that`s what we saw.

Look, I feel like I was here maybe a year ago, you know, after this
election that chances that Planned Parenthood would be able to stay open
under this Trump administration were – I mean, no one thought we had a
chance of winning. And it really was because people turned out in droves.
I mean, folks who had never been to a town hall meeting, never called
Congress were literally coming to Washington, D.C., and that to me –
winning that was everything. And I think it was instructive for all of
news the resistance on so many issues that we could win.

MADDOW: That point about the threat, the perceived threat and the peril
that Planned Parenthood has been in over the course of the past year raises
important questions for me about why you are leaving Planned Parenthood
right now. Will you hold on for a moment and I`ll ask you those questions
when we come back?

RICHARDS: Sure.

MADDOW: Cecile Richards is our guest. Her new book is “Make Trouble.”

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: Back with us is Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards who
is the author of “Make Trouble: Standing Up, Speaking Out and Finding the
Courage to Lead”, which is just out.

Cecile, thank you again for being here for this and congratulations on
this.

You were just talking about the fact that Planned Parenthood – a year ago,
you might not have been able to say with confidence that Planned Parenthood
would still be here, given the attacks on it from the political right in
this country. Given the peril that Planned Parenthood is in an ongoing
way, are you taking a big risk by leaving now? Is that part of the reason
you`re leaving?

RICHARDS: Oh, god, no. And I feel like look, Planned Parenthood has been
around 100 years. We`ll be around 100 more. And this administration will
go away at some point.

I think the important thing is actually and ironically for some of the
reasons that you were mentioning earlier, I think Planned Parenthood is
stronger today than it has ever been. And in fact, we`ve added of course
more than a million and a half new supporters since the Trump
administration came in, many of them young people that have never been
involved in politics or advocacy before.

So, I feel really strongly that the organization is in good shape. And
that it`s important for folks like me. I`ve had this job for 12 years.
It`s been the honor of a lifetime. I think it`s important that we make
room for a new generation of leadership.

And so, I feel good about this. I will give you this one statistic, which
I love, is that we are now have more than 11.5 million members, which is
more than twice the size of the National Rifle Association. So I`m feeling
good about that.

MADDOW: This book I think will broaden people`s understanding about your
activist chops and your organizing chops. It makes me think that you would
be – this makes me think you`re going to run for office.

Are you going run for office?

RICHARDS: I don`t have any plans to run for office. But I learned early
on never to say never. But I am completely focused on making sure that we
elect every single progressive and woman that we can in November as we`re
seeing record numbers of women running for office. And that is really
exciting and inspiring to me. And I think they – I think I can do a lot
to help them.

MADDOW: Cecile Richards, good luck on this next chapter.

RICHARDS: So good to see you. Thank you, thank you.

MADDOW: All right. The book is called “Make Trouble: Standing up,
Speaking out and Finding the Courage to Lead.” Cecile Richards, it`s just
– Cecile Richards, it`s just out.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: A little bit of late-breaking, very late-breaking election news.
This just happened. “The Associated Press” has just called a Supreme Court
race in the great state of Wisconsin. It might sound like small potatoes
for national news. But this is a race that had received a bunch of
national attention.

Eric Holder and Barack Obama formed the National Democratic Redistricting
Organization that had gotten involved in this case, pushing for a victory
by Rebecca Dallet, who was the more liberal of the two candidates for this
Wisconsin Supreme Court race. And Rebecca Dallet appears to have won that
race that will tilt the balance, the liberal conservative balance of the
Wisconsin state Supreme Court slightly more in a progressive direction.
Somewhat of a surprise tonight in Wisconsin in that statewide race.

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

Now, it`s time for “THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL.”

Good evening, Lawrence.


END



THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

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
content.