Michael Cohen raid and first day in court. TRANSCRIPT: 04/16/2018. The Rachel Maddow Show

Guests:
Mimi Rocah, Peter Stone
Transcript:

Show: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW
Date: April 16, 2018
Guest: Mimi Rocah, Peter Stone

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: You`re getting me all stressed out.

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST, “ALL IN”: Don`t be stressed, dude. You got it.
It`s going to be awesome.

MADDOW: Have you ever known me in all the time we`ve worked together, have
you ever known me to not be stressed out?

HAYES: I have not known you to not be stressed out, particularly about big
interviews, which you tend to really throw your back into.

MADDOW: Thanks, my friend.

HAYES: Good luck.

MADDOW: Yes, cheers.

Oh, great. That`s a great way to start, isn`t it? Now, I`ve been
stressing about that interview already.

Anyway, happy Monday. Thanks for joining us this hour. Happy to have you
here.

I will say, this is going to be sort of an interesting show tonight. There
are a number of things that happened in important national news today that
frankly I`m not quite sure how to talk about them. But we`re going to do
it. This is a weird time in the news. There`s no time to shy away from
the weirdness. You`ve just got to dive right in.

Let`s start with a subpoena. Let`s say you get subpoenaed by prosecutors.
That subpoena directs you to hand over documents and materials. Now, you
can fight that subpoena. You can argue over it in court.

But ultimately, the point of a subpoena is that you`re being asked, you`re
being directed to hand stuff over that is responsive to the prosecutor`s
demands.

Now, let`s say prosecutors have reason to believe that you can`t be trusted
to do that. They do want documents and materials from you because of some
investigation that you`re relevant to. They intend to get those documents
and materials, but they don`t trust you. They have reason not to trust
you.

They think if they issue you a subpoena, if they give you a demand to hand
this stuff over, they think – they have good reason to believe that you
might instead of handing them over, you might destroy those things. Or you
might hide them or you might otherwise mess up the evidence that
prosecutors are after.

If that`s the case, if prosecutors have reason t to believe that you cannot
be trusted to respond to a subpoena, they can kick it up a notch. They can
go to a judge and ask a judge to approve a search warrant instead. With a
search warrant, prosecutors are no longer asking you for anything. They`re
going into your home, your office, wherever, and they are taking what the
warrant says they can take.

Between a subpoena and a search warrant, a subpoena is definitely less
intrusive. You are asked to hand stuff over, told to hand stuff over.
With a search warrant, they`re not asking, they`re not telling, they are
going in and taking it themselves.

Well, last week, prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, federal
prosecutors, decided that they wanted to obtain materials from the
president`s personal attorney, from Michael Cohen, not by asking Cohen for
those materials or telling Cohen to hand those materials over. They
decided they were going to get those materials by taking them themselves.
And they explained why to the court.

Quote: Given that the crimes being investigated involve acts of concealment
by Michael Cohen, the U.S. attorney`s office in the Southern District of
New York sought and obtained a search warrant rather than using a subpoena
so that it would not have to rely on Cohen to accurately make such a
production.

So, this is the federal prosecutor`s office in New York City saying that
Michael Cohen, former Trump Organization executive and sometimes personal
attorney to Donald Trump maybe, they`re saying he`s under criminal
investigation and the kinds of crimes for which he is under investigation
justify getting a search warrant instead of just sending him a subpoena,
basically because they don`t trust him to respond to a subpoena. They say
the crimes they`re investigating him for involved acts of concealment.

What are those acts of concealment? What are those crimes they`re
investigating him for? We don`t know. Those are the parts that are
redacted in the court filings. And it`s always the most intriguing stuff
that`s redacted.

Quote: on April 9th, 2018, agents from the New York field office of the FBI
executed search warrants for Michael Cohen`s residence, hotel room, office,
safety deposit box, and electronic devices. The searches were authorized
by a federal magistrate judge who had found probable cause to believe that
the premises and devices searched contained evidence, fruits and
instrumentalities of conduct for which Cohen is under criminal
investigation, namely, the big black box, redacted, redacted, redacted.

Quote: each warrant was supported by a detailed affidavit and authorized by
a federal magistrate judge who found probable cause to believe that the
subject premises and devices contained evidence of” redacted, redacted,
redacted.

The U.S. attorney`s office in the southern district of New York had good
cause to execute search warrants at Cohen`s premises and seized certain
electronic devices in lieu of less intrusive means.

Why did they have that good cause to go after the stuff with the search
warrant instead of less intrusive means? Redacted, redacted, redacted.

Quote: Accordingly, the nature of the investigation and the nature of the
offenses weighed heavily in favor of the decision to execute search
warrants. Furthermore, in the course of its investigation the U.S.
attorney`s office in the southern district of New York has learned that,
redacted, redacted, redacted.

As a result, absent a search warrant, these records could have been deleted
without record.

So, they have very specific reasons, they say, why they had to go after
Michael Cohen with a search warrant. Why they used a search warrant, they
didn`t just subpoena Michael Cohen and tell him to hand this stuff over.
They have very specific reasons why they had to go that much more
aggressive route. And we have no idea what those specific reasons are,
because it`s all redacted.

But, you know, the judge in this case knows what those reasons are. And
these filings are not redacted for her. And in fact, the whole different
judge who issued the search warrants in the first place, that judge, that
federal magistrate judge also heard prosecutors` evidence for why Michael
Cohen in their estimation could not be trusted to hand over documents and
materials on his own, but had to instead go this more aggressive route, go
in and take stuff themselves without warning and without getting his
permission.

We do not know what those details are. We don`t know what crimes he is
suspected of. We don`t know what they found in their initial investigation
which led them to believe that had they not gone in and taken those
records, he might have destroyed them. They have got evidence that they
gave to these judges, but we can`t see it.

So, there is this riveting spectacle and scandal here, right? We the
public can see the fight happening. And in fact, on a day like today, we
can see that it was becoming a desperate fight, including by the president.

But we can`t necessarily tell what is leading to the desperation. We can`t
tell what`s in those black boxes. That appears to be freaking everybody
out so much.

“The New York Times” over the last few days has described this fight over
Michael Cohen and the FBI raiding his office. “The New York Times” is
describing this based on multiple sources as something that the president
perceives to be a more imminent threat to him than the special counsel
investigation led by Robert Mueller. Imagine knowing what we know about
the Robert Mueller investigation and then deciding that there`s a legal
threat that`s worse than that.

This case has led to strange revelations already, including the fact that
the president`s lawyer, Michael Cohen, now says he facilitated a gigantic
$1.6 million payoff to the mistress of a Republican donor whose name has
already come up nine ways to Sunday in conjunction with the Mueller
investigation and who just resigned as deputy finance chair of the National
Republican Party. Incidentally, Michael Cohen himself is still a deputy
finance chair of the National Republican Party, even though we now know
that he`s under federal criminal investigation and getting raided by the
FBI.

At some point, will the RNC see it as a problem, that one of their deputy
national finance chairmen paid a – arranged a $1.6 million hush money
payment for the mistress of another one of their national finance co-chairs
and the one with the mistress resigned, but the one who arranged the
payment and is under federal criminal investigation, he`s still on the RNC?
At some point, the National Republican Party should probably have to at
least explain that if not explain it away.

We also learned today that Michael Cohen admits to having only three
clients in his legal practice over the past year. He admits to having
President Trump as a client. Also, the Republican Party finance co-chair
guy with the mistress, Elliott Broidy.

And the third client of his one-man law firm, he tried today to keep secret
in court, saying his third client had directed him to appeal any effort to
make his name public. But then in court today we got the name of Cohen`s
third client made public. And honestly, don`t even ask me to tell you what
it means, that it`s Sean Hannity. But it`s Sean Hannity from the Fox News
Channel.

Mr. Hannity has apparently been covering Michael Cohen`s role in this
story, in this scandal for months, including the FBI raid on Michael Cohen
last week, without ever disclosing that Michael Cohen is his lawyer.
Again, don`t even ask me. I have no idea.

This is like every day you get up, take a shower, get dressed, you go out
to the driveway to start the car. Every day`s the same, you do this every
single day of your life except today you got in the car, you put the key
into the – to start the engine – you put the key into the dashboard, you
went to turn it to start the engine like you do every day, and today, this
time the engine didn`t start and instead terrifying circus music started
playing and the hood flew up and clowns and monkeys and elephants flew out
instead. Like what? It`s who? You know, sure, go ahead, make sense of
that, why don`t you?

So, the news has gone weird. When the going gets weird, the weird turn
pro. But the law is still pretty orderly, and I have to tell you, we just
got the transcript of what happened in this insane court hearing today.

There`s no cameras. There`s no recordings of what happens in federal
court. But we`ve got the transcript here. And in a way, it`s sort of – I
don`t know if it`s comforting.

It is nutty that the personal lawyer of the president of the United States
is under criminal investigation. And it`s nutty that criminal
investigation or at least the effort by federal prosecutors to obtain
documentation related to that investigation reportedly includes the porn
star who the president`s lawyer says he paid off right before the election
to keep her from talking about her alleged sexual relationship with the
president and both Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen were there in court
today in person at the same time.

And then the prosecutor`s case for why it was OK for them to have raided
this lawyer for the president it is the prosecutor`s contention that, A,
they really need to raid the president`s lawyer and B, honestly, he`s not
doing much lawyering anyway. And part of the way that all gets spelled out
in correlate was with the president`s lawyer revealing his previously
secret dealings with the over-the-top pro-Trump cable news host and the
deputy finance chairman of the RNC and his mistress and her abortion. It`s
all nuts. It`s nuts.

But I will tell you it is an odd little bit of comfort that in court, even
in a case this crazy, it at least all gets sorted out in a sort of orderly
fashion.

Quote, Judge Kimba Wood: With respect to the client`s name being withheld,
that is not in accord with the law in this circuit. If you have a reason
for that client`s name to be treated under seal, you`ll tell me. Yes.

Then Steve Ryan stands up, who`s representing Michael Cohen: Your Honor,
Steve Ryan. With respect to that client, the client is a publicly
prominent individual. The representation was legal in analysis. With
regard to naming that person now, the concern was that even if we put it in
a sealed proceeding right now, that it might be released. If we could
count on that not being released to the public, at this point, no one would
want to be associated with the fact that they were a client in this way
because of the notoriety around this search warrant.

We`re protecting the identity of that person but not from the court and not
from an in-camera review by the court. I can give you that name right now
in a sealed envelope and provide it to the court. The client was contacted
over the weekend and asked that we not disclose their name, and further
that we take an appeal if the court was going to make that name public.

And the judge says: What`s the legal ground for withholding the client`s
name?

Steve Ryan says: the legal ground, your honor, is first of all Mr. Cohen`s
duty to the client under the bar codes that we`ve presented the court with.

The judge says: Well, remember that what we deal with here is federal law
and Second Circuit law.

Mr. Cohen`s lawyer says: No, no, understood. I`m talking about the bar
rules, meaning legal ethics rules that govern Mr. Cohen`s conduct in terms
of releasing the name.

The judge said: Well, if I order that it be released, he has no problem
with respect to his own ethics.

Cohen`s lawyer says, quote: If we give it to you and I have some assurance
that we`re not violating that client`s right not to be disclosed publicly
today, then I can do this. I can write it down and put it in an envelope
right now.

The judge says: All right. If you hand the name up, I`ll maintain it under
seal. But it seems to me the government, perhaps just Mr. McKay, the
leader prosecutor, should know who it is so he can identify whether that
person had any responsive documents.

And now in the transcript, new character. Mr. Balin. Who are you?

Mr. Balin: Your Honor, I apologize for interrupting. I`m a lawyer
representing the press. ABC, “The New York Times”, “Associated Press”,
CNN, and “Newsday”.

The judge says, quote: I think you`d better come to the podium.

Mr. Balin says, quote: I think I`d better too, your honor. I`ve sat and
listened until we got to the point where I realized there`s a public access
issue here. Your honor, I`m Robert Balin from Davis Wright Tremaine.
Thank you very much.

He says: There is no credible claim that this client`s mere identity is
attorney-client privileged information. Michael Cohen makes the argument
that it would be embarrassing to be associated with what he terms a raid at
a house, in a home. Your Honor, I hardly need to remind the court of the
intense public interest in the issues that are currently before this court.
I look around and I see that every other seat is occupied by a member of
the press.

Ultimately, however your honor rules – excuse me. Ultimately, however
your honor rules, the public is going to want to know the basis for your
honor`s ruling. That`s the very nature of the First Amendment access
right, so that we the people and the press can monitor our institutions and
have a rational basis for agreeing or disagreeing. And I hesitate to add,
your honor, that I suspect, no matter how you rule, those in the public
will agree or disagree. That`s what we do in society.

Finally, your honor, I would make one last point. It was Justice Burger
who I think put it well. People in our open society do not demand
infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to
accept what they are prohibited from observing. That was in Winston
newspapers v. Virginia many years ago.

Your honor, I see no basis for denying public access. If your honor is
going to order disclosure of this name, I see no basis for denying public
access to that name.

Drama. So we get this new character in the middle of – the guy just pops
up, hey, your honor, can I be heard here?

This is the lawyer for news organizations coming in and pressing this
point. The judge at this point has basically agreed that she`s going to
take the name in a sealed envelope. The lawyer for the press comes in and
says, if you`re going to take that name, there`s no good argument, there`s
no good legal precedent for keeping that name from the public. The secret
name of Michael Cohen`s secret third client in his legal business, if
that`s going to be disclosed to the court, it should be disclosed to the
people.

And they go on in the transcript, they argue about it for a few more pages
at that point, but ultimately, the judge makes the call right there in
front of everybody in the courtroom today, which leads to everybody in the
courtroom gasping.

Quote, the court, said the judge, quote: I just don`t understand the
argument that just because this undisclosed client consulted Michael Cohen,
that that is somehow embarrassing or an invasion of privacy. That`s not
enough under case law. And I don`t understand it factually. I understand
that the client doesn`t want his name out there. But that`s not enough
under the law.

Mr. Harrison arguing for Mr. Cohen: I understand, your honor. We
understand Mr. Cohen and frankly derivatively our ethical obligations to be
as we laid them out on our letter of 10:00 a.m. But if the court disagrees
and rules against us, we`ll do whatever the court directs us to do.

And then the judge says, quote: I`m directing you to disclose the name now.
Steve Ryan, representing Michael Cohen, stands up and says: do you want me
to stand and say it or should I give you the piece of paper that you told
me to write? The judge says: whatever you`re most comfortable with –
whereupon Steve Ryan, representing Michael Cohen says: the client`s name
that`s involved is Sean Hannity. And the judge says: thank you.

NBC reporter Tom Winters report from inside the courtroom at that point.
I`ll just read you what he – he sent us like a dispatch from the court.

Quote: When Steve Ryan, attorney for Michael Cohen, disclosed the name of
the mysterious third client, Sean Hannity, those gathered in the courtroom
gasped. The mouths of reporters dropped open, some struggled not to laugh.

I still am struggling not to laugh. This has been a very weird day in the
news. One of the anchors at the major pro-Trump news network has had an
undisclosed relationship with the president`s lawyer all this time while
Fox has not told that to its audience and while Mr. Hannity and Mr. Cohen
have apparently spent considerable effort trying to keep that relationship
secret. What? That`s just lurid.

But then there`s also the matter of this ongoing legal proceeding which
does appear to be freaking the president out.

Here`s my questions: Is there good reason for the president to be freaked
out, for the president to be more concerned about this legal matter
involving Michael Cohen than he is about the Mueller investigation? I
mean, the president did succeed last week in finally hiring a new lawyer.
But he hired that new lawyer for this Michael Cohen case, not for the
Russia investigation. So, that`s one question. Is the president right to
be as alarmed by this case as it seems like he is?

Second question: now that prosecutors got all this material from Michael
Cohen with a search warrant, how much does it matter if they now have to
show that material to the president and/or Michael Cohen? That`s what the
bulk of today`s fighting was about. Now that they`ve got all that material
seized by search warrant, how important is it if it goes to the president
and Michael Cohen in addition to prosecutors being able to review it
themselves?

And how important is it to this case and to the president`s potential legal
jeopardy here if prosecutors are right and Michael Cohen may have a law
degree but he isn`t really doing much lawyering these days? How crucial is
that to how much trouble the president might be in here? All answerable
questions, it turns out.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: In federal court in New York today, lawyers for the president and
for his own long-time personal lawyer Michael Cohen argued before a federal
judge that prosecutors shouldn`t be allowed to see documents and recordings
that the FBI seized last week from Cohen`s office, home, hotel room and
safe deposit box. Federal prosecutors in the southern district of New York
are reportedly looking into Cohen`s business dealings and finances
potentially related to bank fraud, wire fraud, maybe even violations of
campaign finance laws.

And after that search warrant was executed and Cohen`s premises were
raided, attorneys for Michael Cohen and for president Trump argued in court
today that they should be able to review the material that was seized in
the raid before federal prosecutors get a look at it because they said they
need to make sure that they can protect any materials that should be kept
confidential because of attorney-client privilege.

The judge in this case today in this remarkable hearing, Judge Kimba Wood,
she denied their request for a temporary restraining order but she did
leave open the possibility at the end of the day today that she`s going to
appoint a new person, a special master, to look at all of the seized
documents to see if in fact any of them should be kept away from
prosecutors. That sounds like the sort of thing I`ve heard of before. I
don`t know how normal or abnormal that is. And I don`t know how to think
about whether or not the president should be treated like a normal party to
a lawsuit like this or whether he should be seen as somebody treated
differently because he`s the president.

Joining us now is a former prosecutor with the U.S. attorney`s office for
the Southern District of New York, Mimi Rocah.

Ms. Rocah, thank you very much for being here.

MIMI ROCAH, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY:
Thanks for having me.

MADDOW: A special master being appointed to look at stuff, to see whether
or not prosecutors can ultimately look at it themselves, I`ve heard the
term special master before, so I know this is not something they`re
inventing for this process. How unusual would it be in this case?

ROCAH: It is unusual, but not unprecedented. I think the case that was
spoken about a lot today in court and maybe people have read about it in
the newspaper a little bit, is the Lynn Stewart case. That was a case
where there was a special master appointed but it was a very different case
and the government today spent a lot of time distinguishing in court why
the Lynn Stewart case is different, because in that case, not only in that
case was the lawyer being criminally prosecuted but she had a lot of real
criminal clients which Mr. Cohen doesn`t have, who were criminal defendants
in cases before – pending in the Southern District of New York. So, there
was a lot of potential for real attorney-client privilege issues to arise.

And so, I`m summarizing it, but there were a lot of valid reasons to have a
special master in that, to review all the materials in the first instance.
That`s not the case here. And, you know, I think that the government made
that case, and it seems like the judge has agreed with that in large part
because she seems to be denying the request in the first instance for the
defense to review the materials.

She has not said no to a special master although my sense is that she`s
looking at it in kind of a combination, like she`s not going to have a
special master in the way it was in the Lynn Stewart case where the special
master reviews everything in the first instance, but more she`s going to
let the party start doing the review, the filter team and the defense, kind
of simultaneously on a rolling basis. It seems like she said the
government has to turn over the materials that they`ve taken to the defense
so they can start reviewing them and they can start making their claims, if
you will, or motions is usually the way it`s done.

But here, they would sort of – this body of documents is privileged. And
then maybe go to a special master to say, OK, we have a dispute over these
documents, these set of –

MADDOW: I see. So, as a neutral party at that point the special master
could be not brought in when there`s a point of contention.

ROCAH: Correct.

MADDOW: I see.

ROCAH: And judges always want parties to try to work things out as much as
they can between or amongst themselves. Doesn`t seem like there`s a lot of
possibility of that here, but maybe, you know, by having the parties
starting to do that on their own and then bringing the really disputed ones
to the special master and there will be some where the special master could
say this is easy, not privileged. And there might be somewhere it`s a
closer call and then maybe Judge Wood is the one to make the call on that.

MADDOW: So it does sound a little bit to a non-lawyer, it does sound a
little like appointing a mini judge whereas this stuff could maybe just be
handled with a judge.

ROCAH: That is a great analogy.

MADDOW: And the other way in which we`ve got an interesting overlap
between like real life and legal life here is that there is all of this
sort of salacious and occasionally embarrassing detail about Michael Cohen
not being much of a lawyer, about him not having very many clients. We
have had very unusual strange disclosure today that one of his three
clients is a cable news host who has been covering –

ROCAH: I heard that.

MADDOW: It was an unusual moment. The other two clients he admits to are
the president and this Republican donor who he says he handled mistress
hush money payment thing for. So, we`re getting all this detail about
Michael Cohen`s legal practice. And the reason we are getting it is
because it seems to me prosecutors are trying to say not much of a lawyer.

So, when we raid this guy`s stuff, we`re not going to get a lot of legal
documents.

ROCAH: Exactly.

MADDOW: So, I feel like the real world impact of that is a lot of
embarrassment to a lot of people but the legal reason for it is basically
because prosecutors want to be able to say, don`t treat this guy like a
lawyer, we should be able to look at all this stuff.

ROCAH: Yes, they`re basically trying to put – you know, show the sham, if
you will. They`re saying, judge, they`re – he`s trying to use the fact
that the main target here is a lawyer as a shield and that`s a phrase
that`s often used in law and in courts. You can`t use it as a shield.

MADDOW: Legitimate attorney-client privilege is a narrow thing. Just
having a lawyer in the room doesn`t mean you can commit a crime with
nothing being discoverable.

ROCAH: And this comes up a lot, I hate to say it, in organized crime
cases. That is something people are talking about. But it does come up a
lot because people in organized crime families do tend to try to shield
themselves from, you know, scrutiny of investigators by having a lawyer in
the room. And they really do seem to think that just having the lawyer in
the room or having a lawyer pass a message or something like that will
protect them. And it doesn`t because the attorney-client privilege is
usually important and prosecutors and judges take it extremely seriously
but it is narrow.

As you say, you have to have a real attorney-client confidential
relationship where I`m seeking legal advice. It does not seem – and I`m
sure it`s not that it`s never happened. But it doesn`t seem like Mr. Cohen
is someone that you go to when, you know, you have a real legal tough
problem that you want an answer to. It just doesn`t seem like it.

And beyond seeming, they`re really showing that –

MADDOW: Yes.

ROCAH: – in the nature of the few clients that he has, the type of
representation matters he`s been involved in, which is not legal
representation, but more being this fixer and almost a businessman really.
And, you know, just because you have a law degree, if you`re acting like a
businessman, though, it doesn`t – it doesn`t shield you.

MADDOW: Then the law`s going to treat you like a businessman.

ROCAH: Exactly.

MADDOW: Mimi Rocah, former prosecutor with the U.S. attorney`s office in
the Southern District of New York, which now has quite a spotlight – thank
you for helping us through this. Much appreciated.

ROCAH: Thank you.

MADDOW: All right. Much more to come tonight. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AD ANNOUNCER: Trump wants us to think he`s Mr. Tell-It-Like-It-Is. But he
has a record. And it`s very liberal. He`s really just playing us for
chumps.

Trump, just another politician.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: The conservative Never Trump movement spent millions of dollars on
ads like that trying to avert a Trump win during the presidential contest.
One of the people who was at the center of that Never Trump campaign was a
Republican pollster and political strategist named John Lerner.

Despite his Never Trump history, though, John Lerner ended up getting a job
in the Trump administration. Apparently, you can see him here at a White
House briefing on Thursday. He is seated behind U.N. Ambassador Nikki
Haley over there at the Trump end of the table.

John Lerner as a pollster helps Nikki Haley get elected governor in South
Carolina back in 2010. Now that Nikki Haley has moved to the U.N. where
she`s U.N. ambassador, he has gone to the U.N. with her. He`s her deputy
in that job.

The same day as that picture was taken in the Situation Room, we learned
that John Lerner was also up for a new job. He was up for a second job
that he was going to add on to his old one.

Quote: John Lerner, deputy to Nikki Haley, will lead Vice President Mike
Pence`s foreign policy team and advise him on all national security issues.
Significantly, Mr. Lerner will also keep his job working for Nikki Haley,
dividing his time between the two principals and coordinating between the
two teams. The two officials will have the same key adviser on national
security.

The vice president reportedly picked John Lerner for this job, quote, after
months of searching.

According to this telling, Vice President Mike Pence spent months searching
for a new national security adviser and after this months-long search, he
found a new national security adviser who has no national security
experience. Who did you consider and reject? But he did find a guy who
has done a tremendous job of getting Nikki Haley into positions of power
and who did his best to defeat Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.

The president apparently went bonkers over the news that a pollster
involved in the Never Trump campaign would now have a prominent place in
the vice president`s office as Vice President Pence`s national security
adviser. The Website “Axios” reports a furious President Trump saying,
“Why would Mike do that?”

Did not seem to matter that this pollster, Mr. Lerner, had the support of
other top officials, including John Bolton, the president`s national
security adviser, and Mike Pompeo, who is the ex-CIA chief and is now a
nominee to be the next secretary of state. It also apparently did not
matter that Mr. Lerner has since vocally backed Mr. Trump`s “America First”
agenda.

If you were ever a Never Trump guy, that meant you were the Never Trump
guy. Never Trump meant the Never Trump pollster.

Last night, the incoming national security adviser with no experience in
national security, the one Vice President Pence spent months searching for,
the one he meant to share in a job share with the U.N. ambassador, today
that would-be double job holder instead took himself out of contention.
Mr. Lerner will not be taking on that gig. The vice president expressed
his deep gratitude for Mr. Lerner`s willingness to consider joining the
vice president`s team. But he won`t be joining it after all.

“New York Times” says John Lerner will continue working for ambassador
Nikki Haley and will just informally advise the Pence team, which, of
course, will still make the next White House briefing he attends just this
side of awkward. Just saying.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: There`s been a lot of time and energy and ink spilled over the
last 15 months or so over what the term “collusion” actually means. But
the allegations about Michael Cohen that are contained in the Christopher
Steele dossier, the allegations that Donald Trump`s personal attorney
Michael Cohen met with Russian officials in Prague during the presidential
campaign to facilitate payments to Kremlin-controlled hackers who were
interfering in the election to help Trump, I don`t care how good you are at
linguistic gymnastics. I think we could all agree that that would
absolutely be collusion.

If you were trying to come up with a case study to prove to somebody that
collusion could be a thing, it`s the kind of thing you would admit. Let`s
say the president sent his personal lawyer over to a third country to go
meet with Kremlin guys to go pay off the people who were doing the dirty
work to help Trump in the election. I mean, that`s what you`d invent in
order to explain here`s how collusion might work.

But that allegation about Michael Cohen in the Steele dossier, it remains
just an allegation. Along with lots of other things in the dossier that
are just still allegations. From the very first day Christopher Steele`s
dossier became public, Michael Cohen had a very simple rebuttal to that
allegation about him in Prague. And helpfully, he knew a guy who could
help him get his rebuttal out there.

Today, we learned that that guy is also one of Michael Cohen`s clients. It
would have been good to know that before, but we finally found out today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: In the report posted on “BuzzFeed” it claims
that Trump`s lawyer, Michael Cohen, met with Kremlin representatives in
Prague in August of 2016. One small little itsy-bitsy problem, Michael
Cohen has never been to Prague. Ever.

Wait a minute. Am I allowed to look at it? I don`t want to joke about it
because it`s serious in your life.

MICHAEL COHEN, TRUMP PERSONAL LAWYER: It`s very serious in my life.

HANNITY: But this is your passport.

COHEN: Yes, it is.

HANNITY: Let`s go back to yesterday. You got called by –

COHEN: Mr. Trump.

HANNITY: And Mr. Trump asked you?

COHEN: Were you ever in Prague?

HANNITY: And your answer was?

COHEN: Never.

HANNITY: In your whole life?

COHEN: I – no. I`ve never been in Prague.

HANNITY: And he wanted to see your passport.

COHEN: So, he said Michael, I really need to know. I said Mr. Trump, I
have never been to Prague. He said to me, OK. I said do you want to see
my passport? I live close to the office.

HANNITY: Right.

COHEN: And he said, yes. Do you mind if I see it? I said of course not.
You`re the president-elect. I`ll be there in about two minutes.

HANNITY: I don`t mean to laugh, but it`s just – these people – I did an
opening monologue just in the last segment how journalism is dead. It`s
buried.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Dead. It`s buried.

Do you think that was a billable hour for Michael Cohen? I mean, he has –
he has a meeting with Sean Hannity, right? That`s Sean Hannity meeting
with his lawyer on national television without disclosing that the guy he
was interviewing was actually his own lawyer. Did somebody bill for that?
Journalism is dead.

This is where things have stood for the last 15 months or so on this
allegation against Michael Cohen. That`s in the Christopher Steele
dossier. I mean, Michael Cohen`s passport, even if we could see the inside
of it, it wouldn`t prove one way or another if he had ever been to Prague,
but certainly nobody`s been able to disprove his assertion that he`s never
been there.

And that`s been a sort of central talking point for calling the entire
dossier into question. People who say that the dossier is a bunch of lies,
it`s all disproven. There`s very few specific things that anybody says
that definitely didn`t happen and it`s in the dossier. But Michael Cohen
saying he never went to Prague, that`s kind of the one big factual rebuttal
that anybody has come up with about what`s wrong with the Steele dossier.

Well, that definitely didn`t happen. Cohen says he`s never been to Prague.
Therefore, the dossier`s in question.

That`s why this story by Peter Stone and Greg Gordon at “McClatchy” has
ended up being such a big deal. You might have missed this story when it
came out on Friday. It came out right before president Trump announced he
was bombing Syria.

The piece says this, quote: the Justice Department special counsel has
evidence that Donald Trump`s personal lawyer and confidant Michael Cohen
secretly made a late summer trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential
campaign according to two sources familiar with the matter. Confirmation
of the trip would lend credence to a retired British spy`s report that
Cohen strategized there with a powerful Kremlin figure about Russian
meddling in the U.S. election.

Investigators have traced evidence that Cohen entered the Czech Republic
through Germany, apparently during August or early September 2016, as
Steele reported. Cohen would not have needed a passport for such a trip.

This weekend, in a tweet, Mr. Cohen again denied that he has ever been to
Prague. But if this central claim that he and his allies have been making
for months and months and months about why the whole dossier is a mess, if
that central claim is falling apart, you can understand why maybe that raid
on Michael Cohen by federal investigators last week might have the
president so on edge.

Joining us now is Peter Stone, special correspondent for “McClatchy”, one
of the reporters who broke this story.

Mr. Stone, I really appreciate your time tonight. Thank you for being
here.

PETER STONE, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, MCCLATCHY: Thank you. It`s a
pleasure.

MADDOW: So your story came out on Friday in what was a more insane than
normal news cycle. That was the day – the night that the president
announced the new military action against Syria. I`m talking to you about
this on Monday. This story has now been out there for a few days. Michael
Cohen has since reiterated his denial that he`s ever been to Prague.

I have to ask if you stand by your reporting and what you make of his
denial.

STONE: Well, we do stand by the story. We actually worked on it on and
off for a few months and put a lot of time and energy into locating two
sources who we trusted who were familiar with the inquiry. And we believe
that the story is solid. We noted that this was evidence that the FBI and
special counsel had. There were still questions to be answered. And I
think the story stands up on that basis.

I don`t think Cohen has explained his whereabouts in this time period that
the dossier alludes to. He`s as you say said repeatedly and vehemently
that he`s not ever been to Prague. The evidence he`s provided thus far is
a six-day period in late August where he claims he was in L.A. with his son
from August 23rd to 29th. But he hasn`t provided solid information to
investigators, at least as far as we know, that indicated where he was in
that broader time period of three or four weeks. I don`t think his claim
that it`s – the trip has been disproven by what he`s shown stands up at
all.

MADDOW: Based on your reporting, you said you`ve got a couple of sources
who are familiar enough with the investigation to be able to tell you that
the FBI and special counsel`s office have evidence of Cohen`s trip to
Prague in this specific time period. Are you also able to tell us anything
about what is known about Mr. Cohen`s actions there, about his behavior,
what he was doing there, who he may have met there, whether anything else
that`s described in the dossier might track with the evidence that the FBI
now has?

STONE: So far, we don`t have that confirmed. I think it`s a fairly major
revelation that we`ve now found out based on a couple of sources that he
did indeed go to Prague. We found out how he entered the country without
detection, that is, going through Germany to enter the Czech Republic.

It`s unclear whether the other parts of the allegations in the dossier
about a meeting with Russians and hackers is fully – is confirmed. The
dossier has a lot of detail about that, rather startling detail,
indicating, you know, the origins of some of the hackers. One or more were
from Romania supposedly. The Russian who was there allegedly was a quite
prominent figure in the Russian legislature. All of that still needs to be
verified as far as we know.

MADDOW: Peter Stone, special correspondent for “McClatchy”, thank you for
helping us understand this reporting. I`ll look forward to the – I look
forward to what you find out next, sir. Thanks very much for being here.

STONE: Thanks very much. Bye-bye.


MADDOW: We`ll be right back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: SCIF, S-C-I-F, stands for sensitive compartmented information
facility. The White House information room is a SCIF. It`s probably the
most famous one.

In order for something to be called a SCIF, it has to meet a ton of
technical requirements. The whole point is it`s safe and protected from
any attempted surveillance or eavesdropping. So it has to meet strict
requirements to make sure that`s the case. Sensitive compartmented
information facility, SCIF.

Last year, “The Washington Post” reported that Scott Pruitt installed a
private sound booth in his office as EPA administrator. First reports were
it cost around $25,000. It actually ended up costing taxpayers about
$43,000.

Now, cabinet officials are not allowed to spend tens of thousands to
upgrade their offices. By law, they get $5,000 a year to like switch out
the curtain and buy a new desk lamp or whatever. So, when “The Washington
Post” broke the news about Scott Pruitt installing a $43,000 cone of
silence in his office, that was a problem. The way they pushed back
against people calling this problem was by saying, OK, yes, maybe we spent
money but it was not a new lamp and a new set of curtains.

Their push back was that that $43,000 paid for a SCIF because the EPA
administrator needed one in his office to do his job.

(BEGINB VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DIANA DEGETTE (D), COLORADO: The press account said you installed a
$25,000 soundproof booth in your office at EPA headquarters. Is that – is
that true?

SCOTT PRUITT, EPA ADMINISTRATOR: It`s a secure phone line.

DEGETTE: So, it`s a SCIF, what we call a sensitive compartmental
information facility.

PRUITT: Yes.

DEGETTE: Did you do that because part of the EPA`s mission involves
classified information?

PRUITT: Yes, ma`am.

DEGETTE: OK.

PRUITT: Part of that, but also communications at the White House. There`s
secure conversations that need to take place at times –

DEGETTE: So, you believe it`s appropriate to use the SCIF to talk to the
White House.

PRUIT: I believe that there are secure conversations that need to take
place that I didn`t have access to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: OK, so it`s a SCIF. Yes, it`s a SCIF.

Now, the EPA already has a SCIF at their headquarters before Scott Pruitt
ever got there, they had one. It`s still there. As far as we know, it`s
not broken. But Pruitt argued that separate and apart from the SCIF that
EPA already had, he needed his own. He needed to spend over $43,000 of
taxpayer money so he could have his own, in his office, next to his desk
for EPA security emergencies.

Well, today, the Government Accountability Office put out a report about
Scott Pruitt`s magic sound booth. They determined that the EPA broke the
law when they installed that $43,000 bat cave because it did go over that
$5,000 spending cap that he had for changing stuff up in his office.

But then they also arrived at a much more difficult to explain conclusion.
That super pricy state-of-the-art SCIF that Scott Pruitt says he needs to
do his job to protect his EPA secrets, it might not actually even be a
SCIF. Quote: The EPA did not state whether the booth has been certified as
a SCIF.

Ever since the EPA started defending this expensive sound booth to the
taxpayers, the sound booth you and I bought for Scott Pruitt, nobody at the
EPA has been able to explain what makes this thing a SCIF, nobody has been
able to show any proof that it even qualifies as a secure, safe, un-
hackable place where Scott Pruitt can take all those secret phone calls
from the White House that he says he gets.

Saying the word SCIF over and over doesn`t just make something a SCIF. But
they`re trying.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: We started off the show tonight with the transcript from this
remarkable court hearing that happened in federal court in Lower Manhattan
today, federal district court judge hearing arguments in this criminal case
involving the president`s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. It was not only
a remarkable case because we got the disclosure that one of Cohen`s
previously undisclosed legal clients is a cable news host who talks about
Mr. Cohen all the time without ever disclosing that Cohen is also his
lawyer.

It was also remarkable because in the room at the same time as Michael
Cohen was Stormy Daniels and her lawyer, there in the same room all
together at the same time since the Stormy Daniels hush money settlement
became such a gigantic legal headache for the president.

Stormy Daniels` lawyer, Michael Avenatti, will be joining “THE LAST WORD
WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL” which starts right now.

Good evening, Lawrence.


END



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

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.>