Jackson withdraws from nomination for VA Sec. TRANSCRIPT: 04/26/2018. The Rachel Maddow Show

Guests:
Robert McDonald
Transcript:

Show: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW
Date: April 26, 2018
Guest: Robert McDonald

HAYES: That is “ALL IN” for this evening.

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts right now.

Good evening, Rachel.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: That was a super, super compelling fascinating
interview, Chris. My god.

HAYES: I`m really like – it`s really moving. Amazing.

MADDOW: Yes, goose bumps. Incredible. Thanks.

HAYES: Thanks.

MADDOW: Well done.

And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. So has there been
enough news for you today or would you like some more?

Right now as I speak North Korea and South Korea are holding a summit on
the border between those countries. It`s daytime there, daylight right
now, because it`s tomorrow in terms of the time difference. Obviously,
this is very, very, very high stakes – excuse me – historical diplomacy.

And it comes on a day when the United States government has confirmed a new
secretary of state, former Republican congressman and immediate former CIA
Director Mike Pompeo. Mr. Pompeo was confirmed today, and then he left
immediately for a NATO meeting in Brussels.

The White House today released these photos of Mr. Pompeo meeting with and
shaking hands with the North Korean dictator on a secret trip that he took
last month. Pompeo`s confirmation by the Senate today and the North and
South Korea Senate that`s happening right now as I speak, it comes just
weeks before what is apparently still planned to be a meeting between Kim
Jong un, the North Korean dictator, and our own President Trump.

Now, President Trump did not have his most cool, calm, and collected day
today. So this little preview tonight of the president`s own meeting with
one of the most notorious and unpredictable nuclear armed dictators in the
world, it`s not a relaxing feeling to know that our president in his
current state of mind is about to sit down with that guy.

But it`s been a lot of – it`s been an unsettling day of news. It`s also
been a day with tons of news in it. Pompeo confirmed as secretary of
state. So, he`s going to be taking over that critical agency after a year
that is considered by everyone on all sides to have been a disaster for the
State Department under Trump`s first secretary of state, Rex Tillerson.

Today also, the president`s nomination of the White House doctor to be V.A.
secretary, that nomination collapsed and was withdrawn. In the aftermath
of that disaster, it is not clear what`s going to happen to the V.A., and
honestly, it`s not clear whether Ronny Jackson can keep being the White
House doctor anymore, not after what we learned about his tenure there,
thanks to the scrutiny that came from this failed nomination effort. We
will have more on that coming up tonight. And we`ve got a really good
interview on that subject tonight.

Today, we also saw the EPA administrator pop his head above ground for the
first time in weeks, since he started to become a daily Old Faithful geyser
of astonishing ethics scandals, a new one every day. Line up and watch
while the new one erupts. Scott Pruitt spent a long-awaited day at the
Capitol today, getting yelled at by members of Congress all day long.

There is one matter on which Scott Pruitt testified today where he appears
to just be flat out lying to Congress. We will have that story coming up
tonight as well, with some new reporting you have not heard on that.

And, of course, today, a huge moment in American culture and criminal law,
with legendary American comedian and actor Bill Cosby being convicted in a
Pennsylvania courtroom on three felony charges. Dozens of women, of
course, have come forward in the past few years to accuse Bill Cosby of a
remarkable series – excuse me, a remarkably similar set of allegations.
Dozens of women have come forward and accused Cosby of drugging and
assaulting them or drugging and raping them.

Only one of those claims, by Andrea Constand in Pennsylvania, resulted in
criminal charges being brought against Mr. Cosby. Charges were brought
against Cosby in the Constand case in December 2015, just a few days before
the statute of limitations would have meant that she couldn`t pursue
recourse in court either. But those charges were filed within the 12-year
statute of limitations in Pennsylvania for charges of this nature, and he
was convicted on all three, and with today`s three felony convictions, Mr.
Cosby is facing up to a maximum of 30 years in prison. That said, he and
his lawyers say emphatically that they will appeal.

So like I said, totally normal news day, right? I mean, even if you don`t
get to the release of some of the very last government files on the JFK
assassination, which also happened today, and even if you don`t get to the
huge teacher walkouts that happened in two big states today. Actually, we
will get to those a little bit later on.

And then there`s the speaker of the house, Paul Ryan, inexplicably firing
the chaplain from Congress today. And nobody knows why.

I mean, in a normal presidency the seemingly inexplicable and thus far
totally mysterious firing of the chaplain in Congress by the speaker of the
house, that would be a week`s worth of news, right? Tonight, in our lives
now, in this presidency, yes, you`ve just got to like put that in the file
because hey, we`ve got a whole bunch of stuff going off like roman candles
inside a phone booth right now, we`ve got other stuff to get to.

All this – I know I have said is this before, but all this to say if you
feel overwhelmed by the news in America right now, it`s OK. It`s not you.
The news is a little overwhelming right now, and it continues to be. But
it is worth paying attention, not only because you`re a good citizen but
also because this overwhelming amount of news is also fascinating right
now. I mean, among all of the other things that happened today, today the
president appears to have personally blown up the main point of his legal
defense in the case that he and his advisers are even more worried about
than the Robert Mueller inquiry.

“The New York Times” has reported over the last couple of weeks that the
president and his advisers have concluded that the federal criminal
investigation into Michael Cohen poses a greater threat than even the
investigation into Russia`s interference in the 2016 election by the
special counsel Robert Mueller. And that may be, that the president and
his advisers are even more worried about the Michael Cohen case, that the
president himself believes that the Michael Cohen case puts the president
in the most imminent legal jeopardy that he is facing right now. But even
with all of that concern, even with all of the focus and worry and maybe
even panic about that case, today the president blew it up. The president
himself took on his own legal defense in that case and just cut it off at
the knees.

This time last night, we were reporting that Rudy Giuliani, who is now
acting as one of the president`s lawyers on the Russia matter, this time
last night, we reported that he had just gone and had his first meeting
yesterday with Robert Mueller and with Robert Mueller`s prosecutors in the
special counsel`s office. Now, the president hired Rudy Giuliani to
represent him on the Russia matter one week ago tonight. On that same day
that we found out he just hired Rudy, we also learned that President Trump
had hired two more lawyers as well. Martin and Jane Raskin, a husband and
wife team who practice together in Florida.

Because their hiring was announced at the same time as Mr. Giuliani`s
hiring, it was assumed that they too were hired to represent the president
on the Russia investigation, on the Mueller investigation. I mean, that
was a little bit weird when Rudy Giuliani went on to say that evening that
he was planning on ending the Mueller investigation in two weeks, right?
If that`s your plan, why would you also need to hire two whole new lawyers
to start working on that case on that same day if it`s just about to wrap
up? It was a little weird.

Well, now today, today, we can explain the weirdness there. Today, we have
learned that the new legal firepower the president brought on board
alongside Rudy Giuliani, they are not apparently there to work on the
Mueller case. They`re there to work on the Cohen case, specifically, the
president brought on these new lawyers to try to stop the president from
being legally exposed in the Cohen case.

“Washington Post” ran a profile of these two new lawyers for the president
today, and it says in part, quote: Among their early assignments is to try
to use attorney-client protections to keep investigators from scouring
Trump`s communications with his personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who is under
federal scrutiny. So, one, the president`s new lawyers are working on the
Cohen case. They weren`t just hired for Mueller, which is what we had
previously thought. That`s supporting evidence for what “The New York
Times” has been reporting about how clear and present the president feels
the danger is from the Michael Cohen case. He`s hiring new lawyers and
putting them on that.

But the other part of this is that we`ve also now got overwhelming evidence
of what the president`s defense is in that case, how exactly the
president`s lawyers think they can best protect him in that case. And
you`ve seen it from the very beginning. From the very beginning, the
president himself seemed to understand it just implicitly. His initial
response to the FBI raid on Michael Cohen`s home and office on April 9th
was this: attorney-client privilege is dead. That was his response to
Michael Cohen getting raided, right?

And this is frankly the big idea of how to protect the president in the
Cohen case. Prosecutors should not have been able to seize, they should
not be able to look at, they should not be able to build any sort of case
based on anything they got from Michael Cohen because Michael Cohen is a
lawyer, Michael Cohen is a diligent attorney who has confidential
communications all the time with his many clients and therefore all his
documents and communications are or ought to be off limits to prosecutors
and the FBI, god bless attorney-client privilege. That`s been the defense.

Several problems with that strategy emerged fairly quickly. First,
prosecutors were quickly able to pry out of Michael Cohen an admission from
him that actually he has only three clients. He does not have a gazillion
clients. He has three.

One of them, he says, is a host on the Fox News Channel, who quickly made a
public declaration that actually Michael Cohen never really did any legal
work for him at all. Quote: Michael Cohen has never represented me in any
matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees.

OK. So not a lot of legal production that`s going to turn up in a raid of
Michael Cohen`s files in that case. That`s client one.

Client two, RNC official Elliott Broidy, who says Michael Cohen briefly
represented him recently on just one discrete matter. Michael Cohen
arranged a payoff to a woman who says she got pregnant during an affair
with Elliott Broidy. Broidy says he engaged Michael Cohen on that matter
specifically to arrange a payment to that woman. As compensation? I don`t
know.

Part of an agreement to not go to the press or something? Just a goodwill
payment? Thanks for the affair? It`s not totally clear what the payment
was for.

But even though the public revelations around that deal were a little odd,
when it comes to the feds raiding Michael Cohen`s home and office looking
for documents related to this ongoing federal criminal investigation into
Michael Cohen – well, it seems like the RNC deputy finance chairman paying
his mistress deal, it seems that was a specific enough deal, a specific
enough legal matter that it would be pretty easy to wall that off, right?
It`s not like you`re going to mistake a lot of other legal work for that.
That`s a pretty specific thing. Doesn`t seem like it would be that hard to
find things related to that matter, isolate them, and make sure they don`t
get mixed up with other things the prosecutors were looking for.

That seems like a discrete matter in both senses of the word discrete.
Walling that off would not be rocket science. But then there`s the third
and final client Michael Cohen says he has. And that of course is
President Trump.

So, the sum total of Michael Cohen`s potentially confidential
communications with clients are with Mr. Hannity from Fox News, who says
he`s had no actual legal representation from Mr. Cohen, so don`t worry
about him. Then there`s Mr. Broidy, who says Cohen repped him on one
single matter related to paying a lady. OK, that can probably be walled
off.

But then there`s Trump, which means really the whole strategy in this case
against these federal prosecutors and the FBI going after Cohen, what
Cohen`s lawyers have been pursuing in court, what the president has
actually hired multiple new lawyers to pursue in court, their whole case
for protecting Michael Cohen and for protecting the president in the
Michael Cohen case, the whole kit and caboodle of their argument is that
Michael Cohen is safe from prosecution and even investigation, his papers,
his documents, his hard drive, his phones, they really can`t be scrutinized
at all by the FBI because of his voluminous confidential privileged legal
communications between himself as an attorney and his one substantive
remaining client. Because he does such a massive amount of legal work for
president Trump, he and Trump should be safe in this case. That`s their
defense. That`s their case.

Here was Mr. Trump today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But isn`t your – isn`t his business your attorney, Mr.
President?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I have many, many –
just so you understand, I have many attorneys. I have attorneys – sadly,
I have so many attorneys you wouldn`t even believe it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How much of – Mr. President, how much of your legal
work was handled by Michael Cohen?

TRUMP: Well, as a percentage of my overall legal work a tiny, tiny little
fraction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: A tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny little fraction. Nothing really. This
far away, you can`t even see it.

The president has hired lawyers, and Michael Cohen has hired lawyers to
protect the president and protect Michael Cohen in this federal case, by
claiming that federal prosecutors are trying to seize documents related to
Michael Cohen`s confidential attorney-client communications with the
president. And since prosecutors and the FBI can`t have access to those,
case closed, they`ve got nothing. That`s their defense.

The president today apparently got up, ate his Wheaties, had his
caffeinated beverage of choice or ten, and called up his favorite TV show,
and he destroyed that case. That his lawyers have been painstakingly
making on his behalf.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Michael is in business. He`s really a businessman. A fairly big
business as I understand it. I don`t know his business.

But this doesn`t have to do with me. Michael is a businessman. He`s got a
business. He also practices law. I would say probably the big thing is
his business.

And they`re looking to something having to do with his business. I have
nothing to do with his business. He`s got businesses. And from what I
understand, they`re looking at his businesses. And I hope he`s in great
shape.

But he`s got businesses. And his lawyers probably told him to do that.
But I`m not involved and I`m not – and I`ve been told I`m not involved.
That came out of the newspaper. I`ve been told I`m not involved.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, we want to get to Kanye West. He
tweeted that he loves you –

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Fox News are like so, should we pull the rip cord here? Break
glass in case of emergency?

Yes, Mr. President, let`s talk about a celebrity who loves you. Amazing
segue in that moment. Yes, we got it is, sir. OK, yes. OK. Somebody hit
the Kanye West button.

Well, what the Fox hosts were sitting through there before emergency break
glass was the president explaining that yes, the Michael Cohen raid, that
has nothing to do with Michael Cohen`s work as a lawyer, certainly not his
work as a lawyer for the president. This has nothing to do with the
president and certainly not anything legal related to – the whole Trump
and Cohen legal defense in this case thus far is the exact opposite of
that. That they can`t raid him, they can`t look at that stuff because it`s
all Trump-Cohen confidential attorney-client legal communications and those
are sacrosanct. That`s their whole defense.

The president just blew it up. I also feel like I would be remiss if I did
not show you just one other little piece of this. This is from the very
end of this interview this morning. I don`t know. You may watch that show
regularly, where the president did this interview this morning.

But just in case you don`t, I feel like you should not miss, just as a
citizen, you shouldn`t – as a citizen, you should know how much the
president really lost it by the end of this interview today. So much so
that the hosts of this show on Fox News felt like they needed to cut him
off and stop him from saying what he was saying. They did like – at the
end of the interview, it basically ended with an intervention.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You take $700,000 from somebody supporting Hillary Clinton, he
takes $700,000 for his wife`s campaign – by the way, didn`t even spend
that money. He kept some of it because under that lawyer she took seven –
she took $700,000 from a group headed by Terry McAuliffe, who was under
investigation by McCabe and the FBI, and that investigation disappeared.
He took $700,000.

And you look at the corruption at the top of the FBI, it`s a disgrace. And
our Justice Department, which I try and stay away from but at some point I
won`t.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

TRUMP: Our Justice Department should be looking at that kind of stuff, not
the nonsense of collusion with Russia. There is no collusion with me and
Russia.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right.

TRUMP: And everyone knows it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We could talk to you all day but it looks like you have
a million things to do. But I hope you can join us again, Mr. President.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you so much for –

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: OK, yes, you know, I – our justice department which I try and
stay away from but at some point I won`t. And then the hosts start going,
OK, OK, hmm-hmm. Uh-huh.

My favorite part is where the one host says, wow, sir, we`d love to talk to
you all day. And then the president goes yes, you could. That would be
OK. We could talk all day.

And then Fox cuts him off, while he is screaming, literally yelling into
the phone that he`s going to do something to the Justice Department. Fox
cuts him off. We understand you`re very busy, Mr. President. He`s like
no, no, I`m good.

So this was a weird day. You know, the president was too weird and
unhinged for “Fox & Friends” and they cut him off. The president blew up
the legal case that his lawyers have been pleading on his behalf alongside
lawyers for Michael Cohen.

And I don`t just mean that what the president said about that legal case
today was off message and it sounded bad when he said it. I mean less than
two hours after the president shredded his own legal case in this TV
interview claiming that Michael Cohen does almost no legal work for him at
all, federal prosecutors on the Cohen case actually submitted a new court
filing in that case.

Quoting the president directly off of “Fox & Friends”, quote: As the court
is aware after originally stating the government seized thousands if not
millions of pages of privileged documents, Michael Cohen subsequently
identified three current clients. Of those three clients, one Sean Hannity
has since said that Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter, I
never retained him, received an invoice or paid legal fees. Another client
President Trump reportedly said on cable television this morning that Cohen
performs a tiny, tiny little fraction of his overall legal work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: As a percentage of my overall legal work, a tiny, tiny little
fraction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: He says that this morning on television, and it ends up in this
court filing within two hours. President Trump said on cable television
this morning that Cohen performs a tiny, tiny little fraction of his
overall legal work. These statements – the filing continues – these
statements by two of Cohen`s three identified clients suggest that the
seized materials are unlikely to contain voluminous privileged documents.

That`s how you know you botched the interview. That`s how you know when
you said the wrong thing about your legal case in a public forum. It`s a
hint, right? That you might have misjudged that.

If you`re involved in a legal matter and you say something publicly and
then two hours later, the prosecutors in your legal matter have written it
into the case against you, that`s how you knew you didn`t do a good
interview.

So, the president temperamentally lost it in public today, and we should
know that as a country because he`s the president. Even before he goes to
meet with the dictator in North Korea to talk about nuclear matters, we
should know that that`s how he was today. The president did blow up his
own legal defense today.

But here`s one last thing that happened today in this same case.
Prosecutors in the Cohen case dropped their opposition to having a special
master review documents in the Cohen raid to see if the seized documents
really are attorney-client confidential communications. So, the judge has
now appointed a special master.

Prosecutors had been against that before, but they dropped their objections
today. So, there is a special master. Them dropping their objections
makes it seem to me like prosecutors in this case are coming to a
conclusion that this whole attorney-client privilege defense is not going
to be much of a problem for the case they`re building on Michael Cohen.
That`s how it seems to me. Are they right?

Hold that thought.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: “Wall Street Journal” has just posted a new long report on
President Trump`s personal attorney Michael Cohen. “The Journal” is
reporting tonight that Mr. Cohen was disgruntled during the presidential
campaign because when Steve Bannon was named Trump campaign CEO, when he
got that campaign manager job on the Trump campaign Mr. Cohen had thought
that he was going to be named campaign manager. Then according to “The
Journal” after Trump won the presidency, Mr. Cohen was reportedly
disgruntled and upset again because he told people at the time he had
expected that he would be named White House chief of staff.

Neither of those things happened, obviously. Michael Cohen stayed in New
York City when Trump became president and moved to Washington. “The
Journal” reports tonight that in a phone call this past November, Mr. Cohen
reportedly sort of pleaded his case with the president in emotional terms.

Quote: boss, I miss you so much. I wish I was down there with you. It`s
really hard for me to be here.

And that was before we know federal investigators started their criminal
investigation into Mr. Cohen. And that is sort of a sad sack tale of
somebody being left behind when somebody they thought they were close to
moves on up. But aside from the interpersonal stuff there, that may have a
whole new urgency to it if that person who feels disgruntled and abandoned
is now being pressured by federal prosecutors to flip against a guy who
he`s apparently convinced he has been wronged by. Joining us now is
Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Michigan.

Barbara, it`s great to see you. Thank you for being here.

BARBARA MCQUADE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Thanks for having me on such a
news-filled day.

MADDOW: Yes, man, everything all at once all the time. I watched the
president`s remarks in this remarkable cable news interview that he did
today, and obviously the president`s emotional state was one of the
takeaways that you couldn`t avoid. But the president made really specific
remarks about what seems to me to be the central case that he and Michael
Cohen have been making to try to fend off this federal investigation in New
York. He seemed to undercut that claim by saying Mr. Cohen doesn`t do much
legal work for him and he doesn`t believe anything Cohen is being
investigated for touches on his legal practice as an attorney.

Is it your sense looking at that, that that does actually sort of undercut
what Cohen and Trump have been doing to try to defend themselves in that
case?

MCQUADE: Absolutely, 100 percent. This is the precise reason that lawyers
advise their clients not to talk when they`re under investigation. This is
the kind of clip that law professors will use to train law students about
why you advise clients not to talk about their own case because they might
inadvertently undermine something that their lawyer is trying to do as a
matter of legal strategy, and I think President Trump did that today.

MADDOW: Did it surprise you when prosecutors in the southern district
turned around the president`s remarks so quickly? I mean, the president
made these remarks this morning at breakfast time. By lunchtime, they were
incorporated into a federal filing by prosecutors from the Southern
District, citing the president, quoting the president directly as a way of
undermining his lawyers` case.

Is that the sort of thing that only happens in a case this high-profile
involving the president or are prosecutors generally that nimble?

MCQUADE: It`s impressive. They`re clearly on the ball, but I think
they`re probably paying attention to President Trump`s public remarks, his
tweets, his statements in interviews, because he has had the propensity to
sort of undermine his own positions or say things without thinking them
through carefully. So, I don`t know where they got it but I`m impressed
they were able to put it in. And it absolutely undermined his position in
this case because I think it helped them to show that the universe of that
which is privileged is likely to be pretty small.

MADDOW: In court today in New York, these prosecutors for the Southern
District, they withdrew their previous objection to the idea of appointing
a third party, a special master, to go through all the documents that were
seized in the raid to find any items that might legitimately be protected
by attorney-client privilege. Prosecutors had previously not wanted there
to be a special master to do that. They said it could be handled within
the prosecutor`s office.

It struck me today when they dropped that objection and the judge went
ahead and appointed the special master, it struck me as a civilian without
a law degree that maybe the prosecutors aren`t that worried about this
issue anymore, maybe they think that this may be the pillar of the defense
here but they`ve sort of gotten around it and they don`t have much to worry
about.

MCQUADE: Yes, if you think about what has changed since their initial
pleading is Michael Cohen has been required to submit to the court his
actual client list. You know, at the outset who knew how many clients he
had. Maybe it was hundreds. And we`ve learned it`s only three.

And that one of those is Sean Hannity who says he doesn`t have any matters
he`s ever been represented on. This Mr. Broidy, who had one discrete
matter apparently, and President Trump who now says it`s a tiny, tiny
fraction of his legal work. And so, the U.S. attorney`s manual does say
that lawyers should consider a special master when going through this kind
of process of searching an attorney`s office.

And I can`t imagine – the only reason I would imagine that the lawyers at
the front didn`t favor that option is they feared that it might delay
things and take too long. And now that they know that the universe of
privileged material is likely very small, that may be a reason to say, you
know what, we don`t mind that there`s a special master here, and in fact,
it might help blunt the criticism from the other side that there is
something unfair that was done here.

MADDOW: Right, exactly. So if there`s not much to get through here, this
can`t be much of a delay. And if they were going to complain about this
process – well, it`s hard for them to complain about it since this is the
way they asked to do it in the first place, this is what they asked for,
we`ve given it to them, we`re not too worried.

It seems like a – seems like a confident stroke from these prosecutors.
But we shall see.

Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney in Michigan, really appreciate your
time tonight, Barb. Thank you.

MCQUADE: Great. Thanks, Rachel.

MADDOW: Lots, lots, lots of ground to cover tonight. Lots more news.
Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: EPA administrator Scott Pruitt went to Capitol Hill today to face
questions from members of Congress for the first time since a litany of
scandals started trailing him around like cans tied to a bumper after a
particularly unpleasant wedding.

There are now so many ethical scandals attached to Scott Pruitt. Inspector
general investigations and GIO investigations and ethics investigations and
White House Budget Office investigations, and White House counsel
investigations, news outlets had to publish infographics and pictorial
guides to help organize all the different scandals and allegation that
Pruitt is facing into an understandable set of groups so you could follow
along while members of Congress yelled at him.

But if you really want to boil it down and you want to know why Pruitt is
in so much trouble, just don`t try to grab all of them all at once. Just
take one of these. Just pick one of these off the vine or pull one of
these cans off the bumper. And watch how it has played out.

Let`s just take the magic phone booth for a second. In September, “The
Washington Post” reported on a $43,000 phone booth that Scott Pruitt bought
for his office with your taxpayer dollars, and that seemed weird. But the
EPA was happy to explain why this thing cost so much and why Scott Pruitt
needed it so badly. The EPA told reporters at the time, quote: Federal
agencies need to have one of these so that security communications not
subject to hacking from the outside can be held. It`s called a sensitive
compartmented information facility, SCIF, end quote.

That was from the EPA in September. You can sort of hear the scolding.
It`s not a soundproof booth because he`s a weird guy who just randomly
wants a soundproof booth.

This is an official thing. He needs it. It`s his SCIF. It`s his
sensitive compartmented information facility and you don`t know that
because you don`t need one. But he does. That`s what the EPA said in
September to justify spending tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on this
thing.

Two and a half months later, December, they told us the same story again,
but this time we heard it straight from the boss.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

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

DEGETTE: OK. So it`s a SCIF, what we call a sensitive compartmental
information facility. Is that right?

PRUITT: They are – yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: OK. So, it`s a SCIF? Yes.

Scott Pruitt saying very clearly, as clear as his office had been a few
months before, that this thing in his office which was originally thought
to cost $25,000 turned out to be more like $43,000, that was his SCIF.

Now, SCIF is a real thing. It`s a super secure space where government
officials can talk about highly sensitive classified material without
having to worry that anyone is surveilling them while they do it. They`re
technically specific things. They have to have a certain kind of lock on
the door, special studs bolting the whole thing together. You have to keep
a list of everybody who`s allowed inside the SCIF. That list needs to be
kept in a specific way, in a specific place.

The how to build a SCIF manual gets up toward 200 pages long. That`s what
you built, Scott Pruitt, in your office? Yes, Scott Pruitt was very clear
when he told Congress that`s what he had.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEGETTE: OK. So it`s a SCIF, what we call a sensitive compartmental
information facility. Is that right?

PRUITT: They are – yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

Well, we looked at what Scott Pruitt had bought for his office, and watt
EPA said publicly about this thing he bought for the office. Then we
looked at the guidelines for what counts as a SCIF, and we started
wondering, is this $43,000 contraption he put in his office really a SCIF,
as Scott Pruitt said it was and how they justified this as a purchase?

I`ll tell you. We started asking the EPA about it. And over a series of
days, we got non-answers. We got – they wouldn`t tell us. They wouldn`t
answer whether or not this followed the guidelines to be a SCIF, whether it
had been certified as a SCIF.

But a few days after we started asking and we couldn`t get answers from
them, after we brought this to their attention, we noticed that the EPA and
Scott Pruitt did start talking about this thing differently than they used
to. I mean, they wouldn`t talk to us about it, but they started talking
about it differently to other people.

They told “Bloomberg News” on Friday that, quote, Administrator Pruitt
simply requested a secure phone line but never asked for a soundproof booth
nor did he have knowledge of its purchase.

Now, whatever it is he built for $43,000, all he wanted was a new phone.
And when Scott Pruitt went to Congress today, it turns out he changed his
mind entirely about this thing that he built.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEGETTE: Administrator Pruitt, when you were in front of this committee in
December, we discussed the installation of a soundproof privacy booth in
the administrator`s office, or the SCIF, at a cost of over $40,000. At
that time, you told me that your view was the expenditure – was that the
expenditure was appropriate despite the fact there were two other SCIFs at
the EPA. Is that correct?

PRUITT: This is actually not a SCIF.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Oh. Now, it`s not a SCIF.

It is one thing to be profligate and wasteful with taxpayer money. It`s
one thing to have weird priorities about spending taxpayer funds on really
expensive things for yourself you that don`t seem to really need. But in
this case, it really seems like EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt spent a ton
of taxpayer money on something that was kind of fake, that wasn`t real.
That they made up.

They said it was a SCIF and it never was. It was never certified as that.
That`s why they said they needed it. That isn`t what they built.

I mean, for that kind of lie you can get in real trouble, and not just
festered by cable TV producers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: White House cleared something up today. Shortly before 9:00 a.m.,
Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders wrote to reporters, quote, Admiral
Jackson is a doctor in the United States navy assigned to the White House
and he is here at work today.

Thank you for clearing that up. And only minutes after Admiral Ronny
Jackson withdrew as the nominee to run the V.A. The explosion of Dr.
Jackson`s nomination to run the V.A. comes with a whole bunch of fallout.
Part of it is what happens to his current job, because of the scrutiny he
received as a cabinet nominee, we`ve now learned a whole bunch of new stuff
about Ronny Jackson`s time as the White House physician and his time in the
White House medical unit. Unprofessional behavior he is said by his
colleagues to have exhibited on the job is laid out in the 2012 I.G.
report. Also, a list of jaw-dropping allegations against him from 23
current and former colleagues in that office including accusations of
repeated drunkenness on the job.

Ronny Jackson`s tenure at the White House medical unit is turning out to be
a whole new scandal that we didn`t know about before, before he got this
nomination. And it blew up.

We don`t know yet how this new scandal will play out. We don`t know if the
Pentagon will now do its own investigation into what exactly has been going
on with these active duty military personnel in the White House physician`s
office. So, that`s part of the fallout. Does he stay as the president`s
doctor?

A second bit of fallout here is that this now makes two dozen, 24 Senate
confirmable nominees including cabinet nominees the president has put
forward who have failed as nominations. This is either a vetting problem
or we`re starting to see the results of what happens when you try to run a
federal government without any vetting process at all. It`s either bad
vetting or no vetting.

But then there`s also this. The implosion of Jackson`s nomination was not
just some generic nomination to run some generic government agency. The
nomination that he was up for is something that is absolutely unique in
U.S. government and is in a really, really, really big load of hurt right
now, in part because of the way this blew up. And this story`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: The reason the V.A. secretary position was vacant in the first
place for the Ronny Jackson nomination that became such a disaster is
because President Trump and the White House pushed out David Shulkin last
month. And, yes, there were ethics concerns about his traveling and
spending as V.A. secretary.

But you know what? See exhibit A Scott Pruitt as proof that it takes more
than scandal around travel and spending to get a person pushed out from a
Trump cabinet position.

David Shulkin for his part has been very clear as to why he thinks he was
pushed out. He thinks it wasn`t because of ethics concerns. He thinks it
was because of people within the administration and important influencers
outside the administration who want to privatize the V.A. And he opposed
it, and so, that`s why they got rid of him.

This ongoing pressure to privatize the V.A. is one of the things that
Shulkin`s predecessor at the V.A., Bob McDonald, warned was happening. And
when he was V.A. secretary, he warned against it over and over again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT MCDONALD, FORMER SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS: Some have argued,
hard to believe, some have argued V.A. can best serve veterans by shutting
down V.A. health care all together. They argue that closing VHA is the
bold transformation veterans and families need, want, deserve. I suspect
their proposal serves some parties somewhere pretty well.

But it`s not transformational. It`s more along the lines of dereliction.
It doesn`t serve veterans well and certainly doesn`t sit well with me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: That was then-V.A. Secretary Bob McDonald in July of 2016. So,
right at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign.

After Trump won the election and came time to choose a cabinet, Mr. Trump
put off announcing his choice for V.A. secretary for a very, very long
time. It was one of the last positions he announced.

And during that time when nobody knew what was going to happen to that job,
all these veterans groups lined up to ask Trump to please keep Bob McDonald
on as V.A. secretary. He had their trust. They thought he was doing a
good job.

But Trump did not listen to them. He fired Bob McDonald, who had continued
to warn against privatizing the V.A. Then Trump went on to fire Shulkin.
Shulkin says that he was fired because of his resistance to efforts to
privatize the V.A.

And then, the Ronny Jackson disaster happened. So, now, what happens?

I mean, not just in terms of the administration, who they try to nominate
next. But for this specific part of our government`s sacred responsibility
to take care of our veterans particularly in light of what appears to be
very serious pressure to try to make the V.A. go away. What happens here
next for V.A.? I wonder if Bob McDonald would come back.

Joining us now is Robert McDonald, former secretary of Veterans Affairs
under President Obama.

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. Really appreciate it.

MCDONALD: Thanks. Great to be with you, Rachel.

MADDOW: I don`t mean to spring this on you, but would you take this job
back if they offered it to you?

MCDONALD: I`d have to talk to the president. I mean, certainly, being the
secretary of the V.A. was the biggest privilege of my life, the biggest
honor of my life. I would have to talk to the president and make sure he
and I agreed on what the vision was moving forward before I would agree to
do it.

MADDOW: You warned about the pressures toward privatization, which would
essentially in some ways abolish the V.A. health care system. David
Shulkin, who was your successor in the job, when he was fired, he said that
A, I didn`t resign, and, B, the reason I was fired is because I think I was
standing in the way of privatization and those forces are powerful.

How did that strike as a criticism. Do you think that`s been a driving
force here for what`s happened?

MCDONALD: Well, there certainly is a faction that would like to privatize
the V.A. I`ve been to many events where people have come up to me and said
that V.A. care`s inadequate. All we have do is privatize them. Imagine
putting 9 million veterans in an already crowded health care system with
co-morbidities and poly trauma and all the things that come with warfare.

And, usually, when I say that, I`m, number one, argue a veteran. I`ve
never met a veteran who wants to privatize the V.A. Number two, do you
have a stake in this? And usually, there is some kind of stake in it, some
kind of ownership of private sector health care.

Privatizing the V.A. is a bad idea. It`s not only a bad idea for veterans
because they get great care from the V.A. But it`s also bad idea for
American people and American medicine. Many innovations, in American
medicine, have come from the V.A.

Things like the first implantable cardiac pacemaker, things like taking
aspirin a day to ward off heart disease, things like BrainGate, where we
put a sensor in your brain and move a prosthetic arm, advances in
prosthetics and others.

Also the V.A. trains 70 percent of doctors in the country. We have
relationships with 1,800 medical schools. So who`s going to train these
doctors? Who`s going to do that research?

In addition to those doctors who do that research, and do that training,
also provide care to veterans. And the veterans as a result get great
care. So privatizing the V.A. is not a good idea and as I said, the
majority of veterans and veterans groups don`t want it.

MADDOW: And there is pressure on that subject which is animating some of
the politics around the V.A.

MCDONALD: Certainly there is, certainly there is.

MADDOW: Because of the complexity of the V.A., because of its size,
because of the importance of its work, frankly, honestly, because of the
unusual fact there is bipartisan support for the V.A. and V.A. policymaking
tends to be of a bipartisan nature which is a freak – which is a freak of
nature in Washington right now. Because so many things are different about
the V.A., there`s been debate about what is the right kind of experience
for a person to have in order to run an agency that big, that important,
that complicated, that different.

You had a business background, you`re a veteran, you`d run a large
organization before. What did running the V.A. tell you about your best
way to get prepared to do something that hard?

MCDONALD: Yes, I frankly think president Obama had it right. You know, he
chose me, historically, Republican, to be part of his Democratic
administration but he knew I`d run a Fortune 25 company around the world,
lived around the world, worked in many different cultures and he knew I was
a veteran, a West Point graduate, and an infantry officer, airborne ranger.

So I think he had it right. I think that`s what you need. You know, if
the V.A. were a Fortune 100 company, it would be Fortune 9, would be the
ninth largest company in this country. I auditioned for 29 years before I
became the CEO of the Procter & Gamble company, which is about Fortune 25.
It`s lunatic to think that you can put a new CEO in every four years or
every eight years, and drive sustained success. Our veterans deserve
better.

MADDOW: Robert McDonald is the former secretary of veterans affairs under
President Obama who had a remarkable amount of support from veterans groups
at the time that Donald Trump decided not to keep him on. V.A. is an
incredibly vulnerable spot right now. I hope you`re one of the people
they`re talking to about how to make things better.

MCDONALD: I`ll answer the phone.

MADDOW: All right.

MCDONALD: Thank you.

MADDOW: And tell me what they said.

MCDONALD: I won`t.

MADDOW: He won`t.

We`ll be right back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: This is what it looks like when 50,000 people all put on the same
color – look at that – and march together. This is Phoenix, Arizona,
tens of thousands of schoolteachers marched in Phoenix, they marched to the
state capitol building to protest the fact that Arizona spends way below
the national average on its schools. The teachers want that changed and
they have taken to the streets to ask for it.

NBC`s Gadi Schwartz shot this time lapse footage to get a sense of the
scale of this two-mile-long march.

In Tucson today, they gathered along a 15-mile stretch of road. The best
way to capture that was from arguably a moving car. Colorado teachers
walked out of their schools today, too, went to their state capitol for
increased school funding.

This walkouts and demonstrations follow walkouts by teachers in Oklahoma
and Kentucky and in West Virginia where teachers went on strike for nine
days. In only nine weeks now this has happened in five different states.
You do the math. And if you can, thank a teacher.

That does it for us tonight.

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

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.>