Congress scrambles. TRANSCRIPT: 12/21/2018, The Rachel Maddow Show.

Mazie Hirono, Julie Cohen

Date: December 21, 2018
Guest: Mazie Hirono, Julie Cohen


Good evening, Rachel. And I want you to have a great holiday.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Thank you very much.

HAYES: Wherever – wherever you`re doing it, however you`re celebrating,
whatever you`re celebrating.

MADDOW: Thank you very much.

Are you getting some family time?

HAYES: I am – I`m very excited. Christmas with kids it`s like super –
kicks it up a notch.

MADDOW: Well, overall, also, you have like kind of a passel of kids –


HAYES: We`re at 15, so it`s going to be sort of interesting.

MADDOW: I was going to say – I`m sending you just over some, you know,
like bread and food stuffs and basic stuff to get through the day. Good
luck, my friend. I`ll see you next weeks. Thanks.

All right. Thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. Very happy to
have you with us.

Let us start with a simple thing. Let us start with a news development
that is almost pure in its simplicity and it`s straightforwardness and it`s
clear crystal clear implications for what should happen and what likely
will happen next as an – I find this comforting. As a news story, this is
just kind of perfect, the way like a pecan pie is perfect or sunrise,

All right. Today, this news story I have found has been sort of my order
in the midst of chaos you ready to be calmed yourself with me right now?
All right.

Right now, the White House chief of staff is John Kelly. He is the second
White House chief of staff in less than two years. He replaced the first
one, Reince Priebus, but now, Mr. Kelly has also been fired just as Reince
Priebus was. And so, now, a third White House chief of staff will be
coming in soon. John Kelly is expected to leave his post in January.

You know, when he initially took over his job, you may remember he came
over from the Department of Homeland Security, where Trump had appointed
him to be homeland security secretary. When he left homeland security and
came over to the White House to be chief of staff, he brought with him a
young staffer who had worked with him very closely at Homeland Security.
His name is Zach Fuentes.

And Zach Fuentes is 36 years old and when John Kelly left Homeland
Security, became the new White House chief of staff, he brought Zach
Fuentes with him, and he gave Zach Fuentes a really good job. Mr. Fuentes
became deputy White House chief of staff, which sounds like a big deal.
That is a big job in its own right.

But because of the way Zach Fuentes got the deputy chief of staff job
because of his close association with John Kelly, now that John Kelly has
been fired, there is a widespread expectation that Deputy Chief of Staff
Zach Fuentes will also have to go, too.

See, this is all very simple, right? This is like a placid news story.
It`s almost normal. Even when the scandal part kicks in, it`s still kind
of a normal scandal. It`s at least a very knowable, very simple scandal.

According to “The New York Times” today, even though there have been these
widespread expectations that Zach Fuentes would leave the administration
when John Kelly does next month, Mr. Fuentes has apparently been working on
an alternate plan. Quote: Mr. Fuentes told colleagues that after his
mentor John F. Kelly left his job as chief of staff at the end of the year,
he would, quote, hide out at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building
adjacent to the White House for six months.

Why would the deputy White House chief of staff want to hide at the
Eisenhower executive office building and specifically for six months?
Well, it turns out the timing here is crucial.

According to “The Times, Mr. Fuentes wanted to hide out for six months,
quote, remaining on the payroll in a nebulous role, meaning he wouldn`t
have much work to do, but then, quote, in July, after his six months of
hiding out, he would hit his 15-year benchmark for his service in the Coast
Guard, because while Mr. Fuentes has been serving as deputy White House
chief of staff, he has also been an active duty coast guard officer. And
if this plan of his worked, if he could successfully hide out and stay on
the payroll even if he didn`t really have a job for six more months after
John Kelly leaves in January, that would put Zach Fuentes on track to hit
the 15-year mark at the Coast Guard, and that would allow him to, quote,
take advantage of an early retirement program at the Coast Guard.

And it might have worked. He might have been able to like burling to the
paneling somewhere and stay on the payroll for six months with nobody
noticing that his mentor and his boss was gone and he was no longer doing
anything if he could just hit that 15-year benchmark essentially vest into
the retirement at the Coast Guard, he could retire at the age of 37, boom,
right? Excellent.

There was just one problem though with this plan. Quote: The program
referred to as temporary early retirement authority had lapsed for coast
guard officers at the end of the 2018 fiscal year, which totally screws up
this plan, right? It`s one thing if he`s going to burrow in and hide on
the payroll for six months, but without this program, he would have to do
that for like five years that would be harder.

So, think of – put yourself in Mr. Fuentes`s shoes. If this was your
scam, if this was your plan, what would you do when confronted with this
terrible fly in the ointment, that the early retirement program, you were
going to take advantage of, you only needed the bridge six months to that
early retirement program is gone.

Well, here is apparently what Mr. Fuentes did. Quote: Administration
officials say that Mr. Fuentes discussed the early retirement program with
officials at the Department of Homeland Security in November.

Quote: Department of Homeland Security officials began pressing Congress to
reinstate the early retirement program, and again, it almost worked, just
this past month. The Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of
Homeland Security, they package together a package of small tweaks and
changes that they hoped would quietly pass through Congress without any

These are just little technical matters, just little fixes. You know, put
some colons in there that really should be semicolons. We got to go
through and clean that up before it`s official law. Well, when it came to
the early retirement program, the justification for why the coast guard
needed to suddenly revive and reinstate that program was, quote, the need
for parity with other armed forces.

Oh, we just need to you know stay equal, I thought of the other armed
services are doing here we can`t let this lapse exactly now. The proposed
extension of that early retirement program also, also came with what
appeared to be a sense of urgency. Quote: They also told the policy
writers that there might be an immediate need for the early retirement
authority and that it would at most for 10 individuals.

Well, one guy named Zack and then I don`t know, a few up – maybe just, I
don`t know if there`s other guys, maybe him, maybe just him. Apparently,
this did not raise any red flags at all with the Republican-controlled
Congress. Quote: Representative Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania, the retiring
chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee accepted
the requested changes and this week introduced legislation in the House
that would codify them into law.

Psyche. That means he got the retirement program extended. This means
Zach is going to get to retire at 37. All he has to do is hide under a
desk for six months without anybody noticing he`s on the payroll without a
job and then he`s going to get to.

It was on track. Bill Shuster accepted the requested changes this week
introduced legislation in the House that would codify them into law. It`s
totally going to work until somebody narced out Zach for what he was trying
to do.

And so, now, thanks to these meddling “New York Times” reporters asking
questions about it, it has all fallen apart. Quote: House lawmakers were
preparing to push the package through the chamber on Wednesday, but
confronted with questions about the early retirement extension, they
decided to pull just that provision to ensure that the rest of the
technical changes could become law.

Perhaps my favorite part of all of this is the bullpucky supposed argument
about why this changed that the Coast Guard was no big deal and the Coast
Guard just needed to extend this little program right away, just for a few
officers, just as a technical matter. That argument that they would need
to do that was that they needed to have parity with the others – the other
armed services, right, with the other services in the military.
Apparently, nobody in Congressman Shuster`s office nor Congressman Shuster
himself, nobody Googled that, nobody fact-checked that argument because the
Coast Guard reinstating that suite early retirement program turns out would
not give them parity with the other services. The U.S. Army in fact ended
that exact same program last year and got a whole bunch of headlines for

So, when somebody snuck in in the dead of night and said, Coast Guard needs
to do this in order to match up with what the Army`s doing, I`m sure that
sounded good in theory, but literally just Google it. Just Google it.
Google Army early retirement program, and this is what pops up.

Literally these headlines just pop up immediately. Yes, the Army just got
rid of that. But apparently, Congressman Shuster`s office didn`t Google
it, wasn`t bothered, didn`t see anything wrong with this at all.

So, bottom line, this story in “The New York Times”, this scoop from “The
Times” is that the White House deputy chief of staff may have been involved
in a ham-fisted like county clerk embezzlement style scheme to change U.S.
law and the policies of the U.S. Coast Guard just for a minute, just for
him, specifically to give himself a sweet early retirement plan and he
almost did it, except now he has been caught and this is what counts for
beauty right now an American national politics, right, because you can tell
this kind of corruption story and like you wouldn`t even need the length of
an after-school special.

This one you could just tell as a paid public service announcement, right?
In your civics textbook, when you get to the chapter on public corruption
subsection self-dealing, this could just be one of those like shaded
sidebars in italics. It`s pocket-sized. It`s simple. It`s so tidy. We
even know how this one ends.

I mean, I don`t know in this White House if trying to pull off a scam like
this amounts to a firing offense. It`s possible in this White House, this
is like one of the things you do to prove yourself. You get your bones and
then you can move up what you`ve pulled off some sort of scam like this,
maybe that`s how they run.

But the Democratic Party is about to take over Congress, which means
Republican Congressman Bill Shuster`s House Committee which implicated
itself in this scam by almost letting it happen, that committee which is
now`s transportation and infrastructure committee, it`s not going to be
headed up by Shuster anymore. It`s going to be headed out by a Democratic
pit bull named Peter DeFazio, who we contacted for comment today about the
story, we have not yet heard back from him but we will let you know if we

But if what happened here is in fact a – you know, pocket-sized platonic
ideal of corruption and self dealing from the White House deputy chief of
staff, presumably this will be a matter of investigation under that
committee when it gets its new leadership in a couple of weeks.
Presumably, they will investigate it and fix it and if there is a crime
here, they will make a criminal referral for prosecution.

So like this is how I relax now. This is what accounts as like my happy
place. It`s like a relaxing, comforting turn in the news these days. It
is like people upload it to Twitter like those pictures, those like little
GIFs of like hedgehogs eating kernels of corn, it`s like this is the
equivalent of that.

Zone out and think about this for a while, oh, garden variety, potentially
criminal public corruption at the highest levels of the White House staff.
That feels like a place of rest right now, which is telling about what else
is going on right now in the news.

I mean, we expected to be getting on the air tonight without a clear story
to tell about whether or not the entire federal government was going to
shut down at midnight. We expected to be covering this hour ongoing
wrangling and negotiations potentially, even last-minute votes. That is
not the circumstances that we are in because around dinner time East Coast
Time tonight, the Senate just decided – yes, we all know this thing`s
going to shut down anyway, why fight it, why stay up late, we`re old guys?

So they`re technically will be a partial government shutdown that initiates
as of midnight tonight when funding for the government runs out. It`s
because there is no deal. There is no $5 billion for the president to
build a wall or a moat or steel slats or a decorative pergola on the lamp
long southern land border between our country and Mexico. There`s none of
that. There`s no deal.

Senate`s gone home. The House will convene tomorrow at midday. It is
possible that they will then pass something that could shorten the
shutdown, which means there are important questions now to ask and to
figure out about how long the shutdown is likely to last, but there are
really no questions laughs about whether or not we are going to have a
shutdown. We will in fact have one and we`re going to be getting the
latest news from Capitol Hill both from a senator involved in the process
and from an NBC crack congressional reporter coming up shortly.

I will say though that the whole reason we are going through this
ridiculous exercise is so the president won`t be embarrassed when he
watches the Fox News Channel and they remind him about his campaign
promises in which he said he was going to build a wall. I mean, I will
just point out that if that`s going to be the basis on which we shut down
the federal government, there is this issue that his campaign promise,
remember, was technically that Mexico was going to pay for the wall, right?

If this whole fight right now was about whether Mexico was going to shut
down their government rather than pay for the wall, that would be relevant
to his previous campaign promises on this. He never promised I`m going to
build the wall and U.S. taxpayers are going to pay for it and Democrats are
going to vote for that. That wasn`t the campaign promise. That wasn`t
even what he said he could do.

But the other part of this is that he`s got a new incoming White House
chief of staff. I mean, Zach is on his way to burrowing into the paneling
for six months but John Kelly, White House chief of staff, is on his way
out, supposedly the new guy who`s going to be running the White House staff
as of a few days from now is this guy Mick Mulvaney, the director of the
Office of Management and Budget, former South Carolina Republican

Well, it does not signify the kind of commitment and united front and true
belief you need to blindly follow a fairly insane, non-rational policy
insistence like the one we`re having right now if you`re going to have a
White House chief of staff who`s on record saying this about the whole idea
of a wall.


PATTI MERCER, WRHI HOST: Donald Trump says build a wall, deport all
illegal immigrants. Rules are rules. You either play and stay or you
cheat and you get deported.

What challenges does this plan pose?

REP. MIKE MULVANEY (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: A bunch, I`ve never been in the
box car caucus. You know, ship them home in box cars and let the Lord sort
them out. The fence is an easy thing to sell politically. It`s an easy
thing for a someone who doesn`t follow the issue very closely to say, oh,
that`ll just solve everything, build a fence.

But to just say built the darn fence and have that be the end of an
immigration discussion is absurd and almost childish for someone running
for president to take that simplistic view. It`s easy to tell people what
they want to hear, build the darn fence, vote for me. It is pablum that
politicians like to feed people in order to tell people what they want to
hear they`re trying to get them to vote for them.

MERCER: It seems to me that Donald Trump is trying to really win the
emotion, the emotional support of people.

MULVANEY: But just to appeal to somebody`s emotion and say vote for me
because I`m as angry as you are doesn`t really solve the problem.


MADDOW: It was a 2015 interview from incoming White House Chief of Staff
Mick Mulvaney that was first posted nationally by Andrew Kaczynski at CNN.

If as the president says he`s going to get not just a shutdown, but a big
long shutdown of the federal government over this issue of not getting his
wall, I think what`s supposed to happen is that in the middle of that
shutdown, he`s going to get his new White House chief of staff who is on
record saying emphatically while Donald Trump was running for president on
the basis of saying that he wanted to build a wall, Mick Mulvaney is on the
record saying that this whole idea of building a fence or a wall that
Donald Trump was trying to sell to people on emotional terms, he`s out
there on the record calling it pablum, calling it absurd and almost
childish for somebody running for president to be proposing something
that`s simplistic. He`s the guy who`s going to run the White House and
organize everything during what the president is hoping and rooting for as
to be a long shutdown specifically over the issue of him not getting his

But the shutdown is going to happen. Our closest allies around the world
spent the day reeling in response to these surprise protests resignation of
Defense Secretary James Mattis last night. The United States Supreme Court
today, a five to four ruling brushed back President Trump on one of his
policy changes that was designed to make it impossible for anyone to seek
asylum in this country. On a normal day, the big headline about that
Supreme Court ruling would be that Chief Justice John Roberts joined the
more liberal judges on the court to come up with that 5-4 majority.

But today, the real headline out of that ruling other than the ruling
itself is that liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to cast that vote
just before she went into the hospital for surgery today. She is 85 years
old. We will have more on that coming up.

But on days like this one it feels like the foundations are all shaky, I
firmly believe we can take comfort in the little things, right? Like a
nutshell bowl, case study style, self-dealing, self-enrichment, public
corruption scam, old school style, involving the deputy White House chief
of staff. That makes sense, right? I know how that ends.

In terms of order and the rule of law and things proceeding one foot in
front of the other, in terms of how our government operates, you should
also know that even if the government does shut down for an extended period
starting tonight, law enforcement doesn`t shut down. At the federal level,
law enforcement is considered a critical and essential function, you should
also know that as a specific matter, the special counsel`s office within
the Justice Department, Robert Mueller and his prosecutors, their office
will also not shut down in a federal government shutdown.

It`s been a whole bunch of interesting court filings related to the Mueller
probe today. I will tell you we`re going to get to that a little bit later
on this hour, too, including the lifting of the gag order in the Maria
Butina case. I am cynically obsessed with that case and that element of
it. We will have more on that, coming up.

But the Mueller organization - and Mueller organization – the Mueller
investigation the special counsel`s office again will not shut down in the
shutdown. Let us also take comfort in buffeting times like this, and the
clarifying, orderly science of good reporting and the clear explication of
even complex processes. And so, tonight, we`re going to try to figure out
a lot of the most complex stuff that`s going on, including – starting with
a live report from Capitol Hill on what is now the impending, I believe
it`s the third government shutdown of the Donald Trump presidency. We`re
going to go live to Capitol Hill try to understand how long this shutdown
is likely to last right after this.


MADDOW: You are about to hear the phrase “wall of cheese”, fair warning.
As we hurdle toward tonight`s shutdown of the federal government of the
United States, with Congress on the White House under unified Republican
control nevertheless unable to find a way to keep the government funded and
open, Republicans in the House Rules Committee scheduled an emergency
meeting tonight – and you might expect that in circumstances like this,
right? This is the time for emergency meetings when we are heading toward
a government shutdown, except their emergency meeting ahead of tonight`s
shutdown was an emergency meeting all hands on deck about cheese,
specifically they met to consider a bill called the Curd Act. C-U-R-D.

I you want to know the specifics? The Curd Act would apparently allow
certain types of cheese to be labeled as natural even if they contain
artificial ingredients or synthetic substances. That`s the Curd Act.

But if you want to know why this Curd Act was the cause for a cheese
emergency meeting in Congress while the government was in the process of
shutting down tonight – well, in that instance, you have a friend in
Democratic Congressman Jim McGovern.


emergency meeting that that we`re having here and I`ve seen some surreal
things around this place, but this is really something. Vital parts of our
government are about to shut down in just a few hours, and the Republicans
have called an emergency meeting on cheese. I mean, has anybody considered
how ridiculous this is or how bad the optics are as the American people are
watching what`s going on here?

By all means, if you think the most important thing we have to discuss
right now is cheese, I`ll let you have at it.

the awesome responsibility of taking legislation that is important to this
body. This passed the United States Senate. This is important to small
business. This is important, an important product, an important
distinction and an important bill for many small businesses notwithstanding
in Wisconsin or perhaps other places that produce cheese. And for us to
think that this is not an important small business issue, consumer issue is
just as important and it would be to the people that are trying to have the
important provisions made here as even the largest bill.

MCGOVERN: My point is that, you know, our government is about to shut down
at midnight tonight, and the Senate did do its work. The fact that we`re
having an emergency meeting not on that but on cheese, I just find to be,
you know – it`d be funny if it wasn`t so tragic.

SESSIONS: I`ve got a newspaper that I would like to enter into the record,
I`m not doing that at this time, with information about exactly how
important this wall is and over the last 60 days, they`ve had some hundred
thousand people literally approaching the border and we are being overrun
on our southern border.

MCGOVERN: There`s no wall in this, right?

SESSIONS: You were talking about – you were talking about the silly
things –


SESSIONS: OK. I`m taking up off the wall. It is important – no, I`m not
talking about the wall. Cheese, it`s important. This committee handles
important things and I`m delighted that we`re here. Anybody else have
anything to add?


MADDOW: No, sir, no, I am not talking about the wall of cheese. I could
see how you could have – went at the wall – we are talking about cheese
and that wall. It`s – I could see how you could think we were going for
the wall cheese, but this isn`t a – this isn`t – this is not the wall of
cheese – this is cheese, and I just wanted you to prove otherwise.

This is our life now. This is what it looked like in Congress has we
hurdled toward tonight`s shutdown of the federal government and merry

Joining us now for the latest on why the government is being shut down on
the Friday before Christmas and how long it`s going to be shut down for is
NBC News Capitol Hill reporter, Frank Thorp.

Frank, thank you for your time tonight. I imagine you`ve had sort of a
weird day

pizza for dinner. So this is great.

MADDOW: Well, I appreciate you getting into the spirit of things. I`m
actually half cheese myself. So I feel that.

So, tell me about the certainty with which we are proceeding now. I feel
like following this from afar today, I feel like I thought there was going
to be a lot of drama heading into the evening hours and right up until
midnight, we weren`t going to know what happened. It seems pretty clear
that we`re definitely going to have a shutdown at midnight, the only
question is what happens after about 12 hours when Congress comes back to
try to undo it.

THORP: Right. I mean the certainty is that we know that this partial
government shutdown is going to happen. The uncertainty is what`s going to
happen after that happens. I mean, you know, you and I have talked to
during now this will be our third shutdown and this is seems to be – a
little bit different in that there seems to be a lack of urgency here.

I mean, I know that it`s a little bit different in that 75 percent of the
government is already funded, this is only going to affect 25 percent of
the government, and it`s also happening over what`s effectively a holiday
weekend. So I think lawmakers are kind of looking at this saying, OK, well
you know the effects of this partial shutdown aren`t going to be as drastic
as something that, you know, maybe we saw in the past. But there really
was – it was – it was weird today because it was a situation where it
felt like there was a total lack of urgency.

It felt like a lot of things happened but nothing happened at all. I mean,
it started with President Trump saying that Senate Republicans should go
nuclear on the filibuster which McConnell said no on and then it ended with
Vice President Pence, Jared Kushner and Mick Mulvaney shuttling back and
forth in the Capitol trying to discuss what they can do going forward.
They left the Capitol and we really don`t have an idea of where they want
to go with this.

I mean, we`re – like you said, we`re going to be back here – the Senate
is going to be back here, the House is going to be back here at noon
tomorrow. But in reality, we`ve kind of just taken a really big circle and
ended up exactly where we were at the beginning, because now talk so that
whether or not they could maybe consider the seven appropriations bills
that the appropriations committee put together, these are bills that have
been sitting there for weeks. This is what senators on both sides of the
aisle open saying hey just go ahead and take care of this just use these
bills that it has $1.6 billion for President Trump`s border wall.

There`s also discussions with Republicans who are saying that maybe they
might be able to make some kind of deal with Democrats where they could
maybe give some kind of DACA relief for border funding. But the thing is,
is that – I mean, Democrats have been holding firm here on whether or not
they`re going to accept any kind of deal that actually gives on having to
fund the border wall. So we`re in a situation where the government shuts
down – there`s this partial government shutdown at midnight tonight, they
come back tomorrow at noon, senators have been told to go home, that
they`re going to have 24 hours to come back if they need to, the House
members have been told the same.

And to be perfectly honest, I talked to a very smart House Republican
leadership aide earlier today who said, listen, if the government shuts
down, I don`t see it too coming back until January 3rd. So, we are
basically right back where we were weeks to go in terms of these

MADDOW: And if the negotiations are on as substantive a matter as the
stuff that you just described there, talking about going back through all
the appropriations bills, talking about the wall funding and what`s there
potentially talking about a trade around DACA, if they`re going to have
those real types of substantive negotiations, I have to ask who`s going to
do that? I mean, isn`t part of the issue here now that a lot of members
are gone?

THORP: Yes, a lot of members are gone and a lot of members have been told,
hey, you can go home. We`ll give you notice before you come back. I mean,
as we approach Christmas, a lot of these members aren`t going to be coming
back for a Christmas holiday.


THORP: They`re going to be trying to spend that with their families. The
thing is that what we saw tonight is actually really where the power
centers are in terms of these negotiations. You have Jared Kushner and
Vice President Pence, Mick Mulvaney, shuttling back and forth between these
groups, which is – it`s basically Speaker Ryan, but then on the House
side, it`s also – you know, it`s also Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan.
They`re meeting individually with those two as well, and then also you have
meetings with McConnell, you have meetings with Schumer.

I mean, these are all these meetings started with Schumer actually at the
beginning. So – I mean, it`s really whether or not those, there`s
basically six groups that really need to kind of sign off on this. You
have House Republican leadership, House Democratic leadership, Senate
Republican leadership, Senate Democratic leadership and then it`s the
conservatives in the House. You have Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan.

President Trump needs them on board. He needs them not to go on Fox News
at night and say this is a bad deal for him to sign on to this deal and
move forward.

MADDOW: Yes, the idea that this is all going to get on – this is all
going to get undone and tidied up over the next – in the next short term,
it just feels almost impossible. But at some point, somebody will have to
find a rabbit in that hat and pull it out of there.

NBC Capitol Hill reporter Frank Thorp, I know it has been a long and weird
day. Thanks for your time tonight. Appreciate it.

THORP: Thanks.

MADDOW: So, we`re going to be watching the shutdown unfold tonight and
possibly all weekend and really who knows for how long?

To the extent that this fight is in the Senate, one of the most interesting
combatants in the Senate on this issue is Senator Mazie Hirono and she`s
going to join us live from the Capitol, next.


MADDOW: Yesterday, we learned that a senior Justice Department ethics
officials told Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker that he should recuse
himself from overseeing the Mueller investigation based on his past
comments attacking that investigation. We learned at the same time that
Mr. Whitaker decided to not take that ethics advice, and he instead cleared
himself to oversee that investigation, despite the advice of ethics

Well, tonight, we have a new headline which gives us some insight into what
President Trump may be expecting Matt Whitaker to do with regard to the
Mueller investigation. This is from CNN tonight. Quote: Trump lashed out
at Whitaker after explosive Cohen revelations.

Quote: At least twice in the past weeks, President Donald Trump has vented
to his acting attorney general, angered by federal prosecutors who
referenced the president`s actions in crimes his former lawyer Michael
Cohen pleaded guilty to. Trump was frustrated, sources said, that federal
prosecutors who Matt Whitaker oversees as acting attorney general, filed
charges that made Trump look bad. None of the sources suggested that the
president directed Whitaker to stop the investigation. But rather he
lashed out at what he felt was an unfair situation.

The first known incident took place after Michael Cohen pled guilty
November 29th to lying to Congress about a proposed Trump Tower in Moscow.
The president made his displeasure clear to Acting Attorney General Matt
Whitaker after that happened. Then, Trump again voiced his anger at
Whitaker after federal prosecutors in Manhattan officially implicated the
president himself in the criminal campaign finance hush money scheme that
Cohen pled guilty to, to buy the silence of women ahead of the 2016 vote.
Trump pressed Whitaker on why more wasn`t being done to control prosecutors
in New York who brought the charges in the first place.

So, again this is brand-new reporting from CNN, raising serious issues
about the Mueller investigation and the president`s efforts to quash it.
This arising as we know that the Mueller investigation and law enforcement
generally will not be shut down during the federal government shutdown.
But this is all now happening against the incredibly dramatic backdrop of a
Friday before Christmas federal government shutdown.

Senator Mazie Hirono is a Democrat who is on the Senate Judiciary

Senator, thank you very much for being with us tonight.

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D), HAWAII: Good evening, Rachel.

MADDOW: I am sorry you are still at work right now, first of all.


HIRONO: So are you.

MADDOW: Yes, well, thanks, but, you know, they usually give (ph) me this

I have to ask you what`s your understanding of what is going to happen with
the shutdown right now?

HIRONO: It`s going to happen, because the president at the 11th hour
listening Fox News decided that he is going to listen to the, whatever,
called the right wing loud mouths who accused him of being a coward or
whatever it was at the last moment after the Senate had already acted to
keep government running fully, expecting the House to follow suit. At the
last moment, he throws a wrench into the works and says, I won`t sign it
unless I get $5 billion for my wall.

But, of course, you folks have been playing the tape wherein he says yes,
yes, if there is a government shutdown, I will take full responsibility for
it. And, of course, he is not doing that. He is blaming everybody else,
which is par for the course for this president.

MADDOW: And the blame for a shutdown is of course part of the way that we
keep score in this, the way that we ascribe blame both in the moment and in
history as part of the way that we figure out whether this was good
politically or bad politically. But as we head toward it, as it is really
about to happen, I think what most people are thinking right now is, is
there a way out?

I mean, for the president to have staked this shutdown not just on
generally getting more of what he wants on immigration, or even generally
getting more of what he wants on the wall, but specifically $5 billion for
the wall or bust, that kind of very specific line, when we know he`s not
going to get it, makes it very hard for me to imagine how or when the
shutdown will end?

HIRONO: The ball is in the president`s court because he knows full well
that he`s not getting $5 billion for his wall from the Senate or at this
point even from the House. And so, he`s got to grow up. He`s got to face
certain realities and take responsibility, which we know that he has a very
hard time doing.

This is totally – should have been totally you a voidable, but he is a
person who at the last minute came in after the Senate already voted to
keep government running and for the House to follow suit – he just jumps
right in and says, I need $5 billion.

This is crazy. And who is going to be hurt? It is all the people who will
be furloughed. It is a partial furlough, but there are going to be a lot
of people who are having to work, the essential people, workers, and they
will not be getting paid. I have signed on to a bill that would provide
for retroactive pay for all of those who are going to have to work during
the shutdown and also for all of those who are furloughed through no fault
of their own, and this on the eve, as you say, of a holiday.

And apparently, President Trump could care less about the damage that he`s
doing and the harm he`s bringing onto our country. But you know what?
This is all about peace.

He has had a rough couple of days. First of all, he pulls us out of Syria,
giving a tremendous Christmas president to Putin and to Iran. So, he is
getting whacked for that from the right – and all this without consulting
with Secretary Mattis. Then you have the Mattis resignation, you have him
throwing in the wrench to create a government shutdown.

So, I see a president who under even normal circumstances for him, he is
very unreliable, but he is in meltdown mode. And I tell you, the only wall
that`s real is the one that`s closing in on him.

MADDOW: And on that point, and in terms of the other things that are going
on atmospherically around this, I did mention that CNN reporting tonight
that the president reportedly has been – I mean, reading between the
lines, calling and yelling a of the acting attorney general, Matt Whitaker,
pressuring him on why he`s not reining in prosecutors who are moving
forward on various investigations and prosecutions related to the president
and his inner circle.

What`s your reaction to that?

HIRONO: The president will lash out at anybody that he thinks is not
protecting him adequately. And the president is already being looked at
for obstruction of justice. And now, is he actually wanting the attorney
general to go in there and also obstruct justice by doing certain things
and getting involved and prosecutions?

I find it appalling. But, again, it is par for the course for this
president. He only wants people who will do his bidding. So, that`s not
just Acting Attorney General Whitaker, but right – following on his heels
is the nominee, Barr, who also, in my view, auditions for this position by
writing this very long missive that question certain parts of the Mueller

MADDOW: Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii who is at work at the Senate
tonight as we head towards the shutdown – thank you very much for your
time tonight, Senator.

HIRONO: Thank you.

MADDOW: I know it`s been a long day.

All right. We have much more ahead tonight. Do stay with us.



NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: The question that probably – oh I don`t know, 70
percent of America wants to know the answer to, that would be the 70
percent who offered you there body parts and organs. How`s your health?


TOTENBERG: And those ribs you busted?

GINSBURG: Almost repaired.

TOTENBERG: That`s good.


MADDOW: Nina Totenberg went on to ask her, have you gone back to your
trainer? And Justice Ginsburg told her, yes, that she went back
immediately after the fall when she broke her ribs. She went back but
initially, she could only do legs but she was back to her full routine.
That was as of five days ago. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaking with
NPR`s Nina Totenberg talking about being on the mend after breaking three
ribs last month.

What we didn`t know at that event, again five days ago, was that Justice
Ginsburg was about to go in for fairly serious surgery today. This morning
here in New York City, doctors removed a portion of her left lung
containing two cancerous growths, two nodules.

Tonight, according to a spokesperson for the court, Justice Ginsburg is
resting comfortably and will remain in the hospital for a few days.
Doctors say the nodules were cancerous, but with this surgery, there is no
evidence of cancer now anywhere else in her body. The court also says
there`s no further treatment plan.

Justice Ginsburg is 85 years old. She has already survived about with
colon cancer and a bout with pancreatic cancer, and she had a stent put in
her right coronary artery, and now this.

For everything she`s been through though, she has never missed a single day
of oral arguments in her 25-plus years on the court. The next scheduled
day for oral arguments is January 7th. As best as we can tell, Justice
Ginsburg`s plan is to be back in the saddle for those arguments, too.

Joining us now is Julie Cohen. She along with her colleague Betsy West
directed the smash hit documentary film “RBG”.

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

JULIE COHEN, CO-DIRECTOR, “RBG” DOCUMENTARY: Good to be here, although not
under the best circumstances.

MADDOW: No, I have to ask you and it`s OK if you don`t want to talk about
this in detail. But do you have anything that you can tell us in terms of
people close to the justice and anything about her current status right

COHEN: Well, I did ask for an update from a close family member late this
afternoon who said, you know, she`s – did well right through the surgery
and that the doctor told her afterward that they have every reason to be
optimistic. So, optimism is kind of a hallmark of Justice Ginsburg`s life.
She`ll take everything optimistically and it`s served her well.

MADDOW: And this is not something that she knew was coming for a long
while, although it wasn`t immediate. I mean, the fall in which she injured
– she broke her ribs was in early November.

COHEN: That`s right.

MADDOW: And it seems like – and correct me if I got the timing wrong here
– but it seems like in assessing her after that injury, that`s when they
recognized that she had these nodules that needed to be checked. And so,
they didn`t put her in for surgery immediately, she went through these few
weeks but now she – you know, I have a colleague who was actually on the
shuttle flight with her from D.C. to New York yesterday, and who said she
was fine and working the whole time gave no indication that anything was up
five days ago with Nina Totenberg, no indication that anything`s up. She
had to know she was going in for this surgery, though.

COHEN: She had to know. That`s right. It`s been a little while.

I mean, take note of the timing here, she waited until the Friday before a
long holiday to go in for surgery presumably with the thought that like oh
I should get this medical stuff out of the way like over Christmas, New
Year`s, so that I can be back on a bench on January 7th. That`s a sort of
standard for her through her previous bouts with cancer.


COHEN: She had a pattern, something that she actually – a lesson that she
took from Justice O`Connor who had done the same thing with her breast
cancer, get chemo on Friday, so you got the weekend to rest up and then
hopefully you`re back for arguments on Monday. It`s a pretty tough way to
approach I`m a huge medical problem like this.

MADDOW: Well, but I mean talk about being conscious of the country meeting

I just have to ask you in your experience in terms of working on the film
and every all the interactions that you ever had with her, all of which
have been since she`s been in her 80s, what do you – what do you see in
terms of her stamina? I mean, I`ve never I`ve never met her. Obviously,
she`s a person who`s very small in stature, but she`s never missed a day
having been through all of these things. We know that she works out with
the trainer all the time.

What did you see in terms of her energy level, her stamina?

COHEN: The energy level is really like nothing I`ve ever seen in my life.
The inclination and the enthusiasm to work, to talk, to experience to keep
going is just huge. We would have days of shooting where, you know, we`re
filming parts of an interview, we`re then filming some very safe footage
then you know going with her to an opera to film some of that. She wants
to after that, you know, go out to dinner with friends and her marshals and
then go back to her hotel and we you know read up and make some changes –

MADDOW: To work for hours.

COHEN: It`s like – you know, her trainer Brian Johnson calls her a
cyborg. You know, I think he`s not kidding around when he when he says
that. There are elements of that.

MADDOW: Well, if she is, in fact, a cyborg and he`s on to something that
means that we should set her up with a multiple life time set of spare
parts at this place.

COHEN: Absolutely.

MADDOW: Yes. Well, thoughts and prayers for her right now in her

Julie Cohen, one of the directors to the documentary “RBG” – thanks for
helping us get some insight into this. Much appreciated.

COHEN: Great to be here.

MADDOW: Thanks a lot.

All right. Still ahead, a mystery developments in a Russian meddling case
that is not one of the Robert Mueller cases, but this happened today. I`m
slightly obsessed with it. That story is next.


MADDOW: We reported a couple of days ago about a court fight between
defense lawyers for accused Russian agent Maria Butina and the prosecutors
in her case. The defense lawyers asked the court to lift a gag order that
the judge had imposed in her case because Butina had pled guilty.

They said, listen, she`s pled guilty, there`s no reason to ban everybody in
the case from making public statements now since there isn`t going to be a
jury trial in her case. She`s pled guilty. There`s not going to be a
trial. There`s no potential jurors out there that`s going to be tainted by
any public comments they might hear about this matter.

Prosecutors argued the opposite. They said actually, judge, keep the gag
order in place. We know that Butina has pled guilty, so there`s not going
to be a trial for her, but then prosecutors intriguingly raised the
prospect of the need to protect trials for any potential future defendants.

Prosecutors specifically referenced to pending or imminent criminal
litigation related to the Butina matter. And I italicized the word
imminent, we think, for emphasize. Quote, keeping the order in place
through sentencing would safeguard the rights of any potential defendants
who may later be charged in connection with this matter, especially if any
other person is charged as a result of the defendant`s cooperation.

Tell me more about these other potential defendants related to the Butina
case who may be charged particularly on the basis of her cooperation. Tell
me more.

That was Wednesday. That fight between the government and the prosecutors,
the government saying it isn`t just about her being indicted. The defense
saying please lift the gag order, it`s just about her.

Well, today, the judge made her decision. She lifted the gag order in the
Maria Butina case, which means a couple of things. It means we`re probably
going to hear more public information from people associated with this
case, including presumably the lawyers. But it also raises interesting
questions about whether there are potential other defendants related to her
case that aren`t her or not.

Watch this case.


MADDOW: Where does the time go? It is officially shut down the clock,
which means I shall hand you over to the tender mercies of Katy Tur, who is
in for Lawrence tonight on “THE LAST WORD.”

Good evening, Katy.


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