Michael Cohen has Strongly denied claims. TRANSCRIPT: 12/27/2018, The Rachel Maddow Show.

Greg Gordon, Mike Quigley, Eric Lipton

Date: December 27, 2018
Guest: Greg Gordon, Mike Quigley, Eric Lipton

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST. That is “ALL IN” for this evening.

“THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” starts now with Joy Reid, in for Rachel.

Good evening, Joy.

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thank you very much.

And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. Rachel does have the
night off.

But we have a lot to get to tonight, including a bombshell allegation about
Donald Trump`s long-time personal attorney Michael Cohen and what newly
disclosed cell phone records might tell us about potential collusion with
the Russians in the run up to the election in 2016. This new reporting
about Michael Cohen has got kind of a CSI feeling to it, so stay tuned.

Meanwhile, this is night six of the government shutdown. Congress was back
in session today for a hot second, by which I mean less than five minutes.
Gavel to gavel, the House of Representatives was in session for 2:4 3. The
senate, four minutes exactly, because they`re working.

And as you might imagine, they got about zero done to end the shutdown,
which means that substantial parts of the federal government will remain
shut down right through this weekend and on into next year. Happy 2019,

White House essentially declared defeat on the shutdown. Donald Trump
vowed to own before he changed his mind and tried not to own it. Releasing
a statement that was curious for what it left out, the word “wall”, which
appear nowhere in it, and also reiterating that the president really,
really doesn`t want to shut down, because he just can`t sign a bill that
doesn`t, quote, adequately fund border security, which I guess is the new
euphemism for really big, really tall wall. We`ll have more on that in the

But first, I want to take you back a moment to January 2017, nearly two
years ago. It was just a few days before Donald Trump`s inauguration to
become president of the United States. Like an iceberg dead ahead of the
Titanic, this unexpected news item appeared on the Trump world horizon. It
was late in the evening on a Tuesday night, January 10th, 2017 when
“BuzzFeed” published what we now refer to as the Steele dossier, a
collection of raw intelligence reports written by former British spy
Christopher Steele.

At the time, “BuzzFeed” published the dossier, we didn`t know much about
it, other than the claims made in the dossier that were shocking,
salacious, and rather impossible to verify. We later learned that the
dossier had at first been commissioned by a conservative purveyor for a
U.S. political website looking to dig up dirt on Donald Trump. When they
decided to stop funding it, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party
picked up the bill, and Steele`s search for Trump background info

But in substance, what “BuzzFeed” revealed to the world on that Tuesday
night in January was a series of unconfirmed reports detailing the ways in
which Russia allegedly cultivated Donald Trump for years and then set out
to help him win the presidential election, and the ways in which members of
the Trump campaign allegedly cooperated in those Russian intelligence

The dossier named names, including the president`s long-time personal
lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, whose name appears multiple times in the
dossier, as someone who was a key go-between between the Russian effort and
the Trump campaign. By this point in January 2017, Michael Cohen had
become a fixture on the cable news circuit as a trash-talking outspoken
defender of Donald Trump, but the Steele dossier painted him in a much more
nefarious light.

On the second to last page of the dossier, on page 34, Christopher Steele
wrote a couple of months before the election in August or September of
2016, as the Kremlin was growing more concerned about the negative public
fallout from the hacking of the DNC and the dumping of information through
WikiLeaks that was meant to be damaging to Hillary Clinton`s campaign, as
that fallout was worrying the Kremlin and they were seeking to put a button
on the operation, Donald Trump`s personal attorney Michael Cohen spirited
away to Prague.

Quote: Trump`s representative Cohen accompanied to Prague in August or
September of 2016 with three colleagues for secret discussions with Kremlin
representatives and associated operators/hackers. Continued from the
dossier, according to redacted, the agenda comprised of questions on how
deniable cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked in Europe
under Kremlin direction against the Clinton campaign. And various
contingencies for covering up these operations and Moscow`s secret liaison
with the Trump team more generally.

That was a shocking set of claims. The president`s lawyer allegedly
meeting clandestinely with Russian officials to facilitate deniable cash
payments to hackers working to get Trump elected. The lawyers considering
ways to cover up Moscow`s secret liaison with the campaign.

There is a lot of unconfirmed explosive stuff in the Steele dossier. The
stuff about Michael Cohen is kind of right out of a Bond movie. Michael
Cohen denied it all the night the dossier came out, and he has kept on
denying it. #fakenews he wrote hours after the dossier posted. I`ve never
been to Prague in my life he tweeted, alongside a photograph of his

Cohen also went on TV.


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

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

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER TRUMP LAYWER: It`s very serious in my life.

HANNITY: This is your passport.

COHEN: Yes, it is.

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

COHEN: Mr. Trump.

HANNITY: And Mr. Trump asked you?

COHEN: Were you ever in Prague?

HANNITY: And your answer was?

COHEN: Never.

HANNITY: In your whole life?

COHEN: No, I`ve never been in Prague.

HANNITY: And he wanted to see your passport?

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


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


REID: So Michael Cohen was and has been insistent on denying this. Two
sources, the “Wall Street Journal” and “Mother Jones” said Cohen told them
shortly after the election that he has not been to Prague since the early
2000s. Since those reports, he has denied being there at all, ever.

And in terms of what the dossier alleges, he says he was in California at
that time in 2016, visiting a college campus with his son. Since the
Steele dossier was published in January of 2017, the allegation that Cohen
was in Prague, coordinating with the Russians a couple of months before the
election, that has remained an entirely unproven allegation, a giant
question mark in what we know of the Russian – in what we know of as the
Russia investigation.

Then this past April, the FBI raided Michael Cohen`s offices in an
investigation of bank fraud. Four days later, the McClatchy News Service
reported that special counsel Robert Mueller has evidence that Michael
Cohen was indeed in Prague during the time period alleged in the Steele

Quote: It`s unclear whether Mueller`s investigators also have evidence that
Cohen actually met with a prominent Russian, but investigators have traced
evidence that Cohen entered the Czech Republic through Germany, apparently
during August or early September of 2016, as Christopher Steele reported,
said the two sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the
investigation is confidential.

That was McClatchy reporting in April of this year, that Robert Mueller had
evidence that Michael Cohen was in Prague for reasons unknown ahead of the
election. The report did not explain what form that evidence was in or how
Robert Mueller got it. And since then, no news agency has published a
report matching McClatchy`s story, including NBC News. McClatchy, for its
part has never retracted its story or changed it in any way. They stood by
it, even as they stood alone on it.

Since then, Michael Cohen has pleaded guilty to a number of charges,
including campaign finance violations that he says he made at the direction
of the president. That case was brought by federal prosecutors in New

Michael Cohen also pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about his efforts on
behalf of Donald Trump to build a Trump Tower Moscow. That charge was
brought by the special counsel, by Robert Mueller.

For those crimes, Michael Cohen, the president`s personal lawyer, was
sentenced to a total of three years in prison, which he is set to begin
serving in March. Before Cohen was sentenced, the special counsel`s office
weighed in with the judge, asking him not to be too harsh on Michael Cohen.
They argued that, yes, Michael Cohen had committed serious crimes,
including withholding information related to the Russia investigation. Not
just from the Senate and the House Intelligence Committees, but also from
the special counsel`s office.

But Mueller`s office also argued that Michael Cohen had in recent months
gone to, quote, significant lengths to assist the special counsel`s
investigation. They said – the information Cohen provided to them was,
quote, credible and consistent with other evidence obtained in the special
counsel`s ongoing investigation. The special counsel`s office pointed out
that Michael Cohen had met with them multiple times and given them, quote,
information about Michael Cohen`s own conduct and that of others on core
topics under investigation by the special counsel`s office.

Which is very intriguing, but who knows? The special counsel`s office does
not leak. We do not know what Cohen told them. We may never know.

Meanwhile, today we got what looks like round two from the McClatchy
reporters digging into the allegation about Michael Cohen and Prague. Now
remember, in April, McClatchy reported that Robert Mueller had some kind of
evidence that Cohen was in Prague in 2016. Today, McClatchy had more to

Here is the opening line. Quote: A mobile phone traced to President Donald
Trump`s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen briefly sent signals
ricocheting off cell towers in the Prague area in late summer 2016, at the
height of the presidential campaign, leaving an electronic record to
support claims that Cohen met secretly there with Russian officials.
McClatchy sources this information to four people, who spoke on condition
of anonymity due to the sensitivity of information shared by their foreign
intelligence connections.

McClatchy says each of the four sources obtained their information
independently from foreign intelligence connections.

McClatchy goes on to report that, quote, during the same period of late
August or early September, electronic eavesdropping by an Eastern European
Intelligence Agency picked up a conversation among Russians, one of whom
remarked that Cohen was in Prague. Two people familiar with the incident
said. McClatchy reports that these foreign electronic intelligence
intercepts were shared with Robert Mueller.

Now, again today, Michael Cohen very definitively denied this reporting,
saying that he has never been to Prague. When asked if he has ever been to
the Czech Republic, Cohen responded no, capital N, capital O. In another
denial, Cohen added, quote, Mueller knows everything.

So, the reporting from McClatchy changed in that McClatchy now cites
multiple anonymous sourcing describing the electronic intercepts that show
Cohen`s phone pinging in Prague. The reporting has changed. The denials
from Cohen have not. To be clear, neither NBC News nor other organizations
have confirmed this latest dispatch from McClatchy just as they and we did
not confirm the McClatchy story from April.

We do have a ton of questions about this. Who are the sources for this new
report? Are they the same as the sources from the earlier story? And why
are we just finding about this now?

Joining us now is Greg Gordon, investigative reporter for McClatchy News
who broke the story tonight as well as the first reporting on the topic in

Mr. Gordon, thank you so much for joining us tonight.

here, Joy.

REID: So, let`s start at the end of this. You saw that Michael Cohen
today who hasn`t talked a lot since his sentencing again denied ever having
been not just in Prague, but this the Czech Republic at all. What is your
response to that, having reported on this?

GORDON: Well, Bob Mueller is in a pinch because he has an acting attorney
general who now oversees his investigation and has harshly criticized it.
He has the nominee to be the permanent attorney general in Bill Barr who
has harshly criticized the investigation. So one would think that bob
Mueller wouldn`t want too much about his investigation getting out in the

Former prosecutors have said that this is actually a standard practice for
a prosecutor to –

REID: But Cohen doesn`t have to say anything. Cohen could say nothing.

GORDON: He could say nothing.

REID: But he is saying he was definitively not in Prague, he was not in
Prague ever.

GORDON: And all I can say to that is we`ll see how this sorts out because
Michael Cohen, as we all know, has been convicted of lying about his
dealings with the Trump hotel in Russia. He`s been convicted of being
deceitful in a number of ways. And so, his credibility is not high. We`re
going to have to – we have to follow what our sources that we trust and
have developed over this two-year period have told us.

REID: Let`s talk about the source. Obviously, you`re not going to tell me
who your sources are. But let`s talk about what they have told you. If
there are intercepts that put Michael Cohen`s cell phone in Prague, one
would think those would be fairly specific. But reporting by McClatchy is
they were either in August or September. How would they not be more
specific if these are actual intercepts that show the phone pings?

GORDON: I think they are more specific, but unfortunately, we weren`t able
to pry that out of our sources who are getting information from foreign
intelligence agencies. This is a counterintelligence investigation. It`s
closely held.

REID: Did your sources see the intercepts for themselves or are they
passing along information from other people?

GORDON: The sources have – some of the sources have government sources,
and some of the sources are people who have told us that they have trusted
intelligence type sources that they get information from. We don`t know
the specifics, but we have used these sources on many subjects, and they
have been very accurate.

REID: You know that sounds a lot like a Steele dossier. I read the Steele
dossier today. The reality is if your sources didn`t see the intercepts
themselves, did they let you see them?

GORDON: Did they let us see –

REID: Have you seen the intercepts?


REID: So what we have, then, is sources have been used before, and they`re
saying they were told that these intercepts exist.

GORDON: That is true.

REID: Have they – what kind of evidence did they provide you for you to
feel confident that this was something you`re willing to put McClatchy`s
name on?

GORDON: Well, for one thing, we got numbers. We have four sources who
told us about this. And for another, we have read the beginning of our
story to some of these sources, make absolutely certain we`ve gone over and
over and over it. We worked on this story really for months.

REID: Did your sources to come to you and say hey, we have this new
information, or did you go to them asking?

GORDON: Well, it`s been a dialogue for a long time. And my partner, Peter
Stone did some of this sleuthing, but we both are well acquainted with the
sources. And we – I would say we developed – some of this came from
foreign sources, and those people, one of those people talked to us over a
long period of time before he provided a drop of information.

REID: And I mean, I guess the reason that I`m asking is we know that there
is a possibility that sometimes sources have motives for putting things
out, and one of those motives might be to get McClatchy to run a story like
this, even if it isn`t true. Is there any concern at all that people might
have had a motivation to get you to run a story, that sort of at Prague
situation, where it didn`t happen but they wanted it printed?

GORDON: Well, that`s not the kind of dialogue we`ve had that would create
that kind of suspicion, because the people we`ve been working with, but you
always have to be wary of disinformation. What I would say about
disinformation, just think about the dossier of Michael Cohen.

REID: Uh-huh.

GORDON: Because this whole Cohen episode, the reason it`s got so much
attention is that it goes – Mueller has not yet charged anybody with
collusion or any crime.

REID: Right.

GORDON: Equating to collusion.

And so what this – what this meeting or purported meeting in progress
could mean is the first strong evidence of some sort of collusion.

We`re a long way from there. We don`t even know beyond the fact that his
cell phone appeared to show up in the Prague area, we don`t even know if
there was a meeting. But this is coupled with some intelligence from an
Eastern European Intelligence Agency that picked up this conversation.
Michael Cohen is in Prague from a Russian official, we believe a senior
Russian official.

REID: I guess my other question to you is there anything you were able to
see for yourselves that corroborated what these four sources were telling
you, anything – the intercepts that would give you some further evidence
beyond that?

GORDON: I wish we had. We held out for a while for that, and there came a
time when we thought we had a critical mass. It is a competitive business.

REID: It is indeed. Greg Gordon, thanks very much for your time. Please
come back to us, especially if you get more. If you get the intercepts,
come back to the show.

GORDON: Happy to do it.

REID: Thank you very much.

All right. Here is another curious part of the reporting about Michael
Cohen. One place he has denied the allegation about any meeting in Prague
or being in Prague, or having been in the Czech Republic is in dealing with
the Senate Intelligence Committee. He told the Senate Intel Committee in
September that he, quote, had nothing to do with any Russian involvement in
the electoral process, unquote. He told them, quote, I have never in my
life been to Prague or anywhere in the Czech Republic, unquote.

Here is the thing. Michael Cohen pleaded guilty last month to lying to
Congress about Trump Tower Moscow, including in a statement to the Senate
Intelligence Committee. If the special counsel did have evidence that
Michael Cohen lied about being in Prague, if that were true, then why would
the special counsel not charge him with that part as well?

Joining us now is Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney in the Eastern
District of Michigan. Great to have you with us.

BARBARA MCQUADE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Thanks, Joy. Glad to be here.

REID: So, Barbara, this is a conundrum. Either Michael Cohen has been to
Prague or he hasn`t, right? It seems like a pretty definitive cut and dry
question. He even up to today is denying he had ever been there. He told
the Senate Intelligence Committee that he had never been there.

In your view as a prosecutor, if the Mueller team, if the Mueller
prosecutors had evidence that that was a lie, does it surprise you that he
isn`t charged with lying, at least lying to the Senate.

MCQUADE: Well, not necessarily. I think your skepticism is well-placed.
I think it does seem to be contradictory, especially when Michael Cohen is
cooperating and went out of his what I today to tweet that he`s never been
to Prague or the Czech Republic, as you pointed out. It seems the easier
thing to do would be to just say nothing if that was the case.

But it`s not necessarily the case that Robert Mueller would charge him,
even if this reporting is true. That is that his phone pinged off a tower,
there was an intercept that occurred in Prague that puts his phone there,
because that doesn`t necessarily mean that they`ve got a solid case for a
false statement. For a false statement you have to prove that it`s true.

And so, the ping alone is certainly one indication. It could be that the
sources are telling the truth but that they`re being played, as you asked,
you know, an eastern intelligence agency has reported, well, maybe it`s to
their advantage to put information, misinformation out there about what is
going on with Russia. So, not clear yet, but I think that if this piece of
it is true, then certainly something Robert Mueller would want to build

REID: Right. You know, I`m old enough to remember when Michael Cohen
definitively said that he had never paid Stormy Daniels a dime and Donald
Trump had nothing do with her, right? That was a pretty bold-faced lie.
That wasn`t true. And he walked that back.

Now, he has been sentenced now to because of the dishonesty, et cetera. If
Michael Cohen, like you said, he didn`t have to say anything, but if he
went out today and again said he had never been in Prague and it turned out
he had, couldn`t he be opening himself up to more charges, to a longer

MCQUADE: Absolutely, especially because he has been attempting to
cooperate both with Robert Mueller and with the Southern District of New
York. But you may remember the Southern District of New York was quite
dissatisfied with his Cooperation and said that he was holding back and
refused to agree to a traditional cooperation agreement, which means you`ve
agreed to cooperate about everything, to be fully forthcoming about every
matter known to you.

So, it does seem he is holding back on some things. Is it about this? Is
he protecting families involves in criminal activity? Difficult to know
exactly what that is.

But I think one thing that is kind of interesting, is this corroborates
information that is in the Steele dossier. And I know there are many
people who have criticized the Steele dossier and tried to discredit it,
but today all of the allegations in it, I don`t know that anything has been
disproven, and a number of facts have been proven to be true. Many of them
have been documented in the Manafort indictment, in the Flynn indictments,
and the indictment against the Russian hackers.

So, it does cause me to wonder whether this is or is not true. In light of
the fact we learn more facts, it seems to match up with what is in the
Steele dossier. And this is more information, this meeting in Prague that
is in that dossier. So, I think it remains to be seen whether this is

REID: It`d be very interesting. Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort,
Michael Cohen all mentioned the Steele dossier. But Cohen was singled out
as the linchpin of the contact. So, whatever he knows, whatever he is
telling has got to be pretty high level.

Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney of Michigan, thank you very much for
your time and I appreciate it.

MCQUADE: Thanks, Joy.

REID: Thank you.

And much to get to here tonight. We are going to talk with a key Democrat
on the House Intelligence Committee who just one week from tonight will be
in the majority. Stay with us.


REID: Allow me to direct your attention to the calendar. Those of you who
have lost what day it is, and that can happen when you`ve been binging on
Christmas cookies and eggnog and cocktails. Today is December 27th. One
week from today is January 3rd, and that`s important, because on January
3rd, the new Congress is sworn in and Democrats take back control of the
House and all those powerful committees, including the House Intelligence
Committee, which in addition to having extensive subpoena powers has vowed
to be as determined when it comes to reopening their investigation into the
Trump campaign and administration as the previous Republican majority on
the committee was to provide Trump cover.

Joining us now is Congressman Mike Quigley, who sits on the House
Intelligence Committee.

Congressman, thanks so much for your time tonight.


REID: So let`s talk. We just spoke with a reporter from “McClatchy” whose
story tonight is providing what they`re saying are four sources who put
Michael Cohen or at least his cell phone in Prague when he says he`s never
been there. Adam Schiff has indicated he`d like to call Michael Cohen

What do you think? Should Michael Cohen come back and testify either in
open session or closed session specifically about whether he was in Prague?

QUIGLEY: Well, today`s reporting certainly gives us additional information
that he might have been in Prague, but it`s not perfectly clear. It`s not
that difficult. Mr. Cohen, you are always welcome to come back and clear
the air. I take you at your word that you want to resolve all this. But
if Mueller knows all, according to your announcement today, I think the
American public has a right to know.

So come back and share all this information, because these investigations
have very different purposes. Mr. Mueller has to determine who to bring to
justice. Our job is to find out what the Russians did, who conspired with
them, if anyone, and how to protect and inform the American public.

We can`t get to that problem. We can`t solve that problem unless everyone,
including Mr. Cohen and others like Mr. Flynn, come back and clear the air.

REID: What about Christopher Steele? Because a lot of what the dossier
alleges is a pretty straight forward attempt to cultivate Donald Trump
before he is running for president, really for years, to dangle business
opportunities in front of him, to get him to be cooperative, and he becomes
cooperative, right? And then the attempt to help him become president is
quite extensive. It involves multiple members of his campaign, whether
it`s Carter Page or whether it`s Paul Manafort or it`s Mike Flynn or Cohen.

It`s so complicated, but Christopher Steele seems to be the guy that has
the narrative. Would you consider recalling him or calling him in front of
your committee?

QUIGLEY: Well, I think we have to understand what this document was. It
was early on without complete information, and he didn`t have the benefit
of a team such as the special counsel. I believe that the Steele document
is a well done document. I believe it`s largely accurate. I just believe
it was a snapshot taken at the time, and it`s incomplete.

We need the special counsel and the House and Senate. In some respects,
working together, communicating and cooperating so that we get a complete

So I think Mr. Steele can add something to that if he`s willing to
cooperate. I certainly understand why he would hesitate given the way he
was treated by my Republican colleagues, but I think it would allow the
American public to get a little more information about what took place.
More important than all that, though, as you suggest, we`re starting next
week afresh with the abilities to subpoena documents and people and have
them not refuse to answer questions, as was allowed when the Republicans
controlled the investigation in the House.

REID: Right. We know that one of the through lines in a lot of these
investigations has to do with money, money laundering, questions hanging
over some of the people who have pleaded guilty. You`ve been to Cyprus,
which is supposedly one of the locations where money might have passed

What do you want to investigate when it comes to that aspect of these

QUIGLEY: I think money laundering is extraordinarily important. I think
there are other countries involved. This is a tough investigation. It`s
hard to subpoena a Russian oligarch, but I do think it`s a critical element
to this. We`re well aware of Deutsche Bank`s role in financing the Trump
financial world for the decade before it became president, and also quite
aware of the fact that they were fined $600 million in New York for, wait
for it, money laundering illegally for the Russians.

So it`s ripe territory. But as to your point, I think the 30,000-foot
level issues that relate to that, was the president compromised due to his
financial dealings, either with the Russians or as we might suggest, the
Saudis or other countries.

And beyond that, and even more important perhaps is it`s fair for the
American public to ask the question. Whose interest was the president
looking out for as a candidate and then the president? Was it his own?
Was it Russian oligarchs? Was it President Putin or oh, by the way, the
American public? I think that issue still stands today, and it`s more
important than ever.

REID: Congressman Mike Quigley, who sits on the House Intelligence
Committee – thank you so much for joining us tonight.

QUIGLEY: Thank you. And happy New Year to everyone.

REID: Happy New Year. Thank you.

Well, political geeks, get ready. We have a story just for you, next.
Stay with us.


MADDOW: As the end of the year comes around, one thing we truly get
excited about around here in Maddow-land is, wait for it, the final tallies
of political spending.

For example, year-end financial filings are giving us a peek into how much
money hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer and his family spent in 2018.
As major Trump supporter, the Mercers, who are also the big money behind
Breitbart News and the new defunct Cambridge Analytica pumped more than $25
million into the 2016 election. Bloomberg News reports today that the
Mercers are stepping back from some of that. A mere 2-point – spending a
mere $2.9 million on federal elections this year. That`s like a 2/3
spending cut.

Also hot off the financial presses, the numbers from the Mercer Family
Foundation. The advocacy group MapLight got the Mercer Foundation`s tax
filings for the 2017 fiscal year, and MapLight`s big takeaway is all the
big money the Mercer Foundation continues to spend on modern day deniers of
climate change. They count more than $4 million last year.

You can see in the filings that the Mercers donated $800,000 to the climate
change deniers at the Heartland Institute, $170,000 to the CO2 coalition,
where they shrug off rising sea levels and cheer the rising CO2.

That kind of spending is nothing new for the Mercers, or frankly for any
number of supporters for big industry that do the most to pollute the
planet. They`ve been pushing for a long time against environmental
regulations so those pesky regulations won`t eat into their profits. What
is new is that now that side of the “protect the environment” or “pad the
profits” ledger has a White House that`s willing, basically, even eager to
sign on to that agenda. That story is next.

Stay with us.


REID: Chlorpyrifos is a broad spectrum pesticide. As a molecule, it looks
a little something like this. You got science.

It`s essentially a nerve agent in the same class of chemicals as sarin gas.
It can cause nausea and dizziness and confusion. In high doses, it can
cause vomiting, convulsions, respiratory arrest, even death.

The people who make this pesticide say that in normal low-level doses, it`s
perfectly safe. Some agricultural experts say the science is not
conclusive. Part of why it`s so hard to draw a conclusion is the pesticide
is too toxic to be tested on humans. It`s already banned for most
household uses.

But chlorpyrifos is all over American farms. More than 40,000 U.S. farms
use it on dozens of different crops.

So, a few years ago, the EPA decided to study whether it was still safe to
dump all that pesticide into the air and on to our food. And what the EPA
found was kind of alarming. They looked at the research that was done at
Columbia University, and this was the headline from the Columbia study.
Common pesticide disturbs the brains of children.

The EPA came to a similar conclusion. They found that exposure to
chlorpyrifos had significant long-term consequences, like declines in
learning and memory, especially on people who work on farms where the
pesticide is used. So, the EPA suggested banning the use of chlorpyrifos
on all food crops, full stop.

But that ban never happened because Donald Trump became president. He
picked Scott Pruitt to run the EPA. And one of the first things, the very
first thing Scott Pruitt did as head of that agency was to kill that ban of
that pesticide, with the potential to disturb the brains of children. He
said there was not enough science to justify a blanket ban, despite what
the experts at the EPA had found before he got there.

If the Trump administration had not quashed that ban, we would be entering
our second year in this country without a drop of that chemical touching
our crops. Instead, the pesticide hoses are still on, and “The New York
Times” has done some remarkable reporting on what that looks like for
Americans on the ground.

Quote: in May of 2015, Vicenta Rivera was one of the first to feel it, a
pesticide drift of chlorpyrifos has been sprayed on a nearby grove of
mandarin oranges. There was a strong odor, a taste in the back of the
truth, numb lips, itchy skin and watery eyes. The headache set in quickly.

A 37-year-old mother of three remembers the smell, the dizziness, the
overwhelming feeling of nausea. Other workers thought she was faking it,
trying to be funny when she hit the ground and started convulsing.

When the invisible but toxic cloud of chlorpyrifos arrived, Lucia Montero
thought she smelled grease or burned oil, believing it was the tractor, she
turned off the engine. Then came the burning, the itching the nausea. Ms.
Montero called a supervisor on the phone who told her to get her crew out
of the field. But by then several were vomiting, two or three fainted.

“The New York Times” just dropped this incredible body of work today
documenting how the Trump administration is unwinding environmental
regulations at a breakneck pace. They documented the effects of those
rollbacks, the effects they`re having on real people in painstaking detail.
And it`s not just plumes of pesticides in the California orange fields.

Joining us now is Eric Lipton, investigative reporter for “The New York
Times” and one of the reporters responsible for this excellent endeavor.

Eric, great to have you with us.


REID: So that was just a little bit of your reporting on the Trump
administration not to ban this pesticide, our new spelling word of the day,
chlorpyrifos. But that`s just sort of tip of the iceberg of what you all
have found in terms of what they`re doing in terms of the environment, can
you give us a few of the highlights or maybe the low-lights?

LIPTON: Sure. We`ve read so much about proposals for changes in
environmental rules. What we found when we went and looked across the
United States was that there are real impacts that are happening.

For example, in North Dakota, there was a proposal by the Department of
Interior to limit the flaring and leaks of natural gas when there is oil
and drilling going on. And in North Dakota, there has been a massive
increase in the amount of flaring on an Indian reservation there that would
have been subject to an interior department rule that limited that flaring
and those leaks, be the Trump administration basically eliminated all of
those limits on flaring, and I went and visited that reservation in
November, and you thought the hillsides were on fire.

I mean, the flares were burning everywhere you looked, hundreds of flares
burning. Thirty percent of the natural gas that they produce there is
being burned. It`s enough to power 600,000 homes per month. It`s just
being burned into the air.

At times, there are chemicals that are leaking that are carcinogens going
into the air. It`s an incredible scene. It`s quite terrifying, in fact,
but this is something that`s no longer being regulated by the Department of
the Interior.

REID: And we know that the Trump administration, that Donald Trump came in
touting coal. He was going to somehow bring back this 19th and 20th
century product and make it, you know, profitable again. Talk a little bit
about what the administration has been doing on coal in terms of the
environment, and has that in fact brought back the industry?

LIPTON: I mean, if is there a single industry that the administration has
attempted to help out, it`s the coal industry. And of the areas that we
looked in both Texas and in West Virginia, we found examples. There is a
regulation that is supposed to reduce the toxic metals being released in
the rivers in the United States. It was a single biggest source of toxic
pollutants going in the rivers that rule has been delayed. Eighty
different power plants in the United States are supposed to be upgrading
their waste treatment programs. Most have now stopped the design works on
those improvements because of this delay the EPA put.

In Texas, I visited a power plant that was going have to upgrade its air
pollution control system to produce sulfur dioxide which is contributed to
perhaps 170 deaths a year can be attributed to this plant because of the
enormous amount of sulfur dioxide it`s emitting each year. It`s one the
largest sources in the United States.

The EPA under Obama said that plant is going to have to install what`s
called the scrubber to reduce that sulfur dioxide. The Trump EPA says no
longer necessary. Don`t worry about it. There are nine plants that were
going to have to install scrubbers in Texas. Those are no longer going to
have to happen. That`s another change.

But the thing is, both of those things were supposed to help the coal
industry, but then the energy department reported just a couple of weeks
ago coal production in the United States declined more in the last year
than it has in decades. So, the United States continues to turn away from
coal, even though Trump said that he is ending the war on coal.

REID: Wow. Great reporting. Eric Lipton, investigative reporter for “The
New York Times.” I recommend everyone read it. It`s sobering reading, but
thank you so much for doing that work. Appreciate it.

LIPTON: Thank you.

REID: Thank you.

When we come back, former President Barack Obama on the verge of making
history again in a whole new way, and while this is bound to be salt in the
wound for one Donald Trump. That`s ahead.


REID: Here`s a piece of presidential trivia for you. The Gallup polling
company has asked Americans this question, what man have you heard or read
about living today in any part of the world do you admire most? Gallup
reported today that this year the honor went to none other than Barack

Obama has been the man Americans admire most in the world for 11 years in a
row. Meaning if he wins next year, he will tie Dwight Eisenhower for the
most times being named the most admired man.

Gallup says there are only two presidents to date who did not win the honor
while in office. One is Gerald Ford, although to be fair he was only in
office two years and Gallup did not do the polling of one of them. The
other president who has yet to top the list is Donald Trump. But he has
two more years left to try.

Meanwhile, there is something else this week that counts as unprecedented
and that is next.


REID: Yesterday, Donald Trump flew to the Al Asad Air Base in Iraq to
visit the U.S. troops stationed there. That part, that part there`s
precedent for. There`s both a long-standing tradition of presidents making
some time over the holidays to visit the troops and expectation that at
some point in their time in office, the presidents will make a trip like
this one, to meet with our troops abroad.

What seems unprecedented is how this particular president spoke while he
was there.


borders in the United States, and Democrats don`t want to let us have
strong borders, only for one reason. You know why? Because I want it.

You know when you think about it, you`re fighting for borders in other
countries, and they don`t want to fight, the Democrats for the border of
our country. It doesn`t make a lot of sense.


REID: The Democrats, the Democrats, the Democrats.

Now, I`m no presidential historian but why understanding is typically when
the president makes this kind of visit, they call for unity and talk about
the indomitable greatness of the American spirit or laud the troops for
their current mission, they don`t do a campaign speech. But again, I`m not
a presidential historian.

Joining us now is somehow who is, NBC presidential historian and author of
the great new book “Presidents of War”, Michael Beschloss.

Michael, always great to have you with us.


REID: What did you make of that address that Donald Trump gave in front of
U.S. troops in Iraq?

BESCHLOSS: I thought it was obscene, because, you know, just as you were
saying, president goes to speak to Americans whose lives are in jeopardy,
the tradition is you keep it nonpolitical, you try to unite the group. You
try to say I`m your commander in chief, I`m behind you. You do not talk

And for him to start talking about in a nasty way about Democrats and Nancy
Pelosi and we`ve been played for suckers in the past, that`s fine if you
want to say those things at a Trump rally at a stadium in the United
States, because people go to a Trump rally voluntarily and if they hear
things they do not like, they can leave. These are young Americans for the
most part who have chosen to serve their country, if the president says
something they privately disagree with, they don`t have the right to jeer
him or get up and leave the way the rest of us do if we`re here in the
United States. I thought it was disgraceful.

REID: You know, there was a photograph he was posing with people in MAGA
hats. You know, the idea the military representing and defending all
Americans of all political stripes, it`s like a thing. It is weird to sort
of have them drafted into the Republican Party`s politics.

BESCHLOSS: That`s the whole thing when he obviously does not understand or
does not care about. And I think what`s important for all of us is to keep
on remembering this is not the way we do things. We live in a democracy.

Our military is nonpolitical. This is not a dictatorship. This is not an
authoritarian system. You`ll go to countries that have systems like that,
you have a leader going on and making a big political speech and those in
the military are expected to applaud. That`s not the way we do it in the
United States.

REID: And I mean Donald Trump has no history of personal valor and one
wonders where –

BESCHLOSS: Not that I`ve noticed.

REID: Yes, you know, he got five drafted deferments.

BESCHLOSS: Bone spurs.

REID: Yes, it`s a weird dynamic in the military.

But I want to talk about another thing that I`m sure, this week the Gallup
poll, it`s been going on for a very long time. Donald Trump has not topped
it yet as president. What do you make of the fact that the admiration for
President Obama is unbroken for 11 years and Donald Trump has been lagging

BESCHLOSS: Well, right now, Barack Obama is the anti-Donald Trump. His
wife, the first lady, Michelle Obama`s book is number one. His book is
extremely popular.

It reminds me a little of a more pronounced version of what we saw at the
end of Lyndon Johnson`s time and LBJ was getting really unpopular over
Vietnam. The Gallup most popular man in their poll was Dwight Eisenhower
the former president, not LBJ. It was a way of some people essentially
going sort of like this to LBJ. And I assume to some extent that`s going
on with Donald Trump.

REID: Yes. Very interesting. Three African-Americans at the top of the
poll when you count First Lady Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey is number two
on the list of women, and President Obama, that`s got to be unprecedented

BESCHLOSS: Fascinating and assuring.

REID: Yes. NBC presidential historian and author of “Presidents of War”,
Michael Beschloss, always, always a treat and honor to talk with you.
Thank you very much.

BESCHLOSS: Same with me. Thank you, Joy. Happy holidays.

REID: Happy holidays. Thank you.

That does it for us tonight and we will see you again tomorrow.

Now, it`s time for “THE LAST WORD”. Ari Melber is in for Lawrence tonight.

Good evening, Ari.


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