Interview with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. TRANSCRIPT: 1/16/19, The Rachel Maddow Show.

Guests:
Kirsten Gillibrand, Dina Titus
Transcript:

Show: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW

Date: January 16, 2019

Guest: Kirsten Gillibrand, Dina Titus

 

 

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

 

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts right now.  Good evening, Rachel. 

 

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST:  Good evening, Chris.  Thanks, my friend.  Much

appreciated. 

 

HAYES:  You bet.

 

MADDOW:  And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.  Happy to have

you with us here tonight. 

 

We`re going to be joined tonight by Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator Kirsten

Gillibrand.  We have a lot to talk with her about.  She is going to be life

in studio with me.  Tonight is going to be her first TV interview since she

announced last night that she is, in fact, running for president. 

 

Everybody`s supposed to use that, like, slightly euphemistic legalese

language about forming a exploratory committee to explore the possibility

of running for president, and legally, technically, that is what everybody

is doing at this stage of the game, but Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is also

bluntly saying, cutting through it – actually, I`m running for president. 

Exploration whatever.  She is running. 

 

And Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is going to be here in just a moment.  I`ve

never had her in studio before.  I`m really looking forward to having a

chance to talk with her about her run. 

 

We do have a little bit of late-breaking legal news tonight.  This time

last night, we had just gotten in this court filing from Robert Mueller,

from the special counsel`s office, related to the criminal case against

President Trump`s campaign chairman Paul Manafort. 

 

This obviously is a very long filing that was submitted to the court last

night.  It was very intimidating when it crossed the docket.  In my mind, I

planted several trees as penance when I printed it out so I could read it

on paper.  I was worried last night about having enough time to get through

the substance of this gigantic filing, until I started actually going

through it, and I realized a vast majority of what`s in this filing looks

like this, just fully blacked out pages completely redacted by prosecutors. 

 

Lots of pages like this.  Even more pages in the filing that just look like

this.  Just the big word “redacted” on them, and that`s it.  And when you

do it that way, instead of this way, one thing that happens is you save on

toner. 

 

But, you know, you get a big important filing and a big important case like

this, this is the president`s campaign chair.  And it`s frustrating to have

all these black boxes, to not be able to read what the special counsel`s

office is saying about Manafort.  This is a filing about what they say he

has lied to prosecutors about, how they say he has breached his plea

agreement since he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. 

 

I mean, mostly, what we were able to discern substantively from this big

almost entirely redacted filing last night is that it`s clear the Manafort

case is ongoing.  It`s clear it involves a lot of material that is still

considered sensitive, stuff that cannot be released to the public.  There

is clear reference to some ongoing investigations that appear to relate to

Manafort and to the evidence surrounding his case. 

 

Now, that`s pretty much all we could derive.  Now tonight, Manafort`s

defense team has filed their response, and their response is a request to

the judge to please have some extra time to respond to these allegations

from Robert Mueller and the special counsel`s office. 

 

Now, Manafort`s defense team, of course, when they got access to this

filing last night in court in D.C., they didn`t get the same redacted

version that we all got.  They got the version with no black boxes.  They

didn`t get whole pages that just said redacted on them.  They got whatever

the exhibits were that we the public weren`t allowed to see. 

 

And in Manafort defense team – the Manafort defense team`s filing with the

court tonight where they ask for extra time, they make clear that if you do

fill in what`s in all the black boxes, if you do put in the real

evidentiary exhibits in place of these place holder pages that just say

“redacted” on them, ultimately what you get, ultimately what they got last

night and what the judge in this case got last night is the unredacted

version of this declaration of evidence against Paul Manafort.  And

apparently, it amounts to more than 800 pages. 

 

So, I thought this is a lot.  This is the redacted version.  You unredact

this and apparently it`s over 800 pages. 

 

So, again, we don`t know much about the substance and the details of what

Robert Mueller and the special counsel`s office say the president`s

campaign chair lied to about, and how they know he lied to them.  But we do

know now their statement of evidence to prove their case amounts to more

than 800 pages of evidence.  And as they told the judge last night in their

filing, that`s not all they`ve got.  Here`s 800 pages.  Do you want any

more? 

 

So, some of that news, the response from Manafort`s team, that`s breaking

tonight.  The clearest conclusion I think we can draw from all of this back

and forth is that this is very much a live issue before the courts.  This

issue involving the president`s campaign chairman and the ongoing criminal

case against him, it`s very much live.  The prospect of this being over and

him being sentenced and this being done with appears to be quite a ways

off. 

 

And one of the offshoots of the Manafort investigation, and that criminal

case involving the president`s campaign chair, that also had an important

development today in Washington.  Paul Manafort during his time running the

Trump campaign, he is known to have offered private briefings about the

campaign to a Russian oligarch named Oleg Deripaska.  We`ve also learned

from other Mueller court filings that prosecutors have also alleged that

Manafort shipped internal private polling data from the Trump campaign to a

close business associate of his who is a Russian and who is a Russian who

was assessed by the FBI to be linked to Russian intelligence. 

 

That person allegedly linked to Russian intelligence to whom Manafort

shipped internal private Trump campaign polling data during the campaign,

that guy is also known to have been Manafort`s intermediary with that same

Russian oligarch he was offering briefings to, Oleg Deripaska.  So the

Manafort criminal case continues to work its way through the courts.  We

can still only speculate about the hundreds of pages of evidence that the

Mueller team has shown the defense and has shown the court about their case

against Manafort.  We still don`t know really basic information about why

the Trump campaign might have been sending internal campaign data to Russia

in the middle of the election campaign, why they would have been offering

private briefings to this Russian oligarch close to Putin and the Russian

government. 

 

But presumably, we will eventually find that stuff out, at least some of

it.  I mean Manafort`s case will eventually be finally adjudicated.  He

will presumably at some point be sentenced.  The Mueller investigation, as

it pertains to Manafort and the connections through Manafort between the

Russian government and the Trump campaign, that investigation at some point

will come to a close, and we the public will know something about its

ultimate disposition.  

 

Presumably, some day, we will understand this better.  But before we find

any of that out, while this is all ongoing, while the criminal case against

Manafort still spins, while the Mueller investigation still proceeds, and

while everything they file with the court that`s public facing is totally

redacted, I mean, before we know what Mueller has turned up about this

Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and what in god`s name he was doing mixed

up with the Trump campaign in 2016, we now know before we get any of that

stuff resolved, the Trump administration will succeed this month in its

effort to prematurely lift U.S. government sanctions on companies

associated with Oleg Deripaska. 

 

And this is something we`ve been covering for a while now.  Shortly before

Christmas, the Trump administration quietly released plans to lift U.S.

government sanctions on companies connected to Deripaska.  Deripaska is

sanctioned because of the U.S. – because of the Russian government

interfering in the U.S. presidential election in 2016.  Now, the sanctions

on Deripaska`s companies are consequential.  The companies linked to

Deripaska happen to be huge companies. 

 

So, even if you set aside the sanctions` effects on Deripaska personally,

unsanctioning these huge Russian companies will also be really

substantially economically beneficial to the Russian economy as a whole. 

Under American law governing sanctions like this, Congress has 30 days to

review any decision by the administration to lift these kinds of sanctions. 

Within that 30-day window, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer brought

forward legislation to in fact challenge that decision by the Trump

administration, to block the lifting of the Deripaska-related sanctions. 

 

As we reported last night, every Democrat in the Senate chamber voted with

Schumer on this, as did 11 Republican senators, in a heterogeneous bunch of

Republican senators who broke ranks with Mitch McConnell and sided with the

Democrats to stop the Trump administration from lifting these Deripaska-

related sanctions.  That`s a big number of Republican senators breaking

ranks, especially after the Trump administration lobbied the Senate and the

House really aggressively on this issue.

 

Well, today, this afternoon, despite those 11 Republican senators breaking

ranks and being willing to side with the Democrats on this, it turned out

to be not enough because today there was a crucial vote on this matter

which came with not a 50-vote threshold, but a 60-vote threshold to stop

the Trump administration from lifting these Deripaska-related sanctions. 

Schumer and the Democrats and the breakaway Republicans were able to put

together 57 votes, but 57 isn`t 60, and so you can thank top Senate

Republican Mitch McConnell.  You can thank all of these other Republican

senators who get all of this public credit for supposedly being so hawkish

and so realistic on Russia.  You can thank them all for voting today to

give Vladimir Putin`s government in Russia a huge big economic present and

voting to give Oleg Deripaska the biggest break of his life even while his

potential role in the Russian attack on our election remains a critical

matter that is under ongoing investigation related to multiple criminal

cases. 

 

Last night, I said that would be a test case in terms of whether or not the

Republicans had any compunction about the Trump administration and the

president and its relationship to the Russian government.  It was a test

case.  It didn`t pass the test.  Eleven of them did.  Not enough to

actually make a difference. 

 

Today also brought another round of revelations flowing from the bombshell

“Washington Post” reporting this weekend, from “Washington Post” reporter

Greg Miller.  His bombshell several days ago was the revelation that

President Trump confiscated his translator`s notes and otherwise blocked

any U.S. officials from finding out anything or obtaining any record or

readout or notes from his multiple meetings with Vladimir Putin since he

has been president. 

 

Well, that reporting, again, first broken by “The Washington Post” this

weekend, today, Peter Baker at “The New York Times” builds on that.  He

reports on an unusual phone call that President Trump placed in July 2017

when he was on his way home from what we believe to have been Trump`s first

in-person meeting with Vladimir Putin in Germany.  That Germany meeting was

the one where the president reportedly confiscated his translator`s notes

and told the translator that translator couldn`t tell any other U.S.

officials about the content of his discussion with Putin. 

 

After that mysterious meeting between Trump and Putin in Germany, which the

president went to such great lengths to keep secret, which he behaved

afterwards, one of which he behaved so strangely in terms of his

relationship with the translator and his barring any U.S. officials from

knowing what happened there, after that Germany meeting, Peter Baker

reports today that on the way home from that meeting, Trump placed a phone

call to a “New York Times” reporter from Air Force One on the flight home

from Germany. 

 

And in that phone call, the president insisted to the reporter that, quote,

the Russians were falsely accused of election interference when it comes to

the U.S. presidential election in 2016.  And needless to say, of course,

the Russians were not wrongly accused of interfering in our election.  But

for some reason after speaking directly and privately, in fact secretly

with Vladimir Putin face-to-face for a long time, President Trump tried to

sell the Russian government`s false version of those events to an American

reporter. 

 

As president of the United States, not like as some pundit paid by the

Kremlin to go on Sputnik and spout Putin-approved talking points on this

issue, but as the sitting president of the United States, placing

apparently unsolicited phone calls to “The New York Times” to deliver them

the Russian government`s false line on that story.  Nice work if you can

get it.  How`s the pay? 

 

Peter Baker further reports that a year later, after the Helsinki meeting,

and we all remember the Helsinki press conference.  But remember, the

Trump/Putin meeting in Helsinki also included a two-hour meeting between

Trump and Putin, again, the two of them alone with no other U.S. officials

in the room, just Trump and Putin in Helsinki this past year.  After that

two-hour meeting, U.S. intelligence officials were reportedly so disturbed

by the fact that they had no American observers for that discussion, no

notes, no readout, no American account whatsoever about what happened

between Trump and Putin in that room over two hours, U.S. intelligence

agencies were so disturbed by that they attempted to, quote, glean details

about that meeting from surveillance of Russians who talked about it

afterwards. 

 

Oh, right, because the Russians were allowed to know about it.  Whatever

Trump said, whatever Putin and Trump said to each other in that secret

meeting which no Americans were allowed to know about, it was only secret

to the Americans, to the American government.  It was not secret within the

Russian government.  The Russian government presumably kept their notes of

that meeting.  The Russian government presumably did a readout for other

officials in their own government and in their own intelligence agencies. 

 

Other Russians besides Vladimir Putin apparently talked about the contents

of that meeting afterwards, because they knew something about it, because

Trump`s behavior and discussions with Putin at that meeting are known to

the Russian government.  They are just not known to the U.S. government,

including to our intelligence agencies.  I wonder why that is. 

 

So we learned all of that today, and with that as context, things proceeded

on a bunch of different fronts today, both foreign and domestic.  We

learned early in the day that four Americans were killed and three were

wounded in Syria.  This was two U.S. service members, one American

civilian, who was a Defense Department civilian, and one American

contractor who was also working for the Defense Department. 

 

The terror group ISIS has claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing

that kill these Americans.  This, of course, comes four weeks after

President Trump announced a surprise withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria

on the basis of what he described as the total defeat of ISIS.  Oddly, Vice

President Pence put out a statement after today`s deadly attack echoing

that tragically terrible false assertion about ISIS being gone on the day

that ISIS claimed responsibility for this attack that killed and wounded

all these Americans.  I`m not sure that anybody pays all that much close

attention to written statements put out by the Office of Vice President

Mike Pence.  Nothing personal in that, just sort of the nature of the job. 

 

But still, it`s just head-snappingly weird that the vice president`s office

literally put out a statement today saying, quote, we have crushed ISIS. 

And in the same breath that statement laments this ISIS attack that killed

four Americans and left three others wounded. 

 

We do not yet have any public identification of these Americans who lost

their lives today or were wounded in Syria.  We expect that we will have

those identifications eventually once their families have been notified. 

 

In Britain today, in the parliament of our closest overseas ally, the

British Prime Minister Theresa May faced a very dramatic no-confidence vote

after her Brexit plan went down to crushing defeat yesterday in parliament. 

That no-confidence vote was a pretty dramatic moment. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

JOHN BERCOW, SPEAKER OF THE UK HOUSE OF COMMONS:  Order!  Order!  Under the

order of the house of today, I am now required to put the question.  The

question is that this house has no confidence in her majesty`s government. 

As many of are that opinion, say aye.

 

CROWD:  Aye! 

 

BERCOW:  Of the contrary, no. 

 

CROWD:  No! 

 

BERCOW:  (INAUDIBLE)

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  It is a little confusing, because you can hear the ayes and the

no`s screaming at the top of their lungs there.  But the no`s there, they

were saying no, we want Theresa May to stay as prime minister.  We vote no

on the no confidence motion.  The double negative means yes, we vote yes

for Theresa May. 

 

Theresa May ended up winning that confidence vote today.  She won by a very

slim margin.  Over 630 lawmakers voted.  She prevailed by less than 20

votes in that no confidence measure today.

 

But she did prevail.  Theresa May survived that vote.  She remains as prime

minister, although her leadership role is as precarious as it has ever

been, as is the prospect for how Great Britain will try to extract itself

from the European Union. 

 

Theresa May has been rejected roundly including by her own party in terms

of how she wants to achieve a Brexit.  She remains in power, though, and

nobody knows what`s going to happen between Great Britain and the European

Union.  Domestically here at home today, the United States government is

still shut down.  We have never had a shutdown this long.  We are now in

our 26th day. 

 

A new twist in shutdown politics arrived today when House Speaker Nancy

Pelosi sent this letter to President Trump, suggesting to him the State of

the Union should be delayed this month until the government is open.  Or if

the president doesn`t want to change the date, maybe he should just cancel

the speech and submit a State of the Union assessment in writing, like

presidents used to do back in the day. 

 

Republicans were quite upset today by this overture of the State of the

Union from Nancy Pelosi, but as speaker of the house, it is honestly her

call as to whether or not the president is actually invited to deliver a

State of the Union Address.  Pelosi and her office today insist that her

effort to reschedule or perhaps cancel the State of the Union derives

entirely from security concerns since the State of the Union Address is a

major security event at which the president and the vice president and both

houses of Congress and the cabinet and the Supreme Court and the chairman

of joint chiefs are all in the same room together. 

 

Pelosi`s office says they are concerned that nobody`s ever tried to have a

state of the union in the midst of a shutdown before.  They say

specifically, they are concerned about furloughed affirmative action who

have a key role to play in assuring the security of the event.  They`re

saying there would be no way to guarantee responsibly the safety of that

event if it were to go through while the government shutdown persists. 

 

Now, Speaker Pelosi did suggest to the president that if he wants to, he

could just give the State of the Union Address like from the Oval Office

instead of from a Joint Session of Congress.  If it was him in the Oval

Office, it could be just like him and the camera guy, right?  Him and the

camera crew, and maybe somebody to make sure he had a paper copy of the

script in case the teleprompter went wonky. 

 

He wouldn`t need a ton of people.  It wouldn`t be as big a security thing. 

That might seem easier. 

 

I don`t know if he wants to could it from the Oval Office.  He could

technically do it anywhere he wants, even if it wasn`t officially a State

of the Union anymore.  Presumably, the Trump administration could probably

make the president very happy by popping the president into a rodeo arena

somewhere or a basketball stadium.  Have him give a fake State of the Union

before a bunch of people in red hats who applauded for everything. 

 

Maybe that is how this will work out.  But the potential cancellation of

the State of the Union this year in the midst of this government shutdown,

that is a new twist in those shutdown politics today. 

 

Today was also the second and final day of the confirmation hearings for

William Barr, the president`s new nominee to be attorney general.  Through

one lens you might expect this to be the most controversial thing in the

world, but sometimes it`s hard to narrow it down in this administration. 

William Barr does appear to be poised for confirmation, in large part

because he can be confirmed with only Republican vote, even if no Democrats

vote for him. 

 

In his confirmation hearings yesterday and today, it should be noted bottom

line that William Barr didn`t pledge that he would abide by ethics advice

if career officials at the Justice Department tell him he has to recuse

from the Mueller investigation or any other matter.  He did not commit that

he would follow any such advice.  He also made no commitment to allow the

publication of any potential report that may derive from the Mueller

investigation.  He did not even commit that he would provide such a report

to Congress whether or not he provided it to the American public. 

 

And, again, Republican senators appear to be perfectly comfortable with

that from William Barr, even if every Democrat opposes him, he is still

quite likely to be confirmed. 

 

So there is a lot going on all at once.  There is also a sort of business

page scandal that broke today about the president and one of his prime real

estate properties.  This is a scandal that could end up hitting the

president in the place that would most hurt him, the place we know he is

physically most sensitive, which is his wallet.  So, we`re going to be

talking with a key member of Congress about that a little later on in this

hour. 

 

But in the meantime we have got Senator Kirsten Gillibrand here.  She is

going to be live in studio here since her first announcement for her run

for the presidency, which is very exciting. 

 

Heads up, everybody.  There is lots going on.  There is lots to get to. 

Stay with us here tonight.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  The year was 2006, and four-term Republican Congressman John

Sweeney was running for reelection.  Congressman Sweeney was well-known,

not just in his district, not just in his home state of New York, he was

also a cherished friend of the George W. Bush White House. 

 

Six years earlier, 2000, as ballot counters in Florida tried to figure out

who won the presidential election, it was Congressman John Sweeney of New

York who played a key role in dispatching Republican operatives to Florida

to where the ballot counting was happening, and he famously ordered them

to, quote, shut it down.  Sweeney uttered a three-word order to his troops,

shut it down. 

 

He was really the orchestrator of what became known as the Brooks Brothers

riot to shut down the ballot counting effort in favor of George W. Bush. 

For his efforts that year, President George W. Bush nicknamed him – his

nickname for him was, forgive me, Congressman Kick-Ass. 

 

Congressman Sweeney was also known less favorably for his junkets with

lobbyists, and in the spring of that election year, he made national news

for being spotted as a grown man at a frat party in Schenectady.  What was

he doing there? 

 

By the fall, the party was over for him.  John Sweeney lost his bid for a

fifth term in office.  His upstate New York district had not elected a

Democrat to Congress in nearly 30 years, but the Democrat they picked that

year at the time was interesting.  She was not seen as all that big of an

ideological shift because at the time, the Democrat who replaced

Congressman Sweeney that year in that district, she had conservative bona

fides.  She had an A rating from the NRA.  She said she wanted to make

English the official language of the United States.  She opposed amnesty

for undocumented immigrants.  She used the phrase illegal aliens when she

talked about that issue. 

 

That conservative congresswoman was Kirsten Gillibrand.  Now, Senator

Gillibrand, who was not seen as a conservative at all, Senator Gillibrand

has had a transformation.  She has changed a great deal on policy in the

decades since she was a card-carrying member of the Blue Dog Democrats from

an upstate conservative district. 

 

After she was first appointed to the Senate in 2009 to fill Hillary

Clinton`s Senate seat when Hillary Clinton went on to become secretary of

state, Senator Gillibrand very quickly became not a Blue Dog Upstate New

Yorker anymore.  She quickly became a progressive hero.  She became the

driving force, for example, behind efforts in the Senate to repeal “don`t

ask, don`t tell”. 

 

She became a very outspoken advocate for women, starting with victims of

sexual assault in the military with an approach that caused friction with

some conservatives even in her own party.  She was the first member of her

caucus to call for her colleague, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota to resign

from the Senate over multiple sexual misconduct allegations against him. 

And again, that caused friction with some members of her own party. 

 

Senator Gillibrand`s political journey has taken unexpected turns over the

past ten years.  She has been on her own party`s right.  She has been on

her own party`s left. 

 

Right now, she is running for president.  She is running for president as

the senator who has voted against President Trump and the Trump agenda more

than any other senator in the United States Senate. 

 

Why is she running?  Why is she running in this field?  How does she

distinguish herself in this field?  And what`s it`s like to have her here

on THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW? 

 

Joining us now for the interview, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. 

 

Thank you so much for coming in, Senator. 

 

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D), NEW YORK:  My pleasure.  Thank you for having

me. 

 

MADDOW:  Well, congratulations on your announcement, and thank you for not

beating around the bush and being like, I`m thinking about considering,

talking to my family about it.  You`re just flat-out saying I`m running. 

 

GILLIBRAND:  Yes. 

 

MADDOW:  Tell me about – tell me about that transformation that I was just

describing there.  I think a lot of people watching the show tonight

certainly know your name, certainly know some stuff about you.  But there

has been an evolution in the perceived sort of place – your perceived

place on the number line in Democratic politics.  Tell me about that

change. 

 

GILLIBRAND:  So, ten years ago when I became senator of New York state, I

recognized I didn`t know everything about the whole state, and one of the

first thing I did was I travel to Brooklyn, and I met with family who had

just lost their daughter, a teenaged girl who was shot with a stray bullet. 

And when I meant Nyasia`s (ph) parents and her classmates and realized the

pain and suffering that they were going through, I just knew I was wrong,

and I knew I had to do something to make sure that young beautiful girl did

not die in vain. 

 

So I met with the leaders of various gun reform movements in my state, a

lot of moms who had lost their children and experts and wrote a bill to end

gun trafficking, because in New York state, one of our biggest problems is

90 percent of the weapons used in crimes come from out of state.  And so, I

wrote that. 

 

And now, I`ve been a leader on these issues, making sure we have universal

background checks, making sure we can ban assault rifles and large

magazines, making sure that we can make sure that people who shouldn`t have

weapons never get access to them.  And so – with the universal background

checks.  And so, I just knew I had to do more, and I had to be a strong

voice for that family and all the families who suffer from gun violence

around my state, and now the country. 

 

MADDOW:  Let me ask you about immigration as well.  I was struck.  You were

asked about some of these same dynamics, some of these same changes over

the course of your career in an interview with “60 Minutes” not long ago,

and you essentially said that you were embarrassed about your previous

position –

 

GILLIBRAND:  Yes. 

 

MADDOW:  – on immigration.  Tell me about that. 

 

GILLIBRAND:  Well, I don`t think it was driven from my heart.  I was

callous to the suffering of families who want to be with their loved ones,

people who want to be reunited with their families.  I recognize, as we all

do, that immigration and diversity is our strength as a country.  It`s

always driven our economy.  It`s the American story. 

 

And so, looking back, I just – I really regretted that I didn`t look

beyond my district and talk about why this is an important part of the

United States story and why it`s an important part of our strength. 

 

MADDOW:  Coming from – having changed positions on issues like that, which

are so emotive and which are so viscerally felt by so many people, I wonder

if – I mean, obviously, in a Democratic primary, you`re going to have to

give explanations like this and you`re going to have the talk from the

heart –

 

GILLIBRAND:  Yes. 

 

MADDOW:  – about why you changed your mind on things like that.  But I

wonder if it also having been in a different position on those issues, if

it gives you a way to sort of bridge some of these divides that we`ve got

between people who have almost a theological division, you`re either pro-

gun or anti-gun – 

 

GILLIBRAND:  Right.

 

MADDOW:  – you`re either pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant.  Because you`ve

gone through that transformation yourself, does it give you way to talk to

people who might be more conservative on these issues now? 

 

GILLIBRAND:  Surely.  And I think it all starts with listening, because you

can find common ground with anybody on any issue.  I work all the time in

the Senate with my Republican colleagues.  I just worked on trying to end

sexual harassment with Ted Cruz. 

 

And so, there is literally nobody in the Senate that I can`t work with on

something that`s important to all of America and to all of our

constituents.  And so, I do believe I can bring people together, and there

are shared common values.  And sometimes you have to bring people to where

you are, and perhaps on these issues, I can bring people to where I am,

because now I know the difference. 

 

I know why you should care.  I know why you should care, even if it`s not

in your become yard.  I know why you should fight for other people as hard

as you would fight for the people in your own family. 

 

And so, I think I can do that.  I think I can bring people together,

because the country is so divided.  The country has been torn apart by this

president.  He has brought a darkness of hate and division that I`ve never

seen, and only light can end darkness.  Only light can break through. 

 

And that`s why we have to speak to our better angels, not our worst demons,

and make people understand that what`s made this country so strong

generation after generation is each generation decides to protect more

people, to make a more perfect union, to provide more rights for more

people.  And we are our best selves when we look to help others. 

 

MADDOW:  Senator Gillibrand, I have a couple of things I want to ask you

about.  There is some news today, stuff that`s going on with the shutdown I

want to talk to you about.  Some are just questions I`ve never heard you

weigh in, some sort of commander-in-chief questions.  Can you stick with

us? 

 

GILLIBRAND:  Sure. 

 

MADDOW:  All right.  Senator Gillibrand, her first interview since she

announced that she is running for president.  Stay with us.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  We`re back now with Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New

York, newly announced candidate for president of the United States. 

 

Senator, thank you again. 

 

GILLIBRAND:  Thank you. 

 

MADDOW:  As I mentioned in the introduction I brought you on, you do have a

voting record in Senate that has a distinction, a sharp distinction which

is that you appear to be the senator who has voted against the president,

voted against the Trump administration more than any other.  Is that

deliberate?  Did you set out to do that? 

 

GILLIBRAND:  Well, I looked at every nominee on the merits, and frankly,

each nominee I looked at wasn`t worthy of my vote.  They either had an

agenda that was so contrary to our values and what I believe in, or they

weren`t plain old qualified in. 

 

Betsy DeVos was not qualified.  She did not have the acumen and background

to help fix our schools which, you know, should be right in this country,

that no matter what block you grew up on, you can get a good education. 

 

I looked at each nominee, Scott Pruitt.  I voted against him because I knew

he would spend his time just polluting the environment, polluting the air

and the water, letting polluters pollute and having no oversight or

accountability.  He did exactly that. 

 

And so, for each nominee, I looked at the merits and decided, is this

person going to help move our country forward or not?  And for the most

part, President Trump has really lined his cabinet with people who are

absolutely uninterested in helping American people. 

 

MADDOW:  A few nights ago we had here on the show in that seat where you`re

sitting there right now an official who until last year, less than a year

ago was the top counterintelligence official of the Justice Department.  He

ran the counterintelligence section, and he sitting right here described

President Trump as a clear and present danger to the national security of

the United States.  And you`ve spoken of the president in very clear terms,

strong terms even tonight.  You obviously voted against him more than any

other senator. 

 

Do you think about this presidency in national security terms, in terms of

the president being that kind of a threat?  Or do you think there is

something else going on in terms of why you oppose him? 

 

GILLIBRAND:  I do.  I think his judgment is so wrong for this country.  One

of the first things he did was decide to step away from the Iran deal,

something that the world community came together to say let`s make sure

this country doesn`t build nuclear weapons that could result in war, and

stepping away – he steps away from the global climate accords.  It could

be the greatest threat to our nation`s future in the next several decades,

and to not be willing to stand on the world stage and have that leadership

that America has always shown. 

 

The fact that he`s unwilling to hold Russia accountable, that he makes

excuses for Putin, he can`t stand up to him in Helsinki, the fact that he

wants to walk away from START treaties and nuclear treaties that make us

safer.  He is literally creating so much disruption in foreign policy that

he is making this country less safe. 

 

MADDOW:  In terms of the president`s involvement in the Russia scandal,

obviously, I know that you had to sort of scramble your rollout for your

campaign today a little bit because I know you had to make sure you were

able to cast your vote on the Rusal sanctions, on the Oleg Deripaska

sanctions. 

 

GILLIBRAND:  Yes.

 

MADDOW:  I was interested that 11 Republicans crossed over to vote with you

and other Democrats on that.  It wasn`t enough ultimately to reverse the

Trump administration`s decision, but I wonder what you think about those

Republicans crossing over.  Do you see that as a sign that there might be a

less partisan way forward in terms of trying to fix whatever has gone weird

between the president and the Russian government? 

 

GILLIBRAND:  I really don`t see the Republican Party standing up and doing

what`s right.  The fact that you couldn`t get enough to even pass this one

measure, to hold Russia accountable when President Trump wants to unwind

sanctions that are absolutely necessary, I`ve not seen their strength and

courage to stand up to the president when it matters and when it counts. 

 

And I was exceedingly disappointed that there weren`t enough Republicans to

actually pass this very simple – this very simple measure. 

 

MADDOW:  When you ran in your Upstate New York district in 2006, you ran as

an opponent of the Iraq War –

 

GILLIBRAND:  Yes. 

 

MADDOW:  – in a fairly conservative district. 

 

Today, we saw four Americans killed in Syria.  I know that you have

criticized this administration for acting in Syria without congressional

authorization.  I wonder if either today`s bombing or the situation in

Syria more broadly has affected your overall view about whether or not we

should have troops there at all. 

 

GILLIBRAND:  Well, I don`t believe the president has the authority to have

the troops there.  We don`t have an AUMF to have combat operations in

Syria.  And I know the president will say, oh, well, they`re not in combat

operations, but people are dying. 

 

I think we should be drawing down our troops, not only in Afghanistan but

the remainder in Iraq and in Syria, and then give Congress the opportunity

that if they believe we should be in combat missions in any of these

countries, that we actually file a new authorization for the use of

military force. 

 

What President Trump has done is just create disarray because he`s not

working in combination with our allies and making a plan for how we`re

going to create more stability in the region.  Because he is unwilling to

hold Russia accountable, because he is unwilling to even engage in Middle

East peace in a process that can make sense, we have massive instability. 

 

And the world community is looking at us.  Where is America? 

 

So, one of the reasons why I`m running for president is I want to restore

that leadership in the world.  We have to restore the integrity.  We have

to restore the stability.  We have to make sure that America continue to be

that beacon of light and hope for the world. 

 

And I`m running because we need to fight for each other`s kids as hard as

we fight for our own, and I will do that.  And I truly believe that if you

believe that, then you`ll fight for health care as a right and not a

privilege.  You`ll actually care about public schools and want to help kids

no matter what block they grew up on.  And you`re going to actually want to

reward work again in this country. 

 

We haven`t looked at workers and rewarded work with national pay leave or

equal pay or affordable day care, all the things that would make it easier

for workers to excel.  And to get any of that done, you`ve got to take on

the corruption in Washington because there are so many systems of power in

place today that make it impossible to do what`s right. 

 

Bills are written in the dead of night by lobbyists.  Bills are written by

the special interests.  There is so much corruption.  There is so much

money and greed. 

 

And unless you`re willing to take that on by, you know, having publicly

funded elections.  Actually, that`s why I`m banning corporate PAC money. 

That`s why I`m banning lobbyist money.  It`s why I don`t think individuals

should have super PACs because my vote is not for sale.  My character, my

integrity is not for sale. 

 

And you have to tell the American people that by having bold ideas about

how to serve them, to put them first.  And so, that`s what this election is

about.  That`s why I`m running. 

 

And I know that I have – I have the compassion.  I have the courage, and I

believe I have the fearless determination to do the things it will take to

restore this leadership in the world that President Trump has just walked

away from. 

 

It is a moment for all of us, Rachel, to be called to do whatever it takes

to make a difference in this country, and I feel called to run this race,

to show the strength of America, to show what`s possible in America.  That

is our story.  That is the American story. 

 

We never give up.  We try to help others.  We believe in the golden rule,

and that`s what President Trump has destroyed. 

 

MADDOW:  Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, running for president,

here to talk to us about it very early on in the rollout of this campaign. 

Thank you for making time.  Thank you.

 

GILLIBRAND:  Oh, you`re welcome. 

 

MADDOW:  I hope over the course of this campaign, you`ll keep us apprised. 

 

GILLIBRAND:  Thank you so much.  Thank you, Rachel. 

 

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

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  One thing you didn`t used to be able to do in Washington, D.C. was

spend lots of money at the business that belonged to the serving president

of the United States, thus lining the president`s pockets while he was

serving as president, just in case you might ever need a presidential favor

some time soon. 

 

But now you can do that.  We have indeed seen tons of foreign governments,

for example, spending lavishly at President Trump`s D.C. hotel, which is

located on a site that he leases from the federal government.  They lease

rooms – they rent rooms at his hotel.  They spend money in his hotel, and

foreign dignitaries come to town to meet with his administration on

official business.  They presumably think that will be noticed. 

 

And it`s not just foreign governments or foreign companies.  Today, “The

Washington Post” reports that immediately after T-Mobile announced that it

was seeking a merger with Sprint, a merger that would require government

approval from the Trump administration, T-Mobile executives started showing

up at Trump`s hotel in D.C. very quickly, over and over and over again,

lots of them, renting rooms and conspicuously hanging out in the lobby,

wearing their T-Mobile gear. 

 

Well, today, the internal watchdog, the inspector general at the U.S.

General Services Administration, which is the part of the federal

government that is the Trump Hotel`s landlord, the inspector general there

released the findings of an investigation into the decision to let the

president continue his lease on that hotel, even after he became president

of the United States.  The report is scathing. 

 

The I.G. says the agency`s decision-making process had serious

shortcomings, saying the GSA not only failed to examine the president`s

lease properly, it ignored the constitutional lease problems with him

owning this hotel while serving as president.  Quote: We also found that

the GSA improperly ignored the constitutional Emoluments Clauses, even

though the president`s lease itself requires compliance with the laws of

the United States, including the U.S. Constitution.  GSA had an obligation

to uphold and enforce the Constitution.

 

But this question, this basic question about when the president`s operation

of his D.C. hotel, whether it may not just be obviously improperly, it may

be illegal, even unconstitutional, this is a live question right now.  Two

lawsuits from state attorneys general and from hundreds of Democratic

members of Congress have been making their way through the federal court

system, charging that Trump is violating the Constitution with his hotel

business. 

 

Well, now the internal watchdog at the agency that leases that land to him

says the way the agency decided to let him continue on with that lease was

roundly and manifestly improper. 

 

Joining us now is Congresswoman Dina Titus from Nevada.  She is poised to

become the chair of the Economic Development, Public Buildings and

Emergency Management Subcommittee, which is a lot of syllables, but that

means pretty soon she`s about to be overseeing the GSA in Congress. 

 

Congresswoman Titus, thank you so much for joining us. 

 

REP. DINA TITUS (D), NEVADA:  Oh, it`s my pleasure.  Thank you for having

me. 

 

MADDOW:  So I`ve briefly summarized what`s going on with this GSA report

that they essentially, improperly considered the constitutional issues

about the president`s hotel.  What do you make of this overall issue and

about how this report today advances our understanding of it?

 

TITUS:  Well, as you mentioned, this is not anything new.  We have filed

lawsuits against it.  We`ve had some investigations and some complaints. 

 

The press has been all over this, even camping out in the hotel lobby to

see who is staying there because they`ve not been forthcoming with any

information.  But when the inspector general issued this report today, it

just confirmed what we know, that it`s against the Constitution, the

Emoluments Clause. 

 

Now, a lot of people aren`t familiar with that term.  It doesn`t just roll

off the tongue, but if you use plain language, they get it.  And to borrow

from the bard, bribe by any other name would smell as foul. 

 

MADDOW:  Well, in terms of the remedy here, I mean, I read this inspector

general report.  It`s long.  It`s not that hard to read, though.

 

And essentially, they said the remedy here is that, look, the lawyers at

this agency never looked at the constitutional issues here.  In a word,

they punted.  They decided not to consider this because they didn`t want to

deal with the hassle of it.  And the remedy that the inspector general is

directing here that actually there needs to be a legal assessment here. 

This properly needs to be looked at by the government. 

 

As the woman who is going to be overseeing this agency in Congress more

acutely than any other, does that remedy seem like enough to you?  Do you

have faith if they`re directed to finally legally consider these matters,

they`ll do so properly? 

 

TITUS:  Well, that doesn`t give me a lot of comfort.  They started out by

saying we`ve never seen anything like this before so we don`t know what to

do with it, so we just won`t do anything. 

 

I also worry about the lawsuits, because even though we may win in some

lower courts, when the president has stacked the Supreme Court, I`m not too

optimistic.  But in my role, and I think this will be formalized fairly

soon on this committee, we will hold hearings and we will bring the

inspector general in and the GSA and whoever it takes from the hotel to see

if we can`t get some answers.  It`s pretty clear from the language of the

lease and the language of the Constitution that this is just not something

that should be happening, either legally or constitutionally. 

 

MADDOW:  And bottom line, do you think the president`s going to have to

divest himself of that hotel in order to stay within the bounds of the

Constitution? 

 

TITUS:  Well, I think he should.  Whether he will or not, who can say,

based on the ways he`s broken other laws and told other lies, who can

anticipate it?  But I certainly think this report gives us more ammunition

to show that this is just being ignored. 

 

MADDOW:  Congresswoman Dina Titus of Nevada, thank you so much for joining

us tonight.  I`m super interested in this story.  I hope you`ll come back

and update us as this proceeds. 

 

TITUS:  Well, please invite me.  We sure will.

 

MADDOW:  We will do that.  Thank you very much.

 

We`ll be right back.  Stay with us.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  Remember those puzzles you could do in the waiting room at the

pediatrician`s office?  Those puzzles, what`s wrong with this picture, like

find the thing that doesn`t fit? 

 

This issue of the paper was out today.  One of the things that doesn`t fit

is that it`s got the forecast in the D.C. area today as sunny, high of 75. 

It`s January, so that`s off. 

 

Also, this issue is free, and I know that independent journalism is

invaluable, but this type of newspaper does generally cost money. 

 

Here`s another dead giveaway, this paper is dated May 1st, 2019, and May

1st, 2019 will some day be a real date, but we are not there yet. 

 

It did not take an eagle eye to notice that there were things funky going

on with this purported copy of “The Washington Post” that was distributed

in Washington today.  There were those subtle things, but then this was the

rest of the front page.  “Unpresidented.”  Trump hastily departs White

House, comma, ending crisis. 

 

This newspaper to put it mildly is not real.  This is actual fake news.  It

imagines a world in which the president of the United States was

essentially run out of town by a surge of protests. 

 

According to this bizarro world version of “The Washington Post,” the

president quit the presidency by scribbling out a note on a napkin.  He

then skipped down in the middle of the night via helicopter which made a

beeline straight for Crimea. 

 

None of the news in this thing is anywhere close to real, but the paper

was, look, this is not just like an online thing, look, it is a physical

paper.  It has an insert and everything.  These things were handed out all

over D.C. today. 

 

We got our copy at the local D.C. bookstore busboys and poets.  About

10,000 paper issues of this satirical paper were handed out around D.C.

today.  They apparently were made by the activist group the Yes Men, who

have been known to pull these types of very public, very provocative stunts

before. 

 

The Yes Men said they made these fake papers to give people ideas for how

they can support the impeachment of the president. 

 

Whatever the reason, you should know that the real “Washington Post” was

definitely surprised by the whole thing today.  They said they will not

tolerate others misrepresenting themselves as “The Washington Post.”  They

say they are looking to halt the improper use of their trademarks. 

 

But as a stunt, this thing is already out there.  And it`s – I think it`s,

you know, as much a thought experiment as it is satire.  Can you imagine a

day when something like this might be real? 

 

Even so, even if it is just a stunt, the whole thing is weird, right?  What

happens the next time when it isn`t so obviously fake?  Is this going to be

a thing now, impersonating papers, faking the news?  New chapters every

day.  New chapters. 

 

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

 

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

 

Good evening, Lawrence. 

 

 

END

 

 

                                                                                                               

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

BE UPDATED.

END   

 

Copyright 2019 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.>