Investigations scrutinizing NRA’s Russia connections. TRANSCRIPT: 1/31/19, The Rachel Maddow Show.

Guests:
Adam Schiff
Transcript:

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST:  There are a lot of nights where at this point,

if you had come to me now, I wouldn`t be here for another 30 seconds. 

 

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST:  I just jumped.  I just jumped and then you`re

there on the split screen.  We did it. 

 

MADDOW:  Think of me as your human safety net, my friend.  I`m always here. 

Not usually. 

 

All right.  Thanks, my friend. 

 

And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.  Very happy to have you

with us. 

 

So, the great state of Kansas is a red state, has been for a long while

now.  In the 2016 presidential election, Kansas went for Donald Trump over

Hillary Clinton by something like 20 points, 21 points.  Just a blowout in

2016.

 

But two years after that blowout in the 2018 election, which just happened

in November, Kansas voters elected a Democrat as their governor.  Her name

is Laura Kelly. 

 

On that same night that Laura Kelly was elected Kansas governor, an

incumbent congressman from Kansas, Kevin Yoder, he also lost his seat to a

Democrat.  He lost his congressional seat to a Native American gay

Democratic woman named Sharice Davids. 

 

And amid all the glass ceilings that Sharice Davids smashed through in

order to get that seat off Kevin Yoder, it`s also just sort of a partisan

wonder that there is a Democrat in the Kansas delegation, but Sharice

Davids is just that. 

 

And it kind of just didn`t stop on election night.  Since midterm election

night in November, there`s been a little mini landslide of incumbent

Republican members of the state legislature switching parties in Kansas. 

Since election night, four different members of the Kansas state

legislature ditched the Republican Party and proclaimed that henceforth

they are Democrats.  And, you know, I mean, still nobody`s going to argue

that Kansas should be called a blue state, even with the defections of all

of those state legislators since election night, both the state house and

the Senate are still really bright red in Kansas.

 

But with Sharice Davids taking that Republican incumbent congressional seat

and with Laura Kelly taking the governorship and with these four members of

the state legislature flipping from Republican to Democrat, Kansas is still

red, but it is starting to take on a sort of light purple tinge around the

edges. 

 

And here`s another thing that has just happened in Kansas.  You might

remember that before the midterm elections this year, our show actually

spent a pretty good amount of time in Kansas.  Specifically in a famous and

historic town called Dodge City, which is fan-Gunsmoke-tastic. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jacquelin (ph), you take Buell and you take the rest of

your men and you get out of Dodge. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  You get out of Dodge. 

 

Dodge City of “Gunsmoke” fame.  Dodge City is in southwest Kansas.  They

still do celebrate the old “Gunsmoke” vibe.  There is a Gunfighters Wax

Museum there.  Coincidence with the Kansas Teacher`s Hall of Fame.  It`s an

awkward pairing but, you know, they both pay rent. 

 

These days, Dodge City`s industrial base is meat packing and that meat

packing industry has attracted a lot of Hispanic workers and their

families.  Dodge City, Kansas, is now a majority minority town, it`s

majority Hispanic. 

 

The reason we ended up spending time there before the midterm elections

this past year is because Republican elected officials in red state Kansas

made some striking decisions when it came to voting in Dodge City, which is

the largest majority minority community in that entire state. 

 

When Laura Kelly, the Democrat, was running for governor in Kansas this

past summer, the Republican she was up against was named Kris Kobach.  He`s

known nationally as someone of national profile in part because he was the

head of President Trump`s sort of bogus and now disbanded Voter Fraud

Commission.  Kris Kobach has also made somewhat of a national name for

himself in recent years trying to sell other states besides Kansas on

policies that are designed to make it as hard as possible for likely

Democratic voters to cast their vote and get it counted. 

 

But while he was running for Kansas governor this past November, he was

simultaneously serving as the secretary of state in Kansas as the top

elections official in that state and under his leadership it was decided

that Dodge City, the largest majority minority town in the whole state, it

was decided that they would be relieved of their one voting place, their

one polling location.  There`s like 13,000-ish registered voters in Dodge

City.  They were already in bad shape with regards to access to the polls

before this past election.  For those 13,000 voters, there was precisely

one voting place in all of Dodge City before this last election. 

 

But then for the midterms, for the November elections in which Kris Kobach

was going to be top of the ballot as the Republican committee for governor,

for the midterms, Republican officials in Kansas decided that that one

polling place in Dodge City was one polling place too many, and so that

polling place would be shut.  They said it was because construction was

going to make that one polling place in Dodge City inaccessible so they

closed that one vote place for the whole town and instead opened up another

one way outside the city limits. 

 

So, that`s why we sent a staffer there.  We sent a producer from the show

to go to Dodge to see if there was any observable ground truth here, right? 

If there was any rhyme or reason to this claim from Republican elected

officials in the state who decided that 13,000 mostly Hispanic voters in

dodge city, Kansas should be afforded precisely zero places to vote in

their town. 

 

The first thing we learned when we got to Dodge is that the new polling

place that they opened outside the city limits was hard to get to with a

car.  It was impossible to get to without one.  The second thing we learned

by visiting Dodge City was that the ostensible reason for closing the one

polling place in town, the supposed construction at the traditional polling

place, did not really seem to be much of anything that was directly

impinging on access to that polling place.  There were plenty of other

events being staged at that location where the polling place had been. 

There was no kind of mass disruption that might justify what they were

trying to get away with. 

 

The whole thing seemed even more suspicious when we learned that county

election officials had sent notices to new voters in Dodge City that

contained the wrong address for their new outside city limits polling

place.  The situation seemed to get even worse than that when the ACLU of

Kansas wrote to the local elections officials, the county official who had

– who had moved the polling place outside of town and who had sent out the

wrong address for it.  The ACLU wrote to that county election official

asking for her help in publicizing a voter help line that would contain the

correct polling place information. 

 

That top county elections official forwarded that e-mail from the ACLU. 

She forwarded it to Kris Kobach, to the office of the Republican secretary

of state, adding her own caption to this help that the ACLU had asked for,

which she added to that e-mail was her own commentary and it was, I quote,

LOL – this is what I got in the mail from the ALCU, LOL.  Which in this

case means, of course, no, I`m not going to give you any help in

publicizing the true address. 

 

After all that, the ACLU sued.  They argued what was happening in Dodge

City was illegal.  It was, for one thing, disenfranchising Hispanic voters

in that town.  One of the named plaintiffs in that case was a very

impressive young man named Alejandro Rangel-Lopez, 18 years old, local high

school senior. 

 

He told us that for his 18th birthday last year, he was super psyched to be

able to vote for the first time, but he really wanted to be able to vote in

the town where he lives, and so he thought that was worth fighting for. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

ALEJANDRO RANGEL-LOPEZ, DODGE CITY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT:  My family is

immigrants.  My friends are immigrants.  This community is made up of

immigrants and many of those are undocumented or DACA recipients or are

Dreamers.  And they don`t have the right to vote or have any other rights

that citizens like myself have. 

 

And as instilled by my parents, it`s very important that people who have

the opportunity to vote exercise that right to vote and do anything

possible to make it easier or to make their voice heard about issues that

are important to them. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  In the end, Alejandro did not get to vote inside city limits in

Dodge City in the 2018 election.  Despite a lawsuit, a judge ruled that it

was too close to make any changes to the planned polling places for

November`s midterm elections.  So, everyone who wanted to vote in Dodge

City had to figure out some way to get to this out of town location. 

 

But now, tonight, we can tell you that the next time there is an election

in Dodge City, which is going to be primary elections in August of this

year, for the next election in Dodge City, people will be actually allowed

to vote inside city limits because that that lawsuit worked.  All that

pressure, all that fight caused the Republican county election clerk to

finally give in.  They`ve now announced, OK, fine, they will announce and

open two new polling places inside the city limits in Dodge City and they

will be ready for this year`s primaries. 

 

Alejandro and LULAC, which is the League of United Latin American Citizens,

and the ACLU, they filed a voluntary motion to dismiss their lawsuit once

that announcement was made by the county because they got what they were

after, and so, you know, they didn`t get it in time for the midterms but

they got it. 

 

Sometimes when you fight, you win.  Sometimes when you are fighting in an

environment that seems absolutely unforgiving and impossible, sometimes the

environment changes around you and it allows you to win. 

 

I mean, one of the places that Democrat Laura Kelly campaigned for governor

when she was on her way to winning the statehouse.  One of the places she

campaigned was in Dodge City.  What did she campaign on there?  Improving

voters` access to the polls.  Now, voters` access to the polls is improved

in Dodge City and she is in charge of state government and Kris Kobach is

unemployed. 

 

But, again, ground truth in Dodge City – this next time, you will no

longer have to leave town to vote like you did before. 

 

I mean, there`s still a couple of things to watch here.  The case was

dismissed without prejudice, which means that case can come back to life

pretty much instantly if the plaintiffs come to believe that they need to

do that in order to hold the county and hold the state to account, right? 

To make sure that Hispanic voters are getting equal treatment in that town

and in Kansas.  It can come back.  That`s what dismissing it without

prejudice means. 

 

And if you think about it, it is still a little bit nuts that for 13,000

voters, there is only two planned polling places in Dodge City.  But it`s

better, I mean, at least two polling places is two more than what they had,

which is zero.  So it`s not like that fight is permanently over, but they

did win what they were trying to get, and a win is a win for Alejandro and

for the ACLU and the voters in that town who were not going to take it

lying down. 

 

And it does show you that things change, even in places where it seems like

they cannot ever change.  Things change.  Kansas voted for Trump by 20

points.  Two years later, they voted for Laura Kelly to become the

Democratic governor of that state. 

 

That same night that Laura Kelly became the Democratic governor of Kansas,

that`s the same night, of course, that Democrats won control of the House

of Representatives in Washington.  And over these last few days, we have

started to see the substance of what that is going to mean in terms of how

your federal government works, how Congress works, how it spends its time,

what it works on.  The first bill the Democrats brought up and held

hearings on is what they call H.R. 1.  It`s a big omnibus bill on voting

rights and anti-corruption measures. 

 

This is legislation that sort of hits all the high points on small “D”

democratic reform.  It would stop partisan gerrymandering for congressional

districts.  So instead of having state legislatures draw up the

congressional districts to maximally benefit their own party, instead, it

would be independent nonpartisan redistricting in every state, so you don`t

have all these guaranteed Republican seats or guaranteed Democratic seats

and it would be all across the country. 

 

It would make Election Day a federal holiday, so nobody has to skip voting

because they can`t get time off work to do it.  It would guarantee early

voting days for every federal election in every state in the country. 

Right now, some states offer early voting, some don`t. 

 

It would establish nationwide voter registration, where you have the

opportunity to opt out if you don`t want to be registered, but otherwise

you`re registered.  It would stop states from dumping registered voters off

their rolls in purges like the ones that are advocated nationwide by Kris

Kobach. 

 

It would make the president and the Supreme Court subject to the same

ethics and anti-corruption rules as everyone else in government.  Imagine

that.  It would force dark money groups and super PACs to have to disclose

their donors so we`d have no more anonymous money flooding into election

campaigns. 

 

When the Democrats first introduced this legislation, you always pick

something to be H.R. 1, right?  To show this is our first priority.  This

is what we want to be known for when we take the gavel.  When the Democrats

first put forward this legislation, I don`t think the Republicans worried

or thought too much about it at first, but when the Democrats held this

first hearings on H.R. 1 this week and the Republican witnesses just got

roasted and Republican members of Congress had a very hard time mounting

sober-sounding arguments against many of the elements of this bill,

particularly the anti-corruption stuff, I think the Republicans started to

take the threat and the potential appeal of this bill more seriously. 

 

This is a House bill but in response to this House bill, Senator Mitch

McConnell got up on the floor of the Senate and called a power grab. 

Democratic Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii clapped back at him, yes, voting

is a power grab by citizens. 

 

One of the other elements of H.R. 1 that never would have been

controversial, let alone a partisan issue as recently as just a few years

ago, is a provision that would require candidates for vice president and

candidates for president to disclose their tax returns to the public or

they wouldn`t be allowed to run.  The Donald Trump presidential candidacy

was the first time since Nixon that a presidential candidate hasn`t

disclosed his or her tax returns, let alone an actual sitting president not

disclosing his or her tax returns.  But despite that stark break from

bipartisan precedent and ongoing questions about what it is about his tax

returns that he did not want to disclose, Republicans absolutely decided

not to care, at least they decided not to do anything about that when they

held unified control of Congress for the first two years of the Trump

presidency. 

 

Today, we learned that will change under the new Democratic leadership in

this Congress.  Next week on Thursday, the subcommittee led by Congressman

John Lewis, Subcommittee in Ways and Means, will convene the first hearing

that has ever happened on candidate tax returns.  The first tax returns

hearing since Donald Trump became the first major party candidate to refuse

to release his.  The hearing will be called “Legislative Proposals and Tax

Law Related to Presidential and Vice Presidential Tax Returns.”  Again,

this is in the context of proposed Democratic legislation that would make

it a requirement that all vice presidential and presidential candidates

have to disclose them if they want to run. 

 

That hearing will be a week from today, 2:00.  They`re going to live stream

it. 

 

Already in the few days they`ve been up and running in Congress since the

shutdown ended, Democrats have convened hearings on drug companies hiking

the price of prescription drugs.  You might remember the polling that

showed health care and health care costs were the single greatest

motivating factor who Americans who turned out to vote in this year`s

elections.  Those voters when they turned out, elected Democrats by a

historic margin, they flipped 40 Republican seats to the Democratic Party. 

Democrats know that. 

 

They know anger and fear and concern about health care costs is a big part

of what drove voters to pick them and put them in office.  And so, the

first full day of hearings under the Democratic – under the Democratic

Congress included aggressive hearings on drug companies hiking the price of

their drugs.  Democrats have also convened hearings on the president`s

remarkable and as yet explicitly unjustified decision to send thousands of

U.S. troops to the border right before the midterm elections. 

 

Was that a presidential stunt that was designed to have a political impact

and for no other substantive reason?  It`s at least worth asking. 

Democrats have started already. 

 

Next week on Wednesday, for the first time in eight years there will be a

House hearing on climate change.  Actually, there`s going to be two – one

in the Energy Committee and one in the Natural Resources Committee.  The

chairs of those committees are Democrats now, Raul Grijalva and Frank

Pallone, both Democrats.  Neither of whom believe that climate change is a

hoax invented by the Chinese that is easily disproven by the continued

existence of winter. 

 

Next week for the first time in eight years, there will also be a

congressional hearing on gun violence.  Think about that for a second. 

Eight years – there has not been a House hearing on gun violence in eight

years. 

 

That means through Sandy Hook and through Aurora, Colorado, and through the

Navy yard shootings, and what happened in San Bernardino and Orlando, the

Pulse nightclub shooting, and Las Vegas, and Sutherland Springs, Texas,

where 27 people were shot and killed, and the Pittsburgh synagogue

massacre, and Parkland, Florida, through all of these – those are just off

the top of my head.  Those are just some of them, right? 

 

The House has held zero hearings.  They have had zero response.  They have

paid zero attention to anything having to do with all of these gun

massacres in the country.  They actually thought about having a hearing on

gun violence in 2017, they got close, but it got called off because of the

congressional baseball shooting. 

 

In 2016, after what happened at the pulse nightclub in Orlando where 50

people were killed, another 53 were shot and wounded that`s when

Congressman John Lewis led Democratic members of the house in a sit-in on

the floor of Congress.  They sat – remember that?  They sat in overnight

for 25 hours demanding Republicans allow some kind of vote on some kind of

gun reform, some kind of response, anything. 

 

Republicans did nothing in response.  Nothing.  Not a hearing.  Not even a

hearing to talk about it in eight years. 

 

Well, now next week with the Democrats in charge, there will be a gun

violence hearing.  It will be in the Judiciary Committee. 

 

California Congressman Ted Liu is on that committee.  When that hearing was

announced he said online, quote, the American people delivered control of

the House to Democrats.  What does that mean?  No more stupid hearings

about Hillary`s e-mails.  Instead, next Wednesday, House Judiciary will

hold a hearing on gun violence.  Next Thursday, we will pass a bill on

background checks. 

 

And the House will hold all of these hearings and they will in all

likelihood pass a ton of stuff.  Nancy Pelosi is very good at managing her

caucus so that when stuff comes to the floor, it comes to the floor because

they know who is going to vote for it and they bring stuff to the floor

because they want it to pass and then they pass it. 

 

Now, when they pass stuff in the House, will any of that go anywhere?  Will

any of this pressure from Congress change anything?  The attention that

they can bring to stuff through hearings, will it change anything?  Will it

make new policy? 

 

I know they`ll be able to pass bills in the House.  Does that mean they`ll

be able to pass new laws?  There`s the Senate.  There`s the White House. 

 

I mean, I don`t know, but the prospect of what they are doing already, all

of a sudden, makes Congress way more relevant than it has been in a long

time.  Democrats and some observers who do not want to be voted are already

suggesting that even looking at some of that stuff that`s in the Democrats`

big H.R. 1 bill, some of the anti-corruption measures in that bill, if

they`re broken out alone, some of those might be too hard for Republicans

to resist.  Some of those might get sufficient Republican support.  They

could potentially become law.  We`ll see. 

 

There are real signs that things could actually change and maybe in short

order on issues related to foreign policy, or even Republicans in the

Senate appear willing to break with the president from time to time.  The

number of Republican senators who crossed over and voted with Democrats to

try to stop the Trump administration from lifting Russian sanctions on Oleg

Deripaska, that number of Republican crossovers was not sufficient to stop

administration.  They needed a couple of more votes but it did hit double

digits.  And in the House, it was well over 100 Republicans who joined with

the Democrats to try to stop the Trump administration on that, too. 

 

Today, Senate Republicans got behind a legislative rebuke of the president

on Syria and Afghanistan.  The president has tweeted stuff that looks like

potentially he`s ordering U.S. troops out of Syria and Afghanistan.  It`s

really just his Twitter feed and it`s not quite clear what he`s trying to

do and what he might actually be doing, but Senate Republicans showed today

they`re willing at least to rebuke him on issues like that. 

 

And that dynamic will be fascinating to watch, regardless of what you think

about whether there ought to be more American troops in Syria and

Afghanistan and for how long.  I mean, the idea that congress, even the

Republican-controlled side of the Congress in the Senate, that they might

get up on their hind legs on issues like that and express themselves and

take back some of their power on an issue like that, that would be the huge

thing.  I mean, war power issues and authorizing the use of military force

have accrued increasingly to the presidency for a couple of generations

now.  For every president since Vietnam, increasingly and inexorably, it

has been this one-way swing of U.S. military power being consolidated

within presidency – decision-making power and authority over U.S. military

force being consolidated in the executive. 

 

I read a book about it in 2012 called “Drift,” in which I did not

anticipate that the thing that might ever turn that drift around would be

the election of a president who was so widely perceived on a bipartisan

basis to be manifestly unfit to wield those kinds of concentrated powers

when it comes to U.S. force, but that`s where we`re at.  It has taken a

Trump presidency to swing the pendulum now back in the other direction, to

the point where Congress now maybe wants to assert that just like the

Constitution says, actually, war and the use of military force is something

that Congress is supposed to decide, not just the president alone.  And so,

we will see. 

 

The realm of what is possible, the realm of what you might be able to

achieve if you fight for it is something that is in flux right now in

America.  I mean, just ask Dodge City, Kansas, and their two new polling

places and their Democratic governor and their deep red legislature that

gets slightly bluer every day, every time a new legislator jumps out of the

Republican Party and declares herself to be a Democrat.  I mean, we will

see.  Things are in flux. 

 

And some of the things people have been fighting for that seemed like

hopeless causes, all of a sudden, are going to be causes that win this

year.  We are in that kind of an inflection moment. 

 

But the one place in national politics where we don`t have to wait and see,

where the change is already happening, where there has been a passing of

the gavel in terms of who is empowered to make things happen and to say how

things will end, that is in the realm of oversight, and we broke the news

here last night about the Democrat who has just now newly been empowered as

of now to take that gavel.  Republicans delayed it as long as they could

but he is finally now being allowed to start his work. 

 

He is about to become one of the most powerful figures in Washington and

one of the most powerful Democrats in the country and he joins us live

next. 

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  Congratulations, America, we finally got a committee, a whole

committee. 

 

It`s not totally clear why it took this long but Republicans yesterday

finally named the Republican members who will sit on the house intelligence

committee this Congress.  They waited two weeks.  Over the course of that

two weeks, all they did was swap out one dude and just leave in place

everybody else they used to have on that committee so nobody quite knows

why it took them this long, but regardless, here they are. 

 

And the important thing about those Republican members being named to the

intelligence committee is that now that those Republicans are in place, now

that the membership is known and intact, now that committee can finally

start working under their new Democratic chairman, Congressman Adam Schiff. 

 

Now, Congressman Schiff has said the first act of business on this newly

constituted committee will concern the transcripts of interviews from more

than 50 witnesses who have testified behind closed doors in the committee`s

Russia investigation.  Congressman Schiff says under his leadership, the

first thing House Intel will do is get official copies of those transcripts

into the hands of special counsel Robert Mueller and his prosecutors.  And

Mueller, of course, has shown that he will bring charges for lying to

congress.  Just ask Michael Cohen or Roger Stone. 

 

Joining us now is Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. 

 

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for making time for us tonight.  Really

appreciate you being here. 

 

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE:  Good to

be with you. 

 

MADDOW:  So can you explain to us what is the importance of these

transcripts, the transcripts from witness testimony that`s happened behind

closed doors to your committee.  What`s the importance of those transcripts

and their being conveyed to the special counsel now? 

 

SCHIFF:  Well, it`s important for a couple of reasons.  It`s important

because if the special counsel wants to bring perjury charges, they need to

have access to those transcripts.  They need to be able to compare the

testimony with the facts they`re aware of, otherwise, they can`t use those

transcripts in a court proceeding. 

 

It also may be important in terms of the report that Bob Mueller makes to

the Congress or to the attorney general that he be able to use the facts

that we`ve been able to uncover as part of his analysis and his report. 

So, this is something we`ve been looking forward to do, that we wanted to

do frankly long before now.  But now that we do have that final Republican

member appointed, we can finally get underway. 

 

MADDOW:  Are you frustrated that it took this long and are you worried

about the reasons there may have been this long delay in getting your

Republican colleague seated? 

 

SCHIFF:  It does concern me because clearly they weren`t going to make

changes to the committee.  They merely added a member where one of the

termed out members was leaving the committee.  That doesn`t take weeks and

weeks.  Even if it did, they had all that time to prepare for it. 

 

So, it looks like this was an effort to delay the investigation.  I think

it`s a pretty pointless effort, but if it`s an indication of what`s to

come, they intend to play an obstructionist role or continue the role they

played for the last two years like acting as an extension of Giuliani`s

defense team, that would be deeply regrettable.  We`ll go forward anyway. 

But I`d much rather go forward in a bipartisan basis if they`re willing to

work with us.

 

MADDOW:  On the issue of witness testimony, one of the things that is

interesting here is that the Republican majority in the last Congress

essentially declared the Russia investigation over.  They put out a report

that could be I think briefly summarized as all caps “no collusion” and

said it was done.  You and your Democratic colleagues at the time indicated

you did not think that investigation was done.  And clearly, under your

leadership, that investigation is going to be reconstituted in a

significant way. 

 

But despite all of that, there are these 50 witnesses who have come before

your committee.  As you say, there is this issue with the transcripts and

conveying them to the special counsel. 

 

Can I ask if your committee has the ability to or has considered or has

indeed made any criminal referrals to the Justice Department in reference

to any witnesses who you do believe lied to you in their testimony? 

 

SCHIFF:  We have not made criminal referrals.  What we have wanted to do is

really provide the evidence to the special counsel and let him make a

judgment about who he thinks has violated the law, particularly as it

pertains to false testimony before our committee.  I will tell you, though,

in terms of that report that you mention that the Republicans put out about

nine months ago, essentially was a report saying we believe every denial we

heard in our committee. 

 

So we completely believe everything Michael Cohen had to say.  We

completely believe everything Roger Stone had to say.  We don`t need to go

any further. 

 

We don`t need to get documents.  We don`t need to get records.  We`re going

to take everything we heard at face value. 

 

You can`t conduct a credible investigation that way.  We had wanted to look

into, for example, the issue of the use of the NRA as a potential back

channel, people like Maria Butina, but, you know, their view was there is

nothing to see here.  Well, apparently there was something to see here. 

This was a Russian asset working trying to infiltrate the NRA. 

 

So we are determined to get to the truth of this.  They were also great

many witnesses, Rachel, who came in and simply said we`re not going to

answer questions.  Steve Bannon refused to answer whole categories of

questions.  Don Jr. refused to answer whole categories of questions, among

others, and you can`t conduct an investigation if you let the witnesses

pick and choose what they`re going to answer. 

 

MADDOW:  Congressman, CNN and ABC report tonight that on the Senate side,

investigators have obtained – and it`s sort of vague language and I don`t

want to try to be any more specific than they`re saying in their reporting. 

This is not MSNBC reporting and NBC hasn`t confirmed this.  But they`re

saying that Senate investigators have obtained information about something

you have asked about in the past concerning Donald Trump Jr.  In the lead

up to the 2016 Trump Tower meeting during the campaign, he had made a

couple of calls to blocked numbers. 

 

And you had suggested that was one of the things that was important for

your committee to figure out, whether those blocked numbers might have

indicated – might have been an indication that Mr. Trump Jr. was actually

calling his father, potentially talking to Donald Trump the candidate about

that Trump Tower meeting with all those Russians. 

 

What do you make of this new reporting and what do you think about the

importance of that incident now overall? 

 

SCHIFF:  Well, the problem is that we are not in a position to be able to

confirm the reporting because the Republicans wouldn`t let us get the phone

records.  It was such an obvious investigative step and is an obvious

investigative step and one that we will take very early on now that we are

under way.  That is find out who Don Jr. was talking to about that meeting

at Trump Tower.  Those conversations could have taken place over the phone

or they could have taken place by Don Jr. walking down the hall to talk to

dad.

 

But it`s key to understanding the president`s involvement in all of this,

and if we look at what we already know, we already know that the president

and his son misled the country about meetings the campaign was having with

Russians.  They denied they even took place. 

 

And then when they were confronted with meetings like the meeting in Trump

Tower, they misled the country again about what took place in that meeting. 

The president and his son, it is reported, helped fabricate together this

false statement that the meeting was about adoptions, that it wasn`t about

getting dirt on Hillary Clinton or an effort by the Russian government to

help the Trump campaign when, in fact, that`s apparently what that meeting

was supposed to be about. 

 

So we`re going to get to the bottom of this.  Why all the lies?  Why the

cover-up?  What more was going on here? 

 

And I think a key part of that is to find out what the president`s role was

in all of this. 

 

MADDOW:  Congressman Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence

Committee – sir, I know that your life is about to get very, very busy. 

Thanks for taking time to talk to us tonight. 

 

SCHIFF:  You bet.  Thank you. 

 

MADDOW:  All right.  We have lots more to get to tonight.  Stay with us.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  Now that Democrats have control of half of Congress and they`re

about to hold first hearing on American gun violence in eight years, one

tree that might shake a little bit is the National Rifle Association, which

Congressman Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, just

mentioned moments ago. 

 

The NRA, of course, is a legendary organization.  It`s like the classic

modern American case study in terms of political power, money and lobbying

force. 

 

But it turns out if you shake the NRA`s tree these days, it kind of just

falls over on top of you.  Tim Burr, whatever`s going on with the NRA right

now, it is not what it used to be.  I mean, their finances have apparently

collapsed in the last couple of years. 

 

They had started an NRA TV network, which is a very high-profile thing. 

That apparently is imploding. 

 

There have been reports they`re trying to save some money at headquarters

by even taking away the free coffee machine for their employees.  Their

spending on the last election was completely upside down from previous

history.  In all previous elections, the NRA absolutely dominated spending

for anybody who`s donating on issues of gun reform and gun rights.  This

year, they were vastly outspent by people on the other side of their issue.

 

But then there`s this, quote, NRA seeks distance from Russia as

investigations heat up.  This is from “The New York Times” this week,

quote: When a delegation of high-profile donors, boosters and board members

from the NRA travelled to Russia in 2015, they visited a gun factory in

Moscow, took in a ballet and met with members of Vladimir Putin`s inner

circle.  But now, the NRA is seeking to distance itself from that trip

after revolutions that a Russian woman who helped arrange, Maria Butina,

was conspiring to infiltrate the organization. 

 

The NRA`s lawyer telling “The Times” this week that the NRA`s chief

executive Wayne LaPierre was opposed to that trip.  He forbade NRA staff

members to go to Russia says his lawyer now. 

 

The NRA president a the time of the trip now says, oh, I was also opposed

to the Russia trip, just like Wayne was.  Yes, we both knew it was a

terrible idea.  “The Times” rather dryly notes, quote, given Mr. LaPierre`s

power within the organization, it`s unclear how such a trip would have

proceed at all despite his opposition to it.  You can understand why the

NRA might now want to disavow that 2015 Moscow trip. 

 

And the public narrative of why they took the trip was always weird enough. 

I mean, the narrative about this trip was that the NRA guys went to Moscow

to make connections with a Russian gun rights group that mysteriously had

been blessed by Vladimir Putin`s political party.  Now, in reality, here on

earth one, there is no gun rights movement in Russia, certainly not one

sanctioned by the powers that be, right?  Not one that would be headed up

by high-ranking members of Putin`s political party like the people who

hosted the NRA delegation in Russia. 

 

So the cover story never made sense in the first place.  And, of course,

now we know for certain that the trip was a Russian intelligence operation,

because the woman who ran that supposed gun rights organization has pled

guilty in the United States to acting as a secret agent of the Russian

government, using gun rights as a pretense to infiltrate American

conservative circles through the NRA. 

 

Maria Butina has pled guilty.  She is now cooperating with federal

prosecutors.  Court filings would seem to indicate that she has testified

multiple times before at least one grand jury. 

 

Ms. Butina`s American boyfriend, who is essentially her unnamed conspirator

in her indictment, he is also reportedly in prosecutors` sights and has

received a target letter from prosecutors.  There are inquiries into the

NRA`s ties to Russia from Congress and from the FBI and from special

counsel Robert Mueller.  And, you know, it is – it`s one thing, and it

might explain the little freak-out happening right now at the NRA if all

these innocent NRA folks who just wanted a tour of a Russian gun factory

and a trip with this nice Russian lady, if it turns out they were all duped

by Russian intelligence and they had no idea what this was all about.

 

But the more we learn and what we have just learned today shows us that

actually there is really no chance they were duped at all and the more we

see about what happened in that relationship, the more we can see about

whatever was going on with America`s great gun rights group and the Russian

government, it is weirder than they`ve ever admitted to before. 

 

We`ve got that story next.  Stay with us.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  In 2015, an American Republican activist, a manned named Paul

Erickson wrote an e-mail to a member of an NRA delegation that was heading

out on a trip to Moscow.  Paul Erickson was the boyfriend of Mary Butina. 

She`s the Russian citizen who has now pled guilty to trying to infiltrate

conservative American political circles and the Republican Party on behalf

of the Russian government using the gun rights movement as a pretext.  She

had played a key role in organizing that NRA trip to Moscow in 2015.  So,

her boyfriend, Erickson, sends this e-mail to a member of the delegation

just before that trip departs. 

 

Reporter Betsy woodruff at “The Daily Beast” has quotes from his e-mail in

a new piece that “The Beast” just published today.  Erickson wrote in this

email that the former NRA president who was leading the delegation to

Moscow was angling on the trip to get a private interview with Russian

President Vladimir Putin.  He said that the Russian official organizing the

trip, Maria Butina`s handler in the Russian government had, quote, dangled

the possibility of such an interview and therefore the NRA delegation

really needed to impress their Russian hosts.  Quote, high stakes all

around. 

 

Erickson also appears to spell out in this e-mail that the trip to Moscow

was much more than a gun rights networking event.  He wrote this to a

member of the NRA delegation who was about to head to Moscow, quote, as we

discussed over lunch in Iowa, Russia believes that high-level contacts with

the NRA might be the best means of neutral introduction to the next

American president.  This simple goodwill trip would have enormous

diplomatic consequences for a future U.S./Russia bilateral relationship to

the world. 

 

It certainly appears from that e-mail that Paul Erickson and at least one

member of the NRA delegation had a shared understanding that what Russia

wanted out of this trip, bringing these guys to Moscow, was political

access in the United States, and they appeared to have been on board with

that as they set off for the trip. 

 

Well, now the NRA` leadership is like, oh, we definite weren`t on board

with that.  We tried to stop that.  We didn`t think people should do it. 

The NRA trying to distance itself from this trip that happened to Moscow in

2015 appears to be happening amidst a bit of a meltdown at the NRA. 

 

We don`t exactly understand the significance of what might have happened

that they`re so worried about.  But, clearly, you can see from their own

behavior and their own sort of now wrong after the fact denials that they

at least believe this is a big deal. 

 

It makes you wonder what they know and what these reporters are on to who

have been digging into this story and turning up worried about, but

clearly, you can see from their behavior and long after the fact denials

they at least believe this is a big deal.  I mean, it makes you wonder what

they know and what these reporters are on to who have been digging into

this story and turning up new details about it all the time. 

 

Joining us now is the reporter who broke the story, “Daily Beast” political

reporter Betsy Woodruff. 

 

Betsy, it`s great to see you.  Thank you for being with us tonight. 

 

BETSY WOODRUFF, POLITICAL REPORTER, THE DAILY BEAST:  Sure thing. 

 

MADDOW:  So, I feel like there`s two things happening at once.  The NRA

appears to be kind of falling apart, appears to be kind of in meltdown. 

And they appear to be freaking out about whatever happened between them and

Russia. 

 

Is it your understanding that this is about their worries about the Moscow

trip in 2015?  Is it about the arrest and the cooperation agreement of

Maria Butina?  Do you have a big picture sense of what is so concerning to

them? 

 

WOODRUFF:  What I can tell you is that, ironically, the Trump

administration time period has been a surprisingly challenging window of

time for the NRA.  Historically, the NRA is at its most successful.  It

gets the most members and the most money when Democrats are in power

because the NRA can push the narrative that a Democratic president is going

to steal your guns and use the regulatory power to drive up the cost of

ammunition. 

 

So often when Democrats become president or when they expand their

political power, we see conservative Americans who perhaps would buy into

some of these theories rushing to buy ammo, rushing to support the NRA and

to help fund, it out of fear that their right to have any sort of weapon

whatsoever is on the line. 

 

So, when Trump became president, surprisingly enough, even though the group

had an ally in the highest levels of the American government, many of their

grassroots supporters and at least this is the view in the American gun

rights community, have become a little complacent and a little less

invested in supporting the NRA simply because as long as Trump is in office

they`re not worried that anyone is going to try to grab their guns. 

 

MADDOW:  And, Betsy, this Paul Erickson e-mail you obtained about the

Moscow trip of all these NRA honchos in 2015, it makes it seem like it trip

to Moscow was a really big deal for the NRA, that this was something

connected to big geopolitical aims. 

 

Why do you think the NRA is now reframing how this trip happened and

claiming that actually all their leadership was very opposed to it and they

didn`t want it to happen? 

 

WOODRUFF:  There`s no doubt that part of the reason they`re reframing it is

they`re expecting things to get significantly worse.  We`ve reported that

the Senate Intelligence Committee has been receiving e-mails from the NRA

related to their trip to Moscow as part of that committee`s investigation

into Russian efforts to influence American politics and Senator Ron Wyden

has also been helming a robust investigation of this same thing. 

 

So within the NRA, there`s an expectation that ultimately everything is

going to become public in one way or another, that these Senate

investigators are going to present to Americans a broader view of how

Russians tried to use the NRA to influence American politics.  So my sense

is that people in the gun rights community and the NRA are certainly

concerned about that and trying to get out ahead of it and sort of start to

shape the narrative. 

 

And that`s part of the reason this e-mail is so important, is that it shows

not what the NRA is saying right now as they try to craft the way we view

their place in the American political sphere but rather what Paul Erickson,

who was a long-time NRA insider and very influential member of the American

gun rights community, was saying at the time when he though the was having

a private conversation. 

 

One detail in this e-mail that I find really striking was the fact that

Paul Erickson, and he`s not the world`s most reliable narrator, but he

claims that David Keene, who at the time was a former NRA president, was

absolutely irate that Allan Cors, who at the time was the NRA`s president,

made a last-minute cancellation of going on the trip.  And according to

Erickson, and to be clear I reached out to Keene and to Cors, I didn`t get

any pushback from them about the claim that Erickson makes. 

 

According to Erickson, what he says in this email is that David Keene, the

group`s ex-president considered ending his friendship with Alan Cors, the

group`s current president, because Keene was so concerned and so invested

in this trip to Moscow being a success.  We know Keene was hoping to get

some face time with Putin out of the trip.  An important detail is part of

the trip was funded by a group supported by a Russian oligarch.  We know

Keene was deeply invested in this trip being a success, having a successful

trip and the emotions were really high. 

 

MADDOW:  Yes.  And so, now, for the NRA trying to say like oh, this trip,

this is nothing and we probably shouldn`t have done it and we knew at the

time it was a bad idea, it`s fascinating to see this evolving story. 

 

Betsy Woodruff, political reporter at “The Daily Beast” – great work,

Betsy.  Great to see you.  Thank you. 

 

WOODRUFF:  Thanks, Rachel. 

 

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

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  Today, some new breadcrumbs were dropped in the mystery case that

has been winding its way through the federal courts in D.C. since last

August.  It`s a case that is very intriguing, in part because what we don`t

know about it.  We know it involves Robert Mueller and the special counsel. 

We know it`s being handled with alacrity in the federal court system. 

 

But we otherwise don`t know what it`s about.  It involves a corporation. 

We don`t know which one.  A corporation that is wholly owned by a foreign

country.  We don`t know what country. 

 

It appears this mystery corporation has been fighting a subpoena from

Mueller.  And we think we know now that a federal judge is he fining this

corporation $50,000 a day for every day that they refuse to comply with

that Mueller subpoena.  Well, late last night, we got a few more

breadcrumbs in this case when the court unsealed a redacted version of the

docket for this case.  From that, we can now see that a few weeks ago, the

mystery corporation filed a motion asking the court to find that its prior

order saying that the corporation was in contempt for not responding to the

subpoena, that order was, quote, “unenforceable” and that blank property is

immune from execution or attachment. 

 

What we think this means is because this mystery corporation has been

skipping out on paying their $50,000 a day in fines for not complying with

the subpoena, we think that the Justice Department, the special counsel`s

office, may be entitled to go get that money some other way, for instance,

by seizing the mystery corporation`s property here in the United States. 

So this part of the docket is the mystery corporation telling the judge,

hey, don`t let Mueller take our stuff.  Our redacted property is immune

from execution or attachment. 

 

On January 24th, we can now see the judge denied that request and basically

told the special counsel`s office he`s more than welcome to go seize stuff

from this mystery corporation.  We can see that ever since the judge gave

Mueller the green light to seize their stuff, the mystery corporation has

not tried to pump the brakes.  They have not filed an appeal.  So, it looks

like from this docket that Mueller and the Justice Department still have

the judge`s blessing to go take stuff to account for the 50 grand a day

that this corporation apparently isn`t paying. 

 

Now, we still don`t know who the corporation is or what country owns them. 

But they apparently have property or assets in the U.S. that appear to be

fair game for the Justice Department to seize to cover these $50,000 a day

penalties the court has imposed.  What this means for you is that if

anybody has seen federal marshals cutting off the gold doorknobs from some

wholly foreign-owned corporation in the United States, please snap a

picture of that for us – www.sendittorachel.com.  We`d love to know. 

 

That does it for us.  See you again tomorrow. 

 

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

 

Good evening, Lawrence. 

 

                                                                                                               

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.>