Interview with Bernie Sanders. TRANSCRIPT: 7/10/19, The Rachel Maddow Show.

Guests:
Bernie Sanders
Transcript:

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST:  Yes.

 

DONNA EDWARDS (D-MD), FORMER CONGRESSWOMAN:  But I do think this continues

to be a fight that gets played out within the caucus on these substantive

issues. 

 

HAYES:  I think so, too, particularly those bills.  Donna Edwards and Matt

Fuller, thank you both. 

 

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.

 

And thanks to you at home for joining us.  Happy to have you here. 

 

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is here in studio for an interview.  I`m

very excited to be talking with Senator Sanders.  I saw him at the debate

in Miami and we haven`t had him here in studio for an interview in a long

time.  I`m very excited he`s here.  He`s going to be here in just a moment. 

 

Also exciting today, the U.S. national soccer team that won the World Cup

this weekend was celebrated in truly perfect, raucous and over the top

fashion today with a ticker tape parade through downtown Manhattan.  This

was just – just pure joy.  The excitement and the enthusiasm, just the

glee in the city, particularly from lots of kids in the city, it was

absolutely palpable today.  It was so great. 

 

Whether or not you were in New York City and you were able to make it, or

whether you just might have seen these images today, the footage and the

coverage, it was such a nice national bright spot in the news.  Just worth

letting it wash over you, right?  Just worth pausing to let it just make

you happy for a moment.  It was so great. 

 

I think especially it feels great because the news has been so dark lately,

right?  It`s nice to have something that is pure gleaming glee because the

news has been dark.  I mean, even today, the weird news was dark. 

 

Like this new reporting over the last 24 hours from the great David

Fahrenthold at “The Washington Post.”  David Fahrenthold`s new reporting

for “The Post” provides all Americans today with basically formal front

page notice that among the ways this president and his family are

continuing to make money from their private businesses on the side during

his time in office is by doing this event with a Miami strip club. 

 

And this is not like a historical thing that turned up.  This is this week. 

You can meet your caddy girl Friday, July 12th, that`s the day after

tomorrow.  You can also RSVP for your caddy girl.  I don`t exactly know

what that means, but in order to do it, you call one of these numbers or

you just show up at the strip club.  That`s the strip club address. 

 

But that event that starts on Friday at the strip club continues on

Saturday at the Trump National Doral.  You can see, that`s their logo here. 

And I believe also on this flyer for the event, I believe that is the Trump

family crest as well, although you shouldn`t hold me to it.  I think it is. 

 

Some of the other promotional materials like this one posted at

exoticdancer.com show that in addition to the base rate for getting the

caddy girl of your choice, again you can earth buy the girl outright or you

can bid for her at an auction.  In addition to the base rate for your caddy

girl, you can also – see right here under the Trump family crest, you can

pay for a VIP upgrade, which is a combined package where you get three days

and two nights` stay with breakfast at the president`s hotel combined with

a half hour in the VIP room plus bottle service at the strip club with full

nudity. 

 

So, you get a special stripper package combined with a stay at the

president`s club. 

 

Now, I mention, there are a few different ways you can give the president

your money here through this event.  You can sort of do the buy it now plan

or you pre-reserve the nude dancer that you want and you get to pick her

out specifically.  Or you can roll the dice, press your luck, and instead

go to the auction the night before the event, the live auction, where you

can`t just pick the girl you want and buy her, all of the girls that are

remaining will be sold off to the highest bidder one by one. 

 

So, after you purchase your chosen nude dancer, either directly or at the

auction on Friday night, then on Saturday at the president`s club, you get

to take her out for a round of golf.  The organizer from the strip club

tells David Fahrenthold that on the golf course, the dancers would be

promised – they were that the dancers would wear, quote, pink mini skirts

and what the organizer from the strip club called a, quote, sexy white

polo. 

 

Now, if that`s not what you were after, if that is disappointing to you

given what you were going to be spending on this event, the president`s

venue, take heart.  After you are allowed to do the golfing thing with the

promised pink mini skirts and the sexy white polos, right after that, the

plan for the event is that everybody leaves the president`s golf club and

goes back to the strip club itself if you get the VIP package,

transportation is provided. 

 

And that`s the part where there would be less clothing than there would be

on the golf course.  Again, this is a strip club that advertises full

nudity on a normal day.  For this event involving the president`s golf club

and the Trump family crest, the strip club says it would be planning a,

quote, very tasteful burlesque show which only could involve nudity.  They

just say, could involve nudity, they`re not promising. 

 

There`s a little ambiguity there, little excitement and suspense as to just

how naked the event would ultimately become. 

 

So, this was reported last night by David Fahrenthold, a Pulitzer Prize-

winning reporter who has followed the money in the Trump business empire

from the beginning of Trump`s term in national politics.  In David`s

initial report last night, he got a statement from the Trump Organization

confirming that the nude dancer event is happening at the president`s golf

club.  In a statement from the Trump Organization, the business not only

confirmed the event was happening, it bragged for a worthwhile cause, a

Miami charity was reportedly going to get some of the proceeds of this

event after the president`s club got paid its cut. 

 

By this afternoon, the supposed charity beneficiary had announced that they

no longer wanted anything do with this event.  So, after that announcement

from the charity backing out, for several hours that, left us with the

impression that this was just going to be the president`s club hosting a

nude dancer auction for money straight up regardless of a worthy cause, but

as we were getting ready to get on the air tonight, about an hour and a

half ago, we got word that after a little bit of national discussion on

this matter driven by “The Washington Post`s” reporting, the president`s

family business has as of tonight decided that they are not going to go

through with this after all. 

 

I mean, obviously, this is fine.  I mean, this is – you know, this is what

you might expect from an American presidency.  I mean, I blame Obama.  Who

among us doesn`t recall how President Obama`s frequent nude dancer auctions

at the private business he and Michelle kept operating while he was

president, that kind of broke the seal in any potential outrage over that

kind of thing.  After all his nude dancer auctions. 

 

I`m sure, that`s why the president`s business had been planning this event

why no one much cared until because of the outrage over Obama doing exactly

this kind of thing.  No one cared until the ended up on the front page of

the “Washington Post.”  I mean, I had been wondering if maybe the Pence

family would show up.  It would be interesting to see, would they be more

fiscally responsible and go for the buy it now nude dancer of your choice

or maybe they try their luck with the auction?  What do you think, Pence

family? 

 

Again, as of tonight, though, within the last hour or so, we have new this

is has been called up.  It`s still up at exoticdancer.com.  So, maybe

people will still show.  Apparently it has been cancelled. 

 

The idea, though, that President Trump would be trying to profit from

something like this, would be trying to hold an event like this involving

the use of his family crest and all of rest, I mean, it`s sort of just, you

know, Wednesday in an average Trump presidency news cycle. 

 

But on a day like today, it`s hard to avoid that this sort of thing is –

it`s not just a one-off, right?  This is what the Trump presidency has been

like in an ongoing way.  It seems like it`s going to continue.

 

I mean, today in addition the strip club nude dancer auction at the

president`s golf club news, in the same news cycle, we also got this

eyebrow raising ruling from a federal judge in Florida, which is about the

Florida massage parlor owner who had mysterious ties to the Chinese

government and Chinese communist party organizations while she was

simultaneously marketing access, literally offering to sell access for cash

to Chinese national who wanted to attend the events with the president and

his family and his cabinet officers at the president`s for-profit club,

Mar-a-Lago. 

 

The woman in question who has been photographed at Mar-a-Lago, including in

the company of the president, who has herself become a pretty serious

Republican Party fund-raiser in the Trump era, she is the original owner of

a string of massage parlors, but specifically the massage parlor where the

owner of the New England Patriots football team, Robert Kraft, got caught

up in a prostitution sting.  Robert Kraft and more than 20 other people

were charged with prostitution offenses related to that massage parlor.  He

has pled not guilty, but those charges are pending. 

 

Meanwhile, here is Mr. Kraft having dinner at the president`s table two

days ago at an event honoring the emir of Qatar.  And now, I don`t know if

there were massages at that event, but in this presidency, weirdly, you

almost feel like you have to ask. 

 

And now, this federal judge in Florida has just issued the short order,

giving prosecutors the go ahead to file classified evidence with the court

in a related case, because the president`s Mar-a-Lago club, massage parlor,

prostitution ring, cash for access scandal is now affirmed by this judge in

Florida to also have a nexus to a counterintelligence investigation that`s

currently under way into potential Chinese government spying in South

Florida in general and in President Trump`s Mar-a-Lago club in particular. 

 

That nexus gave rise to this order from the federal judge allowing

prosecutors to file classified evidence with the judge, rather than

allowing that evidence to be seen publicly or by the grand jury or even by

the defense.  The judge ruled that, quote, the court finds that the

classified information referenced in the government`s motion and memorandum

implicates the government`s classified information privilege because the

information is properly classified and its disclosure could cause serious

damage to the national security of the United States.  Quote: It is ordered

that the government is authorized to withhold from the defendant the

specified information outlined in the motion. 

 

In addition to the classified evidence counterintelligence part of that,

the Justice Department is also reportedly investigating whether the massage

parlor corruption scheme around Mar-a-Lago might have involved funneling

foreign donations to Republican Party entity and causes. 

 

Now, to be clear and to be fair here, we should not confusion the various

profit-making enterprises that the president and his family are running

alongside his time in the Oval Office, we should recognize that they are

separate entities here, that they are running as their side business in

addition to the presidency.  I mean, let`s be clear.  The nude dancer

auction with the we promise they are sexy polo shirts and the mini skirts

and the burlesque show with full nudity afterwards, that`s the president`s

club in Florida that`s called Doral.  That is a totally separate

presidential property from the Chinese spying massage parlor prostitution

ring scandal, that one is associated with the president`s other business in

Florida which is called Mar-a-Lago. 

 

So, to be fair, understand that this is both properties totally separate

scandals.  And I understand at this point, a couple of years into this, it

can be a little hard to disambiguate these things.  We have never have

scandals anything like this with any president ever, let alone multiple

scandals like this running simultaneously.  It`s hard to keep them all

straight. 

 

But with this president, this is what the news is like now.  And on days

like today with news cycles like this, I will admit to finding it a little

– I don`t know if it`s unnerving, it`s at least unsettling that those

kinds of stories I just described from today`s news cycle, those are

unspooling in today`s news alongside this continually devolving scandal in

Washington. 

 

This today was President Trump`s labor secretary, Alex Acosta, giving a

lengthy press conference in which he addressed his role as a U.S. attorney

in Florida, in a still murky deal in dozen years ago in which he and his

office signed a federal, non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, a

wealthy and well-convicted connected sexual predator who did serve a little

bit of time with generous provisions for work release on state prostitution

charges in Florida. 

 

Alex Acosta is feeling the need to explain his actions from back in the day

related to the Epstein case, because Epstein is now facing decades in

prison, even though Alex Acosta wouldn`t bring charges against Epstein when

he was the U.S. attorney in Florida.  And when the FBI amassed enough

evidence for a 50-plus page indictment against Epstein in Florida, when

Acosta was the U.S. attorney there, even though Acosta wouldn`t bring

federal changes against him, somebody else finally did bring considerable

charges against Epstein, in this case for sex trafficking.

 

Jeffrey Epstein has pled not guilty.  He is facing 45 years in prison if he

is convicted and sentenced to the maximum term.  Well, today in Washington,

the press conference by Labor Secretary Alex Acosta was designed, it

seemed, to signal that he is not planning on resigning over the scandal. 

 

Labor secretary also took questions.  This was clearly him showing he is

willing to face criticism on this matter, willing to face his critics. 

 

But Alex Acosta`s defense started to boomerang on him.  This I did not

expect.  In a bunch of different ways, what Secretary Acosta did today and

in particular the information he released to the press today seemed to have

made things worse for him in terms of efforts to justify his previous

actions and to justify why he shouldn`t be apologizing now at least if not

resigning over his role in the scandal now that Jeffrey Epstein is facing

federal charges since Acosta couldn`t bring himself to bring similar

charges when he had Epstein in his clutches years ago.

 

I mean, first of all, there`s the fact that a federal judge has not ruled

that Alex Acosta`s office broke the law when they made this non-prosecution

deal with Jeffrey Epstein without notifying Epstein`s victims that they

were doing so.  Acosta is gong to face some sort of sanction in federal

court for having broken the law in that way, right?  The judge has already

said Acosta`s office under his leadership broke the law by not telling the

victims about the deal before they did it.  We are waiting to find out what

his sanction is going to be from the court. 

 

That itself makes it remarkable that he is still a cabinet official and

hasn`t resigned or been fired.  But even today, while mounting the defense

and knowing that that decision from the court is pending in terms of his

fate, Acosta still has no answer on that issue.  And he has no apologies

for Epstein`s victims either, even though he was explicitly asked today if

he saw any need that he should apologize to them. 

 

Remember, he did this deal with Epstein without telling Epstein`s victims

that he was doing it, which was against the law.  And, in fact, to make it

all worse today, Acosta released a declaration from his lead prosecutor who

worked on the case which include some damning admissions that don`t help

Acosta on it at all. 

 

For example, the materials that Alex handed out to the press today in the

big defensive press conference included this letter in which his lead

prosecutor working under his leadership in his office spelled out

explicitly that Alex Acosta`s office stopped efforts to notify victims

about this non-prosecution deal specifically because Epstein told them to,

because Epstein`s lawyers demanded that they stop telling the victims. 

Acosta`s office spells it out explicitly in this letter to Epstein`s

lawyers why they stopped victim notification about Epstein`s deal. 

 

Quote: Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the non-

prosecution agreement, notified of the general terms of that agreement. 

You, meaning you Epstein`s lawyers, raised objections to any victim

notification and no further notifications were done.

 

So Acosta`s office has already been found by a judge to have broken the law

by not telling the victims about the deal they were giving to Epstein. 

Acosta just released information showing us all that his office admitted in

writing that the reason they didn`t notify more victims is because Jeffrey

Epstein told them not to.  That`s why they stopped. 

 

I mean, so that`s a problem for Labor Secretary Alex Acosta.  That is not

getting better with his supposed defense that he mounted today.  In fact,

that would seem like it`s getting worse. 

 

Also, the materials that Acosta distributed today in his own defense

additionally show that his office, Acosta`s office believed that Epstein

was breaking the terms of the non-prosecution agreement they had signed him

up to.  Quote: It is clear neither you nor your client ever intended to

abide by the terms of the agreement that he signed.  They put that in

writing.  Acosta`s office, Acosta`s prosecutors saying, you were never

intending to abide by that deal. 

 

Well, OK.  I mean, once you have got an alleged perpetrator who you decided

to give a non-prosecution agreement to for whatever reason, once that

perpetrator violates the terms of that agreement, then deal`s off. 

Agreement`s broken.  You are no longer bound by it.  Prosecute away, right? 

 

But Alex Acosta`s office never prosecuted Jeffrey Epstein.  And Acosta in

his own defense released this information today, I mean, purportedly as

part of the reason you are supposed to feel better about his actions.  It

doesn`t make things any better for him.  In fact, and it would seem to make

things worse. 

 

You not only gave Epstein this deal, your office believed that Epstein

broke the deal and you still didn`t prosecute him? 

 

And the even bigger problem for Acosta is that what he strode to the podium

to say today, his main argument for why he did this non-prosecution deal

with Epstein back in the day was that he was actually trying to be the real

hero in the Epstein case.  In the past, Acosta has been able to be vague in

his justifications for why he did this agreement to not prosecute.  He`s

been able to be vague about it because he never faced all that much

pressure.  He didn`t find the scandal to be any sort of barrier to the

Trump administration, picking him to be in the cabinet. 

 

But now, Acosta is under pressure and so, now, he is having to spell it out

and the main case he made today is that he had to do this non-prosecution

deal with Epstein because the state of Florida was screwing it up. 

Remember he was the federal prosecutor there.  He said state prosecutors

had evidence on Epstein, but they were not going to be able to get a proper

conviction or proper sentence. 

 

And so, Acosta had to swoop in with this inexplicable deal.  A federal non-

prosecution deal that would have Epstein pleading guilty to one state

charge and doing time in a county jail where he got let out every day on

work release where his private driver picked him up and drove him home. 

 

Today in response to Secretary Acosta`s press conference, the top state

prosecutor on the Epstein case responded with a written statement.  Quote:

I can emphatically state that Mr. Acosta`s recollection of this matter is

completely wrong.  My office, the state attorneys` office, took the local

police department`s investigation of Epstein to a grand jury and subpoenaed

witnesses.  The grand jury returned a single count indictment, a felony

solicitation of prostitution, a third-degree felony. 

 

Subsequently, so thereafter, the U.S. attorney`s office, Alex Acosta`s

office produced a 53-page indictment that was abandoned after secret

negotiations between Jeffrey Epstein`s lawyers and Mr. Acosta.  The state

attorney`s office was not a party to those meetings and negotiations and

definitely had no part in the federal non-prosecution agreement. 

 

No matter how my office, meaning how the state office resolved the state

charges, the U.S. attorney`s office, Alex Acosta`s office, always had the

ability to file its own federal charges.  If Mr. Acosta was truly concerned

that the state`s case and felt he had to rescue the matter, he would have

moved forward with the 53-page federal indictment that his own office

drafted.  Instead, Alex Acosta brokered a secret plea deal that resulted in

a non-prosecution agreement.  It closes: Mr. Acosta should not be allowed

to rewrite history. 

 

So honestly, bottom line, this just turned out to be an unusually gross day

in the news even for the Trump era.  If I had access to a shower in my

office, I would have used it to get through the process of reading on these

developing stories.  But as a legal matter and as a political matter in

terms of the future of this cabinet official, it does seem to me like this

cabinet official, Labor Secretary Alex Acosta made the case against himself

worse today with this defense he rolled out, which is immediately contested

by the person who the defense pointed at. 

 

And also with the specific information that he handed out to the press

about the Jeffrey Epstein case and how it was handled under his leadership

at the U.S. attorney`s office in Florida. 

 

That said, I`m not a lawyer.  I`m just an easily grossed out middle aged

person who reads the news for a living.  So, that is my sense.  But we

ought to check it out with somebody who knows these things. 

 

Joining us now is Chuck Rosenberg, former U.S. attorney, former senior FBI

and Justice Department official. 

 

Chuck, it is great to see you.  Thanks very much for making time to be here

tonight. 

 

CHUCK ROSENBERG, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR:  Glad to be here, Rachel. 

 

MADDOW:  So, I understand that you were able to see Acosta`s press

conference today and look at some of the materials that he handed out.  Let

me ask you about the impression that I had as a non-lawyer looking at the

materials, feeling like at least the public case, the non-legal case Acosta

is making to justify his position, his actions in the Epstein case seem

worse.  They don`t seem to me to be helped by the material he distributed. 

 

ROSENBERG:  He said a couple of things that made sense.  I can start with

that, because it`s much shorter and a bunch of things that made no sense at

all. 

 

The things that made sense, Rachel, these are hard cases and you want to be

very sensitive to the victims.  That`s where the logic in his press

conference ended, right? 

 

There is no – the state`s attorney in Florida is 100 percent right.  If

Alex Acosta thought that the case was not properly handled by the state, he

had the complete ability to bring charges federally.  They had the draft

indictment. 

 

He did say that the cases are hard.  Again, I will reiterate.  They are

hard.  But they had more than 30 minor child victims in this case.  Even if

a bunch didn`t want to testify and I completely understand that, some

number would. 

 

And oh, by the way, if some number would not and didn`t feel like they had

the quantum of proof they needed, they simply could have continued the

investigation until they did.  There was no sort of time stamp on this. 

There was no urgency to negotiate a non-pros agreement.  It doesn`t add up. 

It doesn`t make sense, Rachel. 

 

MADDOW:  Let me drill down on the last point you were making there, because

this was something that dawned on me today that I had not previously

appreciated with this case.  I mean, Acosta has basically said that he

didn`t feel like he could bring charges for whatever reason.  I mean,

there`s chapter and verse on this.

 

He didn`t feel like he could bring charges.  That doesn`t mean though, that

he had to bring an affirmative non-prosecution agreement regardless of what

the state did.  Acosta could have just let this investigation run.  He

affirmatively chose to enter into this non-prosecution agreement without

any imperative to do so. 

 

ROSENBERG:  That`s right.  So, first of all, just for context, we don`t

normally, in fact, we don`t routinely or almost ever end cases with a non-

prosecution agreement.  If we don`t have a case, we simply don`t bring it. 

 

So, there was no reason, no need to enter into a non-prosecution agreement. 

Putting that aside, there was absolutely no time limit on the

investigation.  The Southern District of New York, god bless them just

indicted the case, right?  There is no statute of limitations problem. 

 

So, if the Florida – if the federal prosecutors in Florida thought they

didn`t have enough, all they had to do was continue their work.  It was

that simple. 

 

MADDOW:  Chuck, one last question for you.  Another thing that struck me as

something that I wanted to ask you about because I didn`t really understand

the implication, was that Secretary Acosta said repeatedly words to the

effect of this was a different time.  Meaning I think he was implying that

cases like this 12 years ago were handled in a very different way, we

didn`t have the same sensitivities, maybe we didn`t have the same legal

tools. 

 

He seemed to imply that this is a different era for pursuing a trafficking

case or the kind of case that SDNY is producing against Epstein right now

compared to how it was back then. 

 

ROSENBERG:  Way, way, way back in 2007, in the dark ages of federal

prosecution, I can assure you, Rachel, there were thousands of prosecutors

and cops and agents around the country making difficult sex crimes cases. 

 

Look, we are trained in this way.  We know how to work with victims.  The

notion that we couldn`t bring such a case all the way back in 2007 is

deeply wrong and deeply dangerous – and by the way, deeply insulting to

the men and women who are doing this kind of work. 

 

MADDOW:  Chuck Rosenberg, former U.S. attorney, former senior FBI and

Justice Department official – invaluable counsel for us on nights like

tonight.  Chuck, thank you very much.

 

ROSENBERG:  My pleasure.

 

MADDOW:  All right.  Senator Bernie Sanders going to be here live with us

in just a moment. 

 

Stay with us. 

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  So every day, there is new news on the polls and the fund-raising

numbers and even the evolving logistics of the gigantic Democratic

presidential primary and, you know, we can run through that stuff any time

you want.  There is an infinite supply of that any day of the week.  But

that horse race stuff will always be with us and it is only part of the way

the competition is being waged. 

 

If you are, for example, Senator Bernie Sanders waging your second run for

the presidency in four years, this week, for example, has been very, very

busy already and it`s only Wednesday.  Yesterday, Senator Sanders announced

a bicameral resolution, a House and Senate resolution to declare the

climate crisis the national emergency.  It is a national emergency

resolution.  This follows, of course, President Trump declaring a pulled

out of thin air national emergency to build his border wall and

inexplicably to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia for its war in Yemen. 

 

That resolution from Senator Sanders calling to declare a climate crisis a

national emergency, that was yesterday.  And then, today, the senator

released what he`s calling his anti-endorsement list in which he quotes

FDR: I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. 

 

In Senator Sanders` case, that`s a list by his own accounting that includes

a bunch of billionaires and CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and titans of

Wall Street like the former heads of JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, as

well as former Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, a whole list of famous dudes

who have all criticized him by name. 

 

In unveiling this extraordinary list, Senator Sanders accused the people on

that list of having a, quote, vested interest in preserving the status quo,

so that they can continue to exploit working people across America.  Quote:

We welcome their hatred. 

 

Then, just tonight, Senator Sanders wrote an op-ed in “The Washington

Post”.  The headline you can see there, the straightest path to racial

equality is through the 1 percent.  Quote: The unfortunate truth is that

politicians who take checks from millionaires and billionaires owe their

corporate constituents first and everyday Americans last. 

 

The black-white wealth gap could be closed by targeting the extreme wealth

at the very top.  Instead, politicians beholden to the 1 percent ask the

black middle class and white middle class to fight over the scraps. 

 

Busy, right?  Busy.

 

Joining us now for “The Interview”, Senator Bernie Sanders from the great

state of Vermont, candidate for the Democratic nomination for president in

2020.

 

Senator, it`s great to see you.  Thanks for being here.

 

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  Good to be with you,

Rachel. 

 

MADDOW:  I`m not – promise, I`m not going to ask you horse race and

process questions, but I do want to know – I mean, in 2016, pretty soon

into it, you were essentially running in a two-person primary.  How is it

different to run in a two-million-person primary? 

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

SANDERS:  It is very different. 

 

MADDOW:  Yes.

 

SANDERS:  I mean, I think the difference is the last time, we had to win 50

percent of the vote in order to win a state and we ended up winning 22

states.  I think this time around, I doubt that anybody will come close to

50 percent of the vote in any state. 

 

MADDOW:  Uh-huh.

 

SANDERS:  So, you are talking about candidates getting 25 or 30 percent of

the vote. 

 

I feel very good with the fact that we have now received some $2 million

individual contributions which I think is all time world record up to this

point, averaging all of $19 apiece.  We have over a million volunteers.  We

have strong organizations in the early states, Iowa and New Hampshire, et

cetera.  So, we are feeling pretty good. 

 

MADDOW:  Knowing that that ceiling might be different in terms of what`s

possible, even for the strongest campaigns in the early states, how do you

change your strategy to account for that?  Your ad play (ph)?  What do you

do?

 

SANDERS:  Well, I think it`s more aggressively getting out the vote and

grassroots organizing.  I mean, at the end of the day, you`re just going to

have to get people out to the caucuses and get votes in the primaries in

order to win.  And that means having strong organizations in the states and

having a strong volunteer movement.  And I think we have both. 

 

MADDOW:  In terms of the character of the primary this far, we are not that

far into it.  We had the one debate and there`s still a ton of people who

are in the field.  But a lot of people had remarked on the fact that people

are playing your song.  That a lot of your progressive policy positions

that you staked out not only over the course of your career but in your

2016 campaign – 

 

SANDERS:  Yes.

 

MADDOW:  – are now much more centrist positions among this field. 

 

Is that just a matter of satisfaction for you or does that give you new

work to do? 

 

SANDERS:  Well, both.  It is a deep sense of satisfaction.  I mean, you

followed the last campaign.  You were there in the debates. 

 

MADDOW:  Yes.

 

SANDERS:  And many of the ideas that I brought forth, $15 an hour minimum

wage.  Hey, Bernie, you`re crazy.  That`s too extreme.  In a few days, the

U.S. House of Representatives is going to pass a $15 an hour minimum wage. 

 

Bernie, public colleges and universities, tuition free, that can`t be done. 

University of Texas today announced the families $60,000 or under free

tuition, and all over the country, people are moving in that direction. 

 

Dealing with student debt.  Oh, Bernie, that can`t be done.  Well, now,

you`re hearing a whole lot of people are understanding that it is an

outrage, it really is criminal that you have young people out there who

can`t get married and can`t have kids because they are dealing with

incredible rates of student debt right now. 

 

Dealing with climate change as a national security issue.  I was asked at

one debate, the one that – I don`t know if it was that you`re in, Bernie,

what is the major crisis we face, ISIS, al Qaeda, what is it?  I said it is

climate change.  And people kind of laughed.  But they are not laughing

today. 

 

Health care as a human right.  Oh, Bernie, that`s not – that`s un-

American.  Nobody in America believes that.  The last poll that I saw, 60

or 70 percent of the American people believe in a Medicare-for-All, single-

payer program. 

 

So, the good news is we have moved – not only have we moved the debate, we

moved legislation in states and in the federal government. 

 

But now, what has to be done, Rachel, and I think I`m the only candidate

who will tell you this, is that at the end of the day, it`s not good enough

to talk about Medicare-for-all, to talk about being aggressive on climate

change.  What we have got to do is understand there is a reason why in the

last 30 years, the top 1 percent have seen an increase in their wealth of

$21 trillion, while wealth has gone down for the bottom half.  Why 500,000

people are sleeping out in the street, why we are the only major country

not to guarantee health care to all people, or parental leave, or sick and

medical leave.  There is a reason. 

 

And the reason is and what this campaign is about is finally saying that if

you want real change, we need a political revolution.  And what does that

mean?  It means we are going to have to take on Wall Street and the

insurance companies – 

 

MADDOW:  Uh-huh.

 

SANDERS: – and the drug companies and the fossil fuel industry and the

military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex. 

 

In other words, we can talk about all the great things we want to do, but

at the end of the day, to understand why we are where we are, where the

middle class is shrinking, where 40 million people live in poverty, we have

to understand the political reality and the power structure of America. 

 

We are prepared to take those guys on, and that`s why I say,

unapologetically – I am not afraid of those people.  They want to condemn. 

You know, the billionaires want to condemn, that I`m an existential threat

to the Democratic Party – so, be it.  We are going to take them on. 

 

MADDOW:  In terms of how that translates, practically.  I`m hearing echoes

of your first answer in the debate in Miami.  When the question was along

the lines of what do you want to do first?  And you talked about this need

for a political revolution – 

 

SANDERS:  Yes.

 

MADDOW:  – and the need to take to sort of take on multi-front battles –

 

SANDERS:  Yes.

 

MADDOW:  – all at the same time. 

 

If you were elected president in 2020, odds are, I don`t know, let`s guess,

50/50 that Senator Mitch McConnell would still be the leader of the

Republicans in the Senate and they still hold the majority there.  You know

for being in the Senate what that means in terms of the power of getting

legislation through. 

 

SANDERS:  Yes.

 

MADDOW:  If – I know you don`t want McConnell to still be there. 

 

SANDERS:  Right.

 

MADDOW:  If he is still there – 

 

SANDERS:  Yes.

 

MADDOW:  – what would you put on his plate first?  What would you – what

will be your first legislative priority? 

 

SANDERS:  I`ll tell you, before I put anything on his plate, I would be in

the state of Kentucky holding a rally, with tens of thousands of people, to

say to what is, in fact, one of the poorest states in this country, a real

struggling state in Kentucky, that we need to raise the minimum wage, a

state which is really suffering for lack of health care. 

 

We`re going to rally the American people in Kentucky.  We`re going to rally

the American people in Mississippi.  We`re going to rally the people in

South Carolina to demand that their representatives – I know this is a

radical idea – actually do what the American people want. 

 

The point that I make over and over again, Rachel, is the ideas that I talk

about are ideas that the American people want.  They don`t get it because

you got a Congress indebted to wealthy campaign contributors. 

 

And, by the way, whether you call it socialism or social democracy or

progressive government, everything that I`m talking about exists in

countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, where they have health care for

all, where they have strong universal child care programs, where college

education is free. 

 

These are not radical ideas, but we need to rally the American people by

the millions.  That`s what I mean by a political revolution. 

 

And as president, that`s what I will help lead.  We will give Mitch

McConnell something he cannot afford to refuse.  And that is we`re going to

give him millions of people demanding he take action on the issues

impacting the working class of this country. 

 

MADDOW:  We`ll be right back with Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic 2020

presidential candidate, right after this. 

 

Stay with us. 

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  We`re back with Senator Bernie Sanders of the great state of

Vermont.  He is running to be the Democratic nominee for president of the

United States. 

 

Senator Sanders, thank you again for sticking with us. 

 

You talked about climate change as an emergency.  And indeed, this week,

you introduced bicameral legislation with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the

House to declare a climate emergency. 

 

You have also said just this week that you will be coming out with the

strongest climate change plan in the current Democratic field.  And I know

you haven`t released details, but how do you define it as the strongest? 

What is it?

 

SANDERS:  What it will do – and there are other good plans out there.  I

don`t mean to denigrate other plans.

 

What it will do is essentially tell the fossil fuel industry that they

cannot continue to destroy this planet for the sake of their short-term

profits.  I mean, just stop and think about it.  They lie every day.  They

are obfuscating reality.  They`re making huge amounts of money and, oh, by

the way, they`re destroying the planet. 

 

So, somebody has got to say, sorry, you know, we don`t accept people

shooting down other people.  You are destroying the planet.  Thousands and

thousands of people will die as a result of what you`re doing.  It has to

change.

 

We have to transform our energy system and energy efficiency, sustainable

energy.  We need a new transportation system as well. 

 

And the other point here, Rachel, is obviously this is not just an American

issue.  This is a global issue by definition. 

 

We need a president not like Trump who doesn`t even accept the reality of

climate change, thinks it`s a hoax, we need a president who says every

country on Earth that, you know what, you are in this.  China, you`re in

it.  Russia, India, Brazil, Africa, we are all in this together. 

 

And maybe – and I know this may be a pipe dream, I admit it, but maybe in

this crisis, planetary crisis, maybe we move the world to say that instead

of spending a trillion and a half dollars every year on weapons of

destruction designed to kill each other, maybe we can use those resources

to fight our common enemy, which is climate change. 

 

And as president, I would love the opportunity to lead that effort. 

 

MADDOW:  Ii think about a corporate-driven effort like that, going at the

fossil fuel industry, going at big oil and energy, holding them accountable

for their role in climate change and I can envision an agenda like that in

the United States.  But then when you start to talk about the rest of the

world, I think about Saudi Aramco, and I think about the big state

controlled oil companies in our economic rivals around the world, and I

can`t imagine them not just seeing that as a competitive advantage. 

 

SANDERS:  Well, the answer is, is to rally the people in those countries. 

I think ordinary people in most of the countries understand that if we

don`t act boldly, the planet we`re going to be leaving to our kids and

grandchildren will be increasingly unhealthy and uninhabitable. 

 

MADDOW:  But as a U.S. president, you couldn`t rally the Saudi people or

the Chinese people. 

 

SANDERS:  Actually, you could. 

 

MADDOW:  You could?

 

SANDERS:  Actually, you could.

 

MADDOW:  How does that work in Riyadh?

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

SANDERS:  See if Mohamed bin Salman will let me into the country. 

 

MADDOW:  For starters, yes.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

SANDERS:  But I do think – I mean, people throughout the world understand

the threat.  And we need a grassroots movement globally – now, we`re

beginning to see, it`s especially led by the young people, you know? 

 

And I think – we are fighting for the future of the planet.  This is an

existential crisis.  So, we have to act in a way we have never acted

before.  And I think it`s the people of the planet saying to oil companies

all over this world – stop it.  We cannot allow you to destroy the planet. 

 

MADDOW:  Let me ask you about another international effort that has been

something you and I have talked about before in interviews over the years. 

I was struck by new polling that shows that even Iraq and Afghanistan

veterans do not believe that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were worth

fighting.  And there are not big differences between the veterans who have

fought those wars and the American people broadly in these issues. 

 

And you have told me in the past and I know that you have been assiduous in

your work on this in the past about wanting to get American troops out of

these conflicts.  Why is it so intractable?  Why as a – why are presidents

as desperate as President Obama and President Trump both unable to achieve

the stated goal of getting troops even just home from Afghanistan? 

 

SANDERS:  By the way, that`s a good question.  Before I answer it, I`m the

former chairman of the Veterans Committee – 

 

MADDOW:  Yes.

 

SANDERS:  – in the Senate and I talked to many of those veterans.  And the

kind of trauma that they went through is something that we should never

dismiss, will never forget. 

 

They know, unlike Donald Trump, what the cost of war really is.  They saw

their friends blown up.  They came back without an arm or leg or with PTSD. 

 

But to answer your question, I think we need political will here.  We need

to do everything that we can to make sure that those countries around the

world, and right now, I`m not even just thinking about Iraq or Syria.  I`m

thinking about Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

 

We have spent, not only have we lost thousands of lives, Rachel, we have

spent I believe $5 trillion on the war on terror, $5 trillion. 

 

And our job as the most powerful country on Earth is to bring Saudi Arabia,

which is a terribly despotic government, and Iran, which is also

undemocratic, bring them in to the damn room and saying, we`re not going to

be fighting eternal wars.  You guys, we`re here.  You`ve got to work it

out, but don`t think that the United States is going to get involved in

never-ending wars. 

 

MADDOW:  Let me ask you on the issue of veterans.  You have been a champion

of Medicare-for-All.

 

SANDERS:  Yes.

 

MADDOW:  And as I mentioned, a lot of your fellow candidates are now

onboard with you on that, including people saying from the dais in Miami,

I`m with Bernie on this. 

 

What happens to veterans care under Medicare-for-All? 

 

SANDERS:  We strength – the V.A. is a separate entity and it must remain

as a separate entity because veterans have unique problems.  So, we

maintain the Veterans Administration and we strengthen it. 

 

MADDOW:  Senator, can you stick with us for one more segment? 

 

SANDERS:  Sure. 

 

MADDOW:  We`ll be right back with Senator Bernie Sanders right after this. 

Stay with us.

 

(COMEMRCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  We`re back with Vermont senator and 2020 Democratic presidential

candidate, Bernie Sanders. 

 

Senator, thank you again for sticking with us. 

 

SANDERS:  My pleasure.

 

MADDOW:  The last question for you and it is a little bit of sticky wicket

and I do not want you to be annoyed for asking.  But it is the thing –

when I talked to people about having on the show today, it was the number

one thing people wanted me to ask you about, which was the issue raised by

Eric Swalwell, who has now dropped out of the race for president, in the

debate, when he – and he directed it to Vice President Biden and his

refrain was pass the torch.  That you`ve had your chance, you`ve been in

politics for a long time and we need younger leadership basically. 

 

Basically making an overt age argument for why Vice President Biden

shouldn`t be the nominee and implicitly why you shouldn`t be the nominee. 

You called that ageist after the debate.  But I wonder how you grapple with

the substance of that argument. 

 

SANDERS:  You know, if you look at history, there were arguments why black

people shouldn`t be president, why women shouldn`t be president.  I think

you have to look at the totality of the person.  There were some people who

are 90 who are a lot more active and energetic than people who are 50. 

 

You have to look at what somebody believes, what somebody is fighting for,

what their experience is about.  Just to look at age is I think missing the

boat in a very, very deep way. 

 

MADDOW:  But he is talking about length of experience in the political

system. 

 

SANDERS:  Yes.

 

MADDOW:  I mean, you`ve been in public office since before Eric Swalwell

was born.  I mean, he`s saying, people who have been in the system, who`ve

been trying all this time to make change, you need to get out of the way so

that new voices can (INAUDIBLE). 

 

SANDERS:  And what is his – those people`s positions?  Do they believe in

Medicare-for-All?  Have they fought to raise the minimum wage?  Have they

been a leader in tackling the issues of climate change?  Have they been on

picket lines their whole life standing with working people, been active in

the women`s movement, active in the gay movement? 

 

In other words, it`s just not good enough to say, hey, I`m young.  Pass me

the torch.

 

You`ve got to tell me what you stand for, what your vision of America is. 

And I think that that is just not a satisfactory explanation. 

 

MADDOW:  Senator Sanders, it`s great to have you here. 

 

SANDERS:  Good to be with you.

 

MADDOW:  Come back soon. 

 

SANDERS:  OK. 

 

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

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  That`s going to do it for us tonight.  We`ll see you again

tomorrow when Senator Kamala Harris is going to be here with us. 

 

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.>