Britain faces October 31st Brexit deadline. TRANSCRIPT: 9/4/19, The Rachel Maddow Show.

Guests:
Josh Gerstein, Gillian Tett
Transcript:

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

 

HAYES:  You bet.

 

MADDOW:  Much appreciated.

 

And thank to you at home for joining us this hour. 

 

Today, as the Bahamas announced the death toll from Hurricane Dorian has

climbed in the Bahamas from five as of this weekend to seven as of last

night, to 20 as of tonight, the increasingly clear views we are getting of

the overwhelming devastation in certain islands in the Bahamas, making it

all but a certainty that that death toll will climb even higher than the 20

killed that was described tonight by the Bahamian prime minister. 

 

Tonight, with that same storm now gaining strength again, as it zeros in on

the southeastern United States, with both hurricane warnings and storm

surge warnings in parts of Florida and Georgia and the Carolinas and

Virginia tonight, today, the U.S. government in the midst of that stumbled

into a station that we have never seen before.  Honestly, we have never

seen anything remotely like this before. 

 

I mean, this is usually the time in the show where I would try to come up

with some sort of clever story to lead up to this, right?  Like maybe a

little historical anecdote to put it in perspective to help us understand

what happened – what it means today that this strange thing happened,

right?   I tried to show one of the other times that a U.S. president has

done something like this.  That`s what I would do at this point. 

 

I cannot do that tonight.  Because the U.S. president has never before done

a thing even remotely like what President Trump did tonight in the context

of this storm.  So, I don`t even know what would count as relevant

historical context here if I tried to make up that story.  So we just got

to take it at face value and try to assess how we deal with this coming

from the top of the federal government now.

 

Because today, the president of the United States did what he called a

hurricane update.  The official White House Twitter account posted a video

of what the president did tonight and captioned it as President Trump gives

an update on Hurricane Dorian.  Except what the president held up for

display to the country in his update on Hurricane Dorian was a map that

appears to have started out as a real map made by the national hurricane

center, by the National Weather Service. 

 

You can see it started off as a real map.  See in the left-hand corner,

NOAA.  That`s the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  That`s

the overall agency.  And you see the headline at the top: Hurricane Dorian

forecast track and intensity.  That`s the kind of headline you see on

documents like this from the National Weather Service. 

 

And you get the information in the caption there, again, in this document

that the president held up.  NWS, National Weather Service, National

Hurricane Center.  So, the president with this thing on poster board in the

Oval Office, he appears to be presenting real U.S. government information

to the public in this self-proclaimed update on Hurricane Dorian from

President Trump in the Oval Office. 

 

Except what the president is holding up is false information.  It`s an

altered hurricane map.  The little semicircle in black sharpie on the map,

that was added to the map.  That was not put there by the National Weather

Service.  That`s not something the National Hurricane Center did. 

 

And actually, according to Bloomberg News today, that little bit was added

to the map by President Trump personally, by the president himself. 

Bloomberg News today citing sources saying that the president is the one

who drew on this map and changed it and then displayed it to the American

people as if this was Hurricane Dorian`s track.  That`s how Bloomberg has

it. 

 

According to CNN tonight, it was some other official besides the president

who drew on the map before the president held it up.  I mean, in either

case, this is not the work of the National Weather Service.  This is not

the work of the National Hurricane Center, right?  Showing the track like

heading up through Florida and then – over to Alabama, that`s not what the

National Weather Service says now or ever said the hurricane was going to

do. 

 

And while the words of this president are no longer expected, I think, in

any quarter to have necessary connection to the truth – I mean, it`s just

a fact about this administration that nobody expects anymore that

statements from this president will be things that are true. 

 

This is actually not him just saying a thing.  This is him doing a thing. 

This is him announcing to the American people that he`s got an update for

the American public on the hurricane. 

 

And this is his update.  This is him in the middle of a large hurricane

bearing down on the United States, holding up a doctored map that for

whatever reason conveys false information about the track of that storm to

us, the American people, who are currently in the midst of trying out how

to prepare for that storm`s impact.  The president is giving the country

false information about where the storm might be heading. 

 

And, you know, honestly, what`s the cure for that?  How do you undo that

level of irresponsibility when it`s coming from the head of the government

in a constant flow?  I mean, it`s – I don`t know if something started as

the G7 conference that rattled something loose, but something is going

wrong right now.  More wrong than it has been previously.  It`s going wrong

at a bad time and in a bad way. 

 

I mean, you will remember, the president was supposed to go to Poland this

past weekend, right, to commemorate the start of World War II 80 years ago

this week.  He canceled that trip at the last minute.  So, according to the

White House, he could spend every minute of the holiday weekend monitoring

Hurricane Dorian, leading the national response to Hurricane Dorian.  The

president then spent two days of the weekend golfing at his golf courses. 

 

Since he canceled his trip to Poland to instead stay home and golf/lead the

hurricane response, the president was unsurprisingly asked by reporters if

he had any message he wanted to convey to the people of Poland since he had

to cancel his trip.  His trip, again, which was to commemorate Poland being

invaded by Nazi Germany to start World War II. 

 

Asked if he had anything to say to the people of Poland on that somber,

tragic commemoration date, the president`s answer was, quote: I just want

to congratulate Poland.  It`s a great country. 

 

I mean, it`s not like he was being asked a trivia question.  He was being

asked about him canceled his trip to Poland to commemorate the start of

World War II.  Congratulations, Poland. 

 

The president then insisted that he has never heard of a category 5

hurricane.  And the experts have never seen anything like it.  It`s brand-

new.  This is actually the fourth category 5 hurricane to threaten the

United States just since he has been president.  How is it he thinks he has

never heard of a category 5 hurricane? 

 

You know, and the general I think well-earned and appropriate response to

this inane, muddled absurdity from the White House and the president in

particular has been to tune it out, right?  Seek real information

elsewhere.  Wait for this all to just pass. 

 

And, yes, I think that`s true.  That`s warranted on normal subjects and

normal days, but this really is a life-threatening emergency.  It`s

literally an emergency, a formally declared emergency, although the

president is making stuff up about that, too. 

 

Under U.S. federal law, if a state wants to ask for a federal emergency

declaration, that request has to be made to the federal government by the

top elected official in the state.  The request specifically has to come

from the governor of the state by law.  In the state of North Carolina, the

governor is a Democrat, Roy Cooper.  And his party affiliation is something

that should not matter at all when there is a hurricane looming off the

coast of his state.

 

But it was Democratic Governor Roy Cooper who on Monday made the formal

request to the federal government to declare an emergency in North Carolina

ahead of this oncoming storm.  It had to be him who made the request. 

That`s the law.  The governor is the only public official who can make that

request. 

 

But the White House, the president himself even decided to lie about that,

stating instead that the federal government was making this declaration of

an emergency in North Carolina at the request of not the Democratic

governor there but instead at the request of one of the state`s Republican

U.S. senators who happens to be up for re-election next year.  The White

House saying that Republican senator is the one who requested the emergency

declaration from the federal government and so that`s why it was granted. 

 

I mean, I guess they are hoping that lie will help that Republican senator

back home in North Carolina that will help him get re-elects.  It is a lie. 

And, you know, it means they are lying about a federally declared

emergency. 

 

If you lie about that – I mean, one of the adages is you shouldn`t trust a

person who shows no compunction about lying about little things, because

even if those little things aren`t themselves important, having no

compunction about lying about little things, it`s a pretty good indication

that person would be comfortable lying about big things, too, right? 

That`s a basic character lesson that you learn from, like, you know, fables

that are read to you before you go to preschool. 

 

How do we adapt that as American citizens now to a situation where somebody

in a very important position of responsibility is plainly comfortable lying

even about life-threatening category 5 hurricane emergencies, right?  It`s

just the situation we have never, ever, ever, ever been in before.  So, we

don`t have rules.  We don`t have – we don`t even have casual rules of

thumb for how you deal for something like this – for how you make it

right. 

 

I mean, in some cases, the criminal law might help, in a couple of ways. 

In the middle of the lying about the weather, over the last few days, White

House staffers also quietly admitted to reporters from CNN that the

president was also lying last week when he said publically that his

administration had received phone calls from the Chinese government, very

good phone calls, he called them, asking to reopen trade talks between

China and the United States.  This is one of those little what`s the

president talking about moments from last week`s news.  What was that all

about anyway? 

 

Well, it turns out, according to White House officials, the president was

lying about those supposed calls from the Chinese government.  And this one

comes with a kicker.  Quote: Aides privately conceded that the alleged

Chinese phone calls Trump described didn`t happen the way he said they did. 

Instead, two officials said Trump was eager to project optimism that might

boost markets. 

 

Oh, that`s why he told those lies about the Chinese government phone calls. 

I mean, this is White House officials admitting the president told the

public, told us that the Chinese government had called his administration

to reopen trade talks when in fact that had not happened.  And he did it

because he was hoping to boost the markets by telling that lie. 

 

The problem with that one is that lying to the public for the purpose of

moving the markets, which is what White House officials are admitting

happened here, that`s actually a crime.  It`s illegal to deliberately try

to manipulate the markets.  The Securities and Exchange Commission says

that behavior is against federal law. 

 

For the record, it`s a crime for a president or anyone to falsify a weather

forecast like, say, a hurricane tracking map, like he did today when he

held up this doctored map in the Oval Office.  As meteorologist Matthew

Cappucci at “The Washington Post” points out today, excuse, meteorologist

Matthew Cappucci and Andrew Freedman point out at “The Washington Post”

today, quote, per 18 U.S. Code Section 2074, whoever knowingly issues or

publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions

falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or

published by the weather bureau or other brand of government service shall

be fined under this title or imprisoned by not more than – excuse me,

imprisoned not more than 90 days or both.  Pay a fine for that or go to

prison for 90 days or both. 

 

I should say the modern iteration of those weather services mentioned would

include the National Weather Service, would include the National Hurricane

Center, which was, in fact, the originator of the tracking map the

president put on display in the Oval Office today with what was reportedly

his own added false drawing that was scribbled into the corner to make it

look like the hurricane was going somewhere that it wasn`t. 

 

And what this appears to be about is the president trying to backfill for a

weird lie that he has been telling about this hurricane.  While the

president was not in Poland, while he was instead having his golfing

weekend, he started tweeting this weekend and saying aloud this weekend

that the great state of Alabama was in the path of Hurricane Dorian. 

Alabama will most likely by hit harder than anticipated.  He tweeted it. 

He said it on camera a couple times. 

 

The National Weather Service, they were Johnny on the spot with their

rebuttal.  Within 20 minutes of the president making these weird claims

that Alabama was going to get hit by this hurricane, it`s not going to get

hit by this hurricane, the National Weather Service office in Birmingham,

Alabama, was clarifying that what the president was saying was absolutely

not true.  Alabama will not see any impacts from Dorian.  We repeat, no

impacts from Hurricane Dorian will be felt across Alabama.  The system will

remain too far east. 

 

The only reason the National Weather Service had to say that was because of

the false information to the contrary that was inexplicably being

promulgated by the president.  And why was he doing that?  Who knows why

the president was lying about Alabama being in the path of the hurricane? 

 

But he has done so repeatedly.  And that has now apparently led up to this

odd display of this falsified National Weather Service map today in the

Oval Office at what the White House billed as the president`s hurricane

update.  And what that means in practical terms is that Americans now need

to debunk the president of the United States in order to find real National

Weather Service tracks of the hurricane while the hurricane literally bares

down on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. 

 

And it`s all self-inflicted and inexplicable and in some cases,

technically, illegally.  I mean, if the National Weather Service persists

in putting out real information that doesn`t retroactively back up false

things the president has said about this hurricane, is he going to fire

them?  Is he going to retaliate?  Is he goes to denounce the weather

service as the deep state? 

 

Will he tell Bill Barr he should prosecute them for something?  Think Bill

Barr will?  I mean, it`s insane.  We don`t have any way to make sense of

this. 

 

Nothing like this has happened before.  I mean, you would think that the

weather is a thing that might be a great leveler in terms of the facts. 

 

A whole bunch of the Democratic presidential candidates have put out their

climate plans or put out new iterations of their plans in the past few

days.  Candidates including Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg and Kamala

Harris. 

 

Elizabeth Warren has just announced that she`s adapting Jay Inslee`s

climate plan.  Jay Inslee pronounced himself delighted she`s taking it

since he said when he dropped out of the presidential race that he

considered his plan to be an open source document and he hoped other

candidates would, in fact, run on it. 

 

Democrats are trying to compete with this president.  They`re trying to say

Donald Trump should be a one-term president in part because of his handling

of climate.  In terms of the current administration`s climate plans, I

mean, you have to read them not through what they say but what they do. 

 

Today, for example, we learned that the Trump administration is rolling

back efficiency standards on light bulbs, standards that were first

promulgated under the George W. Bush administration.  And light bulbs kind

of sounds like no big deal, I know.  But the rule that the Trump

administration is rolling back today was both working and it was kind of a

big deal. 

 

Quote: The rule change announced today by the Trump administration is

expected to increase U.S. electricity use by 80 billion kilowatt hours over

the course of a year, roughly the amount of electricity needed to power all

the households in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  Getting rid of that rule as

of today. 

 

Also today, “The Washington post” reporting that, quote, the top interior

official who pushed to expand drilling in Alaska will now join an oil

company drilling in Alaska.  This is calling drilling the swamp, not

draining it. 

 

“The Washington Post” reporting that the Trump Interior Department official

who`s the guy in charge of overseeing oil and gas drilling on federal lands

is now joining a foreign oil company that`s expanding its drilling

operations on Alaska`s North Slope.  Before he left the Interior

Department, this is the guy who oversaw preparations to hold lease sales in

parts of Alaska that would open those parts of Alaska up to being drilled

for oil by private companies.  Now, that official who did that work in the

Trump administration is going to work for one of those companies that`s

drilling in Alaska. 

 

So, that`s what the Trump administration is actually doing in terms of

climate policy.  I mean, no matter what it is they are saying, you can see

evidence of what it is they`re doing.  But as this storm bears down on the

southeastern United States, the policies and actions of this administration

are one thing.  The random nonsense words from the president and the White

House on this or any other issue, that`s usually quite another thing all

together.  In most cases, it`s worth ignoring, just watching what they do

rather than what they say. 

 

But now, as of tonight, we are in a new – I repeat, new situation in which

the president`s daily nonsense has crossed over into behavior in the midst

of a literal emergency.  The president putting on display a map that

appears to deliberately misinform the public about what`s going on at a

time when this potentially quite deadly thing is roaring onshore. 

 

Joining us to talk about what`s actually going on is MSNBC meteorologist

Bill Karins. 

 

BILL KARINS, MSNBC METEOROLOGIST:  But, first, you hammer the nail in, I

got to pull it back out and just hammer it just a little bit more. 

 

MADDOW:  OK.

 

KARINS:  Because let`s just go and show you the map.  He sent the Alabama

tweet out, saying Alabama was at risk, along with Florida, South Carolina,

North Carolina and Georgia.  So, we can take the weather map and show, that

morning he sent the tweet about four hours before it went out, this was the

official forecast.  Most people in a position of power would wake up and

see this and, pretty obvious, right?

 

But maybe he didn`t see.  It`s 5:00 a.m. in the morning, maybe he missed

it. 

 

So, after we went through all this nonsense that you just said today, the

president tweeted out this map saying that this was his proof of why

Alabama was in the cone.  All the squiggly lines are computer models.  He`s

got us.  Look, even some go to Louisiana – even Louisiana and Mississippi.

 

You know, if that`s the case, I don`t know why he left Louisiana and

Mississippi off and Alabama.  So, then I was like, let`s take a closer

look.  The date is August 28. 

 

Wait, he tweeted that out on September 1.  This was four days before he

sent the tweet out about Alabama.  So, why would you pick four days before

the tweet?  Why would you pick a map? 

 

MADDOW:  Yes.

 

KARINS:  So, I said, OK, let`s go see what those spaghetti lines looked

like.  This is on the Weather Nerds Website.  This is hours before the

tweet what the spaghetti lines looked like. 

 

MADDOW:  So, it`s the same kind of map. 

 

KARINS:  Same kind of map. 

 

MADDOW:  But it`s the day that he actually said Alabama. 

 

KARINS:  Hours before he did it.  None into Alabama.  He couldn`t have sent

that up.  Maybe he didn`t see that. 

 

Let`s go back 24 hours before he sent out the Alabama tweet.  Still, none

of the lines go in there. 

 

MADDOW:  Wow.

 

KARINS:  So, if that is his proof that he wants us to believe that for four

days, cancelling Poland and golfing, he didn`t get any other weather maps

showing it was going – what`s worse?  Trying to cover this up and keep

going on it or the fact that his argument saying he – four days. 

 

MADDOW:  So – 

 

KARINS:  At this point, should we apologize to the National Hurricane

Center, all the emergency managers and everyone that evacuated in South

Carolina and North Carolina that maybe watching right now, trying to get

some facts and information? 

 

MADDOW:  Well, that`s the key here for me because real information is

always important.  It`s the basis of living as an adult.  It`s the basis of

our democracy.  It`s the basis of us communicating with one another and

making rational decisions about how to conduct ourselves as citizens and

live our lives even just as, you know, members of families and responsible

people.  Facts matter. 

 

In a situation that is a literally and formally declared emergency, facts

are life and death.  In this case, we`ve got this new hurdle for people

like you and for people who work at the National Weather Service, people

who worked at the National Hurricane Center who are trying to save lives by

conveying real information, there`s a brand new hurdle we`ve never had

before, which is the president conveying repeatedly, insistently false

information that serves some other purpose for him.  And that – I want to

know how dangerous it is, I guess. 

 

KARINS:  Yes, we have people at the National Hurricane Center for the last

week have been working around the clock shifts watching this storm, the

best scientific knowledge to help everyone out.  They left their families

on Labor Day weekend when the storm started getting nasty. 

 

Do you know how many media inquiries they got today?  Will you guys comment

on this?  Will you comment on the president doing this?  What they are

supposed to do?  They`re supposed to be non-political.  They are trying to

give science. 

 

And we`ve got someone doodling on their maps that the emergency managers

use for preparations and evacuations to save people`s lives.  I mean, I

don`t know.  At this point, should we go and help the people in South

Carolina and North Carolina? 

 

MADDOW:  Well, I asked somewhat rhetorically in my introduction here, like

what`s the cure to this?  I do actually think that the cure to this is real

information.

 

KARINS:  It`s science.

 

MADDOW:  Science.

 

KARINS:  It`s like the climate argument.  It`s like it`s science.  It`s

like, if you don`t want to believe the science?  Fine, but, you know,

that`s up to every individual. 

 

MADDOW:  Bill, when you look at what`s happening right now with Hurricane

Dorian, what do you expect in terms of the most dangerous situations and

the things you are most worried about over the next 48 hours? 

 

KARINS:  Starting tomorrow morning and going for about 36 hours, we are

likely going to have a billion dollar weather disaster in our country. 

That`s how serious it is.  I mean, we can show the maps.  Go over to our

graphics.  I can take you through the thinking on everything here. 

 

That`s looking at the path and kind of shows you coming up along the coast. 

And then as far as what we`re going to deal with is, that`s the center of

the storm.  We didn`t have too bad of a storm surge in Savannah.  They are

expecting tonight, about 1:00 a.m., to have the third highest water level

they`ve ever recorded since the 1940s with that high tide cycle. 

 

MADDOW:  In Savannah? 

 

KARINS:  In Savannah.  That`s going to do some damage.

 

In Charleston, 1:15 in the morning, they`re expecting the second highest

water levels they`ve ever recorded, only after Hurricane Hugo.  So, we

easily could have significant damage along the coast tonight. 

 

And then as the storm moves and rakes the coast from Charleston all the way

to the outer banks, that`s 280 miles of a category 2 along the coast.  It

won`t lose strength.  We have multiple hazards that we`re going to deal

with, with the storm.  We have storm surge we talked about. 

 

Because it`s so close to the coast, we`re also now going to bring in some

rainfall problems.  We`re going to have flash flooding.  We`re going to

have a lot of trees down.  We`re going to have power outages.  You get the

general idea. 

 

We`re about to go through this horrendous event.  And everyone is wasting

time on what we mentioned. 

 

MADDOW:  Because we have to.  He put this in our way. 

 

KARINS:  That`s our job, I guess.

 

MADDOW:  Getting real information about this.

 

Bill, I appreciate you being here.  I know it`s a long night for you, man. 

Thanks a lot.  Thanks a lot.

 

KARINS:  Thank you.

 

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

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  You are not having a fever dream.  I promise you, this piece of

tape I`m about to show is a real thing.  In the early `90s, there was

apparently a short-lived Nickelodeon game show called “What Would You Do.”

 

From what I can tell, the conceit of the show was that contestants would

try to win games so they could avoid getting a pie in the face.  That`s

what`s going on in this next clip.  Watch closely because the payoff at the

end, it`s a visual, and it`s worth it. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Here is what we`re going to do.  We`re going to find

out how much of the stuff in your purse and how much of the stuff in your

purse you are willing to give up, because we`re going to weigh these

purses.  And the lady who has the lightest purse is the winner.  The one

who has the heaviest gets a little surprise. 

 

Now, you are allowed – how many seconds?  Fifteen seconds.  To unload as

much stuff as you want.  Whatever you unload, I get to keep.  I will not

give it back to you, OK?  It`s absolutely – what`s that? 

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  My husband`s wallet. 

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Your husband`s wallet.

 

Is there anything in there? 

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  A lot. 

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Oh, good.  Well, now, if you put it out here, it does

become mine.  I will not give it back.  OK?  How long have you been

married? 

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Almost 15 years. 

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Very good, that`s good.  That`s a big wallet.  Things

are going well for your husband. 

 

Kathy, remember, whatever you put down here, you gave up.  This is her

husband`s wallet.  How many American Express cards does one person need? 

 

Let`s count they will together.  One, two – wait.  Three American Express

cards.  He`s got a gold, a platinum and a corporate.  He`s got nine Visas

and an AT&T credit card.  OK, fine.  Well –

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  I told you it would pay off.  Were you watching? 

 

Paul Manafort.  Hi.  On a freaking Nickelodeon game show from the 1990s. 

This was posted online last night by a Twitter user Samuel Hammond (ph). 

And thank you for it.  No, we did not know this existed before we saw this

last night. 

 

I should note that Paul Manafort`s wife Kathy ended up having the lighter

of the two purses at the end of the game which meant the other contestant

ended up taking the pie to the face, which was a win for team Manafort. 

 

But, you know, life comes at you.  One minute you are in the studio

audience during a taping of a Nickelodeon game show while the host is

teasing you about my god, how many American Express cards do you have, the

next you are the president`s campaign chairman serving seven plus years in

federal prison and awaiting the start of your trial on state felony charges

as well.  That`s where the president`s campaign chairman is now. 

 

The president`s deputy campaign chairman, we learned this week, is still

cooperating with federal prosecutors, having basically been the

government`s star witness at Manafort`s federal trial.  Lawyers in Gates`

case telling a federal judge today that – federal judge this week, excuse

me, that Rick Gate`s cooperation is ongoing.  They don`t want another

status report before the judge in his case until mid November. 

 

Trump`s former national security adviser, Mike Flynn, was also a

cooperating witness for the government for a time.  This week, that seems

to have gone off the rails now that he has dumped his legal team and hired

a new team full of anti-Robert Mueller crusaders.  This week, the

prosecutors told the judge that Flynn`s cooperation has ended.  Flynn`s

defense team told the judge in his case this week that they want the

prosecutors in the Flynn case disciplined.  That doesn`t seem like it`s

heading for a happy ending. 

 

As for the president`s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, he is also in

federal prison right now, but he may finally be getting a little

vindication or at least something to hope for.  Earlier this summer,

federal prosecutors ended their investigation into payments made during the

2016 presidential campaign to women who claimed they had affairs with then

candidate Donald Trump.  The payments were to keep them from talking about

those alleged affairs before the election. 

 

Now, Michael Cohen has been complaining loudly from prison about the fact

that he was prosecuted for those campaign finance felonies while everybody

else involved in those felonies, including the president, seems to have

gotten off the hook.  Cohen telling “The New Yorker”, quote: How come I`m

the only one?  How come I`m the one that`s going to prison?  I`m not the

one that slept with the porn star.

 

Well, now, House Democrats say they plan to launch an inquiry into the

matter starting as soon as next month.  From what we know, Michael Cohen is

not expected to be brought in to testify during these hearings.  I should

mention, there`s precedent in terms of calling federal prisoners into

Congress to testify at important hearings. 

 

The Senate Finance Committee did it as recently as 2007 when they brought

in a convicted felon to testify about identity theft and tax fraud.  There

he was on his blazer over his orange jumpsuit.  Whether or not an orange

jumpsuited Michael Cohen is put before the cameras by Democrats in

Congress, he may even from prison finally have his vindication if House

Democrats launch their own inquiry into what happened to the other people

involved in the commission of the campaign finance felonies.  Remember,

federal prosecutors describe the president as individual one who directed

the commission of those felonies. 

 

Well, against this backdrop, a sort of where are they now backdrop

involving all of these people very closely related to President Trump and

his campaign, well, today, we finally got a case where somebody caught up

in an offshoot investigation from the Mueller case got acquitted by a jury. 

Today, former White House counsel Greg Craig was not found not guilty of

lying to the Justice Department about work he did for the Ukrainian

government in 2012 in a scheme that was cooked up by Paul Manafort, the

president`s campaign chairman. 

 

Greg Craig is the only member of a Democratic administration to be

prosecuted in a case that has derived from the Mueller probe.  This case

had seemed a little wobbly from the start.  But today, the verdict in less

than five hours from the jury, not guilty. 

 

Joining us is Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs contributor with

politico.com who was there for the whole trial. 

 

Josh, really nice to have you here.  Thanks for being here.

 

JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CONTRIBUTOR, POLITICO.COM:  Hey,

Rachel, good to be with you.

 

MADDOW:  I got the sense from reading your dispatches from the Greg Craig

trial and from talking to you a little bit here on the show about the Greg

Craig trial that the prosecution might have wobbled a little bit, might

have seemed off their game or might have seemed like they had been knocked

back by the judge at the outset of this trial. 

 

Was it not that much of a surprise when Craig got acquitted by this jury? 

Did it surprise you? 

 

GERSTEIN:  I was a little surprised with how quickly it came, Rachel.  But

I wasn`t that surprised with the acquittal.  I really felt there were going

to be a few jurors that had reasonable doubt about Craig`s guilt.  We did

talk to a couple of the jurors right after the verdict was returned.  One

of them said that the jury was initially split almost down the middle on

Craig`s guilt. 

 

But there was a technical issue at the trial about when Craig may have

misled the government.  There were really only a couple of instances that

were up for the jury to decide.  The jury said on those two occasions,

there wasn`t enough proof that he had actively sought to confuse federal

officials.  So, they ended up acquitting him.  Although some of them did

say it was a pretty close call. 

 

MADDOW:  And in terms of technical issue, that date in terms of when Craig

allegedly lied to these officials at the Justice Department, is the

importance of that date basically the statute of limitations for the crime

here, that he had to have committed this alleged crime within the five-year

statute of limitations in order to be convicted by this jury today? 

 

GERSTEIN:  That`s exactly the issue, Rachel, but the jury wasn`t told that. 

The jury was only told they could consider whether Craig had actually

committed this offense after a certain date.  The window was extended a

little bit as Craig`s attorneys tried to convince prosecutors over the last

year or more to not file the case.  They agreed to extend it somewhat.  But

at a certain point, they stopped and within a few days after that, Craig

was indicted. 

 

One other thing that`s worth mentioning, Rachel, is that, you know, Craig`s

lawyers came out after this and suggested that this case was a disgrace,

and we had some close friends of Craig who say they think this was actually

if not politically motivated, an effort to make the Mueller probe seem more

politically even-handed, perhaps given in a little bit to Trump`s criticism

that Mueller had gone after too many Republicans or too many members of his

administration. 

 

MADDOW:  In terms of on that last point, Josh, did any of the jurors who

spoke publically or spoke with you about these deliberations describe their

own either suspicions or frustrations with the prosecution having been

brought?  Obviously, this wasn`t Mueller`s prosecutors bringing this case. 

They spun this off to the U.S. attorney who ultimately brought it. 

 

But was that something that jurors raised as well in terms of why Craig was

prosecuted in the first place? 

 

GERSTEIN:  One juror did say that he thought it was a waste of effort given

the things that Mueller was supposed to be investigating.  This juror said

he was disappointed that Mueller hadn`t brought any charges directly

against Americans regarding Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.  So,

it was interesting that he made it on the jury and then he was also

strongly in favor of acquittal. 

 

Another juror said they understood the way Craig was stepping up to the

line and might have lied before the key statute of limitations date, that

this was a legitimate case, at least for the Justice Department to have

investigated if not brought. 

 

MADDOW:  Fascinating.  Well, first acquittal in any of the cases, so many

of which have ended in guilty pleas and cooperation agreements. 

 

GERSTEIN:  Right.

 

MADDOW:  The ones that have gone to trial have otherwise ended in guilty

verdicts or hung juries.  It`s fascinating today this resolution to Greg

Craig`s case. 

 

Thanks for covering it and helping us understand it, Josh.  Really

appreciate it.

 

GERSTEIN:  No problem, Rachel.

 

MADDOW:  Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs contributor with “Politico”.

 

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

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  In Great Britain, if you say something has gone pear-shaped, that

means that thing has gone wrong.  I consider that to be a great insult to

pears, also to the shape of pears which frankly is a nice shape.  I have

never been offended in my life, but that gets me close. 

 

Today, I learned that another dodgy British insult is to call someone or to

call something a great big girl`s blouse.  Why is that an insult?  This is

a small boy`s shirt a good – anyway, a great big girl`s blouse is an

insult, at least according to the new prime minister of Great Britain who

hurled that phrase at the leader of the Labour Party in parliament today. 

 

Boris Johnson, prime minister of Great Britain, screamed today at Jeremy

Corbyn that he was a great big girl`s blouse. 

 

He also tried this one. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

BORIS JOHNSON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER:  There is only one chlorinated

chicken that I can see in this house, and he`s on that bench.  Will he

confirm again?  Will he confirm?  Will he confirm that he will let the

people decide?  Let the people decide on what he is doing to this country`s

negotiating position by having a general election on October the 15th. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  There`s only one chlorinated chicken that I can see in this –

despite Prime Minister Boris Johnson persuasive rhetoric about chlorinated

chickens and the size of girl`s blouses, British parliament did not go with

his call to have a snap general election six weeks from now.

 

That was Johnson`s latest gambit in his effort to break the U.K. out of the

European Union.  Boris Johnson has only been prime minister for about 30

seconds.  He`s already lost multiple high-stakes votes in parliament, and

won none of them. 

 

Today, it was all the speaker of parliament could do to keep some basic

order throughout another rowdy day in the House of Commons. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

JOHN BERCOW, U.K. HOUSE OF COMMONS SPEAKER:  Order.  If we have to go on

longer because people sitting on the treasury bench are yelling to try to

disrupt, so be it, it will go on longer.  Some people used to believe in

good behavior.  I believe in good behavior on both sides of the house.  It

better happen or it will take a whole lot longer, very simple, very clear. 

 

Order.  It`s order, order. 

 

It`s very difficult to hear the responses from the prime minister.  Members

must calm themselves.  There is a long way to go. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  There sure is.  But there is one moment from today in British

parliament which we have on tape that I think you really, really, really

should see and we`ve got that and more. 

 

Stay with us. 

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  Order, order!

 

Here`s one moment, a non-yelling moment from the slow motion Brexit

disaster in Great Britain I want to show you tonight because I think it

kind of captures some of the spectacle but also the weight here.  It`s like

this difficult combination, all the antics, and the pettiness and the

incredible just theater of it alongside the historic weight, even the

existential despair that this moment in British politics and British

political failure is bringing about in our most important overseas ally. 

 

When the brand-new Prime Minister Boris Johnson lost his first big Brexit

vote as prime minister yesterday, he lost it because over 20 members of his

own party crossed over and voted against him.  The Conservative Party

lawmakers who voted against him included some of the most senior members of

the party, long-serving conservative party elders.  And to punish the

lawmakers who voted against him, Boris Johnson banished them all from the

conservative party.  They will not be allowed to run on the Conservative

Party ticket in the next election, which is more or less equivalent to

kicking them out of parliament. 

 

One of the lawmakers who Boris Johnson is summarily booting out of the

Conservative Party is this man.  If it tickles something in the back of

your mind, he looks a little familiar, he looks like Winston Churchill,

that is because he is Winston Churchill`s grandson.  His name is Sir

Nicholas Soames.  He served in parliament for almost 40 years. 

 

And today in parliament, he got a little choked up giving what amounted to

his farewell address, while urging his colleagues to continue to oppose

what Boris Johnson is trying to do. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SIR NICHOLAS SOAMES, CONSERVATIVE MEMBER, U.K. HOUSE OF COMMONS:  Mr.

Speaker, I`m not standing in the next election and I am vast approaching

the end of 37 years service to this House of which I have been proud and

honored beyond words to be a member.  I am surely very sad that it should

end in this way, and it is my most fervent hope this house will rediscover

the spirit of compromise, humility and understanding that will enable us

finally to push ahead with the vital work in the interest of the whole

country that has inevitably sadly neglected while we have debated so much

time to wrestling with Brexit.  I urge the house to support this bill. 

 

HOUSE:  Here, here. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  If you do not understand how kicking Winston Churchill`s grandson

out of parliament gets Great Britain any closer to a solution to its

current crisis, you are not alone.  Really nobody knows how this ends, even

people who really should know. 

 

Joining us now is Gillian Tett.  She`s chair of the editorial board and

editor at large for the U.S. edition of “The Financial Times”. 

 

Ms. Tett, it`s an honor to have you here.  Thanks for –

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

GILLIAN TETT, FINANCIAL TIMES U.S. MANAGING EDITOR:  Glad to be here. 

Thank you. 

 

MADDOW:  I know that Americans are both sort of riveted by this spectacle,

but also alienated by its seemingly arcane nature and difficult to discern

plot lines. 

 

TETT:  I think there are a lot of parallels between the way that many

American voters reacted to Trump`s Twitter account whether that first

happened.  And they kind of were shocked and horrified, they laughed.  It

was almost entertaining and it became a source of conversation around the

water cooler. 

 

In many ways, what`s happening right now in parliament is just the same. 

People are shocked and horrified.  But there is actually a very serious

point here, which is many of the political structures we got used to and

the political practices in the last few decades are breaking down, and we

don`t know what`s going to replace them. 

 

MADDOW:  When Boris Johnson kicks all of those members of the Conservative

Party essentially out of the party and out of parliament, presumably, he

expects not just to have reduced his majority down to a minority and made

his party smaller, presumably he believes that those people will be

replaced by other conservatives who are more loyal to him? 

 

TETT:  I think at the moment a long-term strategy is complete illusion. 

This is basically desperate moves.  It`s a bit like playground politics,

where people are doing whatever they can to throw stones at each other,

shout, yell, all of you sucks (ph). 

 

It`s not clear whether they are kicked out permanently or not.  In the last

few hours, he`s actually rolled back a bit and said maybe they will come

back.  Some will come back.  Maybe it`s all the fault of the chief whip,

the person who has to keep the party in order. 

 

Frankly, right now, it`s so chaotic, you can barely predict what`s going to

happen next week, let alone next month, or even next day. 

 

MADDOW:  Well, speaking of next month, do you think that there is going to

be a national election, the third national election in five years? 

 

TETT:  Well, at the moment the party, the Labour Party, which is opposition

party, said they`re not going to sign up to any new election until the bill

to stop a “no-deal” Brexit is actually signed, sealed and delivered.  But

the problem is that even when that bill is signed, sealed and delivered,

it`s unclear whether the entire fragmented opposition will unite or not. 

 

I mean, the key thing to understand is that the U.K. had two dominant

parties, Labour, Conservative, plus some smaller ones like Labour Democrat,

that is now fragmenting and you have a complete mess emerging.  We could be

on the merge of a complete realignment of British politics going forward. 

And that is a pretty scary thought given all the concern about the lack of

Constitution and the uncertainty and, P.S., the economic damage as well. 

 

MADDOW:  Is there a strain on the parliamentary system itself rather than

the strain on the individual parties?  Obviously, some of what Boris

Johnson has done to arouse anger from members of his own party is by

proposing proroguing parliament, essentially closing down parliament on his

own terms, is the parliamentary system itself wobbly? 

 

TETT:  Well, the parliamentary system has been under pressure ever since

they had the referendum for Brexit, because historically, they had a

decision whereby most decisions are taken by parliament, not by

referendums.  And the referendum was so close, it was inevitably going to

create a lot of controversy about whether the popular rule really was to

leave overwhelmingly or not. 

 

The fundamental problem has been all the way through.  The majority of

parliamentarians never actually wanted to leave at all.  So what is

democracy?  How do you measure it?  How do you organize it? 

 

These are fundamental existential questions that are confronting the U.K.

right now and, again, in many ways they echo what`s been happening in

America. 

 

MADDOW:  Whew.  It`s incredibly entertaining at one level and it is

incredibly dark and deep at the same level. 

 

Gillian Tett who is the editor at large for the U.S. edition of “The

Financial Times”, chair of the editorial board – thank you so much for

coming in.  Thanks, appreciate it. 

 

TETT:  Thank you. 

 

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

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

BERCOW:  Order.  Order, very rude for members.  Order. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  You can think of it as the offertory hymn of the Trump campaign. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  And who`s going to pay for

the wall? 

 

AUDIENCE:  Mexico! 

 

TRUMP:  Who? 

 

AUDIENCE:  Mexico! 

 

TRUMP:  Who is going to pay for the wall? 

 

AUDIENCE:  Mexico! 

 

TRUMP:  And who is going to pay for the wall? 

 

AUDIENCE:  Mexico! 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  Over and over, call and response.  Who is going to pay?  Mexico! 

Who pays?  Mexico pays! 

 

Turns out Mexico is not going to be paying.  But do pass the plate, because

in a letter to Congress, the secretary of defense now says the president

will be taking money for his wall out of the U.S. military, out of pentagon

funding originally set aside for military construction projects, $3.6

billion to be cut out of military bases and facilities around the country

and around the world. 

 

As the Trump administration was rolling out this plan for sliding $3.5

billion out of the U.S. military so he can use that to build the wall

Mexico was supposedly going to pay for, we got word from Congress that no

way are they going to let that happen.  For one thing, they tell us they

may keep challenging this in the courts, they believe they have grounds for

doing that.  For another, the House version of the bill that funds the U.S.

military, the version of that bill that the House passed in July, that bill

expressly prohibits the White House from taking money from the military to

put into the wall.  It`s explicit. 

 

When lawmakers get back to work this fall, one of their big chores is to

reconcile the House and Senate versions of that military funding bill.  But

if you think Democrats in the House are likely to cave on this issue, more

likely to cave on this issue than they were before the president started

listing and naming all the military projects that are going to lose money,

well, that`s not what we are hearing, nor is it what anyone would expect. 

 

So yes, Mexico isn`t paying for the wall.  He says the U.S. military is

going to pay for the wall.  I wouldn`t bank on that either. 

 

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

 

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

 

Good evening, Lawrence. 

 

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.>